MPs to discuss ban on assisted dying adverts as Bill returns to Parliament
The regulation of substances to be used by a terminally ill person to bring about their death is also due to be discussed by MPs in the Commons on Friday.
The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill is undergoing a second day of report stage, with various amendments likely to be debated and possibly voted on.
Its third reading – where a vote is taken on the overall Bill – could take place next Friday.
The Bill passed second reading stage by a majority of 55 during a historic vote in November, which saw MPs support the principle of assisted dying.
Various reports have indicated some MPs who voted in favour last year could withdraw their support amid concerns around safeguards and how much scrutiny the proposed legislation has received, while others might switch to supporting a Bill that backers argue has been strengthened over time.
Opinion in the medical community has been divided, with the Royal College of Physicians (RCP) and Royal College of Psychiatrists (RCPsych) expressing concern, but some MPs who are doctors are among the Bill's strongest supporters.
Seven RCPsych members, including a former president and vice president, have written to MPs to distance themselves from their college's concern, instead describing the current Bill as 'workable, safe and compassionate' with a 'clear and transparent legal framework'.
Meanwhile, the Children's Commissioner for England has repeated her call for children's voices to be heard in the conversation.
Dame Rachel de Souza said: 'Children's views have at best been side-lined, at worst written off entirely simply because they would not fall within the scope of the current scope of legislation.
'They have spoken passionately about their worries that this Bill could be extended further. We need only to look to other models, such as Canada, where proposals for assisted death to be expanded to 'mature minors' – children – are a live issue, to understand the source of their concern.
'This Bill has raised the level of debate on important and challenging subjects in England – but children have raised very real concerns with me about their opportunity to shape this legislation, which could impact them as they reach adulthood, or impact them in indirect ways through the deaths of loved ones.'
Demonstrators are once again expected to gather outside Parliament to make their views known on the Bill.
Disability campaigner George Fielding, representing campaign group Not Dead Yet UK, argued the Bill 'risks state-sanctioned suicide'.
He added: 'It risks making people feel like a burden while ignoring the social, economic and systemic pressures that deny people the treatment and dignity they need to live.
'This is not choice. This is coercion, masquerading as compassion.'
But Claire Macdonald, director of My Death, My Decision, which is in favour of assisted dying, said the public mood is clear that change is needed.
She said: 'We hope MPs strike the careful balance between creating a law that is strong and safe, with a system that works for dying people, giving them choice and compassion at the end of life.
'What is clear is that no-one should be forced to suffer, and the British public wants politicians to change the law on assisted dying.'
In a letter to MPs this week, Labour's Kim Leadbeater, the parliamentarian behind the Bill, said supporters and opponents appear in agreement that 'if we are to pass this legislation it should be the best and safest Bill possible'.
She added: 'I'm confident it can and will be.'
Among the amendments to the Bill expected to be discussed on Friday are a ban on advertising an assisted dying service were the law to change, with Ms Leadbeater previously saying it 'would feel inappropriate for this to be something which was advertised'.
But Bill opponent Labour MP Paul Waugh warned of 'unspecified exceptions, which could make the ban itself worthless', adding that he had put forward a tighter amendment to 'strengthen the Bill on this issue and to better protect the vulnerable'.
Ms Leadbeater said other possible amendments include ensuring 'any approved substance used for assisted dying is subject to robust regulation and scrutiny', which she said is 'essential for clinical safety, public confidence and ethical integrity'.
Earlier this week, a group of charities wrote to MPs to express 'serious concerns' about what they described as an 'anorexia loophole', arguing people with eating disorders could end up qualifying for assisted dying because of the physical consequences of their illness.
However, an amendment preventing a person meeting the requirements for an assisted death 'solely as a result of voluntarily stopping eating or drinking' – tabled by Labour's Naz Shah – was accepted by Ms Leadbeater without a vote last month.
Ms Leadbeater said this, combined with existing safeguards in the Bill, would rule out people with anorexia falling into its scope.
As it stands, the proposed legislation 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 vote according to their conscience rather than along party lines.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
26 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
MPs' shock as former Reform UK MP Rupert Lowe reveals he had pet labrador put down with a shotgun
He has been no stranger to controversy since becoming a Reform MP last year – and now Rupert Lowe has sparked fury after having his pet labrador put down with a shotgun. Colleagues were shocked after it emerged Mr Lowe – now sitting as an independent – asked his gamekeeper to shoot 17-year-old Cromwell in the back of the head at his Gloucestershire estate. The dog had been unwell and lost the use of his back legs. Mr Lowe said he took decisive action after realising Cromwell's suffering was extreme and that waiting overnight to take him to the vet would be 'cruel'. He made the admission openly to colleagues in Westminster, triggering fierce debate about whether it was a kind choice. A parliamentary source said: 'For weeks, it was going around the Commons like wildfire that Rupert had shot his dog. Colleagues were appalled and upset, with most thinking it was a cruel way to behave.' Some MPs see a town-versus-country element to this method of putting animals down. Those in rural areas, including landowners, are seen as being less sentimental. One MP said: 'It's an 'old money' thing to do. That may have been acceptable 100 years ago but it's not now.' Mr Lowe told The Mail on Sunday last night that he believes it is more humane to have a dog put down at home because animals can sense something is amiss at the vet and tend to panic. The Great Yarmouth MP said: 'My keeper shot our dog the other day. He was a labrador of 17. 'Dogs do go through ups and downs for a bit, but in the end Cromwell's back legs went and our keeper Kevin very kindly did the job. 'Cromwell didn't go anywhere, he wasn't away from home and he wouldn't have known anything about it. So much kinder. 'They are not driven to the vet, they don't smell the vet, it's just all over very quickly.' Mr Lowe said that while he gave the instruction to shoot Cromwell, he couldn't stomach doing it himself. He added: 'I would find it difficult, which is why my keeper did it. So you can call me a coward on that basis, if you want. 'I've got friends who can shoot their dogs. [They] just take them on a walk, put a shooting rifle at the back of their head and bang, done. 'They don't feel anything. I would have found it hard. He was 17 and had been with us that long. 'I would be proud to tell you it was me who did it, [but] I can't claim that credit.' Mr Lowe had Cromwell buried by his tennis court, with his previous pets, and raised a toast to him. Elizabeth Davenport, campaign manager at Animal Aid, said: 'It highlights a serious failing of animal protection in the UK. 'There is currently no legislation that protects dogs from this kind of 'at home' euthanasia – or indeed many other concerning practices. 'Legislation that does exist, such as the Animal Welfare Act 2006, only protects animals from 'unnecessary' harm but allows individuals – who may have no prior knowledge or experience of animal health and welfare – to decide what is or is not necessary.' In December, Reform Chief Whip Lee Anderson posted on social media about having his West Highland terrier Alfie, also 17, put down by a vet. Mr Anderson wrote: 'This morning Alfie went to sleep for the last time. All his pain has gone. He has left a massive hole.' Meanwhile, US Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem's chances of being Donald Trump's vice-presidential running mate evaporated last year after she wrote about shooting dead her 14-month-old wirehair pointer Cricket, who she deemed 'untrainable', and a troublesome goat. FOR: Going to the vet is so distressing for them by Jamie Blackett Putting an animal to sleep is not as easy as the euphemism sounds. My dog Pippin can smell a vet at 50 paces, so going to the surgery is a rather distressing ordeal. Once there, a vet has to shave a patch of fur on the scruff before finding a vein to slide the needle into. While a dog doesn't understand euthanasia, it can sense something nasty coming – even if the vet carries out the procedure at home. I've been through this a number of times with past dogs and, though I have never been able to bring myself to shoot one, I suspect it would be much kinder. I've certainly shot dozens of cattle over the years, as I run a farm in Dumfriesshire. If one is beyond help, the vet shakes her head and says: 'Will you deal with it?' So, as the cow has its head in delicious cattle cake feed, I take aim and she is gone before she even hears the shot. Similarly, Rupert Lowe's dog will have woken up in the happy hunting ground in the sky without knowing anything. What is wrong with that? We owe it to our animals to make their end as quick and painless as possible. Jamie is the author of Land Of Milk And Honey: Digressions Of A Rural Dissident AGAINST: What if one bullet wasn't enough? by Beverley Cuddy For many people, dogs are cherished as members of the family, which is why they deserve the same dignity at the end of their lives as our two-legged relatives. After all, we often love them even more. In the 35 years I've been editing Dogs Today magazine and campaigning for higher animal welfare standards, I've seen dogs' quality of life improve dramatically. But, equally, we must ensure the quality of their death is never scrimped on. My dogs have all had planned and idyllic endings. Take my bearded collie, Sally. She chewed on the best steak and some very crispy bacon while I cradled her in my arms and told her what a perfect dog she'd been as our vet expertly sent her on her next adventure. Even Oscar, my latest dog to pass – who had an emergency mercy killing at a late-night veterinary chain – was given a gentle death. I could never have my dogs shot, however infirm. For one, it prevents you from comforting them in their last moments. And what if one shot wasn't enough? What if your last memory of them was of cleaning up the splatter from a violent, messy death? Much better to be nightmare-free.
ITV News
an hour ago
- ITV News
Health Secretary says Asissted dying will take 'time and money' away from the NHS
Wes Streeting has warned that legalising assisted dying would take 'time and money' away from other parts of the health service. The Health Secretary, who opposed the legislation in the Commons, said better end-of-life care was needed to prevent terminally ill people feeling they had no alternative but to end their own life. Streeting, writing on his Facebook page, said he could not ignore the concerns 'about the risks that come with this Bill' raised by the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Royal College of Physicians, the Association for Palliative Medicine and charities representing under-privileged groups. The Government is neutral on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill which cleared the Commons with a majority of 23 votes on Friday. Streeting, who was one of the most senior opponents of the legislation, said: 'Gordon Brown wrote this week that 'there is no effective freedom to choose if the alternative option, the freedom to draw on high-quality end-of-life care, is not available. "Neither is there real freedom to choose if, as many fear, patients will feel under pressure to relieve their relatives of the burden of caring for them, a form of coercion that prioritising good end-of-life care would diminish.' He is right. 'The truth is that creating those conditions will take time and money. 'Even with the savings that might come from assisted dying if people take up the service – and it feels uncomfortable talking about savings in this context to be honest – setting up this service will also take time and money that is in short supply. 'There isn't a budget for this. Politics is about prioritising. It is a daily series of choices and trade-offs. I fear we've made the wrong one.' Streeting said his Department of Health and Social Care 'will continue to work constructively with Parliament to assist on technical aspects of the Bill' as it goes through the House of Lords. Assisted dying campaigner Dame Esther Rantzen urged peers not to block the landmark legislation. Dame Esther told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: 'I don't need to teach the House of Lords how to do their job. 'They know it very well, and they know that laws are produced by the elected chamber. 'Their job is to scrutinise, to ask questions, but not to oppose. 'So yes, people who are adamantly opposed to this Bill, and they have a perfect right to oppose it, will try and stop it going through the Lords, but the Lords themselves, their duty is to make sure that law is actually created by the elected chamber, which is the House of Commons who have voted this through.' Dame Esther, who turns 85 on Sunday and has terminal cancer, acknowledged the legislation would probably not become law in time for her to use it and she would have to 'buzz off to Zurich' to use the Dignitas clinic. Paralympian and crossbench peer Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson told BBC Breakfast: 'We're getting ready for it to come to the Lords and from my personal point of view, about amending it to make it stronger. 'We've been told it's the strongest Bill in the world, but to be honest, it's not a very high bar for other legislation. 'So I do think there are a lot more safeguards that could be put in.'
North Wales Chronicle
2 hours ago
- North Wales Chronicle
Streeting: Assisted dying will take ‘time and money that is in short supply'
The Health Secretary, who opposed the legislation in the Commons, said better end-of-life care was needed to prevent terminally ill people feeling they had no alternative but to end their own life. Mr Streeting, writing on his Facebook page, said he could not ignore the concerns 'about the risks that come with this Bill' raised by the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Royal College of Physicians, the Association for Palliative Medicine and charities representing under-privileged groups. The Government is neutral on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill which cleared the Commons with a majority of 23 votes on Friday. Mr Streeting, who was one of the most senior opponents of the legislation, said: 'Gordon Brown wrote this week that 'there is no effective freedom to choose if the alternative option, the freedom to draw on high-quality end-of-life care, is not available. Neither is there real freedom to choose if, as many fear, patients will feel under pressure to relieve their relatives of the burden of caring for them, a form of coercion that prioritising good end-of-life care would diminish.' He is right. 'The truth is that creating those conditions will take time and money. 'Even with the savings that might come from assisted dying if people take up the service – and it feels uncomfortable talking about savings in this context to be honest – setting up this service will also take time and money that is in short supply. 'There isn't a budget for this. Politics is about prioritising. It is a daily series of choices and trade-offs. I fear we've made the wrong one.' Mr Streeting said his Department of Health and Social Care 'will continue to work constructively with Parliament to assist on technical aspects of the Bill' as it goes through the House of Lords. Assisted dying campaigner Dame Esther Rantzen urged peers not to block the landmark legislation. Dame Esther told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: 'I don't need to teach the House of Lords how to do their job. 'They know it very well, and they know that laws are produced by the elected chamber. 'Their job is to scrutinise, to ask questions, but not to oppose. 'So yes, people who are adamantly opposed to this Bill, and they have a perfect right to oppose it, will try and stop it going through the Lords, but the Lords themselves, their duty is to make sure that law is actually created by the elected chamber, which is the House of Commons who have voted this through.' Dame Esther, who turns 85 on Sunday and has terminal cancer, acknowledged the legislation would probably not become law in time for her to use it and she would have to 'buzz off to Zurich' to use the Dignitas clinic. Paralympian and crossbench peer Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson told BBC Breakfast: 'We're getting ready for it to come to the Lords and from my personal point of view, about amending it to make it stronger. 'We've been told it's the strongest Bill in the world, but to be honest, it's not a very high bar for other legislation. 'So I do think there are a lot more safeguards that could be put in.' Conservative peer and disability rights campaigner Lord Shinkwin said the narrow Commons majority underlined the need for peers to take a close look at the legislation. He told Today 'I think the House of Lords has a duty to expose and to subject this Bill to forensic scrutiny' but 'I don't think it's a question of blocking it so much as performing our duty as a revising chamber'. Lord Shinkwin added: 'The margin yesterday was so close that many MPs would appreciate the opportunity to look at this again in respect of safeguards as they relate to those who feel vulnerable, whether that's disabled people or older people.' Labour MP Kim Leadbeater, who steered the Bill through the Commons, told the PA news agency she hoped peers would not seek to derail the legislation, which could run out of parliamentary time if it is held up in the Lords. She said: 'I would be upset to think that anybody was playing games with such an important and such an emotional issue.'
