Assisted dying bill debate sparks conversations across communities

"Death is a very, very sensitive issue. Who are we to make that decision?"That question, raised at a recent event at the WomenZone community centre in Bradford, touches on the profound dilemmas MPs will face in Friday's debate about the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) bill - better known as the assisted dying law.Supporters of the bill see it as a compassionate move towards dignity in death.Critics worry about its ethical implications and, for some, whether the most vulnerable will be left behind.
For Tahera Kacholia, whose husband died after a heart attack only a few months ago, it is an uncomfortable and perhaps unanswerable question."Who are we to make that decision? We leave it to Allah," she says. Jordan Findlay, who lost her mum a decade ago, is on the other side of the debate.For her, the assisted dying bill is about restoring dignity."When you have a terminal diagnosis, all control is taken away. This bill gives some of that dignity and choice back," she says.
The Bradford discussion, organised by palliative care consultant Dr Jamilla Hussain, reveals deep anxiety among ethnic minority communities in particular, shaped not just by religion but by feelings of cultural exclusion, historic mistrust of institutions, and fears around coercion."But still, we do want our say. We do want to discuss it," adds Mrs Kacholia.Another participant echoes that: "We are not saying stop the bill – but start listening properly before you proceed."Mrs Kacholia believes spiritually sensitive care and localised support are being overlooked."There are other ways to help ease the pain," she explains.
The assisted dying bill, brought by Batley and Spen MP Kim Leadbeater, would legalise euthanasia for terminally ill adults expected to live for less than six months.Strict safeguards would include approval from two doctors and a review panel. In a final plea to MPs earlier this week, Ms Leadbeater said failure to act now would be "a dereliction of duty" and would delay change by a decade.But in Bradford, that duty, many argue, must include better grassroots engagement - particularly in communities who already feel marginalised.For some, Covid intensified existing fears, for others, such as Ghazala Khalid, the mistrust dates back longer.In 2017, her mother had a stroke and doctors told the family she would not survive.Her mother lived not just that night -but for another two years."After God, we trust doctors - we say our life is in their hands," she says."That doesn't mean they know everything or they can do whatever they want."
Dr Hussain has spent months gathering views from ethnic minority and marginalised communities across the UK.She says many families worry vulnerable people, such as those with disabilities, learning difficulties or experiencing domestic abuse, may be manipulated and coerced into making irreversible decisions."We've heard from parents of disabled children and carers for people with learning difficulties."They told us, 'we know our children best - but this bill puts the power in the hands of someone who may not understand them,'" she explains.For women in abusive situations could there be additional layers of risk?"Someone might seem of sound mind in a medical assessment. But what happens before they walk into that room? What has that person been coached to say - or coerced into believing?"The biggest risk is that people who already experience inequality in end-of-life care will now fear accessing care at all," Dr Hussain says.
Just a few miles away in Leeds, campaigner Jordan Findlay believes the conversation must also centre on those already dying.Her mother, Anne Louise Findlay, died of cancer 10 years ago, aged 57."She made it very clear that if she had the opportunity to access assisted dying, she would have," says Miss Findlay.Fears over finance and legal implications stopped the family accessing euthanasia abroad, she says."She wasn't suicidal. She was just beyond medical help. Even with good palliative care, the pain was unmanageable," Miss Findlay explains.Aged 18, she dropped out of her A-levels and helped care for her mum at home."The real moral choice would have been to let her go peacefully, on her terms," she proffers.
Jordan now campaigns for law reform with the Dignity in Dying charity and believes robust safeguards can prevent abuse."Doctors already assess coercion and capacity for serious decisions every day. With training and multiple safeguards, I believe we can do this safely," she says.Back in Bradford, Dr Hussain agrees the debate needs to balance compassion with caution - especially for those already on the margins of care."There are a growing number of medical and neutral voices calling for more work around those safeguards."MPs must be happy that the safeguards not included in the bill are OK when they vote today.""I'm not personally against assisted dying," she adds. "For some, it may be the right choice. "But we cannot ignore the fears of those already marginalised. If we get this wrong, they will be the collateral damage."For Jordan, the call to listen must also include hearing those who simply want peace."This isn't about rushing death," she said. "It's about allowing people who are dying anyway to say, 'I'm ready'. "That's not giving up - it's an act of love."
Listen to highlights from West Yorkshire on BBC Sounds, catch up with the latest episode of Look North.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Times

40 minutes ago

• Times

The small boats crisis is out of control. This plan could solve it

In December 2018, Sajid Javid, then home secretary, cut short his holiday and declared a 'major incident' after 78 migrants crossed the Channel in small boats in four days. Since then six more home secretaries, and four prime ministers, have struggled with the same problem: how to stop the boats. All have failed. A record 17,000 have crossed so far this year. More than 900 crossed in a single day this month. There are some who argue that this proves, once again, that irregular migration can't be stopped and there is no point trying. This is wrong: the premise is false and the counsel unwise. Irregular migration can be controlled. There are plenty of examples of countries stopping or significantly reducing it. Australia has reduced it to almost zero: not once, but twice. It did so in 2001, and again in 2013, by shipping 'boat people' off to Nauru, a tiny Pacific island. Israel did the same in 2012 by building a fence and pushing migrants from Africa back across its border with Egypt. And, in the United States, President Trump is making a pretty good fist of it now: by strengthening border patrols and denying asylum applications at America's southern border, he has reduced encounters with irregular migrants to 12,000 in April this year, compared with 240,000 in April 2023. All these policies have three things in common: they are cruel and they violate people's rights. But they are also popular; or voters are at least prepared to put up with them if nothing else appears to work. In Australia, the 'Pacific solution' is now backed by both main parties. Trump is polling steadily on migration, even if the expansion of his deportation policy has dented support in recent weeks. None of this is lost on Nigel Farage, or his equivalents on the Continent. Seeing all else fail, voters are warming to Reform's promise to leave the European Convention on Human Rights and turn boats back at sea, using the navy if necessary. It is doubtful whether this very dangerous policy could work: you still need a place to push boats back to, and France is unlikely to be obliging. But it sounds simple and radical enough to tempt both voters and, it seems, the Conservative Party. This is a big problem for a Labour government that has promised to reduce migration but is reluctant to follow that path. Sir Keir Starmer's government desperately needs a humane, lawful, effective alternative. Is there one? More law enforcement is definitely not the answer. Close to £1 billion has been spent on boosting patrols in France; even more won't make much difference. A 'safe third-country agreement', with another faraway country that will admit and process asylum seekers, is perhaps an option. There is a version of this policy that could work, and could be lawful. The Supreme Court was clear on this, even as it scotched the previous government's half-baked Rwanda plan. But Labour criticised this policy so vehemently in opposition it would struggle to revive it now. • 1,378 migrants tried to cross the Channel in one day. France stopped 184 There is still one thing worth trying, however. It's also a safe third-country agreement, but not with Rwanda or some far-flung country. The deal the UK needs is with countries much closer to home: countries in the EU. From an agreed day onwards, the UK would agree with a group of EU countries, ideally including both France and Germany, to swiftly return almost all migrants who arrive irregularly across the Channel. This would reduce crossings to zero within a few weeks. As soon as it became clear that there was no prospect of success, the incentive to undertake a dangerous, costly journey would evaporate. After a few weeks, therefore, the number of transfers back to participating states would also fall to zero. The agreement would not be with the EU itself and would not replicate the unwieldy and unworkable system for intra-EU transfers known as the Dublin system, under which hardly anyone ever got sent anywhere. Anything that resembled this would fail — it is essential that asylum seekers do not suspect that there is a good chance of remaining in Britain anyway. Instead, it would be an ad hoc, one-off agreement with a coalition of interested EU countries, designed to ensure fast, efficient transfer for almost everyone within three or four weeks, with very occasional exceptions for people with the strongest family ties. The idea is not to turn boats around at sea. Intercepted migrants would be brought to British shores. They would be held securely and processed fairly. They would get a hearing, but unless they could present a credible other ground to remain here their claims would be declared inadmissible because there was a safe country to which they could be sent. There is no question that Germany and France — or Denmark, or Austria or the Netherlands for that matter — are safe. Their asylum systems are no worse, arguably better, than ours. Transfers would, therefore, be perfectly legal. There is an obvious question about such a deal. Why would European countries go for it? France and Germany have both had significantly higher numbers of asylum seekers per capita than the UK in recent years. They could not possibly agree to any arrangement in which the traffic was all one way. For this reason the UK would have to offer something in return: to take in, through organised legal channels, a fixed number of asylum seekers from the EU a year for the next few years: say 20,000 a year for four years, after which the scheme could be reviewed. A capped scheme similar to the Homes for Ukraine visa scheme would be set up to achieve this. This would be a good deal for Britain. Admitting 20,000 asylum seekers a year would be 30,000 less than are likely to arrive this year if nothing changes. Some would see this as an admission of failure, but a sharp reduction in numbers and, crucially, the restoration of control would quickly bring political dividends. A scheme such as this would almost entirely eliminate illegal migration. In comparison, the Darwinian lottery of the UK's current protection system, where over half of those securing it must have the strength and resources to undertake deeply hazardous journeys, is surely unsatisfactory. But what's in it for a Macron, or a Merz? Ultimately, something similar. Mainstream parties in Europe are leaching support to populists promising much more radical solutions to irregular migration. Right now, they have no policies of their own that credibly offer control. Nor are uglier ones that they are already endorsing (pushbacks at external borders from Greece to Poland, and deals with Tunisia and Libya to intercept boats and take them back before they even get there) working particularly well. This deal offers the outline of such a policy. Western European countries have every interest in showing their voters that migration can be controlled lawfully and humanely through safe third-country agreements. If they agreed this policy with Britain, EU countries would then need to invest in similar arrangements of its own, with partners it can find. For EU countries, finding (genuinely) safe third countries to transfer migrants to will be harder and will take time. But it is not impossible. Short of legalising the abuses occurring at their own borders, this is the only policy option they have. Developing this plan with the UK could quickly show that the model, control through co-operation, works. They would have a narrative and plan: two things sorely lacking right now. Like all good agreements, this one appeals to interests on both sides. It won't appeal to everyone. Participating states would be criticised from all sides: too generous for some, not generous enough for others. But if even closely allied, rights-respecting countries such as Britain and Germany cannot reach civilised migration control agreements, there is little hope for such agreements being reached anywhere. And little hope, therefore, for humane border control — meaning cruel ones will prevail. John Dalhuisen is a senior fellow at the European Stability Initiative. The ESI helped to broker the EU-Turkey deal in 2016, to address the migrant crisis caused by the Syrian civil war

Sky News

2 hours ago

• Sky News

US warplanes transit through UK: Here's what the flight tracking data shows

Flight tracking data shows extensive movement of US military aircraft towards the Middle East in recent days, including via the UK. Fifty-two US military planes were spotted flying over the eastern Mediterranean towards the Middle East between Monday and Thursday. That includes at least 25 that passed through Chania airport, on the Greek island of Crete - an eight-fold increase in the rate of arrivals compared to the first half of June. The movement of military equipment comes as the US considers whether to assist Israel in its conflict with Iran. Of the 52 planes spotted over the eastern Mediterranean, 32 are used for transporting troops or cargo, 18 are used for mid-air refuelling and two are reconnaissance planes. Forbes McKenzie, founder of McKenzie Intelligence, says that this indicates "the build-up of warfighting capability, which was not [in the region] before". Sky's data does not include fighter jets, which typically fly without publicly revealing their location. An air traffic control recording from Wednesday suggests that F-22 Raptors are among the planes being sent across the Atlantic, while 12 F-35 fighter jets were photographed travelling from the UK to the Middle East on Wednesday. Many US military planes are passing through UK A growing number of US Air Force planes have been passing through the UK in recent days. Analysis of flight tracking data at three key air bases in the UK shows 63 US military flights landing between 16 and 19 June - more than double the rate of arrivals earlier in June. On Thursday, Sky News filmed three US military C-17A Globemaster III transport aircraft and a C-130 Hercules military cargo plane arriving at Glasgow's Prestwick Airport. Flight tracking data shows that one of the planes arrived from an air base in Jordan, having earlier travelled there from Germany. What does Israel need from US? Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on 15 March that his country's aim is to remove "two existential threats - the nuclear threat and the ballistic missile threat". Israel says that Iran is attempting to develop a nuclear bomb, though Iran says its nuclear facilities are only for civilian energy purposes. A US intelligence assessment in March concluded that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon. President Trump dismissed the assessment on Tuesday, saying: "I think they were very close to having one." Forbes McKenzie says the Americans have a "very similar inventory of weapons systems" to the Israelis, "but of course, they also have the much-talked-about GBU-57". The GBU-57 is a 30,000lb bomb - the largest non-nuclear bomb in existence. Mr McKenzie explains that it is "specifically designed to destroy targets which are very deep underground". Experts say it is the only weapon with any chance of destroying Iran's main enrichment site, which is located underneath a mountain at Fordow. Air-to-air refuelling could allow Israel to carry larger bombs Among the dozens of US aircraft that Sky News tracked over the eastern Mediterranean in recent days, more than a third (18 planes) were designed for air-to-air refuelling. "These are crucial because Israel is the best part of a thousand miles away from Iran," says Sky News military analyst Sean Bell. "Most military fighter jets would struggle to do those 2,000-mile round trips and have enough combat fuel." The ability to refuel mid-flight would also allow Israeli planes to carry heavier munitions, including bunker-buster bombs necessary to destroy the tunnels and silos where Iran stores many of its missiles. Satellite imagery captured on 15 June shows the aftermath of Israeli strikes on a missile facility near the western city of Kermanshah, which destroyed at least 12 buildings at the site. At least four tunnel entrances were also damaged in the strikes, two of which can be seen in the image below. Writing for Jane's Defence Weekly, military analyst Jeremy Binnie says it looked like the tunnels were "targeted using guided munitions coming in at angles, not destroyed from above using penetrator bombs, raising the possibility that the damage can be cleared, enabling any [missile launchers] trapped inside to deploy". "This might reflect the limited payloads that Israeli aircraft can carry to Iran," he adds. Penetrator bombs, also known as bunker-busters, are much heavier than other types of munitions and as a result require more fuel to transport. Israel does not have the latest generation of refuelling aircraft, Mr Binnie says, meaning it is likely to struggle to deploy a significant number of penetrator bombs. Israel has struck most of Iran's western missile bases Even without direct US assistance, the Israeli air force has managed to inflict significant damage on Iran's missile launch capacity. Sky News has confirmed Israeli strikes on at least five of Iran's six known missile bases in the west of the country. On Monday, the IDF said that its strategy of targeting western launch sites had forced Iran to rely on its bases in the centre of the country, such as Isfahan - around 1,500km (930 miles) from Israel. Among Iran's most advanced weapons are three types of solid-fuelled rockets fitted with highly manoeuvrable warheads: Fattah-1, Kheibar Shekan and Haj Qassam. The use of solid fuel makes these missiles easy to transport and fast to launch, while their manoeuvrable warheads make them better at evading Israeli air defences. However, none of them are capable of striking Israel from such a distance. Iran is known to possess five types of missile capable of travelling more than 1,500km, but only one of these uses solid fuel - the Sijjil-1. On 18 June, Iran claimed to have used this missile against Israel for the first time. Iran's missiles have caused significant damage Iran's missile attacks have killed at least 24 people in Israel and wounded hundreds, according to the Israeli foreign ministry. The number of air raid alerts in Israel has topped 1,000 every day since the start of hostilities, reaching a peak of 3,024 on 15 June. Iran has managed to strike some government buildings, including one in the city of Haifa on Friday. And on 13 June, in Iran's most notable targeting success so far, an Iranian missile impacted on or near the headquarters of Israel's defence ministry in Tel Aviv. Most of the Iranian strikes verified by Sky News, however, have hit civilian targets. These include residential buildings, a school and a university. On Thursday, one missile hit the Soroka Medical Center in Beersheba, southern Israel's main hospital. More than 70 people were injured, according to Israel's health ministry. Iranian foreign minister Abbas Araghchi said that Iran had struck a nearby technology park containing an IDF cyber defence training centre, and that the "blast wave caused superficial damage to a small section" of the hospital. However, the technology park is in fact 1.2km away from where the missile struck. Photos of the hospital show evidence of a direct hit, with a large section of one building's roof completely destroyed. Iran successfully struck the technology park on Friday, though its missile fell in an open area, causing damage to a nearby residential building but no casualties. Israel has killed much of Iran's military leadership It's not clear exactly how many people Israel's strikes in Iran have killed, or how many are civilians. Estimates by human rights groups of the total number of fatalities exceed 600. What is clear is that among the military personnel killed are many key figures in the Iranian armed forces, including the military's chief of staff, deputy head of intelligence and deputy head of operations. Key figures in the powerful Revolutionary Guard have also been killed, including the militia's commander-in-chief, its aerospace force commander and its air defences commander. On Thursday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that US assistance was not necessary for Israel to win the war. "We will achieve all our objectives and hit all of their nuclear facilities," he said. "We have the capability to do that." 3:49 Forbes McKenzie says that while Israel has secured significant victories in the war so far, "they only have so much fuel, they only have so many munitions". "The Americans have an ability to keep up the pace of operations that the Israelis have started, and they're able to do it for an indefinite period of time." Additional reporting by data journalist Joely Santa Cruz and OSINT producers Freya Gibson, Lina-Sirine Zitout and Sam Doak.

Times

2 hours ago

• Times

How can hospitals have dignity if staff don't notice you're dead?

There have been miracles happening at a mental health hospital in the east of London — miracles so remarkable that I am surprised so little has been made of it. What happened at Goodmayes Hospital in Ilford was that a patient died — but then three days later was seen by staff cheerfully eating his breakfast. Extraordinary goings-on, don't you think? Or perhaps, worryingly, not quite as extraordinary as they appear. The man who died and then — stone rolled away from the tomb — was up and about eating his cornflakes three days later was called Mr Winbourne Charles. He had been admitted to Goodmayes suffering from depression, and five months later he killed himself. So how was he seen eating his breakfast three days later? He wasn't. The staff who were meant to be watching him had not even noticed that he had died: they lied on the official forms, not realising that Mr Charles had been in a coffin for the best part of 72 hours. Such was the level of care and concern. Such was the rigour and the attention to detail. • Rod Liddle on his radio comeback: Somehow I'm still on air When Mr Charles was admitted to Goodmayes it was with a clinical psychological assessment which revealed he was a very high-risk patient and should be observed once every 15 minutes. Goodmayes downgraded that assessment so that he should be observed only once an hour. But it didn't really matter, because the staff didn't even do that. It turns out that he hadn't been observed for at least two hours when he was found dead. You might gauge the interest the Goodmayes staff took in their employment, and in the people they were there to care for, by their behaviour at Mr Charles's inquest. One staff member gave evidence lying in their bed at home, because they weren't due at work that day. Another gave evidence from the Tube because they were on their way to the airport to take a nice break in the sun. In my days of court reporting the coroner would have sent round the Old Bill to drag that person from their pit and grounded all flights — but times change. The authority has seeped away. We know about Mr Winbourne Charles partly because of another inquest into another unnecessary death at the same hospital and some expert digging by the BBC, which revealed at least 20 more very dubious deaths at the North East London NHS Foundation Trust. People who had been on short-term medication for years and years. People neglected. The staff not doing what they were paid to do. At Mr Charles's inquest the coroner recorded a verdict of death by suicide contributed to by neglect. The trust accepted the verdict and admitted that the behaviour of its staff at the inquest had been 'unacceptable', and so you might expect things to be changing in Goodmayes right now. You'd be wrong. On the hospital's own site the latest review — from May this year — details the utterly useless nature of the service provided for patients. Underneath it says: 'Goodmayes Hospital has not yet replied' — but then, in fairness, it says that underneath all the reviews, dating back to 2023. Where do we start with this farrago? Perhaps with the nature of management in the public sector, where a laxer atmosphere and regimen prevails than in the private sphere, and where it seems that the ethos is far more about supporting the staff than providing for the customer, or patient. There are no sales figures and financial imperatives to sharpen the concentration a little. The unions are on the side of staff and the managers dare not demur. Nobody is on the side of the patient, the taxpayer. But I do not think that is the main problem. In the past year I have been detailing here the various manifestations of Skank Britain and the cultural shifts that have led us down this fetid back alley. The dissolution of authority and the refusal of people to take responsibility for their own actions, or indeed for themselves. The notion of such terms as 'discipline' and 'duty' becoming de trop and the insistence by each errant individual that he or she mustn't be judged and will behave exactly as they wish, thank you. The almost complete lack of regard for that most annoying of encumbrances, other people. A lack of dignity in the self and towards others. And, perhaps more than anything else, the long-term whittling-away of a communitarian ethos, the sense that as a nation we have a responsibility to look out for one another and to do the right thing. All of that stuff has largely gone, I fear. Goodmayes Hospital is as much a function of Skank Britain as some feral lout on the Tube with his feet on the seats and hideous music blaring out of his infernal device. Two members of Palestine Action broke into RAF Brize Norton and claimed to have put out of action a couple of Voyager air-to air refuelling tankers. Three questions arise. First, why weren't they shot? Second, the prime minister called it an act of vandalism — but isn't it, more properly, an act of treason? And, finally, why hadn't Palestine Action already been put on the list of proscribed terrorist organisations and its members arrested? You will be relieved to know that Olsi Beheluli is still with us. Olsi, an Albanian by birth, has recently been released from prison after an 11-year stretch for heroin dealing. In a move that suggests he is perhaps not the sharpest tool in the box, he photographed himself sitting in front of a vast pile of banknotes worth £250,000. Anyway, the Home Office wanted him out of the country, but the immigration tribunal judges wouldn't have it. In gaining British citizenship, Olsi had signed a form which stated that he had never done anything that 'might indicate that you may not be considered a person of good character'. Dealing skag didn't remotely count. Readers of a certain age may remember the comedian Dave Allen's observation that, as 10 per cent of road accidents were caused by drink-drivers, it followed that 90 per cent were caused by people who were sober. 'Why don't those people keep off the roads and let us drunks drive in safety?' he asked. The dyscalculic lefties will all be channelling Dave, having read about the Ministry of Justice stats released last week which showed that more than a quarter of all sexual assaults on women last year were carried out by people not born in this country. You can hear them now: 'That means 74 per cent were carried out by British people and nobody has suggested investigating them. Racist!'