UK House of Commons approves bill to legalise assisted dying
London: The UK Parliament's House of Commons has voted in favour of legalising assisted dying, marking a significant step in the nation’s approach to end-of-life care. The bill, introduced by Kim Leadbeater, was passed with 330 votes to 275 following an extensive debate.
The proposed law allows terminally ill individuals with less than six months to live to opt for assisted dying, provided they are capable of making the decision independently. The process requires approval from two doctors and a High Court judge to ensure strict safeguards.
While the House of Lords and parliamentary committees must still review the legislation, the vote is seen as a critical milestone in the years-long campaign for assisted dying. If enacted, the UK will join countries like Canada, New Zealand, Spain, and several US states that have already legalised the practice.
The bill has sparked widespread debate, dividing lawmakers and the public. Proponents argue it ensures dignity for terminally ill patients, alleviating suffering and easing the burden on palliative care services. Esther Rantzen, a BBC presenter battling advanced lung cancer, urged Parliament to act, emphasising that the current law leaves patients with limited choices.
However, opponents have raised concerns about the adequacy of safeguards and potential pressure on patients to avoid being a burden to their families. Labour MP Rachael Maskell criticised the timing, citing the underfunded state of the National Health Service (NHS) and the need to prioritise improvements in palliative care.
The legislation aligns with the "Oregon model," which limits assisted dying to terminal illnesses, contrasting with broader laws in Switzerland, the Netherlands, and Canada. Assisted death remains a criminal offence in England and Wales, with penalties of up to 14 years imprisonment.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
If men menstruated, they would understand: Supreme Court on Madhya Pradesh HC firing women judges
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday came down heavily on the Madhya Pradesh High Court for terminating services of women civil judges and refusing to reinstate them, expressing its frustration, "if men menstruated, they would understand".
The bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and N. Kotiswar Singh was hearing the case of one of the six women judicial officers whose services were terminated after being deemed inadequate by the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The termination, which was based on the low disposal rate of cases, drew sharp criticism from the top court, which argued that the personal challenges faced by the judicial officers, including physical and mental health issues, had not been adequately taken into consideration.
The bench made a stern observation, stating, “Disposal rate of a case cannot be a yardstick when the judge was suffering mentally and physically.”
The case came to the attention of the Supreme Court in January, when the court took suo-motu cognizance of the terminations and appointed senior advocate Gaurav Agarwal as amicus curiae to assist the court.
“I wish men had menstruation, then only they would understand,” Justice Nagarathna observed verbally, enraged over the apathy shown by the HC towards the judicial officer’s health.
"Particularly for women, if they are suffering physically and mentally, do not say they are slow and send them home. Let there be same criteria for male judges and judicial officers, we will see then, and we know what happens. How can you have target units (of case disposal) for district judiciary," the bench asserted.
The court scheduled the matter for further hearing on December 12.
