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

Revealed: Why Keir Starmer’s strategy to tackle Reform UK could end up backfiring

Published

on

By

Revealed: Why Keir Starmer's strategy to tackle Reform UK could end up backfiring

Has Labour got the right strategy to tackle Reform UK?

Nigel Farage’s party cost the Tories dozens, maybe 100-plus seats at the general election. Now it looks like the party is hitting Labour too. But has Sir Keir Starmer got the right answers?

Coates

Last year, Labour won a landslide because the Tory vote collapsed, in part because Reform UK took chunks of their supporters in constituencies across the UK.

And here is the situation on 1 May this year – the national equivalent vote share at the council elections put Reform well ahead in first place. Success – this time at the expense of Labour too.

Coates

How big a threat is this to MPs? As a very crude experiment, Sky News has looked at what would happen if this result was replicated evenly across parliamentary constituencies.

Within the areas where there were county council elections are 77 complete Westminster seats with sitting Labour MPs.

This includes places like Wycombe, where Treasury minister Emma Reynolds holds. Or Lincoln, won by Foreign Office minister Hamish Falconer.

More on Labour

Coates

Now if – for fun – we mapped the country council results from 1 May evenly across these general election constituencies, almost all those Labour seats are gone. All lost, apart from five. That’s 72 out of 77 Labour MPs losing their seats and mostly to Reform UK.

What if we took that swing an applied across the whole country, places where there weren’t local elections?

Angela Rayner in Greater Manchester and Jess Phillips in Birmingham would lose their seats.

Yes this is a crude measure – it assumes a uniform swing can be drawn from the 1 May polls – and local and national elections are very different.

But importantly, YouGov’s latest national opinion polls paint a similar picture to the council elections. Meanwhile, 89 out of 98 constituencies where Reform came second place have Labour in first. Labour MPs are feeling the heat from Farage.

The Reform threat is real. Sir Keir Starmer knows it – and this year has started chasing Reform votes. Slashing aid spending. Abandoning green promises. Hard talk about immigration and living on an “Island of Strangers”.

Sensible given the clear and evident Reform UK threat? Actually – maybe not. Look at the data in detail:

Coates

This block here is all the people who voted Labour in last year’s general election. Now thanks to YouGov polling, we know what people in this block would do with their vote now.

It shows Labour has lost more than half of last year’s voters. Just 46% still say they’d still vote for Sir Keir’s party. But – despite the PM’s strategy – they’re not actually going to Reform in large numbers.

Just 6% of Labour’s voters at last year’s general election – six out of every 100 – said they would vote Reform now. That’s all. So where have they gone?

Well, they’ve been lost much more to liberal and left-wing parties – 12% to the Lib Dems, 9% to the Greens.

So just pause there. That means the number of Labour voters who have switched to the Lib Dems and Greens, arguably on the left of the political spectrum, is three times the number going to Reform to the right.

Just 2% go to the Tories.

And much more seriously for Labour, 22% aren’t going to vote, don’t know or won’t say.

Coates

The bottom line is people who voted Reform have never backed Labour in large numbers.

This shows how Reform supporters last year voted in each election since 2005. You can see – Reform voters are former UKIP voters. They’re Boris Johnson’s Tories.

Let’s put it another way. While 11% of Labour voters may one day be open to voting Reform, 70% are at risk of going to the Lib Dems or Greens – seven times the threat from Reform.

And typically, these voters don’t like the hard line, Reform-leaning policies of Sir Keir Starmer recently.

The local elections show there is a threat to Labour from Reform. But our data suggests Keir Starmer trying to be Nigel Farage lite isn’t the answer.

Is Labour’s strategy really working?

Continue Reading

Politics

SEC charges Unicoin and executives for alleged $100 million fraud

Published

on

By

SEC charges Unicoin and executives for alleged 0 million fraud

SEC charges Unicoin and executives for alleged 0 million fraud

The US Securities and Exchange Commission has charged crypto platform Unicoin and three of its executives, alleging they made false and misleading statements about its crypto assets that raised $100 million from investors.

The SEC said on May 20 that it charged Unicoin CEO Alex Konanykhin, board member Silvina Moschini, and former investment chief Alex Dominguez with misleading investors about certificates that conveyed rights to receive Unicoin tokens and stock.

Mark Cave, associate director in the SEC’s Division of Enforcement, claimed the trio “exploited thousands of investors with fictitious promises that its tokens, when issued, would be backed by real-world assets including an international portfolio of valuable real estate holdings.” 

Related: SEC crypto task force to release first report ‘in the next few months’

“The real estate assets were worth a mere fraction of what the company claimed, and the majority of the company’s sales of rights certificates were illusory,” Cave added.

The SEC’s complaint, filed in a Manhattan federal court, charged Unicoin and the three executives with various securities laws violations and asks for permanent injunctive relief, along with paying back the allegedly ill-gotten gains.

Magazine: SEC’s U-turn on crypto leaves key questions unanswered

Continue Reading

Politics

Justin Sun to attend Trump’s dinner with memecoin backers

Published

on

By

<div>Justin Sun to attend Trump's dinner with memecoin backers</div>

<div>Justin Sun to attend Trump's dinner with memecoin backers</div>

After weeks of speculation among crypto enthusiasts and news outlets, Tron founder Justin Sun has claimed he owns the wallet that purchased the largest amount of Donald Trump’s memecoin, allowing him to qualify for a dinner and reception with the US president.

In a May 19 X post, Sun said he had received an invitation to attend Trump’s dinner at his golf club outside Washington, DC, as part of a reward for the top 220 memecoin holders. The Tron founder claimed he controlled the top wallet on the TRUMP token leaderboard under the username “Sun,” which held roughly $19 million worth of the memecoin at a price of $13.20.

According to Sun, he plans to network at the May 22 memecoin dinner, “talk crypto,” and “discuss the future” of the industry. It’s unclear why the Tron founder chose to announce his planned presence at the event now, when the leaderboard was finalized on May 12.

Cointelegraph reached out to a spokesperson for Sun for comment, but had not received a response at the time of publication.

Politics, Donald Trump, Corruption, Justin Sun, Memecoin
Source: Justin Sun

Though not a surprise to many who speculated that Sun was the individual behind the memecoin purchases, his attendance at the dinner only deepens his ties to the Trump administration and the president’s family. In addition to the dinner for the 220 tokenholders, Trump said he would hold a reception and “VIP tour” for the top 25 wallets on the leaderboard.

Related: What to expect at Trump’s memecoin dinner

Sun spent $75 million on tokens through World Liberty Financial, the crypto platform backed by Trump’s three sons, including a $30 million investment a few weeks after the 2024 election. The Tron founder is also an adviser to the company.

Before Trump won the November election, Sun had been facing a lawsuit from the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filed in 2023 over the alleged “orchestration of the unregistered offer and sale, manipulative trading, and unlawful touting of crypto asset securities.” In February, roughly a month after Trump took office and appointed Commissioner Mark Uyeda as acting chair of the SEC, the regulator and Sun jointly filed a motion for a federal judge to stay the case, which was granted.

Memecoin’s potential conflicts of interest are affecting Congress

Sun’s and others’ involvement in Trump’s crypto ventures has prompted calls for investigations and oversight among many Democratic lawmakers, who argued that some individuals could use digital assets to essentially purchase influence with the president. The concerns initially slowed progress on a bill to regulate stablecoins in the Senate, the GENIUS Act, complicated by World Liberty Financial’s own stablecoin, USD1. The chamber voted to move forward on the bill on May 19, a few hours before Sun’s announcement.

“How convenient: the day after the Senate advances the GENIUS Act, Justin Sun — a major investor in the Trump family crypto venture — announces he’s getting a private dinner as the president’s top crypto buyer,” said Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, according to Bloomberg. “It’s critical that everyone understands the GENIUS Act doesn’t stop this type of corruption — it greenlights it.”

At a May 20 oversight hearing, Maryland Representative Glenn Ivey questioned SEC Chair Paul Atkins on Sun’s case being stayed, as well as his investments in World Liberty Financial and Trump’s memecoin. Though the case was stayed before Atkins was sworn in as chair, Ivey expressed concern about the timeline between Sun’s investments and the SEC not pursuing its own enforcement action.

The memecoin dinner applicants are likely still subject to background checks before meeting Trump in person. As of May 20, those planning to attend included Kronos Research chief investment officer Vincent Liu, Hyperithm co-CEO Oh Sangrok, Synthetix founder Kain Warwick, a consultant named Vincent Deriu, crypto user Morten Christensen, a World Liberty Financial adviser going by the pseudonym “Ogle,” and a representative from the startup MemeCore.

Magazine: Trump’s crypto ventures raise conflict of interest, insider trading questions

Continue Reading

Trending