Dame Esther Rantzen has made a direct plea to the Prime Minister to follow through on his vow to make time in Parliament for a debate and free vote on assisted dying.
The Childline founder had a telephone conversation with Sir Keir Starmer earlier this year – before he entered No 10 – in which he pledged his commitment on this issue.
Dame Esther’s latest comments come as a majority of members on a so-called citizens’ jury said assisted dying should be permitted in England.
The broadcaster has previously been praised for her role in bringing the difficult and sensitive conversation on assisted dying to the fore, having revealed in December that she has joined the Swiss Dignitas clinic as she lives with terminal cancer.
Without a change in the law, Dame Esther said she and others who are terminally ill could face “a bad death” or their families could have to endure police questioning and possible prosecution if they accompanied her to Dignitas.
Assisting someone to end their life is currently a criminal offence in England and Wales.
Dame Esther told Sky News: “What we’re hoping for is proper time to discuss the issues, have the free vote and change this cruel law.
“I call it cruel, because not only at the moment does it mean that I’ve got to have a bad death, if that’s what the cancer creates for me, but my family can’t be with me if I decide to go to Dignitas. Because otherwise they are liable to being accused of killing me and they get investigated by the police, so that’s just messy and wrong and not what we want.
“So, please Sir Keir, remember our conversation and let’s make time for this. It really is a matter of life and death.”
Dame Esther said she was reminding the Prime Minister “just gently, you know, nothing bossy, just quietly”.
She added: “Dear Sir Keir, whom I’ve met and have worked with, could you possibly recall your kind words to me and make it come true?”
Welcoming the verdict of the citizens’ jury, she branded the current law a “cruel mess”.
While the results of the jury “didn’t surprise” Dame Esther, she said it was important to keep the issue “at the top of the agenda” because “events happen, politicians forget, they take other things as their priority”.
Sir Keir has previously said he is “personally in favour of changing the law” and supported a change the last time the issue was voted on in the Commons nine years ago.
Earlier this month, Labour’s Jake Richards signalled his intention to bring forward a proposed law by private member’s Bill after he secured one of the top 20 spots to introduce a proposal to the Commons.
Former Labour justice secretary Lord Falconer of Thoroton has introduced the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults Bill in the House of Lords, which is expected to be the subject of a debate in mid-November.
Meanwhile, the director of the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, which put the so-called “citizens’ jury” together, said the public panel’s decision provides “the missing piece of evidence” in the debate.
A final vote was cast by 28 jury members, with 20 agreeing that the law should change after eight weeks of deliberation.
Stopping pain and giving people dignity were among the top reasons for support, although it was stressed that anyone using an assisted dying service should be terminally ill and have the capacity to make the decision to end their life.
Jury members were given information on assisted dying, including written material, videos and presentations.
Seven people disagreed with any potential law change and one person was undecided.
Those who voted in favour said assisted dying should be carried out to stop pain, as well as giving people a decision to end their life and the knowledge they can have a dignified death.
They also said it would allow people to avoid prosecution for helping a loved one to die.
Those against assisted dying warned that it could be used for the wrong reasons, misinterpreted, misused, and could result in less funding for palliative care.
The council’s director Danielle Hamm told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: “This is the missing piece of evidence and it’s the missing piece because it provides that really deep nuance around people’s judgments and why people have reached that decision, and it gives policymakers the information they need to really fully understand where the British public’s attitudes lies.
A Government spokesperson said: “Successive governments have taken the view that any change to the law in this sensitive area is a matter for Parliament to decide.
“This Government has made clear that time will be provided for a proper debate and vote on any legislation brought forward.”
Catherine Robinson, spokesperson for Right To Life UK, said “citizens’ juries do not always represent the views of the public as a whole” and called instead for Parliament to focus on improving access to “high-quality palliative care”.