The UK Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

We began to discuss euthanasia, emphasising that life is an inherent good; which is something that is generally understood because, in society, we constantly legislate laws and adopt practices that are supposed to protect life indiscriminately, especially that of the most vulnerable, such as children and the elderly. We proceed to look at the dangerous trajectory of euthanasia, looking at Canada as a case study, and also emphasising the dangers of the UK’s Terminally Ill Adults (or End of Life) Bill in the UK. Well, today, we ought to zoom in on the UK bill further, because of a concern that many are highlighting as a feature and consequence of this bill.
CONTEXT AND RECAPITULATION: EUTHANASIA IS NOT COMPASSION
And now onto our main discussion, we ought to begin with a quick piece of content and recapitulation; which is that euthanasia is primarily advocated for as a compassionate act that allows people to die in a dignified manner. In recent days, this narrative has been relaunched, especially when we look at the recent debate and passed bill in the UK. And one of the tricks of the proponents of euthanasia is to pass off as normal and common what is extreme and rare (being euthanasia). Because for the extreme and rare there would then either be no need to legislate, or less resistance to normalisation.
And, in essence, this is why the Bill in the UK is a problem; this bill is being portrayed in many places as a product of compassionate and heartfelt debate, but really it capitalises on the fact that laws in any country are typically a socialisation agent, that is used to systematically nudge society to think a particular way. This is to say that the passing of this Bill creates (directly or indirectly) a perception that euthanasia is acceptable because it is no longer legally wrong.
Furthermore, it is pertinent to remember that social acceptance of euthanasia is nothing new. In various historical societies, and also in ancient Greece and Rome, euthanasia was not frowned upon by society. The elderly, the allegedly incurably ill or those tired of living could commit suicide, apply to be disposed of in a more or less (quote-unquate) “honourable” way or were subjected to eugenic practices and rites. In fact, the appreciation of all human life was a real progress introduced by Christianity – you see this in how the Master Jesus treated for instance people who had deformities or were lepers, in comparison to the people in His time. And so, the attempted sensationalisation of euthanasia in the present is, in reality, a step backwards! There is nothing compassionate or dignified about euthanasia. In fact, euthanasia is not even addressing a medical issue, rather it is (often) being used as an incongruent solution to an existential issue.
A EUTHANASIA BILL FAILED TO PASS IN THE UK IN 2015 – WHAT CHANGED?
Having established this context and recapitulation, we then ought to proceed to a discussion of the UK’s Which then brings us to the Terminally Ill Adults (or End of Life) Bill. And to begin with, we must note that it was actually not the first time that this bill was debated in parliament. More specifically, in 2015 MPs voted overwhelmingly against changing the law to allow doctors to help terminally ill people end their lives. In their first vote on the issue for about 20 years, the Commons rejected the assisted dying bill introduced by Rob Marris, a Labour MP who had argued that it was about ensuring peaceful deaths rather than euthanasia.
The debate was heated on both sides, with many MPs drawing on their personal experiences of dying relatives to give weight to their arguments. However, opponents outnumbered supporters by 212, with 330 voting against and 118 in favour. In addition, the debate came to the Commons after the supreme court said in 2014 it could not make a ruling in favour of Tony Nicklinson’s right to die because it was a matter for parliament.
Well, passions ran high from the beginning of the parliamentary debate. Crispin Blunt, a Conservative former minister whose parents and father-in-law died of cancer, made the case for people to be given a choice on how to end their lives, saying he was somewhat (quote) “appalled that the Catholic and faith lobby seek to limit personal autonomy” (end quote) – which is quite critical to keep in mind for the purpose of our discussion. Similarly, Keir Starmer, the Labour MP and former director of public prosecutions at the time, also gave a speech in favour, after laying out his reasons for deciding in a number of cases not to prosecute people who had helped dying relatives to end their lives abroad.
On the other hand, Caroline Spelman, a Conservative former environment secretary, said the sanctity of life should be respected and older people should not feel they are a burden on their families. In the same light, Fiona Bruce, the Tory MP for Congleton, described the bill as “legally and ethically totally unacceptable”, while the former defence secretary, Liam Fox, said the legislation would open a “Pandora’s box” and “overturn 2,000 years of the Hippocratic oath”. Labour MP Lyn Brown said she was concerned elderly people could be “emotionally blackmailed” by relatives to end their lives. And one of the most emotional interventions was from Labour’s Yasmin Qureshi, who said her 83-year-old mother had been given three days to live and began to say she felt like a burden on her family and could not go on, AND YET she survived and fully recovered!
WHAT CHANGED? INCREASED EFFORTS SUPPORTING THE DEPOPULATION AGENDA
Clearly, the prevailing sentiment at this time in the UK, in 2015, was that euthanasia was immoral and unacceptable – which is critical to note because the indicated arguments in support of euthanasia were essentially the same arguments that were made in the recent debate this year. So, what changed in 2024, almost a decade later? It appears that evidently the answer lies in a shift away from Godly wisdom and the resulting moral decadence.
In particular, as the war on Christians intensifies in Europe (with France making a mockery of Christ during the Olympics; the BBC suppressing Christian doctrine and figures on their platforms, and Chrstians being arrested for silently praying outside an abortion clinic – like we saw with Adam Smith-Connor in Britain), well the depopulation agenda has also been re-launched, because the proponents behind it are unrelenting. So much so, that the same cohort or cabal of psychopaths with malthusian aspirations to significantly decrease the population, have launched a war on the elderly through euthanasia, and it is even tied to the vaccine holocaust agenda.
I believe this signifies what we mentioned earlier, which is that one of the tricks of the proponents of euthanasia is to pass off as normal and common what is extreme and rare (being euthanasia). Because for the extreme and rare there would then either be no need to legislate, or less resistance to normalisation. And how they intend for this to pan out in light of euthanasia is for no one to bat an eye if suddenly the population of the elderly decreases, because well, it would be considered legal how they died. But, there is nothing acceptable or legally legitimate about eroding the protection of the absolute and inalienable right to life.
THE MISCONCEPTIONS OF BRITISH PARLIAMENTARIANS REGARDING EUTHANASIA
But, let’s further proceed to address the grossly obvious misconception of the British parliamentarians in how they approached the debate of the Bill, and even the debate itself. For starters, the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill was initiated by MP Kim Leadbeater and allows terminally-ill adults aged 18 or over the right to request medically assisted suicide. The bill passed its Second Reading on the 29th of November, with 330 MPs voting in favor of it and 275 against it.
Well, a group of 15 leading palliative care doctors across England and Wales responded to this development, by making the argument that the case for assisted dying rests on dangerous misconceptions about the reality of death and dying. More specifically, the palliative care doctors, following the Westminster debate in which members of England’s Parliament voted in favor of legalising assisted suicide, the 15 palliative care specialists voiced their concerns in a letter to The Times, published on December 3rd. Reflecting on the vote, the signatories wrote that “anyone watching the debate would have been forgiven for thinking that most deaths involve great suffering”; and while as practitioners they do not deny ‘bad deaths’ can happen, they argue that most of the MPs reflect failure of care… and as the bill progresses through Parliament it needs to be accompanied by progress in understanding ‘ordinary dying.’”
Furthermore, in their letter to the Times, the palliative medical experts highlighted a number of other misconceptions underpinning the debate before the vote, including the idea that people regularly resort to starving themselves to death and that covert euthanasia is already happening across England and Wales. The doctors responded to say that several MPs suggested that many people resort to starving themselves to death, which they believe misunderstands the expected reduction in oral intake in people who are severely ill and whose bodies are progressively shutting down. “Other misconceptions concerned the use of morphine to treat pain and suffering at the end of life, with the conflicting suggestions that there is both a limit to the amount of morphine that can be safely used and that high doses of morphine are already used as ‘covert’ assisted dying.” And all of this is to say, that the parliamentarians where also misguided in their discussions on assisted dying in the Debate on November 29th.
But, I would argue that the biggest misconception is that people, embrace death with (especially death that is brought by illness). This is not true: often, chronic pain and the concern of being a burden makes death seem like a logical choice, but certainly not a desirable one. We discussed this in light of Normand Meunier’s case in Canada during the previous discussion, and even Labour’s Yasmin Qureshi’s 83-year-old mother earlier on today. But, kindly have a listen to Member of Parliament Danny Kruger as he explained why he intended to vote against the bill, because he addressed a number of practical and principled misconceptions as well.
THE UK ‘END OF LIFE’ BILL PERPETUATES ELDERLY ABUSE IN THE MEDICAL INDUSTRY
This development in the UK is also not in isolation; because it is part of a broader problem of elderly abuse as well. In particular, you’d recall that we have discussed that some hospitals are actually legally (so to speak) injuring and killing patients. More alarming is the fact that this has to do with plain poor hospital care for vulnerable patients, who end up being ill-treated in the absence of an advocate. Among such patients are often the elderly. While elder abuse can happen anywhere, it is especially prevalent in institutional settings like nursing homes and hospitals! Reports indicate that around 1 in 6 elderly persons experienced some form of abuse in community settings, such as nursing homes, in 2021. HOWEVER, data on the extent of elder abuse in hospitals is scarce and difficult to obtain, in large part because many cases of elder abuse are not reported or recognised by healthcare providers, family members, or the victims themselves.
That said, studies conducted in different nations have attempted to estimate the prevalence and characteristics of elder abuse in hospitals. For example, a study conducted in China found that 36.2% of hospitalised older adults reported experiencing at least one type of abuse during their hospital stay. Another study conducted in Brazil found that 32% of hospitalised older adults reported experiencing at least one type of abuse during their hospital stay. Still, one can expect that in reality, these numbers are, unfortunately, much higher. But here’s a doctor explaining the extent of the abuse when it relates to how medicine is and IS NOT administered.
Well, even though elderly abuse tends not to be reported extensively, why are hospitals not evaluating their care practices and how they contribute to the health challenges experienced by patients – especially because many of the challenges mentioned by the doctor we just heard are now fairly known. For instance, many people are aware of the potential to contract infections in a hospital; many people are also aware of the potential to contract superbugs, which are strains of bacteria that are resistant to several types of antibiotics, as a result of overexposure to antibiotics. Therefore, the immediate question that follows these revelations is what is then being done to address these issues. And, unfortunately, according to the same doctor, not much.
So, it appears that not only are hospitals placing profit above patient care by denying them medicines that cost from $5 to $50 dollars, but they are also not liable for the issues resulting from their poor care practices? This means there might not be an incentive for improvement in patient care. And I say this considering hospitals that are especially well-resourced, and have the capacity to do better; because – often – the reason why denying a patient medicine is a problem is NOT because the medicine is not there. When a hospital lacks the necessary resources for procedures and care, it is a shortage problem and not necessarily one that we attribute to the care practices of hospitals themselves.
THE TYPICAL “PRINCIPLE” ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF EUTHANASIA: CONSENT TO HARM
Then, finally, I’d like to address the typical principal argument in support of euthanasia, which is often made in an effort to make the claim that there is a principal precedent to support euthanasia. And the argument in question is often that people in society are allowed to consent to a degree of self harm – which is seen for instance, in people being allowed to consume alcohol or cigarettes, or even take part in contact sports like boxing and rugby.
But, the problem with trying to use this argument to make a principle justification for euthanasia is that smoking or boxing are significantly different to euthanasia, in that firstly, the degree of harm one might suffer from smoking and boxing will NOT assuredly have an immediate and guaranteed life ending effect. In fact, activities like smoking and boxing are allowed with caution, because of the underlying value for preserving human life. That’s why big tobacco was mandated to be honest about the impact of nicotine in their products (while also placing warnings on packages), and why boxing necessitates safety gear for the athletes. Therefore, because people engage in potentially dangerous activities, does not mean that we devalue life altogether. There simply is no principally justifiable argument for euthanasia.
THE UK TERMINALLY ILL ADULTS BILL REPRESENTS A DIGRESSION FROM GODLY WISDOM
But ultimately, the UK terminally Ill Adults or End of Life Bill represents a digression from Godly Wisdom. When significant changes take place as a consequence of sinister influence, it is often a gradual process. A catalyst takes place, the slow burn begins, and then a threshold is crossed, and suddenly the narrative changes. For instance, Europe was pivotal in taking the Sopel to other continents, and yet, today, the Christian faith and doctrine in Europe is not as valued as it was; in fact, in a number of places, people have great reverence for their government and secular law instead.
This highlights the significant shift in social narrative in Europe, and in particular in the UK. When laws are made, it is not the Wisdom of God and Scriptures that are at the fore of the discussion, rather it is people’s subjective interpretations of reality and life that is debated.
But, we have surely prayed, and continue to pray. They will live in our world, and we will not live in theirs. AND, when we make the agenda of the adversary plain, the veil of deception is indeed being broken – in fact, Proverbs 11:9 tells us that “…through knowledge shall the just be delivered.”
Written by Lindokuhle Mabaso