logo
Esther Rantzen and terminally ill preacher make case for assisted dying Bill

Esther Rantzen and terminally ill preacher make case for assisted dying Bill

Independent19-06-2025
A terminally ill Christian preacher has criticised the 'nonsensical' religious argument against assisted dying that suffering must be part of life, as Dame Esther Rantzen urged MPs to pass a Bill she said could 'transform the final days of generations in the future'.
The broadcaster made a plea to parliamentarians on the eve of Friday's vote to change what she branded a 'current, cruel, messy criminal law'.
The House of Commons will have a debate and vote on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill on Friday, which will see it either progress to the House of Lords or fall completely.
Dame Esther, a staunch supporter of Kim Leadbeater's Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, has been a prominent voice in the conversation on assisted dying.
Last week, Labour MP and Bill opponent, Rupa Huq, pledged to be a voice for the voiceless, noting that the Childline founder and others' views are already well-known.
She added: 'We know that Esther Rantzen wants this. We know (broadcaster) Jonathan Dimbleby wants this.
'But our role is to be voice of the voiceless as well.'
Dame Esther, who is terminally ill with cancer, said the 'truly voiceless' are the terminally ill who face ' an agonising death' and their relatives.
She told the PA news agency: 'This is a crucial debate for the truly voiceless.
'They are the terminally ill adults for whom life has become unbearable and who need assistance, not to shorten their lives but to shorten an agonising death – and their loved ones who under the current law will be accused of committing a crime if they try to assist or even stay alongside to say goodbye.
'These are the truly vulnerable and voiceless who depend on our lawmakers to change our current, cruel, messy criminal law.
'All this Bill allows is choice for desperately ill adults who are dying anyway but want the confidence of knowing that they can ask for help to choose what we all hope for; a quick, pain-free death with good memories left behind as their legacy for those they love.
'Please allow us terminally ill the dignity of choice over our own deaths. A change in the law cannot come in time for me, but will transform the final days of generations in the future. Those who disagree with assisted dying under the new law will have the right to their own choice, please allow the rest of us to have the same right.'
Dame Esther's words came as a group of terminally ill and bereaved people shared their stories at a press briefing alongside the Labour Bill sponsor, Ms Leadbeater, on Thursday.
Church of England lay preacher Pamela Fisher, who is terminally ill with cancer, made an impassioned speech against the religious arguments made by some who oppose assisted dying.
She said: 'I completely reject the assumption that the sanctity of life requires terminally ill people to undergo a distressing and painful death against their will. I disagree with those that say it is God alone who decides how and when we die.
'Yes, life is a gift from God to be honoured, but it's nonsensical to say that assisted dying is wrong because suffering is part of God's plan for us.'
The Catholic Archbishop of Westminster, Cardinal Vincent Nichols – who is opposed to assisted dying – has previously argued that the suffering of human beings is 'an intrinsic part of our human journey, a journey embraced by the eternal word of God, Christ Jesus himself'.
Meanwhile, Anil Douglas, whose father took his own life having suffered with multiple sclerosis, recalled the trauma of finding him.
He said a six-month police investigation followed, and told the press conference: 'The law in this country failed my father.'
He added: 'The (current) law leads people like my father to make lonely and dangerous decisions. It does not protect against coercion. It does not offer protections or choice for dying people.
'It does not offer terminally ill, mentally competent adults with six months or less to live, the chance to choose a safe and compassionate death when even the very best palliative care is not enough. It leads to lonely, dangerous, traumatic deaths.'
Bill opponents have argued it is not robust enough to protect the most vulnerable against coercion, and others who might choose assisted dying because they feel they are a burden.
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.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Farage pledges to send Ian Huntley to El Salvador as part of Reform plans to tackle ‘lawless' Britain
Farage pledges to send Ian Huntley to El Salvador as part of Reform plans to tackle ‘lawless' Britain

The Independent

time24 minutes ago

  • The Independent

Farage pledges to send Ian Huntley to El Salvador as part of Reform plans to tackle ‘lawless' Britain

Nigel Farage revealed Reform UK 's plan to send British criminals to some of the world's toughest prisons during a speech on Monday (21 July). The Reform UK leader unveiled plans that would seemingly mimic measures implemented by Donald Trump in America. The plans are part of the party's zero-tolerance approach to crime. Addressing media in London, Mr Farage said: 'If it means Ian Huntley has to go to El Salvador, so be it.' 'Reform will be the toughest party on law and order and on crime that this country has ever seen.' Huntley is currently serving a life sentence after he was found guilty of murdering school girls Jessica Chapman and Holly Wells in Soham in 2002.

Traditional public service media should be more discoverable on YouTube
Traditional public service media should be more discoverable on YouTube

The Independent

time24 minutes ago

  • The Independent

Traditional public service media should be more discoverable on YouTube

Traditional public service media is under threat and needs to be more discoverable on popular video sharing platforms like YouTube, regulatory body Ofcom has said. Its report, Transmission Critical: The Future of Public Service Media, says the Government should bring forward legislation to help 'ensure that PSM content is prominent and easy to find on the platforms, and on fair commercial terms.' The regulator and competition authority has made a number of recommendations in its action plan that is seeking 'urgent clarity from the Government on how TV will be distributed to reach audiences in the future.' Group director for broadcasting and media at Ofcom, Cristina Nicolotti Squires, told the PA news agency: 'We've called it (the report) Transmission Critical because we think that public service media is under real threat. 'Broadcasters are experiencing quite tough financial challenges. The business model changes with audiences fracturing everywhere.' According to research from Barb, which is responsible for calculating UK TV official viewing figures, viewing on linear channels has fallen significantly in recent years and this decline is expected to continue. The report says that public service broadcasters (PSBs) will have to work 'much harder to create content that audiences want to watch' on platforms like YouTube as 'they are competing with every other content creator in the world.' Ms Nicolotti Squires said: 'We're not saying they have to go on YouTube, but we're just saying that public service broadcasters have got to make great content where audiences are, and audiences are increasingly going onto YouTube. 'They all have different deals with YouTube in terms of commercial returns, and that's down to them. But I just think it's important that the programmes that they're making, public service programmes, are available where people are. 'So just delivering on the linear channels, obviously, we're seeing that viewing has fallen significantly in those areas. So it's a question of, as I said, pretty much putting these great programmes where people are watching them.' A key objective of the Media Act, passed in 2024, was to make it easier to find content from PSBs like the BBC, ITV and Channel 4 on smart TVs. Ms Nicolotti Squires said Ofcom is now calling for 'a logical next step on video sharing platforms'. She added: 'It might require some further legislative changes to regulation. We're starting the conversation rather than finalising it all.' The report says that stable and adequate funding is needed from the Government and emphasises that discoverability on online platforms is particularly important for news and children's content. It also recommends that online platforms invest in media literacy skills while forging ambitious strategic partnerships that can compete with global streaming platforms. On top of this, Ofcom is launching a review of its regulation of broadcast TV and radio that will seek input from stakeholders about the priority areas for reforming regulation. Sarah Rose, president of Channel 5, said: 'We are pleased that Ofcom's review highlighted the challenges producing specialist children's content and called for commercially viable funding models among its recommendations. 'Channel 5's Milkshake! continues to navigate those challenges to remain the only public service broadcaster offering a daily programming block which targets preschoolers with original content rooted in the UK's Early Years Foundation framework.' A spokesperson for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) said: 'We welcome Ofcom's Public Service Media Review and we will now consider its recommendations.'

Wimbledon expansion set to proceed after campaign group loses legal challenge
Wimbledon expansion set to proceed after campaign group loses legal challenge

The Independent

time24 minutes ago

  • The Independent

Wimbledon expansion set to proceed after campaign group loses legal challenge

Plans to almost triple the size of the Wimbledon site are set to proceed after a campaign group's legal challenge against the decision to approve the proposals was dismissed by a High Court judge. Save Wimbledon Park (SWP) took legal action against the Greater London Authority's (GLA) decision to grant planning permission last year. The proposals, submitted by the All England Club, would see the construction of 38 new tennis courts and an 8,000-seat stadium on the grounds of the former Wimbledon Park Golf Club, allowing it to host Wimbledon qualifiers on-site. Barristers for SWP told the High Court earlier this month that the decision to approve the plans was 'irrational' and should be quashed, as Wimbledon Park – a Grade II*-listed heritage site partly designed by Lancelot 'Capability' Brown – was covered by restrictions on how it could be used. The GLA and the All England Club defended the challenge, with the court told that the decision was a 'planning judgment properly exercised' and that the restrictions were not 'material'. In a ruling on Monday, Mr Justice Saini dismissed the challenge. He said: 'In short, the defendant's decision on the relevance of deliverability, applying to both the statutory trust and the restrictive covenants, was a planning judgment rationally exercised and having regard to appropriate and relevant factors.' Following the ruling, SWP said it has been 'advised that it should' seek to challenge the decision, and that it believed the GLA 'did make a significant legal error in the way it dealt with the special legal status of the park'. The proposals would see seven maintenance buildings, access points, and an area of parkland with permissive public access constructed, in addition to the courts and associated infrastructure. They would also include work on Wimbledon Lake. After Merton Council approved the plans, but Wandsworth Council rejected them, the Mayor of London's office took charge of the application but Mayor Sir Sadiq Khan recused himself from the process after previously expressing public support for the development. Planning permission for the scheme was granted by Jules Pipe, London's deputy mayor for planning, who said that the proposals 'would facilitate very significant benefits' which 'clearly outweigh the harm'. Debbie Jevans, chair of the All England Club, said at the time that the proposals would deliver 27 acres of 'newly accessible parkland for the community'. In written submissions, Sasha White KC said that the All England Club acquired the freehold for the golf course in 1993 and the leasehold in 2021. The barrister told the two-day hearing in London that the land was subject to a 'statutory trust requiring it to be kept available for public recreation use' and that when the freehold was acquired, the club entered into 'restrictive covenants' governing its use. He said this meant any plans could not 'restrict its use so as not to impair the appreciation of the general public of the extent or openness of the golf course land'. He continued that separate High Court proceedings were ongoing over whether a statutory trust existed, and that if it does, the All England Club has 'accepted' that this is 'incompatible with the development of the proposal'. A hearing in that case is due to take place in January 2026. In court, he said: 'You could not have a more protected piece of land within the planning system, frankly.' Mark Westmoreland Smith KC, for the GLA, said in written submissions that Mr Pipe received 'detailed advice' over the 'relevance' of the 'alleged' trust and covenants, and made his decision on the assumption that they existed. The barrister said that the decision was a 'planning judgment properly exercised and having regard to the appropriate and relevant factors'. He said that planning officers 'advised that the alleged obstacle' that the restrictions would present 'was not itself a material consideration'. In his written arguments, Russell Harris KC, for the All England Club, said that planning officers 'acknowledged and had regard to' the trust and covenants. In his 31-page ruling, Mr Justice Saini said that the authority 'properly considered the implications of the development on public open space'. Christopher Coombe, director of SWP, said following the judgment: 'This judgment would, if it stands, set a worrying precedent for the unwanted development of protected green belt and public open spaces around London and across the country. 'The (All England Club) will surely have noted the considerable public outrage about this development, most recently expressed outside the law courts, and we continue to hope that they could be persuaded to engage constructively with us, with a view to achieving a resolution of this four-year-old dispute.' Sir Sadiq said: 'This is welcome news that will cement Wimbledon's reputation as the greatest tennis competition in the world and London as the sporting capital of the world. 'This scheme will bring a significant range of economic, social, cultural and environmental benefits to the local area, the wider capital and the UK economy, creating new jobs and green spaces.' Ms Jevans said in a statement that the All England Club was 'delighted' with the ruling. She said: 'It is clear that we have a robust planning permission that enables us to create a permanent home for the Wimbledon qualifying competition as well as delivering 27 acres of beautiful new parkland for local people, providing public access to land that has been a private golf course for over 100 years. 'We have spoken to more than 10,000 people who have taken the time to come in person and understand our plans in detail. 'The vast majority of people just want us to get on and deliver the many benefits on offer as soon as possible.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store