Doctors raise concerns over assisted dying Bill ahead of return to Parliament
In what will be seen by some as a blow for the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, the Royal College of Psychiatrists (RCPsych) said it cannot support the proposals in their current form, while separate research has highlighted division on the issue amongst family doctors in England.
The Bill, which relates to England and Wales, will come before MPs in the House of Commons on Friday for its report stage – where various further amendments will be debated and voted on.
It is not yet clear whether time will allow on the day for a third reading vote.
It will be the first time the Bill is back before the Commons since the historic yes vote in November.
The Bill's continued passage through Westminster comes as the Scottish Parliament backed the general principles for assisted dying in a vote on Tuesday.
Holyrood voted by 70 votes to 56 in favour of the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill.
On the Westminster Bill, the Royal College of Psychiatrists (RCPsych) has said it cannot support the proposed legislation in its current form, highlighting 'serious concerns'.
Conservative MP Danny Kruger, who is opposed to the Bill, said this was a 'very significant intervention from the Royal College of Psychiatrists'.
The college said it has 'unanswered questions' about the safeguarding of people with mental illness and warned of a shortage of consultant psychiatrists to meet the demands of the Bill.
Meanwhile, research by the BBC suggested varying views among GPs.
Of 1,000 doctors who responded to questions on assisted dying, 500 were opposed to legalisation while about 400 were in favour, the broadcaster said.
Professor Kamila Hawthorne, chair of the Royal College of GPs, told the BBC the results showed doctors had 'real concerns about the practical and legal implications of a change in the law on assisted dying', which she said 'must be acknowledged and addressed, so that any legislation is watertight'.
The Bill was amended during committee stage earlier this year, including the High Court element being scrapped in favour of multidisciplinary panels featuring a social worker, senior legal figure and psychiatrist.
The RCPsych has said it is 'not clear what a psychiatrist's role on a multidisciplinary panel would be', and also demanded any new law 'must exclude the physical effects of mental disorder, such as anorexia or dementia, as the basis for eligibility'.
Dr Lade Smith, president of the RCPsych, said: 'It's integral to a psychiatrist's role to consider how people's unmet needs affect their desire to live. The Bill, as proposed, does not honour this role, or require other clinicians involved in the process to consider whether someone's decision to die might change with better support.
'We are urging MPs to look again at our concerns for this once-in-a-generation Bill and prevent inadequate assisted dying/assisted suicide proposals from becoming law.'
Dr Annabel Price, also from the RCPsych, said: 'The college has spent decades focused on preventing people from dying by suicide.
'A significant part of our engagement on this Bill to date has been to point out that people with terminal physical illnesses are more likely to have depression.
'Terminal illness is a risk factor for suicide, and unmet needs can make a person's life feel unbearable. But we know that if a person's situation is improved or their symptoms treated, then their wish to end their life sooner often changes.
'The Bill does not specify whether assisted dying/assisted suicide is a treatment option – an ambiguity that has major implications in law.'
Labour MP Simon Opher, who is also a GP and is supportive of the Bill, said the legislation has been amended to be even safer than it was.
He told the BBC Radio Four Today programme: 'I totally understand the criticisms around the Bill but I think that actually if you read the Bill it's incredibly safe now and it has a number of safeguards around capacity and coercion and indeed that's why we've involved psychiatrists for the very difficult cases around assessing mental capacity – which are very few but we need their expertise on that level.'
Asked whether he felt concerns raised by royal colleges might put MPs off voting in favour of the Bill, he said: 'GPs are split on this and I totally acknowledge that and I know many people who I deeply respect who are against it and many who are for it.
'But I think that actually talking to MPs, many of them haven't changed their views on this.
'There's about three or four I know that may vote in favour of the Bill because of the extra safeguards we've built into it.'
Meanwhile, Kim Leadbeater, the MP behind the Westminster Bill, praised the 'lengthy, constructive and compassionate debate' in the Scottish Parliament, saying they had 'listened to the voices of those with personal experience of those injustices and concluded that the status quo cannot be defended any longer'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
8 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
JONATHAN BROCKLEBANK: Trump's assessment resonates not just with me but with much of Scotland. Sturgeon really WAS terrible
The post on former First Minister Nicola Sturgeon 's Instagram account assumed a certain knowledge on the part of the reader. 'Feeling was mutual, Donnie,' it read. 'Forever proud to represent all the things that offend your view of the world.' The first assumption is that we know that 'Donnie' refers to the President of the United States Donald Trump and that the intention behind the use of the diminutive is to demean him. The second assumption is that we are au fait with President Trump's position on Ms Sturgeon. As he flew back to Washington on Air Force One on Tuesday, he let slip to reporters that, while he had 'a lot of respect' for John Swinney he thought 'the woman who preceded him' was 'terrible as First Minister of Scotland'. Mr Swinney was actually preceded by Humza Yousaf but we shouldn't quibble if he is not on the leader of the free world's radar. He is hardly on Scotland's either. There is one more key assumption of understanding in Ms Sturgeon's riposte to the President. To get her meaning, it must be understood that her words flow down to their readers like consecrated crystal streams from the moral uplands in which she dwells. She has always lived there atop the highest peak in the kingdom of the righteous and if we don't know this about her then her Instagram post could not possibly hit its mark. It would read like some bitter has-been sassing back to power. 'When they go low, we go high,' Ms Sturgeon, in her pomp, once told her party. She was quoting Michelle Obama. In the same speech she name-checked Nelson Mandela as she groped ludicrously for common ground between Scotland's struggle for 'freedom' and the oppression of South Africa's black population under apartheid. Virtue must reside in every Sturgeon utterance and that's a given. We cannot see the person without first seeing that. Unless of course it is Ms Sturgeon who cannot see herself. Her autobiography, Frankly, which is due out this month, may shed more light on the extent to which the former First Minister is self-aware. But the evidence of her political lifetime suggests to me the penny has still to drop and, indeed, may never do so: her high moral ground is a land of make believe. I hear what Mr Trump said about Ms Sturgeon and what she said in response and cannot manage to see past two not particularly pleasant people engaging in trash talk. If anything, I'm rather more offended by her remarks and those offered on her behalf. 'Trump's lack of respect for women is hardly news,' a source close to Ms Sturgeon sniped. Really? We're playing the misogyny card? Can it be conceived of that a male politician might find fault with a female one because of what she stands for or must the attack on all womankind come baked in? And to what extent, do you think, is Ms Sturgeon's intemperate response in keeping with the ethos of going high when your opponent goes low? The truth is when they go low, she gets down in the mud with them. Oftentimes she has dragged others down there with her. In her mind she is the polar opposite of Donald Trump – dissimilar in every respect imaginable. In my mind she is fooling herself and, rather less successfully, us. Fake news? The two are co-authors of that book. During their respective times in office, both have used social media to peddle myths. Remember when Scotland was 'dragged out of Europe against her will' and how broken up Brussels was about it? On the day of our parting, the EU Commission building was bathed in a light show featuring the words 'Scotland' and 'Europe' linked with a love heart. 'If you look carefully, you'll see that they do appear to have left a light on for us,' cooed Ms Sturgeon beneath the picture purporting to portray mutual devotion. Those of us who looked even more carefully found her party had paid an Edinburgh firm to project the message on to the building. It was a cheap SNP stunt, an attempt to skew voters' perception of reality through a lie. It is what happens to politicians so confident in the indisputability of their position that they no longer care to be confused by anything as frivolous as the facts. You think Mr Trump surrounds himself with stooges and sycophants drunk on his Kool-Aid? Ms Sturgeon beat him to the punch. And I'm not just talking about her cabinet. More than two years after she left office, you cannot get moving in the public sector for the cult of Nicola – prissy, sanctimonious, overweeningly woke finger-waggers whose starting position in any conversation is the unshakeable conviction that they represent the enlightenment. I've had issues in the past with Mr Trump's inappropriate use of language. Certainly, he calls things as he sees them. So does Ms Sturgeon. As First Minister she was happy to go on record as someone who detests the Tories. That is a whopping great chunk of society to hate. Most of us down here in the glens she overlooks from Mount Righteous seem to muddle through our lives showing civility, even affection, towards those we disagree with on politics. My life would be poorer without the Nationalists I know and love in it. And another thing about the US commander in chief – his unfortunate habit of dismissing awkward questions by attacking the reporter or the news organisation asking them. Ms Sturgeon, surely, can claw back a few points on the moral scoreboard there. You think? During the pandemic I lost count of the number of times Ms Sturgeon ruled on the 'legitimacy' of questions rather than answering them. Was it my imagination or did they become less legitimate as they became more probing? I recall a thoroughly unpleasant response to our own political editor Michael Blackley who wanted to know whether self-isolation requirements for hospitality staff could be reduced to ease pressure on the industry. 'Yeah, that would really help …' snapped the First Minister. 'I don't know if you have listened to a word I have said, Michael.' A barb followed about the intelligence of the newspaper he writes for. It took 19 days before Ms Sturgeon cut the self-isolation requirements our journalist was asking about. I've made no secret of the fact Mr Trump was never my cup of tea. But his frank assessment of our longest serving First Minister resonates not just with me but with much of Scotland. She really was terrible. It is a blessed relief she's on the festival circuit now. And while she may wear his antipathy towards her as a badge of honour, the baleful truth which she will never accept is that she and he are not so very different. He went low and she went low. That is fact, not politics.
Telegraph
8 minutes ago
- Telegraph
What is ‘an authentically conservative position'?
Kemi Badenoch has written to Conservative MPs urging them to 'take an authentically conservative position'. Which is what precisely? Answering the question demands some political context. The Tory governments of the last 15 years had some medium-size successes: Universal Credit, English schools reform, pensions simplification. But the failures were bigger: economic stagnation and uncontrolled immigration – exacerbated by the biggest conflict between two European countries since the Second World War, and the most fatal pandemic since the First. There is a justified sense that the Conservatives, who have exhausted five leaders in under ten years, lost their political compass in government – hence the rise of Reform. Badenoch is scrabbling to recover ground she is losing. What does it look like? National conservatives, libertarians, Thatcher nostalgics, authoritarians, One Nationers, populists – all claim to represent real conservatism. There are no tablets of stone, with a definition carved into them, to give an incontestable verdict. But over time, conservatism has tended to stress three indispensables. First, it's anti-utopian. It says that history shows attempts to build heaven on earth, based on race or class supremacy – Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia – end instead in hell: in holocausts, the slaughter of innocents, Holodomor and injustices worse than they replace. Second, it's local – or, rather, national. A French conservative is likely to be republican, interventionist and have a high view of the state's role. A British one will be monarchist, tend to prefer markets to planning and be increasingly suspicious of two-tier state power. The two may well find each other strangers. That said, there is rough agreement internationally on two fundamentals: social order and economic freedom, and that the two are self-reinforcing. Third – and most controversially, given our times – conservatism in Britain is bound up with institutions: monarchy, Parliament, rule of law, limited government, a free media. If they go wrong, revolutionaries try to smash them. Conservatives work instead to reform them, because institutions are a kind of collective, embodied memory. And without memory, you can't learn. Indeed, you have no identity. So far, so obvious. But how does that world-view translate into policy? I wrestled with the question in a recent essay for Policy Exchange – the Future of the Right – and found quickly that the old conservative classics are the best: boosting enterprise, particularly small business. Controlling immigration. Helping families, which the state treats as a cash cow. Boosting our defence and security in a dangerous world. Getting value for money from our public services. (Plainly, the NHS can't carry on as it is.) This is all very well. But – in a country with an ageing population, low growth, broken border control, balkanised cities and civil discontent – it sounds, and perhaps is, abstracted. Many conservatives are giving up on not just the Conservatives but politics. To opt for Reform is, above all, a cry of protest – and rage. If the question 50 years ago, when Margaret Thatcher led the Opposition, was what – what should conservatives do in government? – the question now is how: how can a government of the Right, however constituted, fulfil a conservative, democratic mandate amidst a broken, social democratic state? How would a Prime Minister Badenoch – or Nigel Farage, for that matter – respond to activist judges, bust procurement, politicised civil servants, mass strikes, Islamist demands for blasphemy laws, out-of-date agreements like the Refugee Convention, lawfare? Some conservatives have given up altogether, retreating to Substack and declaring the Blob unbeatable. It isn't. The body responsible for righting these wrongs is Parliament. Under the terms of our constitution, it makes the law, and all must ultimately bend to its will – judges, securocrats and mandarins alike – because it represents the people. But Parliament in general, and the Commons in particular, is in a very bad way. The latter has three main functions. To debate, consider legislation and provide ministers. It does none of them well. Debate is curtailed. Legislation is poorly drafted and scrutinised. Ministers are all too often not up to the job. Why? The shorthand answer is that the political parties are, increasingly, selecting parliamentary candidates for other purposes. The voter-driven fashion is to select energetic campaigners who will be committed constituency champions. That's great for individual seats. But not for the country as a whole – because sparky local campaigners don't always make efficient ministers or diligent legislators. Fifty years ago, the plan called Stepping Stones helped to pave the way for the Thatcher governments' programme of trade union reform. A Badenoch or Farage administration needs a modernised equivalent – a strategy not so much for what a conservative government would deliver but how it would deliver it. The signs are that the Conservative leader understands this. Hence the leadership campaign document to which she contributed a foreword – Rise of the Bureaucratic Class. Part of the answer to speeding its fall may lie in her own hands. 'I had rather have a plain russet-coated captain that knows what he fights for, and loves what he knows, than that which you call a gentleman and is nothing else,' Oliver Cromwell once wrote. The key to finding effective MPs is less technical ability than belief. They need stars to navigate by – enterprise, a smaller state, border control, defence, and understanding the difference between Islam, a great religion, and Islamism, a politicised and extreme ideology. Badenoch, and Farage for that matter, need the equivalents of Cromwell's captains in the Commons. As the Conservatives select candidates for the next election, the means of improving Parliament lies partly in her hands.
Daily Mail
8 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Anger as SNP backs biggest wind farm on the planet just days after Trump condemned turbines
The 'largest' offshore windfarm in the world could be built in Scotland after the SNP Government granted planning permission. Ministers confirmed that the giant Berwick Bank project off the south east coast of Scotland - which will contain up to 307 turbines - has been given the go-ahead. Developers SSE Renewables, claim that, if it is fully delivered, then it 'would become the world's largest offshore wind farm '. Conservation groups raised concerns about the danger that the development will kill tens of thousands of puffins, kittiewakes and gannets, including globally important colonies at Bass Rock. It comes just days after Donald Trump attacked the spread of 'windmills' during his visit to Scotland, saying they were 'ruining' countries in Europe. Berwick Bank - proposed to be built 23 miles off the coast of St Abbs - aims to deliver 4.1 gigawatts (GW) of capacity, which is believed to be enough to power every home in Scotland twice over and around 17 per cent of the homes in the UK. The development will feature up to 307 turbines and have two connection points to the grid - one in Dunbar, East Lothian, and another in Blyth, Northumberland. But the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and partner conservation groups condemned the decision to approve the development. Anne McCall, director of RSPB Scotland, said: 'This is a very dark day for seabirds. It is a terrible decision on a really bad development. 'Berwick Bank would be catastrophic for Scotland's globally important seabirds which are already facing alarming declines. In addition, its impacts are so damaging they will make the relative impacts of other windfarms significantly higher. 'This one wind farm is going to make it really challenging to accelerate renewable projects across Scottish seas. We are incredibly concerned that Scottish Government have granted consent for a project which could catapult some of Scotland's most-loved seabird species towards extinction.' The National Trust for Scotland said the news was 'deeply disappointing', fearing there will be 'significant harm' caused to seabird colonies at the nearby St Abb's Head National Nature Reserve. A spokesperson said: 'At the National Trust for Scotland we are supportive of the drive towards renewable energy, but not at the expense of the very nature and habitats this effort is supposed to help save in the face of climate change.' The Scottish Government highlighted that the consent is subject to SSE Renewables producing a detailed sea bird compensation plan outlining how adverse impacts on seabirds will be compensated for. Stephen Wheeler, the managing director of SSE Renewables, said news of the approval is 'hugely welcome'. He added: 'At over 4GW of potential capacity, Berwick Bank can play a pivotal role in meeting the mission of Clean Power 2030 for the UK and achieving Scotland's decarbonisation and climate action goals. 'Berwick Bank has the potential to rapidly scale up Scotland's operational renewable energy capacity and can accelerate the delivery of homegrown, affordable and secure clean energy to UK consumers from Scottish offshore wind, helping meet the UK's clean power ambition by 2030.' The approval comes after the SNP Government unveiled a new target of having up to 40GW of offshore wind capacity by 2040, which is a significant ramping up from the existing target of 8-11GW by 2030. Based on current average operating capacities it would mean an increase from around 1,000 turbines in five years' time to 5,000 within 15 years. Scottish Conservative net zero and energy spokesman Douglas Lumsden said: 'Wind power is an important part of our energy mix, but it is not on its own enough to provide affordable power and energy security. 'Scotland will only prosper with a realistic energy policy that draws on nuclear, oil and gas and renewables - and only the Scottish Conservatives are committed to that. 'The hostility of both the SNP and Labour governments to North Sea oil and gas is costing an estimated 400 jobs a fortnight and increasing our reliance on imported fossil fuels. 'If they care about Scotland's interests, these two left-wing parties should ditch their opposition to our existing energy sector, embrace a mix of solutions and heed Kemi Badenoch's call to ditch the energy price levy.' Deputy First Minister Kate Forbes said: 'Ministers have given the Berwick Bank wind farm application extremely careful consideration. 'The decision to grant consent to Berwick Bank is a major step in Scotland's progress towards achieving net zero and tackling the climate crisis, as well as supporting national energy security and growing our green economy. 'It is also an important decision for Scotland's renewables sector, and this investment will be further built upon through the delivery of Scotland's significant future pipeline of offshore wind projects under the ScotWind and the Innovation and Targeted Oil and Gas (INTOG) leasing rounds. 'We will continue to work closely with the developer and key stakeholders, including those working in fishing and conservation - to minimise the impact of the development on the marine environment and other marine users - and balance the needs of people and nature.' Asked yesterday if the Scottish Government waited until Mr Trump left the country before announcing consent for the scheme, First Minister John Swinney said: 'No. We had to wait for the various considerations to be given to the application at Berwick Bank.'
