Social Items

TPQ
Showing posts with label Voluntary Assisted Dying. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Voluntary Assisted Dying. Show all posts
Heartlands Tribune ☭ Written by Paul Knaggs. 

MPs have defeated the assisted dying bill by 286 votes to 270, a majority of 16. Support fell by 44 as Andy Burnham faced his first big Commons test.

MPs rejected a fresh attempt to legalise assisted dying on Friday, defeating the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill by 286 votes to 270.

Support for the bill fell by 44 MPs on last year’s vote. Three Labour opponents, including a minister who resigned after her own terminal diagnosis, said the result reflected a bill that was “unsafe and unworkable”, not a change of heart on the principle.

The result brings to an end, at least for this Parliament, a two-year campaign to change the law. MPs had twice backed the legislation before: at second reading in November 2024, by 330 votes to 275, and at third reading in June 2025, by 314 votes to 291. Both times the bill, sponsored then by the Labour MP Kim Leadbeater, went on to the House of Lords. Both times it stalled there. An unprecedented number of amendments from peers meant it ran out of parliamentary time before the 2024 to 2026 session ended, and the bill fell without becoming law.

Assisted Dying Bill Falls As Support Collapses

Wales Online ★ Written by Anders Anglesey & Olivia Bridge. Recommended by Gary Robertson.

A woman who leapt from a window in a bid to take her own life after suffering a brutal gang rape has been granted euthanasia by the courts and has given her poignant last words on the matter.

Noelia Castillo Ramos, a 25-year-old woman from Barcelona, was left traumatised with aggravated mental health issues after she was subject to a harrowing sexual assault in 2022.

The young woman even attempted to take her own life, plunging from a fifth-floor window that left her paraplegic and wheelchair-bound due to sustaining a severe spinal cord injury.

Ms Ramos said she simply wanted to "leave in peace" after enduring years of pain and suffering. Now, the European Court of Human Rights and the Constitutional Court in Spain has granted her wish.

The decision comes as her parents have desperately trying to intervene for several years to prevent their daughter from making the irreversible decision.

According to them, Ramos suffers from Borderline Personality Disorder. She experienced different stages of her life under institutional care, and was "relying on ... the Spanish mental healthcare system" before she was raped.

Continue @ Wales Online.

Final Words Of Gang Rape Victim, Age 25, Before Death By Euthanasia

Barry Gilheany ✍ The threats to democracy that have emerged in the 21st century internationally and within nation-states have almost hypermodern and transnational qualities to them.

From the release of automated bots through social media providers by bad actors such as Russia’s Internet Research Agency in order to corrupt democratic processes through misinformation; the emergence of vulgar yet alluring movements and personages like MAGA and Donald Trump who carry the Triple P virus of Populism, Polarisation and Post-Truth, and the imponderable capacity of Artificial Intelligence to transform all our lives. 

Yet what has played out in the Mother of Parliaments in the last week has illustrated the damage to the democratic will of the people that can be wrought by a venerable old part of constitutional architecture. I am referring to the steady strangulation of the Assisted Dying Bill passed by the elected UK House of Commons by the unelected, hereditary, and nominated House of Lords. The near death (absolutely no pun attended) by a thousand amendments of a piece of legislation commanding cross-party support and which, when enacted, will grant those who wish to avail of it the ultimate human rights to bodily autonomy and dignity in control of the circumstances of one’s own death, is a democratic affront no matter what one’s personal views on assisted dying are. For, in an example of Parliament at its best, the debate around the Bill was conducted with dignity and full accommodation of the passionate views held on either side of the issue and no imposition of party whips. It was then passed by the body delegated by the British people to deliberate and decide on their behalf. However, in what is probably the most outrageous abuse of its functions since it vetoed the 1911 Finance Bill, the Other Place has sought to filibuster the Assisted Dying Bill out of existence.

To briefly reprise the history of the assisted dying bill, properly known as The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, would allow mentally competent adults who are expected to die within six months - and who express “a clear, settled and informed wish to end their own life” - to get help to do so. Two doctors would have to agree as to their eligibility and a High Court judge would have to be satisfied as to the absence of any coercion. It was passed by a free and historic vote in the House of Commons in June 2025. It is opposed by Wes Streeting, the Health Secretary and Shabana Mahmood, the Home Secretary.

The violation of the fundamental tenets democratic decision making whereby an unelected upper chamber can try to override a decision by the elected lower chamber on any issue is thus a fundamental affront to anyone of a democratic persuasion. But it is the potential real-life impacts on the lived experience of those who desire a peaceful death to end a life of intolerable life. In the words of the tetraplegic Melanie Reid, the ideologues in the Lords who claim to be acting on behalf of a vulnerability minority (while defying the will of the majority).

Since then, a small group of peers have delivered more than a thousand amendments and delivered lengthy speeches, leading to accusations of the grand old delaying tactic of filibustering which Irish Home Rule Party MPs used to such infuriating effect (to opponents of Home Rule) in the Commons in the 19th century and by both Democrats and Republicans in state legislatures up and down the USA.

On Friday, the Bill’s eighth committee stage debate was upheld in the Lords; a further six are scheduled, keeping it in the upper chamber until late April. However it must clear all its remaining stages in parliament before the end of the current session, probably in May, or it will automatically fail.[1]

Analysis by the Observer shows that six peers are responsible for half the amendments: Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson; the former Health Secretary (and bon viveur drinker and cigar smoker) Therese Coffey; Ilora Finlay, a professor of palliative and former president of the Royal Society of Medicine; Alex Carlile KC, the former independent reviewer of antiterrorist legislation, Guy Mansfield (Lord Sandhurst) and Paul or Lord Goodman of Wycombe, who have tabled 623 amendments between them. During the first seven debates, opponents have taken up 90% of the debating time, according to Humanists UK, prominent Bill supporters.[2]

The sincerity of prominent disability campaigner and former Paralympic medallist Tanni Grey-Thompson and her concerns around disability matters as it relates to assisted dying cannot be dismissed. Nor can the expertise in palliative care of Professor Finlay be ignored. However most of the amendments amount to arguments against Common decisions at the heart of the Bill rather than technical revisions which raise fundamental constitutional issues. The need for robust protections against coercion of seriously ill people were raised in good faith during the Bill’s passage through the Commons and the appropriate guardrails against coercion, stronger than in any other jurisdictions permitting assisted dying including Canada, are securely integrated into the Bill.

A particularly egregious stalling tactic was the introduction of the strawman of the role of artificial intelligence in assisted dying by Therese Coffey who in toto put down 95 out of 1,227 amendments. She “put down quite a blunt amendment” to ensure that AI would be prohibited from any involvement in assisted dying. For an hour, peers speculated around such scenarios as future chatbots or algorithmic advertising or even a putative artificial general intelligence pushing people towards assisted death, or coercing people into suicide or that doctors may be fooled by fake voice recordings. Other peers pointed out that since many diseases are now partly diagnosed with AI assistance, since paralysed patients communicate using AI tools tracking their eye blinks and since AI is used to analyse GP records to uncover patterns of illness – not to mention transcribe video calls - Coffey’s amendment would make the law entirely unworkable. In the event, Coffey withdrew this amendment – like all of its 65 predecessors – after Charles Falconer, the bill’s sponsor in the Lords, promised in his response to the debate to draft an amendment dealing with digital advertising. In the opinion of Hannah Slater, a 38 year old with a three year-old son who was told last summer that she had twelve months to live after her breast cancer had spread to her brain and who would like to decide on the manner of her death, such amendments belong to secondary legislation and definitely not part of the Lords debate and which were for her “clearly a filibuster”.[3]

Another potentially complicating factor in the Lords passage of the Bill is the internal politics of the Labour Party with dozens of backbench Labour opponents of the Bill having written to the party’s chief whip Jonathan Reynolds urging him to ensure MPs are not called back to Parliament to vote on the possibly returned Bill during the campaigning period before Scottish and Welsh legislative and English local government elections on 6 May at which Labour are projected to suffer serious losses. In the words of one of these backbenchers: “While there is obviously some latent support for assistant dying, it isn’t core to what Labour was elected to do.”[4]

The violation of the fundamental tenets democratic decision making whereby an unelected upper chamber can try to override a decision by the elected lower chamber on any issue is thus a fundamental affront to anyone of a democratic persuasion. But it is the potential real-life impacts on the lived experience of those who desire a peaceful death to end a life of intolerable life. In the words of the tetraplegic Melanie Reid, the ideologues in the Lords who claim to be acting on behalf of a vulnerability minority (while defying the will of the majority) but who are actually using bad-faith tactics, presumably seeking to sabotage liberal democracy and to perform a tribute act for the “good old days when Britain was great and suicide was a criminal act.|” For, in Reid’s opinion:

They have no understanding of desperation, or what it’s like to endure the privations of the NHS without the connections to pull strings, or poverty and powerlessness. 

Not for them, the experience of “being trapped in a paralysed body I hate, fighting co-morbidities and chronic pain.”[5]

Not for the unelected moral guardians in the Lords, also the continuing trauma for affected families being forced:

to watch the terminally ill people they love and care for spend hours, sometimes days and weeks, dying slowly in agony, when even the best palliative care fails to alleviate their pain. 

Or in a parallel with the cruel anti-abortion laws in both parts of Ireland which forced thousands of Irish women (if they had the financial resources to do so) to make the lonely journey to Britain to terminate their pregnancies with no appropriate after care. If patients are rich enough they have to fly alone to die in Dignitas, in Switzerland:

unable to say their last goodbye to those they love because the current cruel criminal law means their loved ones would then be investigated by the police for murder.[6]

Ultimately, the Parliament Act can be used to force the Assisted Dying Bill into law. But before this democratic act of force majeure can be enacted, how many pain racked individuals will die in agony in a manner not of their choosing. Should the Bill fail to reach the statute book in the prescribed manner, then it will be the House of Lords who receive a terminal blow to its legitimacy and hopefully existence.

References  

[1] Catherine Neilan, Filibustering Lords seek to slow-talk the assisted dying bill to its doom. The Observer. 1 February 2026, p.7

[2] James Tapper and Katie Riley, Six Lords a-speaking: the peers whose long debates may yet end the hopes of those who choose to die. The Observer. 1 February 2026.
Assisted dying The plot against democracy pp.8-9.

[3] Ibid

[4] Neilan, op cit.

[5] Melanie Reid, Death doesn’t scare me but let me decide when it’s time to end the pain. The Observer. 1 February 2026 p.9

[6] Esther Rantzen, It’s too late to help me, but please, my lords: spare others this needless pain. The Observer. 1 February 2026 p.7

⏩Barry Gilheany is a freelance writer, qualified counsellor and aspirant artist resident in Colchester where he took his PhD at the University of Essex. He is also a lifelong Leeds United supporter.

Democracy Thwarted And Pain Is Prolonged 🪶 The House Of Lords Stymies The Assisted Dying Bill

Noel Byrne ✏ In recent years two attempts have been made in this jurisdiction to have a law on Assisted Dying enacted. Both efforts failed. 

In 2024 a Dáil “All Party Special Committee” concluded after a nine-month period of research and consideration that such legislation should be enacted here. Their report has been accepted by the Dáil. It had already been determined by the Supreme Court that there was no constitutional bar on such legislation.

Unfortunately, legislation on Assisted Dying has not been included in the new “Programme for Government” as neither Fianna Fáil nor Fine Gael had included it in their manifestos. The majority of the other political parties are in favour of such legislation.

Such legislation would permit a medically assisted death to adults of sound mind who are suffering intolerably or terminally ill, and gives a choice to those with incurable physical conditions who face years of constant pain and suffering that they find unbearable.

The purpose of any Assisted Dying legislation is to give people:

  • The right to die with dignity, peacefully, and without suffering.
  • The ability to make their own choices about death while taking into account the reasonable interest of others.
  • The ability to make their well-considered end of life decisions in a safe and peaceful environment supported by the law.

Such legislation is similar to abortion or divorce, it is about giving individuals a personal right to choose if they so desire.

Legislation on Assisted Dying is currently in place in Austria, Switzerland, The Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Spain, Portugal, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Australia, Canada, 11 of the United States and Colombia. The process to initiate such legislation is currently in progress in France, England, Scotland, Isle of Man and the Channel Islands.

The principal arguments for Assisted Dying legislation are:

  1. Relief from suffering. Assisted Dying provides a compassionate and humane way to end unbearable pain and suffering for terminally ill patients.
  2. Autonomy and Self-Determination. Persons have the right to control their own bodies and lives. This includes the decision to end their life if they are suffering.
  3. Dignity and Quality of Life. By allowing individuals to choose Assisted Dying it helps to preserve their dignity and maintain their quality of life rather than prolonging their suffering.

Naturally as with all such ethical legislation there are many who are opposed. Their arguments generally fall into four categories:

  1. The sanctity of life. This is a belief that human life has inherent value and should be preserved at all costs, regardless of circumstances. This is primarily an argument from religious belief. There is no evidence of life being sacred.
  2. The Slippery Slope argument is that legalising Assisted Dying could lead to a situation where the criteria for eligibility are gradually expanded, potentially leading to unjustified deaths. This is not a genuine argument. In any democracy the legislature must be in a position to amend legislation. It would be wrong to tie the hands of any future Government. This argument applies both ways, in that a future government might also decide to downgrade the eligibility criteria of any such legislation.
  3. Palliative care is a sufficient alternative. This is completely untrue. There are a percentage of cases where palliative care is unable to relieve intolerable pain and distress. The majority of people seeking Assisted Dying are already receiving hospice or palliative care. Assisted Dying legislation is not in competition with palliative care. It is complementary to palliative care.
  4. Potential for abuse. No law is perfect. All laws can be abused. It is most important that all laws relating to Assisted Dying have extremely tight controls and mechanisms in place whereby any abuse of the legislation is severely punished.

I am a member of EOLI (End of Life Ireland) which is a voluntary advocacy group involved solely in campaigning to have compassionate Assisted Dying legislation enacted in Ireland.

We want a compassionate law on Assisted Dying that permits a medically assisted death to adults of sound mind who are suffering intolerably or are terminally ill. We believe reform is necessary to reduce unbearable suffering of individuals, and just as importantly, to give choice to those with physical, incurable conditions who face years of constant pain or suffering that they find unbearable.

EOLI has a webpage  and also a Facebook page “End of Life Ireland” where you can get further information on this subject. EOLI are also looking for volunteers to assist us in our campaign. If you are interested in assisting the campaign you can contact us at “info@endoflifeireland.ie”.
 
⏩ Noel Byrne is a retired Civil Servant and a Humanist, with a principal interest in Philosophy, and a particular interest in Ethics and Morality.

Assisted Dying

Dr John Coulter ✍ Jesus wept - that’s the shortest verse in the Bible, found in the New Testament Gospel of St John chapter 11, verse 35.

But that emotion best sums up my reaction when I heard the horrendous news that The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill 2024-25 had passed its second reading in the House of Commons late last month.

In spite of Labour enjoying a massive majority in the Commons, Labour MP Kim Leadbeater’s Bill only passed by 55 votes after a five-hour highly-charged debate with many MPs voting according to conscience rather than a party loyalty.

This Bill would allow terminally ill adults in England and Wales with less than six months to live to end their lives, subject to the approval of two doctors and a High Court judge.

The Bill still has a lot of parliamentary stages to pass through before it becomes law and does not apply to Northern Ireland. So what is all the fuss about, you may ask me, given the supposed safeguards built into this Bill?

Is suggesting this Bill could pave the way for The Second Holocaust not a large bit ‘Over The Top’ with me behaving, not as a compassionate born again Christian, but as a raving ultra Right-wing militant fundamentalist?

The real fear for evangelical Christians like me is that this Bill could become the thin edge of the wedge in future years in terms of who could qualify for the assisted dying programme.

I’m not thinking of myself. But I am the parent of a 29-year-old son with severe non verbal autism. Since he was statemented in the late 1990s, I have witnessed the autistic spectrum widening in scope to take account of folk who would not have been on the spectrum in 1997.

Give us another decade and probably all of us will find ourselves on that spectrum to some degree, even if it is only the so-called ‘Monday Blues’!

My spine-tingling fear and the reason for my weeping is brutally simple - who will protect my son when I’m gone? Indeed, what’s to stop the scope of this assisted dying legislation being extended to the most vulnerable in our society?

It’ll never happen, I hear the supporters of assisted dying yelp; there’ll always be those built-in safeguards. That may be the case now. But after I’m dead myself, if society cannot afford to look after the most vulnerable, what’s to stop the scope of who can be classified as ‘suitable’ for assisted dying being extended to folk from the Special Educational Needs (SEN) community?

It’ll never happen, the supporters of assisted dying continue to moan. But was it not a wee former Austrian corporal who fought for Germany in the Great War who conceived a plan to try and rid Europe of folk with mental and physical disabilities?

That plan was extended to other groups and ended up with six million people dying in Nazi concentration camps between the late 1930s and 1945. So don’t tell me it can never happen given man’s reputation of inhumanity.

My son does not talk; he uses basic sign language to communicate. If such an assisted dying law was to come to Northern Ireland, do I have time to teach him the sign language for - I don’t want to die!

The Christian churches have quite rightly stepped up to the mark and voiced their strong opposition to the Commons Bill. But they must do more than complain.

The churches need to form a united front to campaign for increased funding and facilities for palliative care in Northern Ireland so that an assisted dying law is never needed in this Province.

Palliative care is a recognised and dignified medical way of treating people suffering, for example, with a terminal illness.

Churches also need to defend their theological positions on the power of prayer and the concept of divine healing.

There have been many examples over the decades and generations of people being diagnosed with supposedly terminal illnesses, only to be completely healed through genuine Christian divine healing.

There is the real possibility that any future assisted dying legislation could also mute the Christian Churches’ ability to intervene when a person has been given a terminal prognosis.

The churches cannot afford the luxury of burying their heads in the sand by simply stating this Bill only applies to England and Wales. If it can be conceived in mainland Britain, it can be introduced in Northern Ireland.

The churches need to urgently organise to ensure appropriate funding is ring-fenced for palliative care by the Stormont Executive.

Theologically, the churches also need to educate their flocks and society about divine healing, so that it is not wrongly perceived as some kind of tele-evangelism con trick.

When God decides it is my time to enter eternity, I want to do so with the peace of mind that the goal posts of who qualifies for assisted dying will not be extended so far that vulnerable adults like my son or others in the SEN community will be seen as a ‘soft touch’ to cut the caring budgets.

Put bluntly, The Second Holocaust must never become a reality.

Follow Dr John Coulter on Twitter @JohnAHCoulter
John is a Director for Belfast’s Christian radio station, Sunshine 1049 FM. 

Could Assisted Dying Law Pave Way For The Second Holocaust?

Barry Gilheany ✍ On Friday 30th November 2024, the UK House of Commons voted in favour by a comfortable margin of fifty votes of the Terminally Ill (End of Life) Bill brought by the backbench Labour MP, Kim Leadbeater. 

 Seen by many commentators as the most consequential legislative measure concerning a social reform and its associated ethics since the 1967 Abortion Act, the vote to legalise assisted dying applies to England and Wales only (the Isle of Man and Jersey are already ahead of the curve of UK jurisdictions in having legalised it). Just as with the Abortion Act, reform was initiated not by government but by a Private Member’s Bill which had been successfully drawn in a ballot and the members voted entirely by conscience. The debate was consequently in a passionate but respectful manner with no applause from the winning side after the vote. Voting preferences were expressed on a cross-party basis. The bill must pass several more hurdles and will not return to the House before April. The government is likely to assign a minister to help with deliberations on the bill without formally declaring its support for it. After that it must be voted on again by MPs and pass through the Lords. Should it become law there would be a two-year implementation period.

I must state my position on Assisted Dying at the outset. I support the principles behind the Bill on two philosophical grounds The first is the proposition by the late Professor Ronald Dworkin that there is no absolute sanctity of biological life either at its beginning or end. The second is the absolute human right to property in one’s person or bodily integrity. Regarding the first precept, an absolute belief in the sanctity of human life at the point of fertilisation, conception or at any point in the gestation process thereafter cannot automatically trump the rights and interests of the pregnant woman, not least her health. Likewise, a dogmatic insistence on the sanctity of life at its very end should not veto the choice of a mentally competent, terminally ill adult in pain to manage the manner of their death by hastening it in order to avoid the indignity, squalor and sheer agony of, for example, dying in their own bodily waste as Ms Leadbeater graphically testified to the case of Tom who had “vomited faecal matter for five hours before he ultimately inhaled the faeces” all the time remaining conscious while his family pleaded with doctors to help.[1]

That an intervention by Tom’s family in this situation could have resulted in prosecution and a 14-year jail sentence for coercion is reason enough for Parliament to have, in the words of Polly Toynbee, “have finally caught up with the public who have long been firmly and unwaveringly in support of assisted dying, since the first polls were carried out on the issue, more than forty years ago”[2]. She further notes that around the globe, scores of countries including many of greater religiosity than Britain have long had dignity in dying legislation – Spain, Australia, and New Zealand among many examples. Seven times since 2010, Conservative dominated parliaments had voted down bills on the right to die, regardless of public opinion until this ‘landmark’; this ‘enduring symbol and humane legacy of this Labour government’[3].

On bodily integrity arguments, it is a basic human right not to be subjected to coercive medical treatment be it enforced pregnancy, birth control, sterilisation, ECT for mental illness or forced feeding (think of the horrific manner in which forcible feeding was inflicted on the Price sisters during their imprisonment as depicted in Say Nothing the nine part adaptation on Disney + of Patrick Radden’s book of the same name). Every mentally competent person has the right to informed consent over medical decisions taken at every stage of the life cycle; be it the transition to adulthood, pregnancy, menopause, or the ageing process. Why should it be any different for the end of lie or, to put in the stark terms that society is so reluctant to acknowledge, death. For death is part of the life cycle and the part that none of us can avoid. It is a basic human instinct to avoid pain and a basic human right to avoid unnecessary pain and sufferings. Anaesthetics relieve pain in operative care; epidurals relieve pain in childbirth; vaccines are a universally proven, almost pain free means of avoiding infectious diseases. Why can the last few months of one’s natural life span not be similarly pain free or minimally painful? Does the sole means of pain relief in our last moments have to be the shot of morphine administered 24 hours before death? BTW, arguments, usually from the theologically dogmatic or from “natural health” ideologues, get short shrift here.

Much heartfelt and genuine opposition to the bill came from palliative care doctors and from those who convincingly argued that individual empathy was not the sole prerogative of parliamentarians. There were equal obligations to consider the risks to the vulnerable not just our end-of-life choices as individuals. For opponents of the Bill there was the looming spectre of the “slippery slope” whereby the bill could enable pressure being brought to bear on dementia sufferers or those affected by severe disabilities to prematurely end their lives by impatient or exploitative relatives. Such concerns were forcefully expressed by the Health Secretary, Wes Streeting, who unhelpfully complained of the “resource implications” of the bill as well as by the Justice Secretary, Sabina Mahmood.

Religious and ethical opposition to the bill take issue with the centrality of “compassion” in the arguments of its proponents. For Richard Harries, former Anglican Bishop of Oxford and cross bench peer, compassion, as a rational ethical principle may simply place the “good” of the person suffering at the front of our minds but it does not measure up the good of one individual, in terms of their suffering, to the loss of a major good for society, by undermining a sense of the essential worth and dignity of every human being, regardless of their suffering.[4] He warns of the danger of, in the event of the bill’s passage into law, of pressure to extend its scope in the manner of the legislation in place in Canada, Belgium and the Netherlands. As evidence, he cites the statistic of 138 assisted deaths in the Netherlands last year of people with mental illness, most of them single women under sixty suffering from depression (one was under 20).

A humanist reply to Richard Harries would be that unnecessary suffering at the end of life is an affront to the essential worth and dignity of humanity as a whole. According to Trevor More, chair of My Death, My Decision twenty people every day in the UK suffer unbearable pain at the end of their lives despite the receiving the best possible care. In his words “These people deserve better. They deserve the dignity of choice at the end of their lives, and we are relieved to see MPs acknowledge this.”[5]

Yet the voices and concerns of people with disabilities can never be dismissed in this debate. Labour MP Marie Tindall born with a disability affecting all four limbs recalled the extreme pain of having major surgery aged six, covered in body plaster from chest to ankles, in so much pain and requiring so much morphine that her skin began to itch and saying to her parents “Please let me die”. For her, “That moment also gave me a glimpse of how I would want to live my death just as I have lived my life” For “So often control is taken away from disabled people in all sorts of circumstances.”[6]

In the same vein another Labour MP, Jess Asato, while speculating that one day she may desire assisted dying for herself, “protection for vulnerable people should be paramount”, pointing out that there is no mandatory training for judges on coercive and controlling behaviour, nor is there for medical professionals raising the question as to “who will raise the alarm” in the absence of an obligation to tell one’s family and friends should one opt for assisted dying.[7]

But there is no inherent contradiction in advocating for assisted dying as well as lobbying for the rights of disabled adults and campaigning for better palliative care. As it stands, the bill places the decision to permit assisted dying in the hands of two medical professionals who must certify that the person seeking the assisted death is a mentally competent adult who has a maximum of six months to live. Any acts of coercion are punishable by a 14-year prison sentence. It is to be hoped that the deliberative process ahead will encompass the concerns that many legitimately feel around assisted dying while in the medium to long term reaches the broad consensus that exists around abortion, divorce, and same-sex marriage. The maturity of the Commons debate does augur well for these prospects.

Refeences

[1] Polly Toynbee A truly historic vote, and a new era of dignity. Guardian 30th November 2024

[2]Ibid

[3] Ibid

[4] Richard Harries. Another Voice. Assisted Dying is not solely about autonomy – it’s also about the value we place upon life. The New Statesman 29 November – 5 December 2024 p.27

[5] Jessica Elgot How the vote was won. From pubs to libraries, MPs were swayed by the stories of constituents. Guardian 30th November 2024.

[6] Historic vote paves wat for assisted dying to be legalised in England and Wales. Guardian 30th November 2024.

[7] Ibid

⏩Barry Gilheany is a freelance writer, qualified counsellor and aspirant artist resident in Colchester where he took his PhD at the University of Essex. He is also a lifelong Leeds United supporter. 

Assisted Dying Bill 🪶Some Thoughts

Independent  ✏ Written by Ellie Harrison.

31-October-2024

Blur drummer Dave Rowntree has launched an attack on the UK law on assisted dying, after his terminally ill ex-wife was forced to travel to Dignitas in Switzerland, where she died alone.

Rowntree, 60, was married to Paola Marra in the Nineties. Before her death aged 53, which took place in Zurich in March, Marra had been suffering from terminal bowel cancer and was being supported by Rowntree.

In a new interview with The Guardian, the musician called the UK law on assisted dying “psychopathic” because it shows “absolutely no empathy for the sufferer”.

Assisted dying is criminalised in the UK, but there are growing calls for a change in the law. Next month, a bill will be published proposing legalisation of assisted dying in England and Wales under strict regulations.

After several rounds of difficult treatment and surgeries, Marra – who was allergic to strong painkillers – decided she did not want to face a painful death.

Rowntree, whose father John also died of bowel cancer this year, accused the state of “washing its hands of difficult problems in a way that I can’t stomach”.

Continue reading @ Independent.

Blur Drummer Calls UK Assisted Dying Law ‘Psychopathic’ After Ex-Wife Went To Switzerland To Die Alone

Dr John Coulter ✍ The Christian denominations in Ireland need to swallow the bitter medicine that they are facing a Custer’s Last Stand when it comes to opposing any laws to legalise assisted dying in both Northern Ireland and the Republic.

Christian churches have already lost battles to stop the legalisation of homosexuality, the introduction of same sex marriages, more liberal abortion laws, and the introduction of safe access zones at abortion clinics.

Likewise, they face a tough uphill fight to combat the extension of Relationship and Sexuality Education (RSE) across all schools in Northern Ireland.

Ireland, north and south, used to have the reputation where church and state were fused together in the running of political and social affairs. But this is a very different island compared to the days of Eamon de Valera in the South, and James Craig in the North.

Put bluntly, the churches will need a united front with a strongly pro-active campaign to lobby politicians if they are to prevent assisted dying being legalised throughout the island. Clerics have a moral and Biblical duty to mobilise their flocks against any introduction of assisted dying.

Loose this battle, and the relevance of the churches will be radically diminished. There is also the very real danger the assisted dying debate among the churches will become yet another Orange and Green argument.

Sinn Féin and the SDLP both say they would consider supporting a change to the law to allow assisted dying for people with a terminal illness. Could this see a boost for the pro-life republican party, Aontu; a movement founded by disillusioned Sinn Fein supporters unhappy with the latter’s support for abortion?

Within the Unionist community, both the DUP and TUV would oppose assisted dying, as would the so-called evangelical wing of the UUP.

Sinn Fein and the SDLP have make it clear there would need to be safeguards in place to ensure any new laws were not abused.

While assisted dying is currently illegal in Northern Ireland, there are moves in the UK, and the Republic of Ireland, to bring in new legislation on the issue.

A bill to legalise assisted dying for terminally-ill people in Scotland was introduced at Holyrood last month.

Christians need to hammer home the point that when it comes to the subject of death, it is God who decides when a person dies and enters eternity.

Surely with the developments in science and medicine over the decades, better pain relief drugs have been developed in terms of end of life care.

Many Christians believe passionately in the power of prayer and divine healing. But to legalise assisted dying must be branded for what it truly is - people playing God.

Those who advocate assisted dying may point all they want to the many safeguards they claim will be put in place, but ultimately a human has to take the decision to end someone’s suffering.

For Christians to simply roll over and accept assisted dying is to Biblically bin the concept of divine healing. Of course, supporters of assisted dying may argue - what about the folk that God does not heal and end up dying?

Some folk may even argue the point - what is the difference between assisted dying and capital punishment? The end result is the same; the death of an individual.

However, the real danger with assisted dying is that a decision is taken once a diagnosis of a potentially fatal illness is made before that person deteriorates into becoming terminally-ill.

In spite of all the so-called safeguards, checks and balances which supporters of assisted dying may claim will be put in place, at some point someone will suggest the use of assisted dying could be applied to physically and mentally handicapped people based on their quality of life.

If that situation should ever occur, society would be no better than the Nazis who butchered millions in their death camps during the Hitler era.

Another problem for the churches in opposing assisted dying is that many denominations are so busy bickering about pedantic issues, such as music at worship, translations of the Bible, women’s fashion in church, that they will miss the big picture.

Similarly, some denominations may not want to work with other churches for the simple reason they view such co-operation as some form of ecumenism and don’t want to be branded by militant fundamentalists as being part of the ecumenical movement.

One thing is certain; if the churches lose this battle on preventing assisted dying laws being introduced across the island, Christian denominations will also see what influence they still have radically reduced to the point where politicians simply ignore the views of the churches.

If that situation becomes a reality, the churches have only themselves to blame. Like it or not, the churches must form a united front on stopping any potential assisted dying laws.

Follow Dr John Coulter on Twitter @JohnAHCoulter
Listen to commentator Dr John Coulter’s programme, Call In Coulter, every Saturday morning around 10.15 am on Belfast’s Christian radio station, Sunshine 1049 FM. Listen online.

Churches Need To Mobilise Against Any Assisted Dying Laws

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)