Latest news with #AssistedDying
Telegraph
26-06-2025
- Health
- Telegraph
White House slaps down Britain over assisted dying ‘surrender'
The White House has accused Britain of 'state-sponsored suicide' over the passage of the Assisted Dying Bill. The US state department criticised parliament for passing the bill, which will make it legal for terminally ill people to end their lives. 'As the UK Parliament considers support for state-subsidised suicide, euphemistically called a bill for 'terminally ill adults' the United States reaffirms the sanctity of life,' the US bureau of democracy, human rights and labour said. 'The western world should stand for life, vitality and hope over surrender and death.' The Trump administration is proving increasingly willing to intervene in domestic British affairs, having previously admonished Sir Keir Starmer's government over threats to free speech. Last week the House of Commons voted narrowly to support Kim Leadbeater's assisted dying bill, and it will now be scrutinised in the House of Lords. The private member's bill was supported by 314 to 291 in the Commons, a majority of 23, paving the way for assisted dying services to be introduced by the end of the decade. Critics of the legislation have warned its safeguards are not strong enough and vulnerable people could be coerced or feel pressured into ending their lives early. The UK government is officially neutral on the bill, and MPs were given a free vote, which meant they did not have to vote along party lines. The bill is at odds with the values of Mr Trump's administration despite similar legislation existing in twelve US jurisdictions, including Washington, DC. While Mr Trump's position on assisted dying is not clear, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, two of the president's Supreme Court nominees, are both firm opponents of the act. Downing Street is thought to have been blindsided by the intervention, which was not raised with David Lammy, the foreign secretary, during his meeting with Mr Rubio last week. Sir Keir Starmer, a supporter of the legislation, said he will make assisted dying work, in a rebuke to his Health Secretary who claimed there was no budget for it. Asked whether the will of Parliament should be implemented and the budget found during his trip to The Hague the Prime Minister said: 'It is my responsibility to make sure the bill is workable, and that means workable in all its aspects. I'm confident we've done that preparation.' It is rare for the US state department, which is responsible for its foreign policy, to comment on laws of an allied country. Last month, The Telegraph revealed the US president dispatched officials to meet British pro-life activists over concerns their freedom of expression had been threatened. A five-person team from the bureau of democracy, human rights and labour spent days in the country and interviewed campaigners to feed back to the White House. Led by Samuel Samson, a senior adviser, they met with officials from the Foreign Office and challenged Ofcom on the Online Safety Act, which is thought to be a point of contention in the administration. Since then, the state department has also raised concerns over Lucy Connolly, the wife of a Conservative councillor, was jailed for 31 months in October after pleading guilty to a charge of inciting racial hatred. Campaigners flagged her case with Marco Rubio, the US secretary of state, whose department in turn said it was 'monitoring' the case.
Daily Mail
21-06-2025
- Health
- Daily Mail
Fast-track suicide if you pay extra, discount deals for couples and you don't even have to be terminally ill: Inside Germany's morally queasy approach to assisted dying where business is booming for the pedlars of euthanasia
Last week, the UK's highest elected officials ruled on the most existential of questions: how we choose to die. At its third reading, the Assisted Dying Bill passed the Commons by a slim majority of 23 votes, and now its fate lies with the Lords, where it faces a bumpy ride before it becomes law. The upper chamber, for instance, will examine if a three-person panel of professionals (from law, psychiatry and social work) offers greater safety and oversight in approving a patient's application to die than a High Court judge, as was originally proposed. Peers will have at their disposal the grim cost-benefit analysis to the NHS in accelerating the deaths of the terminally ill, released last month under the cover of the local election results. According to the report, as many as 1,300 people are expected to apply to die in the first year, saving as much as £10million in medical bills. But can the health service cope with this demand, especially as NHS staff will be offered an opt-out from the ugly business of state-sponsored suicide? No doubt private health providers are already bending the ears of peers for a slice of the death industry pie. It would be tempting to allow private enterprise to take some of the strain, but I urge the Lords to look at how business seized the opportunity with morally queasy gusto in my native land, Germany, where some firms offer a 'fast track' service for people who can pay more and even special discounts to couples wishing to hasten their demise. Pictured: Pedestrians walk past the posters promoting the Assisted Dying bill at Westminster Underground station In Germany, anyone 18 or over can lawfully commit suicide with the help of a third party. Yes, anyone. There is no requirement for the person to be six months from death, nor is there any specification over having a life-limiting or debilitating illness (as in the UK Bill). A perfectly healthy university student can seek help to kill themselves for no better reason than they are fed up with life. Hannelore Kring, 83, is typical of Germany's liberal approach to assisted suicide. A recording of her death featured in a podcast by news broadcaster WDR and it is a spine-chilling reminder of how relaxed my countrymen are about dying. At an undertaker's, Frau Kring is accompanied by two 'death helpers' – a nurse and retired teacher – and sounds relieved her life will end in a matter of minutes. Dressed in black and with make-up, as if attending a party, she suggests a dance with the nurse. Indeed, she is not ill, she is as healthy as anyone in their 80s. She has run a second-hand men's boutique in Hamburg but feels life's no longer worth living. She's lonely, all her friends have died and the state of the world depresses her. The helpers ask if she really wants to go through with it. 'Absolutely!' she replies enthusiastically. The nurse hooks her up to an infusion of a lethal dose of narcotics – a 'suicide cocktail'. She merely has to turn a valve, letting the toxic chemicals enter her bloodstream, putting her to sleep for ever. It's important she takes the final step herself, otherwise the helpers could be charged with manslaughter. Assisted suicides like this have been fully legal in Germany since 2020, although legislation has been a generation in the making. After the Second World War the subject was largely taboo, in no small part due to revulsion at the Nazis' Aktion T4 programme, which entailed the 'mercy killing' of 300,000 disabled people. By the 1970s and 1980s, a push for more patient autonomy led to court decisions in 1984 and 1990 that ensured suffering, bed-ridden people had the right to stop treatments that prolonged their lives. With the 2009 Patient Directive Law, people could include such instructions in a living will if they became incapacitated. This gave legal protections to doctors offering assisted suicide. But then the public grew uneasy at what seemed a creeping commercialisation of the right to die. Healthcare is not free at the point of use in Germany, so the nation is more comfortable than the UK with private provision within the system. But only up to a point. Many were appalled in 2014 when a Berlin urologist Uwe-Christian Arnold revealed he had helped 'several hundred people' take their lives since the late 1990s for fees of up to €10,000. Christian groups accused him of undermining the sanctity of life. The German Medical Association threatened him with a €50,000 fine, saying doctors should prolong life, not give their patients lethal poisons. Arnold took them to court over the fine and won. Also in 2014, a right-to-die association in Hamburg caused uproar for offering fast-track assisted suicide consultations in exchange for higher membership fees. Its normal rate was €2,000, with a waiting time of a year, but it introduced a jump-the-queue service for €7,000. Other providers offered discounts for couples interested in dying together. These were grisly bargains that lead many to regard Germany as a Las Vegas of suicide, which was anathema to a country that saw itself as otherwise Christian and conservative. Church groups took to Berlin's streets as legislators sought to crack down on the industry. Arnold and others passionately defended their businesses. The 'death helpers' argued the issue was comparable to abortion: a ban would be unfair to the terminally ill, who shouldn't have to travel to places like Switzerland to end their lives with dignity. The debate ended with parliament banning 'commercial' assisted suicide under Chancellor Angela Merkel in 2015. Subsequently, only friends and relatives who received no money for their assistance could help someone end their life. Legal challenges were launched by right-to-die advocates and people suffering terminal illnesses. In a 2020 judgement, the Constitutional Court said the freedoms enshrined in the country's post-war constitution meant 'the decision to take one's own life must be respected by the state as an act of personal autonomy'. Those who had been put out of work by the previous ruling were free to ply their trade once again. Five years after that decision, it feels like we're back to the Wild West of pre-2015. Assisted suicide in Germany is an unregulated free-for-all. A slew of undertakers, lawyers and independent doctors are facilitating a rising toll of assisted deaths. Last year it was about 1,000, though no one is keeping exact figures. Likewise there's no central registry of providers. Nearly anyone can set up shop. The largest player in the business is the German Association for Humane Dying (DGHS), which charges €4,000 a suicide but offers a discounted €6,000 for couples. It says that of the 623 people for whom it arranged suicide last year (it forwards requests to independent teams of doctors and lawyers), 22 per cent were just 'fed up with life'. Two-thirds were female. DGHS spokesperson Wega Wetzel says: 'Women are more likely to be widowed and 'left over' than men. Women are more likely to plan and communicate, while men often choose 'hard' suicide methods such as hanging.' Equally worrying is the fact that nothing prevents young people from choosing the path of assisted suicide. The youngest case I heard of was a 21-year-old man. The only requirement spelled out by the court was that the person be 'freely responsible' for their decision. At least DGHS, to maintain its reputation, has doctors and lawyers screen applicants to ensure they understand what they're getting into, that they're not being coerced and that they do not show symptoms of mental illness or dementia. But nobody knows how many independent providers are making money with assisted suicide. Nobody knows how they are screening clients, particularly in the more affordable services where standards may be lower. A study last month in the British Medical Journal analysed 77 assisted suicides in Munich. It found that one patient's consultation with a clinic lasted 55 minutes and the death was booked for the next day. The assisting physician in another case was a relative of the patient. In a 2022 case, the suicidal person was judged of sound mind based on a five-year-old mental capacity evaluation. But there is still broad support for the right to die: 80 per cent of Germans feel it's appropriate for the critically ill. But just 30 per cent say it should be available to people with a long life ahead of them, and only 3 per cent for young people having a crisis. Ute Lewitzska, professor for suicide studies at Frankfurt University, sees a fundamental change in how we deal with growing old. 'Supply creates demand,' she says. 'The 2020 court decision didn't just open a crack in the door, it flung the door wide open – and we're not going to be able to close that door again.' The fear is a normalisation of assisted suicide. For some it's a humane way to end one's life; for others it's an easy solution to suffering that's being oversold. Dr Lukas Radbruch, director of palliative care at University Clinic Bonn, has worked with end-of-life patients for three decades. He says many more now ask about assisted suicide but 'so many people are not sufficiently informed. Or we have doubts about how voluntary their choice is. Or we realise they still want to live, even if they say they want to die.' Sometimes a suicidal person needs counselling, not the means to kill themselves. Where do you draw the line? Dr Radbruch asks. In 2023 the German parliament tried to hammer out rules to provide clearer guidance, but MPs couldn't reach a consensus. Like many in the West, Germany seems destined to grope its way through this ethical minefield with no transparent way forward that is satisfactory for all. I do not envy the task ahead for Britain's Lords. My country's experience offers a salutary lesson that for the Bill to become law, they must make black and white what is a painfully grey issue.
Yahoo
21-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Island MPs share concern over Assisted Dying Bill after House of Commons vote
THE Isle of Wight MPs have expressed concern over the passing of the Assisted Dying Bill. The bill, which was backed by a majority of MPs, allows terminally ill adults with a life expectancy of less than six months to end their lives. Despite warnings from opponents about the safety of the legislation, the bill took another step in the parliamentary process after being approved by 314 votes to 291 in the House of Commons yesterday (Friday). Labour's Isle of Wight West MP, Richard Quigley, consistently voted against the bill at every stage. Read more: Following the news of its passing, Richard said: "This bill was always going to be emotional, but it was never about winning or losing, but having the chance to debate. "We have done that and the bill has now passed. "My opposition is based on the belief the safeguards, particularly around the so-called 'anorexia loophole,' are not robust or comprehensive enough." He urged the House of Lords to apply "rigorous scrutiny" to the bill as it progresses. Richard stressed the importance of examining every aspect of its implementation, paying close attention to the risks and unresolved unintended consequences. The Isle of Wight East MP, Joe Robertson, also voted against the bill. He shared his concerns, saying: "I voted against the Assisted Dying Bill — not because I am against the principle of wanting to relieve suffering, but because there are too many loopholes, too few safeguards and potential for unintended consequences." Joe, with great experience in the legal profession, criticised amendments made to the bill since the last vote — particularly the replacement of a role for a High Court judge with a 'panel' of professionals, with no power to summon witnesses. He said: "It means judges can decide whether a child has been coerced into wanting to spend time with only one parent (in divorce proceedings), but not whether a grandparent has been coerced into wanting to end their life (under assisted dying laws). "As a former family lawyer, I find this both perverse and dangerous." The concerns raised by both MPs reflect the apprehensions of a significant number of opponents who believe the bill was rushed through without adequate consideration of the potential risks. The bill will now move to the House of Lords for further scrutiny.
Yahoo
20-06-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
MPs vote for the Assisted Dying Bill after impassioned Commons debate
MPs have voted in favour of the Assisted Dying Bill after an impassioned debate in Parliament. The bill was passed with 314 votes in favour and 291 against - a majority of 23. The majority is smaller than that of a vote in November which was passed with 55 votes. The legislation will allow terminally ill adults in England and Wales with fewer than six months to live to apply for an assisted death. This is subject to approval by two doctors and a panel featuring a social worker, senior legal figure and psychiatrist. MPs were given a free vote on the bill, allowing them to decide according to their conscience rather than along party lines. Some MPs were visibly emotional as they left the chamber after the bill was passed. Others lined up to shake hands with Kim Leadbeater, the bill's sponsor through the Commons. A new YouGov poll of 2,003 adults in the UK suggested public support for the bill is at 73%. Four Labour MPs confirmed last night that they had switched sides to oppose the new law. Labour's Paul Foster, Jonathan Hinder, Markus Campbell-Savours and Kanishka Narayan wrote to fellow MPs to voice concerns about the safety of the proposed legislation. They branded it 'drastically weakened', citing the scrapping of the High Court Judge safeguard as a key reason. Opening a Commons debate on Friday, Bill sponsor Kim Leadbeater, said her proposed legislation is 'cogent' and 'workable', with 'one simple thread running through it - the need to correct the profound injustices of the status quo and to offer a compassionate and safe choice to terminally ill people who want to make it'. She shared emotional stories from people she had met throughout the campaign to legalise assisted dying, both bereaved and terminally ill. Pressed by Conservative former minister Simon Hoare on concerns raised about the Bill by some doctors and medical bodies including the Royal College of Psychiatrists, Ms Leadbeater said: 'We have different views in this House and different people in different professions have different views.' She has insisted the replacement of High Court judge approval with the multidisciplinary panels is a strengthening of the legislation, incorporating wider expert knowledge to assess assisted dying applications. Ahead of the debate, Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch urged her MPs to vote against the legislation, describing it as 'a bad Bill' despite being 'previously supportive of assisted suicide'. Writing in the Daily Mail, Tory MP Robert Jenrick made an emotional appeal against assisted dying. The Shadow Justice Secretary wrote about how his grandmother, Dorothy, continued to bring joy to the family as she defied a terminal diagnosis for nearly a decade. Saying the prospect of legalising assisted dying 'fills me with dread', he wrote: 'My Nana felt like she was a burden. I know how much she hated the indignity she felt at having to ask my Mum or us to help her with basic needs. 'People like her – and there are many such people – may consider an assisted death as another act of kindness to us. How wrong they would be.'
Sky News
13-06-2025
- Politics
- Sky News
MPs to vote again on Assisted Dying Bill - will it pass and what has changed?
Why you can trust Sky News A monumental decision for MPs that has been looming on the horizon is now approaching at speed. The Assisted Dying Bill, which would give some terminally ill adults the right to end their lives, is back in the Commons for votes on amendments, with the final vote likely to come next week. There are not many issues like this - literally a matter of life and death - that require MPs to search their consciences and make a personal decision with profound and irreversible consequences. When the Commons first voted on the legislation back in November it passed with a 55 majority. That may seem reasonably comfortable but delving into the numbers reveals that it is flimsier than it first appears. Firstly, it would take just 28 MPs to switch from for to against to bring the bill down. And some of that initial support is quite soft with a significant number voting in favour simply to move the bill to the next stage, have the debate, raise the profile of the issue and make progress on the detail. Now that the final vote is drawing near, they may decide it's gone far enough. There are also the abstainers who could go either way if they do choose to vote at third reading. All this makes the outcome unpredictable, but Sky News has been speaking to MPs to get a sense of where the parliamentary arithmetic is headed. Ahead of the latest round of votes, 20 have confirmed to Sky that their position has changed and although there is movement in both directions it shows that the momentum is mostly one way. Taking this snapshot of MPs, the first time round nine voted for, nine abstained and three voted against. Based on how they say they will vote at the third reading, the numbers are very different - with just four in favour, one abstaining and 15 against. Among those are two ministers, Sir Chris Bryant and Ellie Reeves who are swimming against the tide by declaring that they will now vote in favour. Sir Chris told Sky News: "I abstained on the first time round, I decided I wasn't going to vote because I wanted to hear the debate. I have listened to a lot of the debate… "I also have heard the cries of people who are absolutely miserable, and that's why I will be voting for the bill." Of the many more MPs who have withdrawn their support, Conservative George Freeman is one of a handful who have spoken out. He told Sky: "I want to see a law change, I think Kim [Leadbeater]'s done us a favour… "I think government needs to come back with a properly thought through, properly consulted on, possibly by royal commission. This is a big change, so I want to see law change, but I'm no longer going to vote for this bill." And skewing our figures slightly is Labour MP Emma Hardy, who voted both for and against at second reading but has now settled on against. Just that small number of switchers would still see the legislation over the line, but with a reduced majority of 38, and many believe the vote will be much closer. The main issues that are concerning undecided MPs are, firstly, protecting patients from being forced or coerced into ending their own lives. At the beginning of the parliamentary process it was suggested that a high court judge would sign off every assisted death. That has now been changed to a panel of experts, and some MPs are worried that this represents a watering down of safeguards. Kim Leadbeater, who is behind the law change, says this will actually make it safer. Others point to the way the legislation has been brought to parliament, as a private member's bill, which some argue reduces its robustness. They would like to see it return with the full weight of government behind it. And finally, changes to the timeline have raised a lot of eyebrows with the maximum implementation period extended to four has raised concerns that the bill could be passed in this parliament but not delivered, and would become a divisive issue at the next general election. Despite all this there is still a huge amount of support and all eyes will be on the House of Commons as more debate and votes on amendments get underway, giving us the best sense yet of whether this once in a generation legislation still has a chance.
