Assisted dying: Medical students voice opposition as some MPs urge vote delay
Hundreds of medical students have voiced their opposition to an assisted dying law, as dozens of Labour MPs called for this week's vote on the issue to be delayed.
It is currently expected the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill will have its third reading on Friday, with MPs voting to either send it through to the House of Lords or to stop it progressing any further.
It would be the first vote on the overall Bill to take place since November, when the proposed legislation passed second reading stage by a majority of 55 on a historic day which saw MPs support the principle of assisted dying for England and Wales.
But, days ahead of third reading, a group of Labour MPs opposed to the Bill have written to Commons leader Lucy Powell asking for more time to scrutinise a Bill they brand as 'perhaps the most consequential piece of legislation that has appeared before the House in generations'.
They added that it 'alters the foundations of our NHS, the relationship between doctor and patient, and it strips power away from Parliament, concentrating it in the hands of future secretaries of state for health'.
They also raised concerns that MPs might not have a copy of the final Bill by the time they vote, as some outstanding amendments will still be being considered on Friday morning.
The MPs, including Dame Meg Hiller, wrote: 'We implore you as the Leader of the House to allocate more Parliamentary time to the scrutiny of this Bill, the valid concerns that members have about its implementation, and the consequences it could have on vulnerable populations.'
Their letter came as medical students sent their own to MPs, citing concerns about the Bill.
The student doctors, from universities across the UK, said: 'We do not oppose dignified death – far from it. We oppose a Bill that risks offering death in place of care, that widens health inequalities, that places vulnerable patients in danger, and that reshapes the ethical foundation that our profession is built upon without any clear support.
'As future doctors, we may not yet be the voice of this profession – but we will be. And we are asking to be heard.'
But doctor and MP Simon Opher, who backs the Bill, said it is 'no surprise that medical students, like GPs and most other professionals, have a range of opinions on assisted dying'.
He referenced one survey he said had been shared with him and showed a majority of medical students supported assisted dying in cases of terminal illness and unbearable suffering.
The Bill's sponsor, Labour MP Kim Leadbeater, has repeatedly stated that her proposed legislation has been strengthened since it was first introduced last year, insisting it is subject to robust safeguards.
As it stands, the Bill would allow terminally-ill adults in England and Wales, with fewer than six months to live, to apply for an assisted death, subject to approval by two doctors and a panel featuring a social worker, senior legal figure and psychiatrist.
MPs are entitled to have a free vote on the Bill and any amendments, meaning they decide according to their conscience rather than along party lines.
Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer voted in favour of the Bill last year, but said the Government remains neutral on the issue.
Both Health Secretary Wes Streeting and Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood voted against.
Last week, a majority of MPs approve a new clause, tabled by Dame Meg, to ensure medics cannot raise the topic of assisted dying with under-18s.
Her separate amendment to prevent health workers from bringing up the issue with adults patients before they have raised it was voted down.
A ban on advertising assisted dying should the Bill pass into law was also supported.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
36 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Asylum seekers allowed to stay because of high blood pressure
An elderly Sri Lankan couple won the right to stay in the UK after claiming that treatment for high blood pressure in their home country was 'inadequate'. The unnamed husband and wife, who are in their late 60s, came to Britain to visit their daughter and son-in-law in 2022. But two months later they claimed asylum, and when this was denied by the Home Office they successfully appealed. The husband told an immigration tribunal he was suffering from depression, severe anxiety, hypertension and diabetes and suggested he was 'unwilling' to access care in the South Asian nation. An asylum judge agreed that sending them back would breach their human rights. The Home Office challenged the ruling that they could stay because of poor quality medical treatment in Sri Lanka by arguing the first judge had not shown that the husband was 'seriously ill'. But the Upper Tribunal of the Immigration and Asylum Chamber disagreed and ruled in favour of their claim. The hearing was told that the couple, who were granted anonymity by the court, entered the UK in May 2022. In July that year the husband made a claim for asylum with his wife as a dependent, alleging a fear of persecution due to threats made by the family of another son-in-law. They then brought further claims on protection and human rights grounds that were rejected by the Home Office in February last year. The husband appealed the decision at a First-tier Tribunal, where he confirmed they were not challenging the protection or asylum decisions, just the human rights claim. He made his argument under Articles 3 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), respectively covering inhumane or degrading treatment and the right to a family life. The husband submitted that he would not be able to get adequate care in Sri Lanka for his depression, severe anxiety, high blood pressure and diabetes. The couple also claimed there was a 'real risk' they could commit suicide if they were forced to return to their home country based on their mental state and 'subjective fear'. Their appeal was granted by the First-tier Tribunal. The Home Office chose to appeal the asylum tribunal's findings, arguing that 'inadequacy' of treatment is not the same as someone being unable to access it. Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Stuart Neilson found that there was no legal error by the First-tier tribunal. The judge dismissed the Home Office's appeal, meaning the First-tier Tribunal's decision stands and the couple will be allowed to remain in the UK. He said: 'Finally on the issue of the First-tier Tribunal referencing both the 'inadequacy' of the treatment and the 'willingness' of the respondent to undertake any treatment in Sri Lanka I do not consider that the use of this language in the determination represents an error of law. 'The inadequacy of the treatment may amount to absence of appropriate treatment and depending upon the circumstances both 'willingness' and the 'inadequacy' of the treatment may have some relevance to the issue of access.'
Telegraph
37 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Pro-Palestine nutritionist gives anti-Israel diet advice
A nutritionist is under investigation after calling for the boycott of Israeli dates. Joan Faria, who runs nutrition clinic Empowered Nutrition, shared a recipe for stuffed dates with almond butter dipped in dark chocolate on social media. But the nutritionist wrote at the bottom of her business Facebook post for the recipe: ' Please boycott Israeli dates – if you can find Zaytoun, buy these as they support farmers in Palestine. These dates were Moroccan.' The bottom section of the post has since been deleted after Ms Faria was requested remove the remarks by the professional body for nutritionists – the British Association for Nutrition and Lifestyle Medicine (BANT). UK Lawyers for Israel (UKLFI) complained to BANT, claiming Ms Faria breached their code of conduct, which states that members should conduct themselves in an 'honourable and courteous manner' and should be a 'professional and independent health specialist'. BANT said they requested that Ms Faria remove the section of her post mentioning the boycott and would be 'reinforcing their professional standards'. 'Unsolicited advice' The letter from UKLFI to BANT, seen by The Telegraph, claimed: 'We believe that by urging a boycott of Israeli dates brings BANT into disrepute. Ms Faria has not demonstrated an honourable and courteous manner, in particular to any Jewish, Israeli or Zionist clients or others who may follow her, or who may see her Facebook post.' It adds: 'By urging people to boycott Israeli dates, Ms Faria has offered unsolicited advice, which is not appropriate for a nutritionist.' The letter also claimed the nutritionist breached Section 29 of the 2010 Equality Act, which states: 'A service-provider must not, in relation to the provision of the service: Harass a person requiring the service, or a person to whom the service-provider provides the service.' The letter adds: 'Ms Faria is creating a hostile and offensive environment for any Jewish, Israeli or Zionist clients or potential clients, by expressing her hostility to Israeli-produced dates and commanding her followers to boycott them.' The letter also pointed out that Jews, Israelis and Zionists have protected characteristics of race, religion or belief according to Section 4 of the 2010 legislation. UKLFI also complained to the regulator, the Complementary and Natural Healthcare Council (CNHC), who told The Telegraph they had 'launched an investigation into the complaint' which was at an 'early stage'. 'She is not prioritising the health of her patients' In a second letter to the CNHC, UKLFI claimed Ms Faria was breaching their code of conduct by not 'respecting privacy and dignity', not following a 'legal duty to promote equality' and not 'avoiding unfair discrimination'. The letter said: 'If Ms Faria is allowing her own beliefs and values to prejudice her clients' care and wellbeing, she is discriminating against products of Israel, for no nutritional or health-based reason. 'She is likely to discriminate against other Israeli products and medicines, which may be the detriment of her patients. 'She is not prioritising the health of her patients, but instead prioritising her own political position. 'If she feels so strongly about her political cause that she boycotts Israeli products on her professional social media pages, she is also likely to treat Israeli or Jewish patients in a less favourable manner.' The boycott calls also drew condemnation from other Jewish groups, with the Campaign Against Antisemitism saying: 'A nutritionist should not be injecting her own inflammatory politics into dietary advice. 'Boycotts like this have real-world effects on the Jewish community. 'The regulator is absolutely right to take this seriously, and we will monitor the outcome with interest.' 'Putting political interests before those of patients' Russell Langer, director of Public Affairs at the Jewish Leadership Council, added to The Telegraph: 'Over the past 20 months, far too many workplaces, including those responsible for the welfare of Jewish and Israeli clients, have seen attempts to import a foreign conflict to the detriment of community cohesion. 'We therefore welcome BANT's confirmation that they will reinforce their professional standards and not allow their members to promote divisive boycotts of Israel in their work.' Caroline Turner, director of UKLFI, said: 'We are pleased that the regulatory bodies for nutritionists are tackling the issue of boycotts and appear to be cracking down on any members who advocate boycotting Israeli food or other items, putting their own political interests before those of their clients and patients.' Israel is a significant exporter of dates, with Medjool dates being a prominent variety. Exports were worth over £174m in 2023, with the UK being a key export destination. 'Always check the label' Various groups, such as the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign (PSC), have launched boycott campaigns and guidance, saying dates should only be bought from Palestinian sources. One bit of PSC guidance says: 'Always check the label when buying dates. Don't buy dates that are produced or packaged in Israel or its West Bank settlements. If no country of origin can be found on the box, check the retailer's website.' Last month, Co-op members urged the retailer to stop selling Israeli products as soon as this summer. Three-quarters of voters backed a motion urging the board to show 'moral courage and leadership' by removing Israeli products from its shelves. Responding to the result, the Co-op announced at its annual general meeting that the motion was advisory, but confirmed it was reviewing its sourcing policy. The CNHC added: 'CNHC Registrants have a legal duty to promote equality and must make sure that their own beliefs and values do not prejudice their clients' care and wellbeing.' A spokesman said: 'The Registrant has been invited to provide her written representations in response to the Complaint.' Ms Faria said: 'Because the CNHC investigation is at an early stage and ongoing, I will not be responding at this stage.'
The Sun
37 minutes ago
- The Sun
Reform on course to win next election with over a third of voters backing Nigel Farage, bombshell new poll reveals
REFORM are on track to win the next election, according to a new poll. More than a third of voters said they will support Nigel Farage's party, as reported by the Telegraph. Figures revealed 34 per cent of poll takers voted for Reform, ahead of 25 per cent who were in favour of Labour. It also emerged only 15 per cent of users elected the Conservatives. This marks the biggest breakthrough for Reform in a poll and in response Mr Farage told The Telegraph: 'This poll shows Reform can and will win the next general election.' The news outlet estimated if the poll was taken in four years time, Farage would win more than 400 seats and a majority. It could see the party leader win his place as the UK's next Prime Minister. The research also suggested Labour would lose around 270 seats, while the Conservatives would have less than 10. Despite the stats, it is important to bare in mind opinion polls and seat numbers are very hard to correlate. A Reform UK source said: 'This is big Reform majority territory.' Meanwhile, Gideon Skinner, senior director of UK politics at Ipsos, said: 'The last year has indeed been a long time in politics, with our first voting intention poll since the election showing just how much the political landscape has transformed since then. 'Reform UK has continued to build on its success, helped by high levels of enthusiasm among its own support and among working class voters in particular, and taking votes from both Labour and especially the Conservatives, who show little sign of recovery.' He added: 'The disappointment with Labour is clear, even among those who voted for the party in 2024. "We know from Ipsos research how difficult it has been to shift entrenched public pessimism over the cost of living, immigration, and the state of public services, and so far, Britons do not think Labour is delivering the tangible change they were hoping for in 2024. "This is reflected in satisfaction ratings for the government and Prime Minister that - while not quite the worst Ipsos has ever seen - are well below the average we usually see coming up to a one year anniversary. "Indeed, they look remarkably similar to the poor ratings received by Gordon Brown in 2008 after the financial crash. Labour will be hoping that the Spending Review will start to switch the narrative to a more positive one of renewal, but the challenge they face is significant. "This research also marks a new methodological approach for Ipsos, using our online KnowledgePanel based on gold-standard random probability sampling, and other changes we have made since the general election. "As with any individual survey it is important to remember that margins of error apply, and results should be interpreted in the round along with other sources of data. "As always, Ipsos will continue to review this new approach, and may make further refinements in the future if necessary." 1 is your go-to destination for the best celebrity news, real-life stories, jaw-dropping pictures and must-see video. Like us on Facebook at and follow us from our main Twitter account at @TheSun.
