Connect with us

Published

on

MPs will on Friday have to make one of the biggest decisions of their careers – whether or not to back assisted dying.

The proposed law would make it legal for over-18s who are terminally ill to be given medical assistance to end their own life in England and Wales.

Politics Live: No 10 denies reports of extra bank holiday next year

The bill – called the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill – sets out detailed requirements in order to be eligible.

The Labour MP proposing it, Kim Leadbeater, says the safeguards are the “most robust” in the world, but others argue it is a “slippery slope towards death on demand”.

What is in the bill?

The purpose of the bill is to allow adults aged 18 and over, who have mental capacity, are terminally ill and are in the final six months of their life, to request assistance from a doctor to die.

More from Politics

This is subject to “safeguards and protections” which include:

• They must have a “clear, settled and informed wish to end their own life” and have reached this decision voluntarily, without coercion or pressure;
• They must have lived in England or Wales for 12 months and be registered with a GP;
• Two independent doctors must be satisfied the person meets the criteria and there must be at least seven days between the doctors making the assessments;
• If both doctors state the person is eligible, then they must apply to the High Court for approval of their request;
• If the High Court decides that the applicant meets the bill’s requirements, then there is a 14-day reflection period (or 48 hours if death is imminent);
• After this, the person must make a second declaration, which would have to be signed and witnessed by one doctor and another person.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

What MPs think of the assisted dying bill

What happens if the eligibility criteria is met?

If a person meets all this eligibility criteria, a life-ending “approved substance” would be prescribed.

This would be self-administered, so the individual wishing to die must take it themselves.

This is sometimes called physician-assisted dying and is different from voluntary euthanasia, when a health professional would administer the drugs.

As well as all the conditions set out above, the bill would make it illegal to pressure or coerce someone to make a declaration that they wish to end their life, or take the medicine.

These offences will be punishable by a maximum 14-year prison sentence.

How is this different from the current law?

Suicide and attempted suicide are not in themselves criminal offences. However, under section 2(1) of the Suicide Act 1961, it is an offence in England and Wales for a person to encourage or assist the suicide (or attempted suicide) of another.

Ms Leadbeater says the current framework is “not fit for purpose”, as people who are terminally ill and in pain only have three options – “suicide, suffering or Switzerland”.

Assisted dying has been legal in Switzerland since 1942, with the Dignitas group becoming well-known as it allows non-Swiss people to use its clinics.

There is no government-held data on the number of Britons travelling abroad for assisted dying, but other countries where a form of this is legal include the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Luxembourg, Canada, New Zealand, Australia and some US states.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Assisted dying: Lessons from Canada

Why is it being debated now in England?

The issue has gained renewed attention recently due to campaigning by broadcaster Dame Esther Rantzen. The 84-year-old Childline founder has stage-four lung cancer and revealed last year that she had signed up to Dignitas.

Over the past two decades, the debate has largely been driven by legal challenges to the current regime, brought by people who are suffering and say the current laws violate their human rights.

Parliament last considered the issue in 2015, when MPs voted down assisted dying by 330 votes to 118.

👉 Listen to Sky News Daily on your podcast app 👈

Ms Leadbeater has brought the issue to the fore through a private members bill, meaning it has been introduced by an MP who is not a government minister.

She wants to give people who are terminally ill and in pain a choice, insisting the bill is about “shortening death rather than ending life”.

What are the main arguments for and against?

Lots of campaigners support Ms Leadbeater’s position. The Campaign for Dignity in Dying says it will give people who are facing unbearable suffering control, so they can have a peaceful death.

They do not support a wider law, unlike My Death, My Decision, who want the bill to apply to people who are suffering with an incurable condition, even if it is not terminal.

However some people oppose any change to the current position. This can be for a variety of reasons, but one of the main arguments is the risk of a “slippery slope” – that the eligibility criteria would widen over time.

Others say good end-of-life care needs to be prioritised, and fear some people will feel pressured to opt for assisted dying if they feel like a burden to society.

Read More:
Gordon Brown says assisted dying should not be legalised
Wes Streeting to vote against assisted dying over end of life care concerns
Has assisted dying in Canada ‘crossed the line’?

How will the bill be scrutinised?

MPs will debate and vote on this bill on Friday 29 November.

It is a free vote, meaning MPs can side with their conscience and not party lines.

The government is taking a neutral position, though individual cabinet ministers have come out both strongly for and against the proposal.

If passed on Friday, the bill will have to pass many more parliamentary hurdles before it becomes law.

MPs will get a chance to debate the bill again in greater depth during its committee stage and peers will also have ample opportunity to express their views on the legislation in the House of Lords.

Continue Reading

Politics

South Korean court clears Wemade ex-CEO in Wemix manipulation case

Published

on

By

South Korean court clears Wemade ex-CEO in Wemix manipulation case

South Korean court clears Wemade ex-CEO in Wemix manipulation case

After nearly a year of legal proceedings, a South Korean court acquitted former Wemade CEO Jang Hyun-guk of market manipulation charges.

Continue Reading

Politics

Is there £15bn of wiggle room in Rachel Reeves’s fiscal rules?

Published

on

By

Is there £15bn of wiggle room in Rachel Reeves's fiscal rules?

Are Rachel Reeves’s fiscal rules quite as iron clad as she insists?

How tough is her armour really? And is there actually scope for some change, some loosening to avoid big tax hikes in the autumn?

We’ve had a bit of clarity early this morning – and that’s a question we discuss on the Politics at Sam and Anne’s podcast today.

Politics Live: Reeves to reform financial regulations

And tens of billions of pounds of borrowing depends on the answer – which still feels intriguingly opaque.

You might think you know what the fiscal rules are. And you might think you know they’re not negotiable.

For instance, the main fiscal rule says that from 2029-30, the government’s day-to-day spending needs to be in surplus – i.e. rely on taxation alone, not borrowing.

And Rachel Reeves has been clear – that’s not going to change, and there’s no disputing this.

But when the government announced its fiscal rules in October, it actually published a 19-page document – a “charter” – alongside this.

And this contains all sorts of notes and caveats. And it’s slightly unclear which are subject to the “iron clad” promise – and which aren’t.

There’s one part of that document coming into focus – with sources telling me that it could get changed.

And it’s this – a little-known buffer built into the rules.

It’s outlined in paragraph 3.6 on page four of the Charter for Budget Responsibility.

This says that from spring 2027, if the OBR forecasts that she still actually has a deficit of up to 0.5% of GDP in three years, she will still be judged to be within the rules.

In other words, if in spring 2027 she’s judged to have missed her fiscal rules by perhaps as much as £15bn, that’s fine.

Rachel Reeves during a visit to Cosy Ltd.
Pic: PA
Image:
A change could save the chancellor some headaches. Pic: PA

Now there’s a caveat – this exemption only applies, providing at the following budget the chancellor reduces that deficit back to zero.

But still, it’s potentially helpful wiggle room.

This help – this buffer – for Reeves doesn’t apply today, or for the next couple of years – it only kicks in from the spring of 2027.

But I’m being told by a source that some of this might change and the ability to use this wiggle room could be brought forward to this year. Could she give herself a get out of jail card?

The chancellor could gamble that few people would notice this technical change, and it might avoid politically catastrophic tax hikes – but only if the markets accept it will mean higher borrowing than planned.

But the question is – has Rachel Reeves ruled this out by saying her fiscal rules are iron clad or not?

Or to put it another way… is the whole of the 19-page Charter for Budget Responsibility “iron clad” and untouchable, or just the rules themselves?

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Is Labour plotting a ‘wealth tax’?

And what counts as “rules” and are therefore untouchable, and what could fall outside and could still be changed?

I’ve been pressing the Treasury for a statement.

And this morning, they issued one.

A spokesman said: “The fiscal rules as set out in the Charter for Budget Responsibility are iron clad, and non-negotiable, as are the definition of the rules set out in the document itself.”

So that sounds clear – but what is a definition of the rule? Does it include this 0.5% of GDP buffer zone?

Read more:
Reeves hints at tax rises in autumn
Tough decisions ahead for chancellor

The Treasury does concede that not everything in the charter is untouchable – including the role and remit of the OBR, and the requirements for it to publish a specific list of fiscal metrics.

But does that include that key bit? Which bits can Reeves still tinker with?

I’m still unsure that change has been ruled out.

Continue Reading

Politics

LA sheriff deputies admit to helping crypto ‘Godfather’ extort victims

Published

on

By

LA sheriff deputies admit to helping crypto ‘Godfather’ extort victims

LA sheriff deputies admit to helping crypto ‘Godfather’ extort victims

The Justice Department says two LA Sheriff deputies admitted to helping extort victims, including for a local crypto mogul, while working their private security side hustles.

Continue Reading

Trending