logo
UK lawmakers approve assisted-dying law

UK lawmakers approve assisted-dying law

Boston Globe20-06-2025

Advertisement
'I do not underestimate the significance of this day,' Kim Leadbeater, a Labour Party lawmaker and main champion of the bill, said Friday as she opened the debate. 'This is not a choice for living and dying. It is a choice for terminally ill people about how they die.'
While assisted dying is illegal in most countries, a growing number of nations and jurisdictions have adopted legislation or are considering it. In England and Wales, assisting a death remains illegal and punishable by up to 14 years in prison.
A poll published this week found that 73 percent of Britons backed the assisted-dying bill.
While lawmakers voted in favor of the bill in November, at an earlier stage in the legislative process, uncertainty lingered ahead of Friday's vote. Hundreds of demonstrators on both sides gathered outside Parliament. Some carried placards that read, 'Let Us Choose.' Others held signs saying, 'Don't make doctors killers.'
Advertisement
Many of those who spoke during the debate shared personal stories.
Mark Garnier, a Conservative Party politician, spoke about witnessing the dying days of his mother, who had pancreatic cancer and endured a 'huge amount of pain.' Garnier compared her ordeal to that of a constituent who also had pancreatic cancer but went through a state-provided assisted-dying program in Spain that made her 'suffering much less.'
Josh Babarinde, a Liberal Democrat, read out a letter from a constituent traumatized by the death of her partner, who struggled to breathe, was incontinent, and repeatedly asked for her help to end his life. He then 'stuffed yards of his top sheet into his mouth' in an attempt to die,' Babarinde said, adding: 'This could have been avoided with an assisted-dying' law.
Support for the measure ebbed in recent months, with a handful of politicians saying that they were going to switch their vote due to concerns about inadequate safeguards or insufficient end-of-life care.
Steve Darling, a Liberal Democrat, told The Washington Post that while he was 'sympathetic' to the bill, he had changed his view because of 'inadequate' palliative care funding, which in Britain depends heavily on charitable donations. 'People might think, 'I could bite the bullet and get out of this situation because I'm not receiving a service that gives me a decent quality of life toward the end,'' Darling said.
Others who said they agreed with the principle of letting people choose to die but could not back the bill included Labour member Vicky Foxcroft, who cited her work with disabled people. 'They want us as parliamentarians to assist them to live, not to die,' Foxcroft told Parliament.
Advertisement
The issue remains divisive even within parties. Health Secretary Wes Streeting and Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood, whose departments will each be impacted if the change becomes law, both opposed the bill. Prime Minister Keir Starmer made it clear that he supports the measure, citing his experience as the country's former chief prosecutor.
Over the past two decades, more than 3,900 Britons have ended their lives with the Switzerland-based organization Dignitas. A few people who helped them were investigated or arrested.
The vote Friday was a free vote, meaning that lawmakers could decide based on their own conscience rather than along party lines. It was the second time this week that Parliament held a free vote, which is often allowed on issues of ethics or conscience. Earlier this week, lawmakers voted in favor of decriminalizing abortion in England and Wales.
One major revision to the bill in recent months was to eliminate the need for approval from a high court judge. No other country or jurisdiction with legalized assisted dying has that kind of stringent judicial oversight, and it was initially sold to some wavering lawmakers as a reason to back the bill.
That requirement was dropped in favor of a three-person expert panel — a lawyer, social worker, and psychiatrist — that will oversee applications. Leadbeater said this would make the bill stronger, as members of the panel would have more relevant expertise and would be better able to spot red flags. Spain uses a similar kind of expert panel.
Some professional bodies, such as the Royal College of Psychiatrists, remain neutral on the principle of assisted dying but opposed the legislation as written. Their concerns included the shortage of qualified staff for the expert panels.
Advertisement
The government's own 'impact assessment' found that the law could lead to 7,500 requests a year within a decade.
Some campaigners had hoped for greater eligibility, to include patients experiencing unbearable suffering with no prospect of improvement, or allowing a doctor to administer a lethal cocktail of drugs.
This bill allows assisted dying only for terminally ill patients who can administer the medication themselves.
Speaking in Parliament, Peter Prinsley, a Labour lawmaker, said that 'as a young doctor, I found the measures that we're debating today completely unconscionable.' However, he added, 'now that I'm an old doctor, I feel sure this is an essential change.'
'We are not dealing with life or death, rather death or death,' Prinsley said. 'And fundamental to that is surely choice. Who are we to deny that to the dying?'

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Palestine Action to legally challenge proscription under anti-terror law
Palestine Action to legally challenge proscription under anti-terror law

Yahoo

time3 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Palestine Action to legally challenge proscription under anti-terror law

Campaign group Palestine Action is seeking a legal challenge against the Government's bid to proscribe the group under anti-terror laws. An urgent hearing was held in the High Court on Monday related to an application for judicial review on behalf of one of the founders of the direct action group, Huda Ammori. A further hearing will be held on Friday to decide whether the Government can temporarily be blocked from banning the group, pending a hearing to decide whether Palestine Action can bring the legal challenge. A decision on whether the group will be given the green light to bring the legal challenge will be given at a further hearing expected to be held in the week of July 21. Supporting statements have also been submitted by Amnesty International, Liberty and European Legal Support Centre over concerns of unlawful misuse of anti-terror measures to criminalise dissent, a spokesperson said. It comes as the Home Secretary is expected to publish a written statement to lay the order to make membership and support for the direct action group illegal. If approved, it would become a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison. Commenting on the hearing, Ms Ammori said: 'I have been left with no choice but to request this urgent hearing and to seek either an injunction or other form of interim relief because of the Home Secretary's decision to try to steamroll this through Parliament immediately, without proper opportunity for MPs and Peers to debate and scrutinise the proposal, or for legal and human rights experts and civil society organisations to make representations, or for those of us who would be denied fundamental rights as a result and criminalised as 'terrorists' overnight, including the many thousands of people who support Palestine Action.' The Government's move comes after two planes were vandalised at RAF Brize Norton on June 20 in an action claimed by Palestine Action. Five people have since been arrested on suspicion of a terror offence in relation to the incident. Unveiling the intention to ban the group following the incident on June 23, Ms Cooper said it was the latest in a 'long history of unacceptable criminal damage committed by Palestine Action'.

A Year After ‘Loveless Landslide,' U.K. Leader Is Even Less Popular
A Year After ‘Loveless Landslide,' U.K. Leader Is Even Less Popular

New York Times

time3 hours ago

  • New York Times

A Year After ‘Loveless Landslide,' U.K. Leader Is Even Less Popular

A year ago this week, Prime Minister Keir Starmer of Britain swept into 10 Downing Street with a landslide majority of 172 seats. As his first anniversary approached, more than 120 of those Labour Party members of Parliament threatened to vote down their leader's signature welfare legislation. It has been that kind of year for Mr. Starmer. Though he made hasty concessions last week to keep the bill on track, the mutiny makes clear what a reversal of fortune the prime minister has suffered. Stung by political missteps, sapped by a weak economy, and distracted by foreign crises that have put a heavy strain on public finances, Mr. Starmer's government has yet to get off the ground. Labour now consistently trails Reform U.K., an insurgent, anti-immigrant party, in the polls. While he is under no immediate threat to his leadership, and the next election is not expected until 2029, Mr. Starmer's personal approval rating has collapsed, even among Labour voters. There is no shortage of people with ideas about how Mr. Starmer can turn things around, from sharper messaging to savvier management of his M.P.'s. But some are coalescing around a deceptively simple argument: his cautious, workmanlike centrist government needs to pivot to the left. 'They have to do something,' said Stanley B. Greenberg, a prominent American pollster and Democratic strategist who advised Bill Clinton, as well as Tony Blair and a host of other politicians in Britain and the United States. 'I see them only stagnating or losing ground with their current vision.' Mr. Greenberg, who is not advising this government, commissioned a poll of 2,048 adults in Britain earlier this month by YouGov Blue, a market-research firm that works with Democratic candidates in the United States. He said the results showed that Labour's best chance to repair its position was to attract voters from the left-of-center Liberal Democrat and Green parties. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.

Discussing possible punishments for welfare rebels ‘not constructive'
Discussing possible punishments for welfare rebels ‘not constructive'

Yahoo

time4 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Discussing possible punishments for welfare rebels ‘not constructive'

It is not 'constructive' to discuss any punishments that could await for Labour MPs who rebel over welfare reforms, a minister has said, as the Government looks to shore up support. Ministers are set to lay out the concessions they will make on Monday, in the hope that the climbdown will be enough to secure backbench votes this week. Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall announced last week that changes to the personal independence payment will only apply to new claimants from November 2026, and ministers also rowed back on plans to cut the health-related element of Universal Credit after 126 Labour MPs signed an amendment that would have effectively killed the Government's Bill. Although the changes are expected to get some of those rebels on board, there are still threats of revolt. Baroness Jacqui Smith – who served as a chief whip under Sir Tony Blair – was asked on Sky News what the consequences should be for Labour MPs who vote against the Government on the matter. She said: 'I don't think talking about punishments, even as a former chief whip, is the constructive way forward here.' Baroness Smith later added: 'It's always the case in legislation that you introduce the Bill, you have a second reading on the principles, and then you think about the detail as you take that through all of its stages in Parliament. I'm sure that that will continue to happen.' Asked on Times Radio whether rebels will have the whip removed, education minister Baroness Smith said that it is important to 'keep talking' to MPs. The legislation is due to be voted on on Tuesday at its second reading, and the Government will amend the Bill at the Commons committee stage to put the changes in place. The original plans restricted eligibility for the personal independence payment (Pip) and cut the health-related element of universal credit. "I draw on the substantial evidence, the voices of those impacted and my conscience which determines that I cannot cross by on the other side and have no choice but to vote against the UC & PIP Bill."My full statement in comments👇#York #PIP #Welfare — 💙Rachael Maskell MP (@RachaelMaskell) June 29, 2025 The changes to Pip will now only apply to new claims from November 2026. Plans to cut the health-related element of universal credit have also been altered, with all existing recipients to have their incomes protected in real terms. Details of a review of the Pip assessment, to be led by disabilities minister Sir Stephen Timms and 'co-produced' with disabled people, will also be published. The original amendment signed by 120-plus backbenchers is expected to be withdrawn after some MPs were appeased by last week's announcement. However, a new one is expected to be tabled by rebels on Monday. Labour MP Rachael Maskell said she would sign the new amendment aiming to stop the Bill, saying it was not clear how the promised concessions would be brought in. 'There's no confidence … we're being asked to sign a blank cheque even with these changes,' she told the PA news agency. Vicky Foxcroft, who quit as a Labour whip over the reforms, told The Guardian there were 'areas where I still think there's need for movement' and that she had not decided how to vote. Olivia Blake, a Labour MP with a disclosed disability, told the paper the changes could create 'an unethical two-tier system that treats two people with the exact same injury or illness differently'. Clive Efford, the MP for Eltham and Chislehurst, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that he will still not support the Government's measures. 'There are choices that the Government can make here; there are other places it can go to identify the resources. What we want to see, and fully support, is measures the Government is putting in the palace to assist people to move into work, the right to try, we support, but we can't guarantee the savings,' he said. 'When you're asking for £3.5 billion regardless of the impact of those changes, that can only adversely affect people who are in the benefit system.'

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