Petition spurs MPS to tackle assisted dying
MPS will discuss assisted dying next month amid a major push for a change in the law.
The House of Commons will hold a debate on Apr 29 after more than 100,000 people signed a petition calling for new legislation. However, there will be no vote at the end as no legislation has yet been put forward.
Earlier this week Sir Keir Starmer pledged to make parliamentary time available for a change in the law if Labour wins the next general election.
By convention, such legislation would be introduced by backbench MPS and could only be passed if enough time was granted for it to be discussed.
The issue has gained a renewed focus since Dame Esther Rantzen revealed she had joined Dignitas after being diagnosed with late-stage cancer. The debate will be opened by Labour MP Tonia Antoniazzi, a member of the petitions committee.
A minister will be called on to close the debate, possibly giving some indication of the Government’s position.
The petition which sparked the upcoming debate said: “Terminally ill people who are mentally sound and near the end of their lives should not suffer unbearably against their will.”
However, Rishi Sunak, the Prime Minister, has refused to give the same assurance as Sir Keir that time would be set aside for a vote.
Assisted dying is banned in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, with a maximum prison sentence of 14 years.
Emmanuel Macron, the French president, this week announced new legislation that would legalise “aid in dying”. If passed, the law would allow French doctors to prescribe a lethal substance to people suffering from a limited number of incurable illnesses.
The Isle of Man and Jersey could also soon legalise assisted dying for their residents. It is legal for doctors to help certain people to end their lives in several European countries.
Since 1998, more than 500 people from the UK have travelled to Dignitas, in Switzerland, to end their lives.
A Commons health and social care committee report, published last month, said the Government must be “actively involved” in discussions over what to do if Jersey or the Isle of Man legalise assisted dying.
The committee heard Dame Joan Ruddock reveal she had been prepared to smother her husband to end his life after his pain became unbearable.
At the start of the month, Rishi Sunak promised action to defend Britain’s “patriotic, liberal, democratic” society from Islamist and far-right extremists seeking to tear it apart. Yesterday, we saw the first indications of what this will mean in practice. Michael Gove, the Communities Secretary, published a new definition of non-violent extremism and, using parliamentary privilege, named five groups that would be assessed against it.
These moves were necessary, Mr Gove said, because of the disturbing growth in anti-semitism and anti-muslim hatred in the months since Hamas’s October 7 pogrom. He called the new definition more rigorous and precise, and also announced the creation of a counter-extremism Centre of Excellence to ensure the best academic insight shapes Britain’s approach. Officials will be instructed to cut off Government funding for, and meetings with, groups deemed to be extremist.
Some will wonder why this has taken so long. Others are concerned that the new definition will undermine free speech, or result in groups that do not pose a threat to our society being penalised just because their views lie outside the current political mainstream. Several Tory MPS, for example, have warned that gender-critical feminists could fall foul of it, a danger that needs to be guarded against.
Ultimately, however, Mr Gove’s work is welcome. Even the limited measures he announced yesterday are likely to have faced stiff resistance from the Civil Service and other groups who shy away from a robust approach to tackling the extremist threat. The defence of a free society from those who want to destroy it will necessarily involve some degree of compromise with civil liberties. The philosopher Karl Popper’s famous paradox – that to maintain a tolerant society, the tolerant must be intolerant of intolerance – very much applies.
But this has to be just the start. Week after week, pro-palestinian protesters continue to chant genocidal slogans in the centres of Britain’s cities, while the police stand by. Sir William Shawcross has criticised ministers for not enacting all of his recommendations on reforming the Prevent counter-radicalism programme. Local government and police forces should be required to end their dealings with extremist groups, too.
Hateful anti-british ideas have to be challenged and defeated, not appeased. Mr Gove has made a good start. This time, however, enough really has to be enough.