Latest news with #terminallyIll
The Independent
16 hours ago
- Health
- The Independent
Assisted dying bill: Why this momentous vote remains so uncertain
The third reading and final Commons vote on Kim Leadbeater's Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill on Friday marks a truly historic moment for parliament. The stakes are so high that entrepreneur Declan Ganley has offered a private ambulance to MP Sorcha Eastwood, who is ill with Covid, to get her to the Commons to vote against the Bill. No wonder. It has been almost six decades since MPs have considered a Bill that would cause such a profound and fundamental change in the state's relationship with individuals and society's attitude to life and death. An historic vote In December Ms Leadbeater won a 55 majority on the second reading vote of her Bill, dealing with the principle rather than details, and is expected to carry a reduced majority today, although that is less certain than it was before. If she is successful then the state, for the first time, will be licensed to end people's lives if they wish it and if the circumstances allow. Doctors will be allowed to offer it as an alternative to people who have been given six months left to live. What factors will MPs be considering? The lack of certainty on the vote is partly fueled by the fact that a number of MPs who voted for the principle made it clear that they were allowing the debate to be had and would reserve judgment on the final vote. The debate in fact has moved on from one of principle - which only a minority oppose - to one of practicalities. The questions faced by MPs include: Can such a law be introduced to allow those with genuine terminal illnesses who wish to end their lives to do so without exposing the weak, poor and vulnerable to coercion to end their lives? Can the so-called tight restrictions be prevented from expanding beyond that through medical practice, judicial intervention or further legislation? Will this end up being a means for saving costs on the care centre and the NHS? Are the safeguards strong enough to ensure that the new law will not be abused? What will be the impact on hospices and end of life care? MPs changing their minds The reason that the vote has become tighter is because a growing number of MPs are concerned about the potential answers to those questions. The only issue will be whether that is enough to block the Bill. Based on votes on the amendments as well as known supporters and opponents, the predictive voting model used by opponents of assisted dying gives Ms Leadbeater a majority of up to 15, ranging to a defeat of the Bill by a majority of five. Very close. Key to the debate will not be the heartbreaking stories of people suffering in their final months, or celebrity voices like Esther Rantzen. They have already had their effect. More important will be the big change to the Bill brought by Ms Leadbeater which means a judge in court will not have to sign off, as originally laid out in the second reading vote. Instead, there will be an expert panel led by a judge or KC but not with the same legal authority. It is worth noting that the judicial safeguard was cited by more than 100 MPs in the first debate. The 'slippery slope' argument The other issue at play will be whether this Bill is a full stop to the issue or is something that will unleash a loosening up of the law over time. The lesson from the then Liberal MP David Steel's abortion legislation in 1967 will play a part in the decision-making of a number of MPs, who will be considering the so-called 'slippery slope' issue of an apparently tightly worded piece of legislation expanding its reach over time. Just this week we have seen MPs vote by a large majority to decriminalise abortion – effectively allowing it up to birth without criminal consequences from the 24 weeks (six months) already legislated for. But more important will be the experience of other countries where assisted dying has been legalised. Ms Leadbeater has been at pains that this is a specifically British Bill. However, in Canada, Oregon in the US, the Netherlands, and New South Wales in Australia the legislation has expanded beyond terminal illness to include mental health and other issues. Ms Leadbeater in fact highlighted a case of a couple who decided to end their own lives in Australia after 70 years of marriage even though terminal illness was not a factor. How the debate will unfold She will argue on Friday though that her Bill has been strengthened since November. Opponents will point out that she has rejected safeguards on eating disorders, mental health, the requirement of people actually suffering pain and many other apparently reasonable checks to the process. Attempts to restrict assisted death advertising were brushed aside. An attempt to protect hospices from offering assisted dying were dismissed. She had also opposed an amendment preventing doctors recommending assisted dying to children, the one defeat she has suffered so far. Many have consistently argued that a private members bill is not sufficient to debate something that will have such a profound effect on the country. Indeed, 52 Labour MPs asked Keir Starmer, a supporter of assisted dying, to give more time for further scrutiny, an appeal he rejected. The issue today will be whether all these questions and issues will mean there are enough MPs to have second thoughts from their vote in November to overturn a 55-majority. If the Bill is defeated then it will not come back before the next election, if Ms Leadbeater wins then it will have cleared its most important hurdle and a battle in the Lords awaits where many of the issues will be debated again.
The Independent
16-05-2025
- Health
- The Independent
There is still time for amendments to be made to the assisted dying bill – but it deserves to pass
When the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill passed its first stage in the House of Commons in November, The Independent agreed with the majority of MPs. They voted at second reading to approve the draft law in principle, while many of them had reservations about the terms of the bill and expected it to be improved when it was subjected to detailed scrutiny. In particular, we agreed with those who said that the safeguards against coercion needed to be strengthened, and that the requirement for a High Court judge to sign off on a decision to die was unworkable. To her credit, Kim Leadbeater, the Labour backbencher who is the sponsor of this private member's bill, has taken those concerns seriously and sought to allay them. Since November, the bill has been improved, as was confirmed in the Commons on Friday. The safeguards have been strengthened and the role of the High Court judge has been replaced by a panel including a lawyer, a social worker and a psychiatrist. This is a better and more workable arrangement, drawing on a range of relevant expertise, rather than a narrowly legal authority. No doubt the bill could still be improved further. We are worried, for example, that the Royal College of Psychiatrists said earlier this week that it could not support the draft law in its current form because, among other things, 'there are not enough consultant psychiatrists to do what the bill asks'. But this raises questions that are beyond the scope of the bill itself, and it would be wrong to block the bill on the grounds that it may not be possible for everyone who wants to use its provisions to do so. If assisted dying is right in principle, it is better that it is available to some rather than none. Among the amendments Ms Leadbeater accepted on Friday was one to exclude anorexia explicitly from the definition of a terminal illness. This is another welcome change. MPs also agreed amendments to ensure that there is no obligation on anyone, such as medical staff, to take part in a patient's decision to seek an assisted death; to prevent doctors from discussing the option of an assisted death with under 18s, unless the patient has raised it first: and to require the government to publish an assessment of the availability and quality of palliative and end-of-life care. These are all further improvements to the bill. That is not to say that it has now achieved a state of legislative perfection. We remain concerned, in particular, about whether the protections for people with mental illness are sufficient. The Royal College of Psychiatrists says that 'mental health services simply do not have the resource required to meet a new range of demands'. Ms Leadbeater should continue to try to meet the concerns expressed in good faith by the bill's critics. There is still time for further amendments to be made before MPs are asked to give their yes or no verdict on the bill next month – and it can then be amended further in the House of Lords. However, one of the striking contributions to the debate on Friday was made by Marie Tidball, the Labour MP for Penistone and Stocksbridge. As an MP with a disability – she was born with shortened limbs and a single digit on each hand – she said she had voted for the bill in November on the understanding that it would be strengthened and improved, and that she was now satisfied that it had been. Of course, the bill is not perfect, and never could be, because the subject is so difficult and the circumstances in each case will be different. Ms Leadbeater must continue to make it the best it can be, but those MPs who gave the bill a conditional vote of confidence in November can now safely send it on to its next stage in the upper house.
Irish Times
16-05-2025
- Health
- Irish Times
Temperatures rise in UK's assisted dying debate amid claims of ‘chaotic' process
Supporters and opponents of the UK's landmark Bill to legalise assisted dying – known by its detractors as assisted suicide – gathered in different verdant corners of sunny Westminster on Friday as MPs debated inside the House of Commons. Those supporting a change in the law to allow terminally ill patients in England and Wales to seek medical help ending their own lives gathered beneath an array of bright pink banners on the lawns of Parliament Square. 'My dying wish is dignity,' they said. Around the corner, at the statue of King George V off Abingdon Street, opponents of the proposal struck a darker tone, holding mocked up headstones engraved with a warning about the apparent watering down of oversight of future assisted deaths: 'RIP – 'strictest safeguards in the world.'' Pink to support the right to die, and headstones for the sanctity of life. Therein was captured the incongruity of Britain's national conversation about the right, or otherwise, to an assisted death. Increasingly fraught and tetchy, the mood of the national debate was reflected inside the Commons chamber, as MPs grew frustrated as they ran out of time to speak. READ MORE It was originally thought MPs might get their final say on Friday on Labour MP Kim Leadbeater's Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, which passed its crucial second reading in the Commons last November by 330 votes to 275. But there have been so many amendments proposed since, the speaker of the House, Lindsay Hoyle, has kicked the crucial vote out until at least June 13th, and possibly later. Even then, many MPs on Friday complained the Bill was being rushed through parliament without proper scrutiny. [ Assisted dying: Do we understand it properly? Opens in new window ] One Labour MP, Naz Shah, described the process as 'chaos . . . a disservice to parliament and our constituents. We shouldn't be playing games with people's lives like this.' She complained of only being told by Leadbeater that her amendment might be accepted when she arrived in the Commons that morning, leaving her no time to study the wording. Prime minister Keir Starmer's government is ostensibly neutral on the Bill, although everybody knows that he favours it. He has granted a free vote, meaning MPs are not party whipped and can vote with their conscience. As the government did not bring the Bill forward, it has been proposed as a private members' Bill by Labour backbencher, Leadbeater. This means, however, that it can only be scrutinised during the time set aside each week for private Bills, Friday mornings and afternoons until 2.30pm. Opponents say such a landmark proposal should have been proposed by the government, allowing it to be scrutinised at greater length during government time in the parliamentary week. Supporters, meanwhile, believe they still have the numbers to push it through the House. They must wait until next month to find out. [ Assisted dying: 'If I cannot consent to my own death, who owns my life?' Opens in new window ]
