Rantzen: MPs backing assisted dying Bill will protect people from ‘bad death'
Dame Esther Rantzen has said MPs backing the assisted dying Bill will make a 'huge positive difference' and protect terminally ill people from a 'bad death'.
The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill will now head to the Lords after clearing the Commons on Friday afternoon, with MPs voting 314 in favour, 291 against, majority 23.
Dame Esther, a notable supporter of campaign Dignity in Dying who has stage four lung cancer, told the PA news agency: 'This will make a huge positive difference, protecting millions of terminally ill patients and their families from the agony and loss of dignity created by a bad death.
'Thank you, Parliament.'
Campaigners inside Parliament and outside in Parliament Square were jubilant and tearful following the result of the vote.
Some MPs lined up to shake hands with or hug Kim Leadbeater, the Bill's sponsor through the Commons.
Ms Leadbeater described the vote as a 'result that so many people need'.
The Labour MP for Spen Valley said: 'Thank goodness we got the result that so many people need, but I also feel that it was done really respectfully and the atmosphere in the chamber was very civilised.'
Outside, a cheer erupted as the result was announced on a livestream to a crowd who had huddled together in anticipation. Many cried and hugged each other, while others popped champagne.
Dame Esther's daughter, Rebecca Wilcox, called her mother in front of supporters and told her she wished she was here.
Ms Wilcox came to Parliament Square following the vote and hugged fellow campaigners and friends.
She told PA that she gave Ms Leadbeater's mum a 'big hug' following the result and added: 'I don't know whether to have a drink or a really big cry.
'There were a few of us in the public gallery and we were all holding hands. I felt like we were on a rollercoaster.
'It was the longest pause when everyone came in and we were waiting for the four and when I heard a three for the 'ayes' I was quite positive.
'It was quite extraordinary. I turned around and gave Kim's mum a great big hug.'
Sarah Wootton, chief executive of Dignity in Dying, told the crowd: 'This is for all the people who couldn't be here today. This vote sends a clear message. Parliament stands with the public and change is coming.'
Sian Berry, a Green Party MP and one of the proposers of the Bill, told PA: 'We all have experience of loved ones at the end of their lives that have influenced this. So many of my constituents have written to me telling me their stories. You really feel the importance of what you're doing this for.
'I'm confident we have made the Bill robust and I do believe this reflects public opinion.'
Supporter Tim Murphy, 39, from London, said: 'My friend David went to Dignitas four years ago and he had to die sooner than he should have had there been a workable law in this country.
'This will impact so many people. So much of the [opposition] campaign has been hypothetical situations in the future but not taking into consideration the actual deaths that have occurred.'
Those opposed to the Bill were visibly disappointed. People had gathered to pray before the vote but the crowd of white-shirted campaigners quickly dispersed following the result. Many packed up their signs and left the square and did not speak to the press.
Bishop of London Dame Sarah Mullally, a former chief nursing officer for England who sits in the House of Lords, said: 'Every person is of immeasurable and irreducible value, and should be able to access the care and support that they need – a principle that I know is shared by those of all faiths and none.
'We must oppose a law that puts the vulnerable at risk and instead work to improve funding and access to desperately needed palliative care services.'
Sean Redfearn, 26, representing Christian Concern, said: 'It's disappointing the nation is stepping closer for people to take their own lives.'
'There is no progress as progress suggests flourishing and there's no flourishing with allowing the ending of a life.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
21 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
MND widow welcomes assisted dying bill vote
A widow whose terminally ill husband died after refusing food and drink has welcomed a vote by MPs to back a bill that would legalise assisted dying. The Terminally Ill Adults Bill, which was approved with a majority of 23 votes on Friday, would allow terminally ill adults with six months or less to live to get medical assistance to end their own lives - if eligible. Pauline McLeod, from Sheriff Hutton near York, said her spouse Ian, who was living with motor neurone disease (MND), had found life "intolerable" before he died in 2023. She said the bill represented a "very, very positive change". Mrs McLeod said her late husband endured a "long and painful death" after refusing food and drink for three weeks. He had previously tried to take his own life in 2022. "It's not a peaceful, humane death that we would like for people," she said. Critics have argued the bill risks vulnerable people being coerced into ending their lives. Some peers have indicated they will attempt to amend the legislation to introduce more safeguards when it goes to the House of Lords for further scrutiny. Mrs McLeod said she believed law change would give terminally ill people "peace of mind". "A lot of people who are terminally ill are actually very frightened of what's going to happen to them," she added. "Even if they never take up the option of assisted dying, they will still feel that option is there, and that's going to be a huge comfort to them I would imagine." Under the proposals, mentally competent, terminally ill adults in England and Wales with a life expectancy of less than six months, would be eligible for an assisted death. "In a civilised society we should be allowed the chance of a humane, peaceful death," said Mrs McLeod, whose husband lived with symptoms of MND for three years. "It's not acceptable to allow people to die such agonizing and uncomfortable deaths." Listen to highlights from North Yorkshire on BBC Sounds, catch up with the latest episode of Look North. Widow of MND sufferer calls for assisted dying Esther Rantzen urges Lords not to block assisted dying 'People should die naturally' - mixed views on new bill Assisted dying bill: What happens next?
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Starmer Faces Brewing Rebellion Over £5 Billion Benefit Cut
(Bloomberg) -- UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer is less than 10 days away from the biggest parliamentary challenge to his authority in his not-yet year-long tenure. Security Concerns Hit Some of the World's 'Most Livable Cities' One Architect's Quest to Save Mumbai's Heritage From Disappearing JFK AirTrain Cuts Fares 50% This Summer to Lure Riders Off Roads NYC Congestion Toll Cuts Manhattan Gridlock by 25%, RPA Reports Taser-Maker Axon Triggers a NIMBY Backlash in its Hometown Unpopular cuts to disability benefits unveiled earlier this year as part of Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves' efforts to balance the country's books are due before the House of Commons for their first vote on July 1, with a large-scale rebellion brewing on the Labour back benches. So far, at least 150 of the governing party's Members of Parliament have indicated concerns about the cuts in two letters to the government. Other non-signatories have told Bloomberg they also intend to vote against the bill. While Starmer's attention this week was centered on the escalating tensions in the Middle East, the domestic threat was laid bare on Thursday when Vicky Foxcroft, a government whip who would have been tasked with helping quell the revolt, quit, citing her own objections. The rebellion threatens to bruise Starmer's and Reeves' credibility and further damage their stock with the left of their party. In order to avoid falling to what would be an unprecedented defeat for a government enjoying such a large majority so early in its tenure, ministers could at worst be forced into major concessions that reduce the bill's expected cost savings, forcing the Treasury to conjure up money from other cuts or tax rises at the budget in the fall. 'It's a test of Starmer's authority and the way he and Rachel Reeves are running the economy,' Tim Bale, professor of politics at Queen Mary University London, said in a phone interview. 'If the rebellion is too big, you start to run into questions about the loyalty of your backbenchers and even perhaps the future of your leadership.' The welfare reforms allowed Reeves to save about £5 billion ($6.5 billion) a year by 2030 by making it harder for disabled people to claim a benefit called the personal independence payment, or PIP. The chancellor factored them into a spring statement as part of spending cuts designed to help meet her self-imposed fiscal rules. Reeves says the changes are necessary because an extra thousand people a day have been signing on for PIP, creating an 'unsustainable' impact on the public finances. PIP payments had been projected to almost double to £41 billion by the end of the decade, within overall spending on disability and incapacity benefits that the Office for Budget Responsibility — the government's fiscal watchdog — sees rising to £100 billion from £65 billion last year. The government has also says there is a moral case for supporting people back into work. But Labour lawmakers are concerned the government announced changes in a rush to deliver savings, without thinking through the impact on vulnerable people. 'There are alternative and more compassionate ways to balance the books, rather than on the backs of disabled people,' one Labour backbencher, Debbie Abrahams, told the House of Commons. There are particular concerns about a new requirement for claimants to score four or above in one of the daily living components of the PIP assessment, meaning people who can't wash half their body or cook a meal will be denied the payments if they have no other impairments. One Labour MP describing the process as letting the OBR tail wag the government dog. Some 45 Labour MPs signed a public letter objecting to the measures, while another letter — arranged in secrecy so that even signatories couldn't see who they were joining — garnered 105 signatures and was sent to the chief whip. While some of the would-be rebels have indicated they could be swayed by the government whips, one of them told Bloomberg they are confident that more than 80 MPs will commit to voting against the government. Given Starmer's working majority is 165, if all opposition parties vote against the bill, it would take 83 Labour rebels to defeat the government. The main opposition Conservative Party is planning to vote against the changes, Danny Kruger, one of the party's work and pensions spokespeople, told parliament in May. Its reasons are different: the Tories argue the measures don't go far enough. One Labour MP told Bloomberg that concerned lawmakers plan to put forward a procedural challenge to the bill. While they don't expect the speaker to select that amendment for debate, the aim is to force further changes from the government, and organize would-be Labour rebels into a coherent group which could eventually vote down the bill. Many in Labour had been waiting to see the bill before making up their minds. When the text was published on Wednesday, the concessions to their concerns were minimal, largely amounting to a 13-week transition period for those losing their PIP. Foxcroft — the whip who had previously served for four years as Starmer's shadow disability minister in opposition — quit within hours of the publication, saying she didn't believe cutting the disability benefits should be part of the solution to tackling ballooning welfare costs. Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy said Friday that Foxcroft's resignation wasn't a sign of a major rebellion, while conceding that 'of course' there are dissenting voices on such a big reform. 'Vicky is the only front-bencher that I've had a conversation with about resigning,' she said. Nevertheless, many so-called 'red wall' Labour MPs in northern and central England face a tough decision. Health Equity North, a public health institute, found that all the places most affected financially by the PIP reforms are Labour constituencies in northern England. In several areas, the number of people affected by the welfare changes exceeds the Labour majority, meaning those MPs could see a crucial drop in support. The government is gearing up for a fight, indicating it will make no further concessions. On Wednesday, Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner failed to rule out stripping the whip from Labour rebels, while government enforcers are warning MPs that their political career prospects will be ruined if they oppose the bill. Whips and wannabe rebels alike expect the potential revolt to be whittled down as July 1 approaches. Some opponents are weighing whether to abstain at the second reading and wait until the third reading to take a more decisive vote, as whips are encouraging them to do. 'I'd be amazed if he were defeated here,' Anand Menon, director of the UK in a Changing Europe think-tank, said. 'If the whips got a whiff they were going to get defeated, they'd give some concessions. The worst of all outcomes is to lose this.' Luxury Counterfeiters Keep Outsmarting the Makers of $10,000 Handbags Ken Griffin on Trump, Harvard and Why Novice Investors Won't Beat the Pros Is Mark Cuban the Loudmouth Billionaire that Democrats Need for 2028? The US Has More Copper Than China But No Way to Refine All of It Can 'MAMUWT' Be to Musk What 'TACO' Is to Trump? ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
