WILL JONES
Assisted suicide is to be legalised after MPs backed Kim Leadbetter’s bill by just 23 votes despite warnings the NHS does not have capacity to provide death services as well as medical services. The Telegraph has more.
The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill was supported by 314 votes to 291, a majority of 23, as it cleared the Commons, paving the way for assisted dying services to be introduced by the end of the decade.
The legislation will now go to the House of Lords for further scrutiny but the decision by MPs to give the Bill its third reading means it is now almost guaranteed to make it onto the statute book and become law.
The bill will allow terminally ill adults in England and Wales, with fewer than six months to live, to apply for an assisted death, subject to approval by two doctors and a panel featuring a social worker, senior legal figure and psychiatrist.
Critics of the legislation have warned its safeguards are not strong enough and vulnerable people could be coerced or feel pressured into ending their lives early.
The margin of victory was significantly smaller than it was in November last year when MPs backed the Bill in principle by 330 votes to 275, a majority of 55.
Sir Keir Starmer voted in favour of the Bill but other Cabinet heavyweights, including Wes Streeting and Angela Rayner, voted against.
In the debate, Labour MP and former shadow minister for disabled people Vicky Foxcroft highlighted opposition from disabled people, who are among those most likely to experience pressure and coercion in relation to ending their lives.
I don’t claim that every disabled person opposes assisted dying but I do claim that the vast majority of disabled people and their organisations oppose it.
They need the health and social care system fixing first. They want us as parliamentarians to assist them to live, not to die.
Conservative former home secretary Sir James Cleverly highlighted “the number of professional bodies which… are opposed to the provisions within this bill” and the medical staff who say the NHS does not have capacity for providing assisted suicide as well as medical care.
Are members and right honourable members genuinely happy to write the blank cheque that this bill demands? Because it is normal for the Secretary of State of a Government department to decide when a piece of legislation comes into force and they make that decision based on the state’s ability to deliver that legislation.
Commencement dates matter, they are not just some arbitrary date on a piece of paper and I understand the desire of people to make sure this can’t be lost down the back of the sofa when it comes to government work but when people upon whom we rely to deliver this say they are not ready and they don’t feel they will be ready, they don’t have enough people, they don’t have enough capacity, they will have to take resource from current provisions to move across to this provision which will be driven by a statutory requirement and a locked in commencement date, we should listen.
We should listen and if the people who are going to make this work and work as well as we hope it will if it becomes legislation say that they are not confident that they can make it happen, we should be very, very careful about demanding that they prioritise this and that is what this legislation says.
Sir Jeremy Wright, the Tory former attorney general, said legalising assisted dying would “send a signal that society, through Parliament, believes that something that we used to think was unacceptable is now acceptable, in this case that assisting someone to die is now something of which we approve”.
I believe that is bound to have an impact on those who are in great distress at the end of their lives, who may already be thinking it would be better if they were out of the way.
I do not want to live in a society where anyone, including the terminally ill, is encouraged in the belief that their lives are not valuable and valued to their very last moments. I fear that this bill, though not its intent, brings such a society closer and that is why I cannot support it.
This is what packing the Commons with Labour MPs gets you.
Having said that, it wouldn’t have passed if 20 Tories, including Rishi Sunak and Jeremy Hunt, hadn’t backed it. Two Reform MPs – Richard Tice and Sarah Pochin – also voted to bring state-supported suicide to Britain, though Farage, Anderson and McMurdock opposed it.
Kemi voted against. But will the Tories commit to reversing it? Seems unlikely. Does Left-wing liberalisation ever get reversed by subsequent Conservative governments? Not that I’ve ever noticed.
Full MP voting information here.
Stop Press: Tory former Cabinet Minister Lord Harper has said it’s possible the bill may not “see the light of day”. He told the Mail: “It’s not a Government Bill and it wasn’t in anybody’s manifesto, so there is no constitutional reason why the Lords shouldn’t do its job properly and amend the Bill considerably if required.”
This article (Assisted Suicide to Become Law as MPs Back Bill by 23 Votes) was created and published by Daily Sceptic and is republished here under “Fair Use” with attribution to the author Will Jones
See Related Article Below
Britain has fallen to the technocratic death cult
In backing ‘assisted dying’, MPs have given the state a licence to kill.
BRENDAN O’NEILL CHIEF POLITICAL WRITER
Politicians twist words and abuse language to ‘make lies sound truthful and murder respectable’, said George Orwell. That has never rang more true than it does today. In the House of Commons this afternoon, MPs spoke in deceitful tongues to make suicide sound attractive and death sound liberal. They voted to legalise what they call ‘assisted dying’, but which I think we should call state-sanctioned suicide. For strip away all the linguistic trickery about a ‘right to die’ and what we are left with is a new regime of state-appointed death merchants who will have the power not only to propose self-destruction to the ill, but to facilitate it, too.
Make no mistake, this is a dark day for Britain. MPs voted by 314 to 291 to pass the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill. This is the private members’ bill, spearheaded by Labour MP Kim Leadbeater, that will empower the state to aid and abet the destruction of lives judged to be less good or less happy than others. It applies to England and Wales. It will permit sick people who are expected to die within six months to get ‘medical assistance’ to end their lives. To be eligible for this state-sanctioned suicide, you must be over 18, have mental capacity and get the agreement of two doctors, seven days apart. Then the state will give you poison to bring about your death.
Ms Leadbeater and her supporters big up the bill’s ‘safeguards’. They insist the law will not be a slippery slope to a culture of death, to self-obliteration as a consumer choice for the merely sad or dejected. It’s about ‘assisting’ the terminally ill only, they say. Yet even on this front, its flaws are glaring. Doctors are often wrong when they estimate how long the sick have left. You might be given six months but get two years. What’s more, people often feel suicidal upon receiving a terminal diagnosis, but then reflect and change and come to cherish the time they have left. This law, unquestionably, would lead to the state-faciliated deaths of people who had so much more living to do.
All the technical blather about ‘safeguards’ distracts us from the profound moral questions thrown up by the bill. Let’s be clear: this law would represent one of the most dramatic and destructive overhauls of the relationship between the state and the individual that we have ever seen. Overnight we would transform from a society that seeks to prevent suicide into one that facilitates it. The health service, once proudly devoted to saving life, would now be charged with ending life in certain circumstances. The Hippocratic cry of ‘First do no harm’ would lie in tatters, replaced by a new deathly creed: ‘Do no harm, unless they’re very sick, in which case maybe kill them?’
This law would empower officialdom to sanction death in certain circumstances. It would be lethally naive to overlook what a deathly revolution this would represent. The state would go from being a machine charged with defending the life of its citizens to one that sometimes dangles the prospect of death before its citizens. The law would turn certain officials into little emperors of death, with the power to give a Nero-style thumbs-up or thumbs-down to the life of the individual. You’re well and healthy? You must not die. You’re very ill or profoundly disabled? Maybe you should die. And maybe we should help you.
To permit the state to make such sweeping judgements about the worth of a life is to step into a technocratic hell where human life is stripped of its inherent virtue and reduced instead to a list of tick-box traits that some apparatchik might then peruse before deciding: Worth Living or Not Worth Living. This law would reorientate the institutions of society around death-giving rather than life-giving. It proposes ‘education campaigns’ to raise awareness about ‘assisted death’ among both officials and ordinary citizens. It would make it difficult for hospices to opt out of ‘educating’ their residents about ‘assisted death’. It will allow private contractors to bring about the deaths of those who opt for it. Suicide as a profit-making enterprise? This is Ballardian-level grimness.
I feel certain that any new system of state-sanctioned suicide would become bound up with today’s fashionable view of human beings as a ‘burden’. We’re called a ‘plague’ on the planet. The longevity of the old, courtesy of the wonders of medicine, is feverishly talked about as an ‘ageing timebomb’. People worry about nasty family members possibly pressuring their sick parents to opt for ‘assisted death’. I’m more worried about the cultural pressure, on older people especially, to stop being such a drain on the health service, the housing market and poor old Mother Nature. This suicide-abetting bill both reflects and will further entrench the dispiriting view of human life as sometimes unbearable or even pestilent, and thus possibly requiring extinguishment.
Under Canada’s regime of state-sanctioned suicide, some poor people have opted for death because they feel they have no future prospects. What makes us think we can guard against such fascistic horrors just because we have some ‘safety mechanisms’ in place? This cursed bill will go to the Lords now but it looks certain it will become law. It is incumbent on us all to resist its glib and deathly writ and make the case for the virtue of life against the macabre book-keepers of the technocratic elite. I spent much of the past five years seeing a loved one through the end of life. It is sad and unpleasant and hard but there is joy and bliss, too. All the stuff of life, even in death.
Brendan O’Neill is spiked’s chief political writer and host of the spiked podcast, The Brendan O’Neill Show. Subscribe to the podcast here. His new book – After the Pogrom: 7 October, Israel and the Crisis of Civilisation – is available to order on Amazon UK and Amazon US now. And find Brendan on Instagram: @burntoakboy
This article (Britain has fallen to the technocratic death cult) was created and published by Spiked Online and is republished here under “Fair Use” with attribution to the author Brendan O’Neill
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of The Liberty Beacon Project.
Leave a Reply