Latest news with #PrivateMember'sBill
Scotsman
a day ago
- Health
- Scotsman
Edinburgh MP's Bill to boost research into rare cancers set to pass its latest stage at Westminster
MPs are expected to back the details of Edinburgh MP Scott Arthur's Bill to improve the chances of new treatments for people suffering from rare cancers when it is debated in the Commons on Wednesday, July 2. Sign up to our daily newsletter Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to Edinburgh News, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... The proposed legislation - which would encourage more research into less common forms of the disease so that other people have a better chance of survival - won unanimous support from the Commons after three hours of debate in March. At today's committee stage, Dr Arthur, Labour MP for Edinburgh South West, will take MPs through his Rare Cancers Bill clause by clause and it is expected they will then vote it through to its Third Reading scheduled for next week, after which it will move to the House of Lords. Edinburgh South West MP Scott Arthur will take MPs through his BIll clause by clause | parliament Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad If it eventually passes, it would initiate a review of 'orphan drug' regulations which could incentivise companies to trial existing cancer drugs for treating rare cancers, encouraging life-saving treatments to be trialled in the UK. Dr Arthur brought the law change forward as a Private Member's Bill after winning a top place in the ballot of MPs for such legislation. The UK Government is backing the Bill and on Monday, Public Health Minister Ashley Dalton announced government funding to allow it to progress. She told the Commons: "I pay tribute to my honourable friend for bringing forward this important Bill. The Government supports this Bill and is committed to making a real difference for patients with rare cancers." A 'rare cancer' is a type of cancer that affects less than six in 100,000 people. They are often very complex types of tumours and are amongst the deadliest cancers. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Dr Arthur was inspired to take up the issue by the death of his father in law, Ivor Huntchinson, from glioblastoma, in 2018, aged 76. His Bill is supported by a wide range of cancer charities. And he won the backing of Edinburgh cancer campaigner Kira Noble, who has been fighting her personal battle with the disease for more than a decade. Kira, 21, was diagnosed with aggressive rare cancer neuroblastoma when she was 11 and a pupil at the Capital's Firrhill High School. Kira and her family raised £500,000 and travelled to New York for specialised surgery after she was told by NHS surgeons that her abdominal tumour was inoperable. She also had Proton Beam Therapy in New Jersey which was also not available on the NHS. She also underwent countless rounds of chemotherapy, suffered eight relapses and was nicknamed Kira the Machine because of her resilience. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad In March, she said: 'Scott's Bill offers real hope to those that are diagnosed with a rare cancer. It is so important that patients, particularly young people, are able to get access to clinical trials here in the UK, and that the Government takes action on tackling these left-behind cancers. It's time for stories like mine to become a thing of the past." Dr Arthur said: "I never expected to be on this journey with a Private Member's Bill, but the process has been amazing. I'm grateful for the support of 40 charities in helping develop the Bill and progress it through the Commons. 'If it's successful on Wednesday, it should get its final Commons vote next Friday, which will be a huge step forward for people who have rare cancers and for their loved ones."
Yahoo
18-06-2025
- Yahoo
‘People want peace, not poolside tantrums': The rise of child-free hotels
A summer's morning, just after 9am, and something astonishing is happening: I am still in bed. In the six years since I have had children, this is entirely unheard of. There are no elephantine footsteps charging towards my bedroom; no clammy, jammy hands clawing at my covers; no piercing shrieks of 'Muuuuuum!' over cornflakes and toast. The silence – aside from birds chirruping through my open window – is deliciously deafening. I am, of course, not at home (where my harried husband is wrangling our two children through the morning rigmarole entirely solo) – but have spent the night at an adults-only hotel, one of a growing number of properties, both in the UK and abroad, that specifically ban under-16s. Statistics suggest there are now more than 1,000 such hotels, B&Bs and holiday resorts worldwide, driven by demand from child-free and solo travellers – not to mention parents who, like me, adore their offspring, but sometimes dream of getting far, far away from them. But that dream could be under threat due to a recent challenge under French law, which suggests the 'no-kids trend' could amount to 'violence against children' under equalities legislation. Laurence Rossignol, a socialist senator, is reportedly planning to introduce a Private Member's Bill to make it illegal to ban children from French hotels, restaurants and campsites – a move which could have dramatic repercussions for child-free venues around the world. This doesn't trouble Frank Lawrenson, the owner of Rectory Manor in Great Waldingfield, a picturesque village in rural Suffolk, which has been grown-ups-only since 2022. Indeed, Frank says he would have cut children from the guest list earlier, if only he hadn't had several of his own. 'Children can be so hard to manage, especially in a property like this,' says Frank, 58, who inherited the sprawling Georgian rectory – on a site that dates back 2,000 years – and turned it into a hotel, now a five-star country retreat with a swimming pool, tennis court and croquet lawn, in 2014. 'We wanted it to feel like a haven, and if you have children running around screaming, that's certainly not peaceful,' he adds. 'The policy is one of the main reasons guests choose to stay here.' He and his fiancée, Georgina, 48, have six children between them, now aged 18 to 23, and they first banned under-13s when their youngest turned 13. The lower age limit increased incrementally each year. Although both loved hosting families with younger guests, they decided it 'didn't suit the house' – certainly, there are sharp edges, uneven stairs and breakable ornaments everywhere. 'You might get a perfectly sweet two-year-old banging her spoon on the breakfast table and ruining the tranquillity for everyone else,' says Georgina. 'People come to escape. Even the best-behaved children can get on your nerves – especially when they're not your own.' The hotel seems to lavish in a sort of hedonism that simply wouldn't be possible with children around. Cut-glass decanters of whisky and gin adorn every room. Flames crackle perilously from open fireplaces. The artwork is eclectic and, in some quarters, verging on risqué. My room contains a roll-top bath, perched – somewhat incongruously – on a thick pile carpet. Quite delightfully, the property's motto, emblazoned on my key fob, is an Italian phrase – 'Non si vive solo per soffrire' – which translates as 'One doesn't live only to suffer.' As a long-suffering, sleep-deprived, permanently frazzled parent, I could certainly get on board with that. Travel experts say adults-only hotels are part of a growing trend – dating back as far as the 1970s, when they first appeared in the Caribbean, and spreading to Spain and France in the early 2000s. But it's only in the past five years that they've really started booming in Britain, with mainstream holiday companies – such as Warner and Scott Dunn – now offering adults-only options. Online, you'll find copious Mumsnet threads devoted to child-free holidays, as well as luxury travel round-ups of five-star resorts that proudly ban children. According to Google Trends, searches for 'adults-only holidays' have soared in popularity since 2020. 'I've seen this trend gain real momentum,' says Liz Taylor, a hospitality and luxury brand consultant with 30 years' experience. 'Holidays have become more than a luxury – they're a lifeline. People want peace. They want to switch off. And, let's be honest, that's hard to do when you're dodging poolside tantrums or trying to enjoy a cocktail during a toddler's tea party.' Emma Latham, a Cheshire-based luxury travel planner, agrees. 'Not long ago, the only 'adults-only' offering in a resort might have been the later dinner setting,' she says. 'Today, we're seeing entire properties or dedicated areas within larger resorts designated specially for adult guests.' This, she explains, appeals to all sorts of holidaymakers – whether parents escaping their offspring for short getaways, couples without children who prefer to avoid family-focused environments, or empty nesters who want to enjoy their peace and quiet. Margaret and Jonathan Evans, from Pontypridd, are among the last. 'Since our youngest daughter left home last year, we wouldn't dream of staying anywhere that accepts children,' says Margaret, 67. 'It was hard enough going on holiday when our three were younger – always worrying about mealtimes, and whether they'd break anything or fall over. We couldn't switch off.' Geoff and Linda Banks, from Fleet, Hampshire, agree. 'I'd be so cross if the holiday I'd looked forward to for months was ruined by noisy children haring around the place,' says Geoff, 54. 'I just wish they did adults-only flights as well.' Staff members, too, say they prefer working at child-free properties – not only is there less mess to contend with, but they're not expected to act as makeshift babysitters. At Rectory Manor, the closest I come to youth in my 24-hour sojourn is 18-year-old waiter Cyrus, who serves a top-notch cooked breakfast, and tells me: 'When we allowed kids, the swimming pool was an issue – people were nipping to the mini-bar and expecting staff members to watch their children splashing about while they were gone. If anything had happened, we'd have been responsible.' Of course, the adults-only privilege comes at a premium: my weekday night away, plus breakfast, comes to £219. 'If you consider how much you would pay for a family of four to stay at a hotel for a week, would you pay the same amount for just two of you if it were an adult-only hotel? The answer seems to be yes,' says Aled Evans, a travel specialist at Our Local Tour. 'I most certainly would be willing to pay for it,' adds Raj Gill, a travel expert and the editor-at-large of Upscale Living magazine. 'I feel most people would be happy to pay extra to have a restful and relaxing holiday.' Consequently, holiday venues are reaping the rewards – both financial and reputational – of going adults-only. 'If a hotel or tour operator can differentiate itself and appeal to a certain demographic, then it has a market advantage,' Evans explains. There are, however, risks – not least alienating long-term guests who go on to have families and find themselves unwelcome. Frank Lawrenson admits that when he banned under-16s in 2022, there were some regulars – who had previously stayed with their children – who weren't happy about the change. 'It was sad, but ultimately for the best,' he says. But as the tide turns against children in Britain, do properties need to consider the legal ramifications of banning younger guests? In France, certainly, the 'no kids' policy seems to fly close to the wind, and the issue has reared its head in California, where a swath of stunning ocean-front properties – catering only to adults – have recently opened, prompting critics to question whether they contravene Section 51 of the state's Civil Code, which prevents discrimination. In the UK, under the Equality Act 2010, it is illegal to discriminate against someone because of their age when providing goods and services – but there are exceptions. If a service is genuinely 'adults only' – such as a spa treatment, sports competition or nightclub – this is justifiable, as it relates to the nature of the service. This, it seems, would equally apply to holiday properties that cater solely to grown-ups. 'I doubt there are any legal issues,' says Taylor. 'We're talking about creating environments tailored to specific needs and preferences. It's about choice; not exclusion.' Gill agrees – but says the onus rests on hotels, B&Bs and resorts to inform prospective guests of their policy. 'As long as the rules are clearly laid out from the off, and the age limits and boundaries are established, then I do not see any future issues,' she adds. Nor, it must be said, do I. Still reclining in my four-poster bed, contemplating whether to go for a morning swim or a leisurely breakfast, I find myself searching online for another child-free break – perhaps swapping sunny Suffolk for Bali or the Bahamas – with my husband in tow, this time. Non si vive solo per soffrire, after all… Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
NZ Herald
17-06-2025
- Politics
- NZ Herald
UK MPs to vote on ending prosecutions for abortion in England, Wales
From left: Ruairi Rowan of FPA, Sharon Hodgson MP, Anna Soubry MP, Diana Johnson MP, Jess Phillips MP and Clare Murphy of BPAS by the statue of Millicent Fawcett in Parliament Square, London, after Ms Johnson launched a Private Member's Bill to decriminalise consensual abortion in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Photo / Getty Images United Kingdom MPs are expected to vote on Tuesday on an overhaul of abortion laws in England and Wales which would end contentious prosecutions of women for terminating a pregnancy. Currently, a woman can face criminal charges for choosing to end a pregnancy after 24 weeks or without the approval
Rhyl Journal
09-06-2025
- Health
- Rhyl Journal
Liz Saville Roberts MP on why she backs assisted dying bill
MPs voted 330 in favour, to 275 against, during the second reading of the bill in Parliament in November – the Report stage of the bill will resume on Friday (June 13). Labour's Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) bill would make assisted dying legal for terminally ill adults who are expected to die within six months, and who have the mental capacity to make the choice to end their life. It is a Private Member's Bill tabled by Kim Leadbeater MP. Reporter Matthew Chandler spent half an hour talking to Mrs Saville Roberts about the bill. MC: You voted in favour of the bill in November. Are you still in favour of it now? LSR: I feel more strongly in favour of it now, because I've heard so much evidence from families who desperately felt their loved ones suffered from the lack of this facility in two ways: people suffered unduly at the end of their lives, and they lost their autonomy. [It's about] the sheer degree of suffering, and the sense that many people feel they should have the right to decide what happens to them at the end of their lives. MC: You were part of the bill committee. Why? LSR: It was Kim (Leadbeater)'s decision as to who the members were; she chose a mixture of those for and against the bill. I have spoken to Kim about some really striking issues with how this is going be brought into effect in Wales, because public health is devolved in Wales, so whenever we're taking about the NHS in the bill, that refers to England only as it stands. We're going to have to be really alert to avoid unintended consequences if we're going to recognise the way health is operated differently between England and Wales. MC: You have commended Kim Leadbeater for doing everything possible to strengthen scrutiny withing the constraints of the bill. Do you think ruling out using the judiciary, and instead proposing a three-member panel is strengthening scrutiny? LSR: There is the judiciary there. Previously, it was a High Court judge alone, but we received evidence that there are different professional interpretations of the word 'capacity'. It will mean different things to different clinicians. The point of having a High Court judge there would be to make sure the law is being followed to the letter. A High Court judge is not an expert on capacity. So, what is being brought in now is to have a senior judiciary figure, a social worker and a psychiatrist, and that brings to bear different definitions and considerations of capacity. I think that's an immense improvement. We have to be as sure as possible that we have considered all options, and I really think that having these different profession definitions and considerations as to what capacity means improves the bill considerably. MC: But does it not concern you that the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the Royal College of Physicians have both said the bill is not fit for purpose? LSR: They are fair to raise concerns, but the British Medical Association has moved their point of view considerably since 2015, and there will always be professional bodies bringing forward concerns whenever you bring a change in the law. To me, the tension here lies between: do you grant the individual the right to something which I think the public now expect us to do? Then, as legislators, we have to do our best to make sure this is as secure against abuse and misuse and unintended consequences as possible. This is quite difficult through a Private Member's Bill, because it hasn't had the time that a government has to carry out impact assessments before they even the draft the bill. But we have been discussing this for over 10 years. There have been iterations of this bill. It hasn't come out of nowhere. MC: I appreciate it hasn't come out of nowhere, but there has been no royal commission on it, and the time for debate was minimal (the full text of the bill, as presented for second reading, was published on November 11; MPs then voted on it on November 29). LSR: That's because the government hasn't taken this on. If they had, it wouldn't have to go through the time of a Private Member's Bill, which means it has to be finished in the Commons before we rise for recess, and it has to go through the Lords before the King's speech, which will almost certainly be in the second half of October. There is very good precedent for that to happen through Private Member's Bills. Difficult, big societal decisions, such as legalising homosexuality and abortion, have been made through Private Member's Bills, and it allows the government and opposition parties to give their members a free whip. So, with any piece of legislation, there is a tension on time. MC: What would you say, then, to (former Archbishop of Westminster) Cardinal Vincent Nichols, who wrote in April: 'It is a sad reflection on Parliament's priorities that the Commons spent far more time debating the ban on fox hunting than it is spending debating bringing in assisted suicide' - is that fair? LSR: I think it says something about society that whenever anything in relation to fox hunting has come across the desk to me, the amount of correspondence about that is way higher than it will be over children in Gaza. Again, the tension here for legislating in real time is - do you continue to make the perfect be the enemy of the good? Or, do you build in the means to change, so that legislation can be adapted as we go ahead? If this passes in Westminster, it then has an expectation that it's implemented within four years. MC: In 2010, two cases of assisted dying in Holland involved psychiatric suffering. In 2023, there were 138. Also in 2023, MPs in Canada wanted to introduce assisted dying suicide for children without parental consent. This is quite a common theme of other countries' initial scope for assisted dying widening as time passes. How can you guard against that 'slippery slope' in the UK? LSR: I can't tell future parliamentarians what to do, that's the nature of democracy, all I can do is describe what we've done in this bill as it stands. In this bill, mental illness alone doesn't qualify as a terminal illness and somebody has to have a terminal illness with a prognosis of six months (at most) in order to apply for the process, and you have to be over the age of 18. MC: But do you not worry that you might be opening the floodgates? LSR: I feel very strongly that the medical profession, since (the atrocities of) Harold Shipman, is so averse to being seen to be responsible for bringing about somebody's death prematurely, that people are suffering. And in a society where we value autonomy and individualism, an individual adult with full capacity, no evidence of coercion, and a terminal illness, should be empowered to decide how and when their life ends. Otherwise, I think the risk is that there is an imposition of the state in keeping people alive against their will and in great suffering. The fear of the slippery slope is telling that individual: 'You will die in agony.' It's up to the legislation to make sure the safeguards are in place to prevent it from widening. MC: What about members of staff who may be involved in the procedure of assisted dying, but who may face moral dilemmas themselves? LSR: They can opt out. It's like abortion. MC: What about the impact that it could have on the strain on the NHS? Do you not worry it could cause cuts to other NHS services if assisted dying becomes a bigger priority? LSR: The NHS is under immense, intolerable strain. Everything about the NHS gives me concern. We are an ageing society. We have the means to do medically that which we can't afford. At same time, to me, this comes down to a right of the individual. Either you acknowledge that the individual has a right to make these sorts of decision and enable it, or you don't. The evidence we heard from Australia, Canada and Holland is that the vast majority of people who take this route very much value their autonomy. It isn't, in the greatest number of cases, people for whom there is a question over capacity. You can't make a living will with this and say: 'If I get dementia, I want to go down the assisted dying route,' because the capacity will have gone. MC: Do you feel there has been parity in the time given for voices of both sides of the argument to be heard in the debate? LSR: Yes, because I've been on the bill committee. I have quite some sympathy for the MPs who weren't, but I think we should have sufficient time within the days that we have, which will only be Fridays, to do this. Of course, there is a parliamentary technique of talking something out. I think that's worth being alert to, as well. I think there is a general sense that parliamentarians would have failed as legislators if we can't bring something forward that is decent and humane. Every piece of legislation gets corrected and improved, because society moves on, as well. But I think we are expected now to pull together something that works, rather than find reasons not to make a difficult decision because it's easier to avoid it. We're passing on suffering to others if we do that. MC: Do you know of any disability rights groups in support of bill? LSR: I think there are great concerns among disability groups, because they're concerned that disabled people don't always have the respect they should have within society. Again, this is about protecting people and making sure there are sufficient safeguards in place. I come back to the fact that I believe this to be a fundamental right of the individual, and if they have capacity, then it is their right to make that decision. MC: So, you believe the bill is ethical? LSR: Yes. This has now passed the parliamentary stage in Scotland, the Isle of Man, and Jersey, with different parameters. It is enroute to coming in in different jurisdictions of the UK and the Crown Dependencies. MC: So, are you saying we're lagging behind? LSR: I think the citizens of the UK will expect a degree of consistency in what their rights are as individuals. Fundamentally, the question here is: is it right for me to tell the person next to me that because of my moral scruples, they have to suffer, possibly, a really hideous death? Or, is it their right to decide without me interfering? This is about the right of the individual, so that the option is there; rather than an almost religious attitude, whereby it is God who gives and God who takes away, which does seem to drive some opposing lobbying groups. MC: Are you religious? LSR: I was raised in the Church of England/Church in Wales. MC: Do you think the religious arguments against assisted dying are archaic, or outdated? LSR: I think in almost every other aspect of society, we grant the individual autonomy and then, at this last stage, we row back on that. Nobody is condoning the inadequacies of the NHS. Of course, we should be improving palliative care, of course we should be having a real debate that we are a desperately ageing society that hasn't trained enough doctors and nurses for decades. (But) widening the individual's rights doesn't mean we tolerate the intolerable. MC: Is legalising assisted dying more important than improving palliative care? LSR: They're equally important. Societally, we don't like talking about death. This has made us talk about death. It's probably a good thing that we're talking about it, because death is something that affects everybody. We will always get terminal illnesses. If a cancer is going to grow in your body until your body stops something working, that's not going to be pleasant. It's going to stop the function of your body, and it will be slow. But when does the point come when we realise, we are unethically imposing on somebody else how we perceive we would put ourselves in their position? MC: But don't you have to do that to an extent, because you're voting on it? LSR: Yes - that's why I'm in favour of it. I'm not making anybody ask the state to kill them, and I'm doing my best to put the conditions in place where nobody else will be able to coerce somebody to take this route. That is the worst scenario in this, and is fundamentally wrong. But I do think we need to question ourselves about whether I am imposing my perception of what quality of life is, to the point where I am saying: 'They can't decide their own fate'. It's not about imposing assisted dying on someone; it's about giving them the autonomy to choose it. Nobody should come at this lightly. Nothing gets more serious than this. You can read more of Mrs Saville Roberts' thoughts on the bill here.
North Wales Chronicle
09-06-2025
- Health
- North Wales Chronicle
Liz Saville Roberts MP on why she backs assisted dying bill
MPs voted 330 in favour, to 275 against, during the second reading of the bill in Parliament in November – the Report stage of the bill will resume on Friday (June 13). Labour's Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) bill would make assisted dying legal for terminally ill adults who are expected to die within six months, and who have the mental capacity to make the choice to end their life. It is a Private Member's Bill tabled by Kim Leadbeater MP. Reporter Matthew Chandler spent half an hour talking to Mrs Saville Roberts about the bill. MC: You voted in favour of the bill in November. Are you still in favour of it now? LSR: I feel more strongly in favour of it now, because I've heard so much evidence from families who desperately felt their loved ones suffered from the lack of this facility in two ways: people suffered unduly at the end of their lives, and they lost their autonomy. [It's about] the sheer degree of suffering, and the sense that many people feel they should have the right to decide what happens to them at the end of their lives. MC: You were part of the bill committee. Why? LSR: It was Kim (Leadbeater)'s decision as to who the members were; she chose a mixture of those for and against the bill. I have spoken to Kim about some really striking issues with how this is going be brought into effect in Wales, because public health is devolved in Wales, so whenever we're taking about the NHS in the bill, that refers to England only as it stands. We're going to have to be really alert to avoid unintended consequences if we're going to recognise the way health is operated differently between England and Wales. MC: You have commended Kim Leadbeater for doing everything possible to strengthen scrutiny withing the constraints of the bill. Do you think ruling out using the judiciary, and instead proposing a three-member panel is strengthening scrutiny? LSR: There is the judiciary there. Previously, it was a High Court judge alone, but we received evidence that there are different professional interpretations of the word 'capacity'. It will mean different things to different clinicians. The point of having a High Court judge there would be to make sure the law is being followed to the letter. A High Court judge is not an expert on capacity. So, what is being brought in now is to have a senior judiciary figure, a social worker and a psychiatrist, and that brings to bear different definitions and considerations of capacity. I think that's an immense improvement. We have to be as sure as possible that we have considered all options, and I really think that having these different profession definitions and considerations as to what capacity means improves the bill considerably. MC: But does it not concern you that the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the Royal College of Physicians have both said the bill is not fit for purpose? LSR: They are fair to raise concerns, but the British Medical Association has moved their point of view considerably since 2015, and there will always be professional bodies bringing forward concerns whenever you bring a change in the law. To me, the tension here lies between: do you grant the individual the right to something which I think the public now expect us to do? Then, as legislators, we have to do our best to make sure this is as secure against abuse and misuse and unintended consequences as possible. This is quite difficult through a Private Member's Bill, because it hasn't had the time that a government has to carry out impact assessments before they even the draft the bill. But we have been discussing this for over 10 years. There have been iterations of this bill. It hasn't come out of nowhere. MC: I appreciate it hasn't come out of nowhere, but there has been no royal commission on it, and the time for debate was minimal (the full text of the bill, as presented for second reading, was published on November 11; MPs then voted on it on November 29). LSR: That's because the government hasn't taken this on. If they had, it wouldn't have to go through the time of a Private Member's Bill, which means it has to be finished in the Commons before we rise for recess, and it has to go through the Lords before the King's speech, which will almost certainly be in the second half of October. There is very good precedent for that to happen through Private Member's Bills. Difficult, big societal decisions, such as legalising homosexuality and abortion, have been made through Private Member's Bills, and it allows the government and opposition parties to give their members a free whip. So, with any piece of legislation, there is a tension on time. MC: What would you say, then, to (former Archbishop of Westminster) Cardinal Vincent Nichols, who wrote in April: 'It is a sad reflection on Parliament's priorities that the Commons spent far more time debating the ban on fox hunting than it is spending debating bringing in assisted suicide' - is that fair? LSR: I think it says something about society that whenever anything in relation to fox hunting has come across the desk to me, the amount of correspondence about that is way higher than it will be over children in Gaza. Again, the tension here for legislating in real time is - do you continue to make the perfect be the enemy of the good? Or, do you build in the means to change, so that legislation can be adapted as we go ahead? If this passes in Westminster, it then has an expectation that it's implemented within four years. MC: In 2010, two cases of assisted dying in Holland involved psychiatric suffering. In 2023, there were 138. Also in 2023, MPs in Canada wanted to introduce assisted dying suicide for children without parental consent. This is quite a common theme of other countries' initial scope for assisted dying widening as time passes. How can you guard against that 'slippery slope' in the UK? LSR: I can't tell future parliamentarians what to do, that's the nature of democracy, all I can do is describe what we've done in this bill as it stands. In this bill, mental illness alone doesn't qualify as a terminal illness and somebody has to have a terminal illness with a prognosis of six months (at most) in order to apply for the process, and you have to be over the age of 18. MC: But do you not worry that you might be opening the floodgates? LSR: I feel very strongly that the medical profession, since (the atrocities of) Harold Shipman, is so averse to being seen to be responsible for bringing about somebody's death prematurely, that people are suffering. And in a society where we value autonomy and individualism, an individual adult with full capacity, no evidence of coercion, and a terminal illness, should be empowered to decide how and when their life ends. Otherwise, I think the risk is that there is an imposition of the state in keeping people alive against their will and in great suffering. The fear of the slippery slope is telling that individual: 'You will die in agony.' It's up to the legislation to make sure the safeguards are in place to prevent it from widening. MC: What about members of staff who may be involved in the procedure of assisted dying, but who may face moral dilemmas themselves? LSR: They can opt out. It's like abortion. MC: What about the impact that it could have on the strain on the NHS? Do you not worry it could cause cuts to other NHS services if assisted dying becomes a bigger priority? LSR: The NHS is under immense, intolerable strain. Everything about the NHS gives me concern. We are an ageing society. We have the means to do medically that which we can't afford. At same time, to me, this comes down to a right of the individual. Either you acknowledge that the individual has a right to make these sorts of decision and enable it, or you don't. The evidence we heard from Australia, Canada and Holland is that the vast majority of people who take this route very much value their autonomy. It isn't, in the greatest number of cases, people for whom there is a question over capacity. You can't make a living will with this and say: 'If I get dementia, I want to go down the assisted dying route,' because the capacity will have gone. MC: Do you feel there has been parity in the time given for voices of both sides of the argument to be heard in the debate? LSR: Yes, because I've been on the bill committee. I have quite some sympathy for the MPs who weren't, but I think we should have sufficient time within the days that we have, which will only be Fridays, to do this. Of course, there is a parliamentary technique of talking something out. I think that's worth being alert to, as well. I think there is a general sense that parliamentarians would have failed as legislators if we can't bring something forward that is decent and humane. Every piece of legislation gets corrected and improved, because society moves on, as well. But I think we are expected now to pull together something that works, rather than find reasons not to make a difficult decision because it's easier to avoid it. We're passing on suffering to others if we do that. MC: Do you know of any disability rights groups in support of bill? LSR: I think there are great concerns among disability groups, because they're concerned that disabled people don't always have the respect they should have within society. Again, this is about protecting people and making sure there are sufficient safeguards in place. I come back to the fact that I believe this to be a fundamental right of the individual, and if they have capacity, then it is their right to make that decision. MC: So, you believe the bill is ethical? LSR: Yes. This has now passed the parliamentary stage in Scotland, the Isle of Man, and Jersey, with different parameters. It is enroute to coming in in different jurisdictions of the UK and the Crown Dependencies. MC: So, are you saying we're lagging behind? LSR: I think the citizens of the UK will expect a degree of consistency in what their rights are as individuals. Fundamentally, the question here is: is it right for me to tell the person next to me that because of my moral scruples, they have to suffer, possibly, a really hideous death? Or, is it their right to decide without me interfering? This is about the right of the individual, so that the option is there; rather than an almost religious attitude, whereby it is God who gives and God who takes away, which does seem to drive some opposing lobbying groups. MC: Are you religious? LSR: I was raised in the Church of England/Church in Wales. MC: Do you think the religious arguments against assisted dying are archaic, or outdated? LSR: I think in almost every other aspect of society, we grant the individual autonomy and then, at this last stage, we row back on that. Nobody is condoning the inadequacies of the NHS. Of course, we should be improving palliative care, of course we should be having a real debate that we are a desperately ageing society that hasn't trained enough doctors and nurses for decades. (But) widening the individual's rights doesn't mean we tolerate the intolerable. MC: Is legalising assisted dying more important than improving palliative care? LSR: They're equally important. Societally, we don't like talking about death. This has made us talk about death. It's probably a good thing that we're talking about it, because death is something that affects everybody. We will always get terminal illnesses. If a cancer is going to grow in your body until your body stops something working, that's not going to be pleasant. It's going to stop the function of your body, and it will be slow. But when does the point come when we realise, we are unethically imposing on somebody else how we perceive we would put ourselves in their position? MC: But don't you have to do that to an extent, because you're voting on it? LSR: Yes - that's why I'm in favour of it. I'm not making anybody ask the state to kill them, and I'm doing my best to put the conditions in place where nobody else will be able to coerce somebody to take this route. That is the worst scenario in this, and is fundamentally wrong. But I do think we need to question ourselves about whether I am imposing my perception of what quality of life is, to the point where I am saying: 'They can't decide their own fate'. It's not about imposing assisted dying on someone; it's about giving them the autonomy to choose it. Nobody should come at this lightly. Nothing gets more serious than this. You can read more of Mrs Saville Roberts' thoughts on the bill here.
