Senedd to decide if Welsh NHS provides assisted dying service
Conservative Senedd member Tom Giffard said it is "essential" the Senedd has a meaningful say.The law, which legalises assisted dying for people with a terminal illness, applies to Wales and England, but has raised constitutional questions because of the way it is written.As well as legalising assisted death in both countries, it covers how such a system would work - getting into areas of law about healthcare normally governed by the Welsh Parliament.As a result, there has been a debate about how much control the Senedd should have.Last October, the Senedd voted against a motion calling for a law to allow assisted dying, albeit with a number of abstentions.It is expected that there will be at least one vote in the Senedd on the matter - the first on whether it agrees to the legislation applying in areas controlled by the Senedd, expected in the autumn.The vote would not be legally binding, but would show the desire for whether the Welsh Parliament thinks the law should apply in areas it controls. Another vote would likely be needed if the Welsh government wanted to operate an assisted dying service, but it may not choose to bring one if the Senedd is against the policy.
An earlier idea in the bill was for the Senedd to have a veto over all the important parts of the law - allowing MSs to decide when it comes into force.But last week MPs decided to take that out.On Wednesday, James - who is the welsh government's most senior legal adviser and a MS herself - said the power was removed to avoid giving Welsh ministers powers that were outside the Senedd's control.That is because the Government of Wales act specifically prohibits the Senedd from amending the law on suicide.But she added: "The bill still contains the key provisions that mean that the NHS or any public body in Wales will not be able to provide voluntary assisted dying services until regulations have been laid by ministers and there has been an affirmative vote in the Senedd to that effect."Giffard said it was "regrettable" the "veto" power had been removed.He told BBC Wales: "While the bill has passed through Westminster, it's important to remember that the Senedd did not support it when it was last debated."A decision of such gravity must not be imposed on Wales without the explicit consent of its elected representatives."
James indicated that the Welsh government would remain neutral on the bill.All three Senedd parties had a free vote the last time the matter came to the Senedd.A three person panel will decide individual patient requests for assisted dying.Mabon ap Gwynfor, of Plaid Cymru, told the Senedd that as things stand there "won't necessarily be an ability for all members of that panel to operate through the medium of Welsh".He said patients will have to request the use of the language from any assisted dying service, "without it being a natural choice which is offered".James said Health Secretary Jeremy Miles have been in "constant contact" with Kim Leadbeater - the MP who has proposed the legislation - "and those matters have included Welsh language considerations".
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
4 minutes ago
- Telegraph
I was CO of the SAS. Here are four words our Special Forces need to hear from the PM
With war in Europe and new threats to this country around every corner, from autocratic tyrants like Putin, jihadists and deranged activists, we should be supporting and encouraging those who keep us safe not seeking new legal ways to artificially transform their past acts of military necessity into alleged human rights violations. The US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth spoke recently at the US Special Operations Forces (SOF) week outlining his nation's rock-solid support and admiration for those conducting complex counter-terrorist operations alongside their many allies, including the UK. For emphasis, and in recognition of the new threat of state-sponsored 'lawfare' against these guardians of our collective security, he passed on a personal note to their commander from President Trump which simply stated: 'I have your back'. This is exactly the unequivocal message our protectors need to hear as they advance towards a suspected suicide-capable terrorist hiding within a civilian population, without the blessing of perfect intelligence, time and resources. Contrast this to the way that our own leaders – political and military – stand silent as our own Special Forces are pursued by a toxic combination of creative journalists and lawyers, each keen to prove that historical state-directed operations in Northern Ireland, Iraq and Afghanistan were done in ways that should now be presented to the Crown Prosecution Service. This in many cases not due to any new evidence, incidentally – that would be reasonable – but simply because of a crafty interpretation of international laws created far from our sovereign legislature and sponsored by those that have no respect for either the realities of close quarter combat, or our need to defend ourselves. To the general dismay of potential volunteers to our armed forces and of our American allies, our public or parliamentary debate seems to dismiss the blood-stained experience of veterans as unreasonable or even fanciful. Self-effacing descriptions of the realities of combat are dismissed as mere cartoon stories and trumped by the creative opinions of human rights lawyers who seem to value the lives of our enemies ahead of those of our soldiers sent to defeat them. Energetic, combative and very well paid, these legal professionals demonstrate great skill at retrospectively transforming descriptions of close quarter combat into revisionist suggestions of human rights violations and even war crimes. No wonder recruiting numbers are falling or that our soldiers start to hesitate, fearing the long-term legal consequences of taking decisive action in a combat situation. To the many practitioners within the vital transatlantic counter-terrorism alliance it appears that the UK's application of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) to the British way of war is starting to critically restrict its ability to stop terrorists and other bad actors from attacking our citizens or those of our allies. Can these staunch allies of ours still rely on the UK to deal with these common threats or are we becoming that type of fearful partner that simply prefers others to do the dirty work? To them, have we become nothing but a soft, compromised underbelly to be watched rather than the respected, self-sufficient bastion of old; a vulnerability rather than a strongpoint? Have we become a risky partner in sensitive operations, whose participation in joint operations carries the risk of inviting follow-on lawfare back into the courtrooms of our allies, even the USA? Such are the whispered and worried questions being asked in the global targeting rooms when considering UK potential contributions to today's fight. In the confusing and murky world of counter-terrorism where threats fade in and out of view in an instant, hesitation always leads to failure and death. This is a brutal reality known to both enemies and allies alike; exploited by the former, feared by the latter. There are never any second chances, and this is no place for unreliable, indecisive or gun-shy allies. Recognising this, let us hope that our own national leaders can offer the same reassuring support to our forces as shown by the US President in that simple but powerful promise to his team: 'I have your back'. For without it, they risk allowing the effect of this escalating lawfare to weaken the hand and confidence of our very special guardians just when we need them the most.
The Guardian
6 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Beware the blizzard of lies: US advice on how to handle Farage's Trump tactics
Truth, the progressive California politician Hiram Johnson once said, is the first casualty of war. Johnson's oft-cited remark was supposedly made in 1918 in reference to the first world war, which had by then caused millions of human casualties. More than a century later, truth is once again caught in the crossfire, this time as a casualty of 21st-century culture wars. If Donald Trump is the high priest of disinformation, then Nigel Farage, the leader of Reform, is showing signs of being a willing disciple, if his behaviour in the UK this week is anything to go by. Farage has proposed sending prisoners abroad – including to El Salvador, where the Trump administration has sent hundreds of deportees and suggested sending US citizens. He also suggested an extensive police recruitment drive and prison-building programme all while cutting health and education spending. In the US, the parroting of Trump's policies by a UK populist has not gone unnoticed. And for those who have studied the president's modus operandi – there is one particular tactic the British public should be braced for: the blizzard of lies and false statements that frequently overwhelms his opponents. The Trump experience, they say, contains sobering lessons for critics of Farage. US pro-democracy campaigners warn that Trump has become even harder to factcheck since his first term, thanks to a combination of factors including looser social media content moderation and a reluctance among some media owners to stand up to his intimidation tactics. The Washington Post, which tracked more than 30,000 lies or misleading statements from Trump during his presidency, lost subscribers and public trust after its billionaire owner, Jeff Bezos, reportedly vetoed an editorial endorsing the Democratic nominee Kamala Harris for president. 'It's become more difficult because there's less commitment from those who are in the best position to do the factchecking,' said Omar Noureldin, a senior vice-president for Common Cause, a non-partisan group. 'Seeking the truth here comes with costs and risks.' Complicating matters is the loss of trust in institutions, with many consumers relying on social media platforms for news. 'Even the best factchecking can be unpersuasive, because we're not just facing an information crisis here, but also a trust crisis in the American information ecosystem,' Noureldin said. Media watchers say the political environment has become so deeply polarised that factchecking can even have the counter-productive effect of further entrenching misplaced beliefs. 'From a lot of research, we're reaching the conclusion that factchecking hasn't been as effective as one would want,' said Julie Millican, the vice-president of Media Matters for America, a media watchdog. 'One reason is that information and disinformation spreads faster than you can check it. It takes a lot longer to factcheck something than it does for it go viral. 'But the other thing is factchecking can backfire. People so distrust institutions that factchecking can validate the misinformation in their minds and make them more inclined to believe the lie they believed in the first place.' A 2022 report from Protect Democracy suggested this was the result of a deliberate strategy of authoritarian regimes. 'Disinformation is spread through coordinated networks, channels and ecosystems, including politically aligned or state-owned media,' the report said. 'The goal is not always to sell a lie, but instead to undermine the notion that anything in particular is true.' Further compounding the problem in the US has been Trump's appointments of allies to key government agencies that have traditionally served as sources of accurate and reliable data for factcheckers. A case in point is Robert F Kennedy Jr, who has engaged in anti-vaccine theories, Trump's pick for health and human services secretary, putting him in charge of the country's vast health bureaucracy. Sign up to First Edition Our morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters after newsletter promotion 'Factchecking wasn't working very well in the first place, but now you can't even get access to the facts that you need be able to factcheck as well as you used to,' said Millican. The outlook seems bleak. Yet that does not make the problems insurmountable, campaigners insist. One answer is to invest in independent, non-partisan research. A prime purpose would be to increase media literacy among young people, who primarily get news from platforms such as TikTok which can be subject to disinformation tools such as AI-manipulated videos. The aim is to teach consumers how to spot doctored footage. 'Media literacy is extremely important and something that should be invested in and taught at a young age,' said Millican. Another solution is the development of 'pre-buttal' strategies to inoculate the public against disinformation, in effect getting the truth out first. Media Matters for America and Common Cause used this approach during last year's presidential election, partly by producing videos designed to counter anticipated false narratives surrounding voting procedures in certain areas. Also important, said Shalini Agarwal, special counsel at Protect Democracy, is calling out the demonisation of vulnerable groups, such as immigrants, as soon as it happens. A crucial role is played by media, even as Trump intensifies his assault on journalists as 'fake news' and tries to exclude certain established outlets from press briefings. 'It's really important when there are opportunities for one-on-one briefings and there are multiple reporters,' Agarwal said. 'Part of it is a sense of collective action. Often, whoever is speaking at the podium won't give a straightforward answer or gives a false answer and then tries to move on – it's incumbent when that happens for other reporters to jump in and say: 'Wait. What about what the other reporter asked?'' Millican has two pieces of advice for Britain and other European countries hoping to arm themselves against any coming authoritarian onslaught: fortify the media and preserve legislation designed to combat disinformation and illegal content online – represented by the online safety act in Britain and the digital safety act in the EU. 'The first thing that's going to happen in these authoritarian takeovers is they're going to try to silence and take over the media and information landscape,' she said. 'Any efforts to rein in hate speech or misinformation on platforms will be seen as tantamount to suppression of conservative thought or free speech. 'I can't stress enough trying to buffer the pollution of your information ecosystem as much as possible. One of the first things that they're going to do is just take down any barriers they can.'
Daily Mail
36 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Anne Nolan, 74, admits she has 'anxiety about dying' after her breast cancer battle as she gives health update: 'I don't want to die, I love being here'
Anne Nolan has admitted she has 'anxiety about dying' as she discussed her battle with breast cancer. The Irish singer, 74, was first diagnosed with cancer in 2000 and then two decades later revealed she had been diagnosed with stage three breast cancer. Cancer has significantly affected the Nolan family after they lost Bernie in 2013 and Linda in January of this year, while Coleen and Brian have both battled the disease. Giving an update on her health, Anne revealed she is officially cancer-free and is feeling 'really well' but told how the disease still has a massive impact on her life. Anne said she still struggles with health anxiety and is always fearful about her cancer returning as she discussed the emotional toll it has on her. 'When you have cancer, it's one of those things that you kind of live with it for the rest of your life,' she told The Mirror. 'You could kind of get a little bruise or a lump somewhere and you think, ''Oh my god, is that cancer?'' It can always come back.' Anne was diagnosed with breast cancer during Covid and was put on anti-anxiety medication because of how the 'horrendous' time - when she had to be hospitalised alone due to social distancing restrictions - affected her. 'I still have anxiety but it's not as bad, I have anxieties about dying, it is about the cancer coming back as well,' she admitted. 'I don't want to die, I love being alive, I love being here.' Five years on from her 2020 cancer battle and Anne received a letter with her latest test results, but she pushed the letter to one side after being consumed by fear. She said she didn't know how she would 'handle' any bad news, but thankfully, after finding the strength to read the letter, Anne found out she was officially cancer-free. Anne admitted she cried after reading the news and was overwhelmed with relief, though her emotions were conflicted as she couldn't help but think about her late siblings Bernie and Linda. Anne still deals with some neuropathy - where nerves are damaged - in her feet her chemotherapy but is no longer taking any medication, apart from occasional anti-anxiety tablets. Giving an update on her health, Anne revealed she is officially cancer-free and is feeling 'really well' but told how the disease still has a massive impact on her life as she deals with anxiety She said she is now able to do most things and is now focusing on spending time with her children Amy, 44, and Alex, 37, and three grandchildren Vinny, 15, Ryder, 13, and Navaeh, 10. Anne's cancer update comes just days after her brother Brian revealed he was given the all-clear amid his prostate cancer battle. Brian, 70, was diagnosed with stage two prostate cancer just three days after his sister Linda died on January 15, 2025, following a 20-year breast cancer battle. He became the fifth of the Nolan siblings to battle the disease, and he shared during an appearance on Loose Women that he was given the all-clear in a positive update. Brian underwent surgery for the cancer, which involved doctors removing his prostate gland, and he gave fans his health update during a live TV appearance earlier this month. 'There have been developments. I'll start at the beginning. So I had the operation, it's called a RALP, which means it's a robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy,' he explained. 'To make a long story short, my cancer was in the prostate gland, so they offered me a radical operation, which drew the whole cancer out. 'I was basically in the hospital for 18 hours and I got the all clear last Tuesday that the cancer is completely gone and my bloods are back to normal.' His sister Coleen, 60, appeared on the Loose Women panel alongside him as he shared the news and she has now praised his strength for speaking on live TV about his health. 'I'm so proud of him, because, since being diagnosed, he's done so much to raise awareness of the condition,' she wrote in her Mirror column. 'Brian, I'm in awe of you and so impressed that you can go on live telly and talk so calmly and eloquently about this important subject.' Brian initially went to his doctor after noticing he was needing to use the toilet a lot more, which started affecting his sleep and day-to-day life. After blood tests he was told his PSA levels had risen, and he was then sent for an MRI scan before being told that they had found something. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels, measured in nanograms per milliliter (ng/mL), are a blood test used to screen for prostate cancer, with higher levels potentially indicating prostate problems, though not necessarily cancer. Brian initially kept his diagnosis a secret from his sisters because they were grieving the loss of their sibling Linda. Amid his own struggles, he spent 28 hours sitting by Linda's bedside in her final days. Appearing on Loose Women in March, Coleen shared: 'He went through all of this, none of us knew, at the same time organising everything for Linda. 'Brian and Annie took control of the whole thing. At not one moment did I think something was up with Brian.' While Brian added: 'It was a conscious decision, we'd been through too much with Linda and Bernadette. 'We've been through so much with cancer. I left it three or four days and I told you [his siblings] all individually.' Brian described his diagnosis as 'like being hit by a train' and said he thought the worst when he was first diagnosed. 'I just want cancer to leave us alone,' Brian heartbreakingly told The Mirror. 'You start plunging into the abyss of: ''I'm going to die''.' Brian's sisters have a history of cancer, with Coleen and Anne both receiving diagnoses as well as Bernie and Linda passing away from the disease. Bernie Nolan, the second youngest of the family and lead vocalist in the Nolans group, tragically died in 2013 at just 52 years old after battling breast cancer. Linda was diagnosed with stage three breast cancer in 2005 before getting the all-clear in 2006 - but in 2017 she was diagnosed with a form of incurable secondary cancer in her hip, which spread to her liver in 2020. Three years later, she shared the news that the cancer had spread to her brain, with two tumours discovered on the left side of her brain which left her struggling with her speech and balance. Linda tragically passed away on January 15, 2025, aged 65 following a 20-year breast cancer battle and suffering from double pneumonia. Coleen was told she had skin cancer in 2023 while Anne has also battled the disease twice. WHAT IS PROSTATE CANCER? How many people does it kill? More than 11,800 men a year - or one every 45 minutes - are killed by the disease in Britain, compared with about 11,400 women dying of breast cancer. It means prostate cancer is behind only lung and bowel in terms of how many people it kills in Britain. In the US, the disease kills 26,000 men each year. Despite this, it receives less than half the research funding of breast cancer and treatments for the disease are trailing at least a decade behind. How many men are diagnosed annually? Every year, upwards of 52,300 men are diagnosed with prostate cancer in the UK - more than 140 every day. How quickly does it develop? Prostate cancer usually develops slowly, so there may be no signs someone has it for many years, according to the NHS. If the cancer is at an early stage and not causing symptoms, a policy of 'watchful waiting' or 'active surveillance' may be adopted. Some patients can be cured if the disease is treated in the early stages. But if it is diagnosed at a later stage, when it has spread, then it becomes terminal and treatment revolves around relieving symptoms. Thousands of men are put off seeking a diagnosis because of the known side effects from treatment, including erectile dysfunction. Tests and treatment Tests for prostate cancer are haphazard, with accurate tools only just beginning to emerge. There is no national prostate screening programme as for years the tests have been too inaccurate. Doctors struggle to distinguish between aggressive and less serious tumours, making it hard to decide on treatment. Men over 50 are eligible for a 'PSA' blood test which gives doctors a rough idea of whether a patient is at risk. But it is unreliable. Patients who get a positive result are usually given a biopsy which is also not fool-proof. Scientists are unsure as to what causes prostate cancer, but age, obesity and a lack of exercise are known risks.
