MP takes health centre fight to Westminster

Dudley MP Sonia Kumar has taken the fight for answers on the future of a Sedgley health centre to Parliament.
Ms Kumar presented a petition containing over 1,600 names to the House of Commons, telling MPs the number of signatures shows the strength of feeling among people in Dudley.
Campaigners are calling on Dudley Council to finalise a deal to keep services at the Ladies Walk Health Centre and library by renewing a lease on the property, which is set to expire in March 2026.
Ms Kumar told MPs: 'This facility is a vital community hub and a treasured lifeline for local people accessing essential care.
'The petitioners request that the House of Commons urge the government to communicate urgently with the owners of the Ladies Walk centre property, Dudley Council and the NHS to secure the centre and stop its closure.'
Campaigners fear, if the lease is not renewed, services will be relocated. They are calling for the council to either renew the lease or buy the centre under a compulsory purchase order.
Dudley council's leader, Cllr Patrick Harley, says the situation has moved on substantially and negotiations are underway.
Clr Harley said: 'We are all around the table and things seem to be moving at pace. Talks are ongoing, and I am confident we will come to an agreement at some point and things will stay as they are.
'We need to let the people who know what they are doing negotiate a good deal.'
The centre was opened 25 years ago, it was constructed from 72 steel-framed modules which were craned into position.
The centre was the first Private Finance Initiative (PFI) project to be constructed off-site.
Under a PFI deal the private sector pays to construct public buildings and the public sector pays to use the building over a long-term contract.
A public meeting to discuss progress on the Ladies Walk centre will take place at the Parish Church of All Saints, Vicar Street, Sedgley, on May 21, starting at 6.30pm.
Anyone wishing to attend the meeting must pre-book at my.allevents.in/ladieswalkmeeting-may

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Yahoo

9 hours ago

• Yahoo

Assisted dying – medical anthropolgist on the complex practical and ethical road ahead

The House of Commons narrowly passed the terminally ill adults (end of life) bill on June 20, a significant step toward legalising assisted dying in England and Wales. The bill must still pass through the House of Lords before it can become law. So far, the debate has centred on a key question: should people already facing a terminal prognosis have the legal right to choose when to end their lives? The discussions, both in Parliament and among the wider public, have often focused on personal stories of dying – some shared as examples of a 'good' death, others as cautionary tales of suffering. When speaking to the BBC after the bill passed, MP Kim Leadbeater, who introduced the legislation, described the current situation as a 'failing status quo.' She argued that the law must change to offer more control and compassion at the end of life. More than 530,000 people die in England each year, and it's estimated that around 90% of them could benefit from palliative care. Yet many are still dying in pain, with thousands experiencing unmet needs in their final months. Some supporters of the bill argue that access to assisted dying could offer an escape from anticipated suffering and loss of dignity, especially when palliative care falls short. The concept of a 'good' death already shapes the country's end-of-life care policy. Current practice encourages patient choice, comfort and dignity usually guided by the question: what matters most to you? Through advance care planning, patients can express preferences for their care, such as refusing resuscitation or declining further treatment. But these choices are usually framed in terms of what not to do. Assisted dying, by contrast, introduces a new ethical dimension: it's not about withholding treatment, but about actively intervening to end life. Over the past 15 years of conducting ethnographic research on end-of-life care in England, I've seen just how deeply people are affected when asked to contemplate their future – or the future of someone they love. Read more: Some patients are decisive: they know what they don't want, and they say so clearly. Others apologise for being a burden. Some find it too difficult to plan at all. In fact, fewer than 3% of UK adults have documented advance care plans. Clinicians, too, face challenges. I've seen doctors wish patients would recognise when treatment has become futile – and patients, in turn, hope doctors will take the decision to 'just stop'. There can be deep mistrust, with some fearing they'll be 'given up on'. These tensions are unlikely to disappear if assisted dying is legalised; in fact, they may become more pronounced. In England, the legal definition of 'terminal illness' is a life expectancy of six months or less, and that's the threshold used in this bill. It excludes people with incurable but long-term conditions who may be suffering, but aren't likely to die within half a year. This six-month cut-off also assumes that doctors can accurately predict how long someone has left. But Marie Curie, the end of life charity, called that definition 'outdated' and 'arbitrary,' highlighting how it fails to reflect clinical reality. Read more: More recently, research examining nearly 100,000 patient records from London found that prognosis is least reliable when predicting survival over the 'weeks to months' time-frame – exactly the bracket covered by the bill. Doctors are more confident estimating if someone has less than two weeks or more than a year. Anything in between is often described, quite literally, as 'the length of a piece of string'. The bill's passage in the Commons reflects a growing desire to give people more choice, control and clarity at the end of life. For many, it marks a long-overdue recognition of both suffering and the right to self-determination. Yet while the vote signals strong support for greater autonomy in dying, the everyday realities of predicting prognosis and navigating complex end-of-life decisions remain uncertain. The practical and ethical challenges are far from resolved. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. Erica Borgstrom receives/has received funding for her research from the National Institute of Health Research, the UKRI Economic and Social Research Council, Marie Curie, the Foundation for the Sociology of Health and Illness, NHS England & NHS Innovation, and End of Life Doula UK.

Yahoo

a day ago

• Yahoo

The assisted dying debate has been politics – but not as we know it

The House of Commons is a place defined by confrontation where political battles play out and engage more actively with their constituents. But the atmosphere could not have been more different on Friday, as those on both sides of the assisted dying debate listened respectfully, almost solemnly, to one another in the final hours before . As MPs headed for the division lobbies, the bill's supporters seemed confident but nervous. Read more: When the voting was completed and the result imminent, a long and profound silence fell over the House. From the press gallery, it seemed that the entire Commons was holding its breath together, collectively aware of the historic moment we were all about to witness, whatever the outcome. The woman at the centre of this seismic moment, the bill's sponsor Kim Leadbeater, braced herself as the result came in. Many months of pressure and responsibility appeared to be lifted from her shoulders as the win was announced and colleagues gathered to commend her efforts. Throughout the process this been politics but not as we know it, with party divisions put aside and MPs asked to search their own consciences and come to their own conclusions. It has created a more collaborative atmosphere in parliament and encouraged MPs to engage more actively with their constituents. In the end there was still anger, frustration and disappointment among those who were against the law change, either on principle or because they believed the legislation was flawed. And of course, politics will go back to being combative and voices in the Commons will be raised once again. But for a brief period, historic change was calmly ushered in. The challenge for the proponents now is to take the legislation through the next phases and deliver it with the same smoothness and determination.

Boston Globe

a day ago

• Boston Globe

UK lawmakers approve assisted-dying law

Advertisement 'I do not underestimate the significance of this day,' Kim Leadbeater, a Labour Party lawmaker and main champion of the bill, said Friday as she opened the debate. 'This is not a choice for living and dying. It is a choice for terminally ill people about how they die.' While assisted dying is illegal in most countries, a growing number of nations and jurisdictions have adopted legislation or are considering it. In England and Wales, assisting a death remains illegal and punishable by up to 14 years in prison. A poll published this week found that 73 percent of Britons backed the assisted-dying bill. While lawmakers voted in favor of the bill in November, at an earlier stage in the legislative process, uncertainty lingered ahead of Friday's vote. Hundreds of demonstrators on both sides gathered outside Parliament. Some carried placards that read, 'Let Us Choose.' Others held signs saying, 'Don't make doctors killers.' Advertisement Many of those who spoke during the debate shared personal stories. Mark Garnier, a Conservative Party politician, spoke about witnessing the dying days of his mother, who had pancreatic cancer and endured a 'huge amount of pain.' Garnier compared her ordeal to that of a constituent who also had pancreatic cancer but went through a state-provided assisted-dying program in Spain that made her 'suffering much less.' Josh Babarinde, a Liberal Democrat, read out a letter from a constituent traumatized by the death of her partner, who struggled to breathe, was incontinent, and repeatedly asked for her help to end his life. He then 'stuffed yards of his top sheet into his mouth' in an attempt to die,' Babarinde said, adding: 'This could have been avoided with an assisted-dying' law. Support for the measure ebbed in recent months, with a handful of politicians saying that they were going to switch their vote due to concerns about inadequate safeguards or insufficient end-of-life care. Steve Darling, a Liberal Democrat, told The Washington Post that while he was 'sympathetic' to the bill, he had changed his view because of 'inadequate' palliative care funding, which in Britain depends heavily on charitable donations. 'People might think, 'I could bite the bullet and get out of this situation because I'm not receiving a service that gives me a decent quality of life toward the end,'' Darling said. Others who said they agreed with the principle of letting people choose to die but could not back the bill included Labour member Vicky Foxcroft, who cited her work with disabled people. 'They want us as parliamentarians to assist them to live, not to die,' Foxcroft told Parliament. Advertisement The issue remains divisive even within parties. Health Secretary Wes Streeting and Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood, whose departments will each be impacted if the change becomes law, both opposed the bill. Prime Minister Keir Starmer made it clear that he supports the measure, citing his experience as the country's former chief prosecutor. Over the past two decades, more than 3,900 Britons have ended their lives with the Switzerland-based organization Dignitas. A few people who helped them were investigated or arrested. The vote Friday was a free vote, meaning that lawmakers could decide based on their own conscience rather than along party lines. It was the second time this week that Parliament held a free vote, which is often allowed on issues of ethics or conscience. Earlier this week, lawmakers voted in favor of decriminalizing abortion in England and Wales. One major revision to the bill in recent months was to eliminate the need for approval from a high court judge. No other country or jurisdiction with legalized assisted dying has that kind of stringent judicial oversight, and it was initially sold to some wavering lawmakers as a reason to back the bill. That requirement was dropped in favor of a three-person expert panel — a lawyer, social worker, and psychiatrist — that will oversee applications. Leadbeater said this would make the bill stronger, as members of the panel would have more relevant expertise and would be better able to spot red flags. Spain uses a similar kind of expert panel. Some professional bodies, such as the Royal College of Psychiatrists, remain neutral on the principle of assisted dying but opposed the legislation as written. Their concerns included the shortage of qualified staff for the expert panels. Advertisement The government's own 'impact assessment' found that the law could lead to 7,500 requests a year within a decade. Some campaigners had hoped for greater eligibility, to include patients experiencing unbearable suffering with no prospect of improvement, or allowing a doctor to administer a lethal cocktail of drugs. This bill allows assisted dying only for terminally ill patients who can administer the medication themselves. Speaking in Parliament, Peter Prinsley, a Labour lawmaker, said that 'as a young doctor, I found the measures that we're debating today completely unconscionable.' However, he added, 'now that I'm an old doctor, I feel sure this is an essential change.' 'We are not dealing with life or death, rather death or death,' Prinsley said. 'And fundamental to that is surely choice. Who are we to deny that to the dying?'