Wes Streeting warns there is no money in the NHS for assisted dying and helping people to end their lives will mean cuts to treatment for the living

The Health Secretary has warned that legalising assisted dying could take NHS money away from medical treatment for the living.
Wes Streeting, who opposed the suicide law change passed by MPs last week, said getting the system up and running would take 'time and money' away from other parts of the health service.
He said that said better end-of-life care was needed to prevent terminally ill people feeling they had no alternative but to end their own life.
MPs on Friday voted by a majority of just 23 to allow medical professionals to help people die, under a system expected to start operating by the end of the decade.
But having been passed by the Commons the legislation faces a tricky passage through the Lords, which calls for them to either make major changes or block it altogether.
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.
He cited a warning from ex-PM Gordon Brown that 'there is no effective freedom to choose' if there is no high quality palliative care available, or if people 'feel under pressure to relieve their relatives of the burden of caring for them'.
'He is right. The truth is that creating those conditions will take time and money,' Mr Streeting wrote.
'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.'
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 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.
Last week 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, said 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.'

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Times

34 minutes ago

• Times

Students ‘will spend 25 years on their mobiles'

Students are set to spend 25 years of their life glued to smartphones, a survey of phone use in education predicts. The average person in school, college or university spends five hours and 30 minutes a day on their mobile — and could clock up 25 years of screen time if their habits don't change. For the 4 per cent of students who spend nine hours or more on the phone every day, that rises to 41 years on the device. The research was conducted over the first five months of this year by Fluid Focus, which aims to help people manage their screen time. Its figures are based on a waking day of 16 hours and 72 years of smartphone use from age 11 to 83.

BBC News

38 minutes ago

• BBC News

Diplomatic tightrope on Iran just got more precarious for Starmer

Sir Keir Starmer has been treading a delicate diplomatic tightrope all week on the issue of night's airstrikes by the US mean the challenges facing the prime minister could now continue for Keir's repeated calls for de-escalation have clearly not been heeded by the White he has avoided direct UK involvement in military action and has sought to maintain what British diplomats claim is a solid and valuable relationship with US president Donald Trump. The response from ministers appears to be it was not the means they wanted, but they supported the UK has not explicitly endorsed the method, but the result - a delay in Iran getting nuclear weapons - is, they argue, in the UK's national Keir's position has shifted since Tuesday, when he seemed confident Trump would not intervene, after sitting next to him at a G7 dinner in Canada."I was sitting right next to President Trump, so I've no doubt, in my mind, the level of agreement there was," he four days later the president intervened. Did the prime minister misread Trump? Or did the president - whose unpredictability is central to his foreign policy approach - just change his mind? No 10 has told us it was given advanced warning of the US action, but the UK was not asked to take part. We do not know had been speculation that US B-2 stealth bombers could have used the UK's Diego Garcia airbase in the Indian Ocean as a waypoint en route to "Operation Midnight Hammer" involved B-2s flying non-stop for 18 hours to reach their targets, according to the latest on US strikes on IranIran's secretive nuclear site that only a US bomb could hitWhat we know about US strikes on IranIt is possible the UK was not asked for assistance because it would have been a difficult request to have been debates at the top of government in recent days about the legality of any UK involvement, with the attorney general, Lord Hermer, providing advice on a range of the next steps in the conflict unclear, the US could end up requesting military support from the UK in the coming weeks - prompting further difficult decisions for the prime minister. So, what next? US defence secretary Pete Hegseth has responded to concerns the US attacks could prompt the start of a long conflict by insisting: "This is most certainly not open-ended".Yet the actions of both the The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) and the Ministry of Defence (MoD) suggest they fear retaliation from is why British diplomats have been planning a flight early next week to help "vulnerable British nationals and their dependents wanting to leave Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories".Defence sources have told me measures to protect British armed forces in the Middle East have been strengthened in the past few hours, with additional fighter jets already in the region and at "high readiness".One UK diplomat told me UK-US relations remain strong, as demonstrated by Foreign Secretary David Lammy's long meeting with secretary of state Marco Rubio and Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff on we do not know if - or how - Iran might respond, or whether the UK or its military could be targeted. Starmer's high-wire act has just become even more dangerous.

Telegraph

44 minutes ago

• Telegraph

Assisted dying, abortion, grooming gangs...Britain is morally deformed

I've a friend in a nursing home with very bad cancer. Physically, he feels OK, but there are hints of mental confusion. One afternoon we watched a quiz show on a blank television that wasn't turned on. It was proof, he said, that his mind couldn't be going because he got all the answers right. With the passage of Kim Leadbeater's Bill – save a stay of execution in the Lords – he suddenly looks like a candidate for assisted dying, and yet his suffering strengthens the case against. My friend, at this stage, is miserable less because of the tumour than because he's poor – can't afford a home care – and anxious because he wakes up in a strange place and imagines he's been kidnapped. He tells me he is at the centre of a plot by the state to kill the old by driving them mad. Though I assure him that no government is competent enough to pull such a thing off, I'm beginning to wonder if he has a point. Last week, the Commons voted to decriminalise abortion and legalise state-assisted suicide, the latest twist on 'cradle to grave'. Supporters spoke of humanising the law, of continuing the 'progressive' effort begun in the 1960s when abortion was first permitted. But there's a big contextual difference. Social liberalism in a time of economic growth was about increasing choice; today, in a period of austerity, it suggests narrowing options. Can't afford a baby? Terminate it. Worry you might burden the grandkids? Take a seat in the suicide pod. Of course this isn't what MPs meant by voting this way – but when you cut benefits for the elderly and cap them for children, and then make it easier to destroy yourself or your baby, it's hard not to infer a link. People keep saying to me, with a dash of British humour, that the state intends to kill us all to save money. Let's assume this is wrong. Let's call the speculation tasteless. Nevertheless, we have to account for why so many people feel this way, for the historic loss of trust. This is not some opioid-induced fantasy; human beings respond to cues. The third story in the grimmest week of Starmer's premiership was the publication of the Casey report, which confirmed that Asian men raped girls, and that officials declined to act because it might appear racist. This is mind-blowing stuff and shows how morally deformed our establishment now is. It has no coherent understanding of good and evil – in the difference between innocence and guilt – and in its yearning to look good by its own bizarre standard, it permits evil to flourish. In 2025, a person who prays outside an abortion clinic faces arrest. Meanwhile, a foreign-born, convicted rapist might avoid deportation by invoking their human rights. Religion, in fact, barely featured in the assisted dying debate, except to suggest that opponents might be acting under orders from the Pope. This fantasy pays a backhanded compliment to a faith that has been losing its influence for a very long time. As far back as 1937, Cosmo Gordon Lang, the archbishop of Canterbury, abstained in a Lords vote on divorce because he judged it 'no longer possible to impose the full Christian standard by law on a largely non-Christian population'. Christianity defined the West for so many centuries that its loss is experienced as the death of a fixed order, but we mustn't forget that Jesus was a revolutionary who overturned an even older system of ethics. Pagans, who largely felt life was meant to be enjoyed, thought the martyrdom-chasing Christians were nuts. One can see why. They taught that death is not the end, life is a test, and suffering is an opportunity to imitate the crucifixion. For example: the 7th century saint Cuthbert had a best friend, Herbert, and the two men dreamt of spending eternity together. But Cuthbert was a famously holy man, so would pass through purgatory to Heaven fast, whereas Herbert was just a very good man, so, they feared, might take longer – delaying their reunion. How did God fix the problem? He generously gave Herbert a long, painful illness, so that when he died on the same day as Cuthbert, his soul was so cleansed by suffering that they entered paradise at the same time. Weird, isn't it? Yes, but it also seeded into the West the idea that our life belongs to God, that He made us in his image, and this is a foundation for the principle that you can't take away another's life at will. This gradually flowered into rights for women or slaves, the peace movement and abolition of the death penalty. The problem with a commandment, of course, is that it's inflexible: it extends to unwanted foetuses and relatives in pain. Around the 19th century, we detached God from ethics, getting around the 'Thou Shalt Nots' and opening morality up to negotiation. Add individualism, toss in consumerism, and moral action today is contingent upon personality, economics, circumstance. Back when I was a socialist, before religion came into it, I wasn't comfortable with the idea that one unborn baby gets to live because its parents happen to be married and rich, whereas another is aborted because its mother is single and poor. Humanistic morality seemed surprisingly naive about the reality of the human condition, its appetites and deprivations. Looking at my friend in the nursing home, to what possible extent can one say he has 'agency'? I'm not sure he understands his diagnosis. The notion that he might have a chat with Kim Leadbeater, she with a smile and a clipboard in her hand, and make a rational choice to die next Wednesday afternoon is preposterous. The opportunity for error or manipulation is self-evident, yet many cannot, or will not, see it. For anyone who does choose assisted dying, I hope Christians respond with mercy. We are not in charge of Britain, haven't been for a long time, and I'm not sure I'd want to be. The best options left are to witness and accompany, to do the sometimes depressing, occasionally rewarding work of being with people when they go. I enjoy holding my friend's hand. I'd never have done that when he was healthy.