Sadly, MPs voted in favor of legalizing assisted suicide, by a majority of 330 to 275.
Among those who backed the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill were 234 from Labour (58% of the party’s MPs), 23 Tories (19%) and a majority from Reform UK (60%).
Proponents of the legalization of so-called “assisted dying”, both in the United Kingdom and abroad, have put on the cloak of compassion for the many ailing and suffering members of society who may wish to terminate their lives supposedly to “end their suffering”.
Leadbeater, the woman spearheading the passing of this anti-life bill, told leftist news outlet The Guardian (more accurately, the “guardian” of Communism), urged her colleagues in the British Parliament to support the bill in favor of so-called “bodily autonomy”, claiming that legalizing assisted dying is a “once in a decade” opportunity.
Furthermore, during a separate interview on the podcast The News Agents,Leadbeater tried to sell the unpopular notion of suicide by declaring that she “would not want to be a burden” to other members of society, asserting that “being concerned about being a burden is a legitimate reason” to consider assisted suicide to end one’s life.
During the same podcast, interviewer Lewis Goodall pointed out that in Canada, more than one-third of people in Canada undergoing physician-assisted suicide admitted that they felt they were a perceived burden on family and caregivers, as per a report by Catholic Herald.
When Goodall probed Leadbeater more on the subject, the leftist politician replied:
“Well, there is an argument that having personal choice and autonomy is part of the whole process. There are people who have said to me… surely being concerned about being a burden is a legitimate reason as well… I know I wouldn’t want to be a burden to people. I can say that to you now in the clear light of day.”
Unsurprisingly, the current authoritarian leader of Britain, Marxist Keir Stamer , who has shown his disdain for Christianity, vulnerable lives, and ordinary British people, previously displayed his true colors regarding “assisted suicide”.
Responding to Esther Rantzen, an outspoken advocate for “assisted suicide”, earlier this year, Starmer said:
“I’m personally in favour of changing the law. I think we need to make time. We will make the commitment.”
Besides legitimate concerns that doctor-assisted suicide could imperil the health and lives of many vulnerable people, various anti-life Labour MPs are even campaigning to widen the scope of those qualifying for assisted suicide, the Telegraph reported. The same Telegraph article elaborated that this group of 54 cross-party MPs, 13 of whom are in Government positions, want Leadbeater’s assisted suicide Bill to apply not only to people who are terminally ill, but also to those who are “incurably suffering”. Notably, The news that these MPs were backing a more radical amendment to the law came shortly after Leadbeater maintained that her Bill will only apply to those with terminal illnesses.
“I’m really clear. This is about people who are terminally ill”, she proclaimed.
When questioned about the risks of a slippery slope once assisted suicide gets legalized, Leadbeater responded:
“Wherever a law has been introduced in other countries and it’s got strict limited criteria with proper safeguards and protections, it hasn’t been widened. So there is a perception that’s the case but it isn’t the case. Where there are countries where the law is broader, that was always how it started. So I think there is a perception around the slippery slope concept, which actually isn’t reality.”
Nonetheless, the reality that Leadbeater has yet to acknowledge publicly is that various colleagues are lobbying for precisely that slippery slope, for the current proposed bill to expand its scope, according to Assistant Professor of International Relations and International Law at Leiden University and a research fellow at the University of Oxford, Yuan Yi Zhu.
Besides, members of the “assisted suicide” cult, including the group “Dignity in Dying”, have illustrated the American state of Oregon as an example for introducing similar legislation in Great Britain, falsely claiming that Oregan enables assisted suicide under stringent conditions.
However, various academics who evaluated “assisted suicide” figures from Oregon over the last 25 years in the journal BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care have concluded that since it materialized in Oregon, the anti-life law has later been broadly interpreted to permit more people to qualify for “assisted suicide”. An abstract detailing the results of this BMJ study alarmingly revealed the following:
“The number of assisted deaths in Oregon increased from 16 in 1998 to 278 in 2022. Over this time, patients’ health funding status changed from predominantly private (65%) to predominantly government support (79.5%), and there was an increase in patients feeling a burden and describing financial concerns as reasons for choosing an assisted death. There has been a reduction in the length of the physician–patient relationship from 18 weeks in 2010 to 5 weeks in 2022, and the proportion referred for psychiatric assessment remains low (1%).”
Moreover, the BMJ researchers discovered that “[s]ince 2010, patients with a range of non-cancer diagnoses have received [physician assisted suicide] including non-terminal illnesses such arthritis, arteritis, complications from a fall, hernia, sclerosis, ‘stenosis’ and anorexia nervosa”, as per a report by Right To Life UK.
To make matters worse, Oregon ended its residency requirements for assisted suicide in 2022, sparking worries about “suicide tourism”.
Similarly, findings from a committee of experts in law, medicine and nursing published regarding the situation of Canada’s Medical Aid in Dying (MAiD) (“assisted suicide”) law in Ontario, disclosed that that patients have sought recourse in “assisted suicide” due to poverty and homelessness, stating that such Canadians experience “potential coercion” and “undue influence” in their eventual move to end their lives. These researchers also singled out the fact that a disproportionate number of Canadians who died by “assisted dying” despite not being terminally ill (29 per cent) hailed from Ontario’s most impoverished areas. These findings corroborate with a recent article by LifeSiteNews that “62 percent of Canadians worry financially or socially vulnerable people are more likely to opt for euthanasia than others”
For the record, Canada decriminalized “assisted dying” for the terminally ill only eight years ago, in 2016.
So much for “sufficient safeguards”, especially in light of Original Sin, when Man’s propensity to evil and abuse would mean that Grandpa and Grandma would never be totally safe in the hands of the State and pro-euthanasia doctors.
Even former Labour Prime Minister Gordon Brown publicly spoke out against “assisted suicide”, stating in an op-ed in The Guardian:
“And with the NHS still at its lowest ebb, this is not the right time to make such a profound decision. Instead, we need to show we can do better at assisted living before deciding whether to legislate on ways to die…When only a small fraction of the population are expected to choose assisted dying, would it not be better to focus all our energies on improving all-round hospice care to reach everyone in need of end-of-life support?”
Likewise, Health Secretary Wes Streeting has voiced his opposition to “assisted suicide”, despite formerly expressing his support for it in 2015. Streeting stated that the palliative care system was not “where it needs to be” to give people “a real choice”.
Also, Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood, a Muslim, slammed Leadbeater’s bill as a “state death service”, stating:
“I have always held the view that, for this reason, the state should serve a clear role. It should protect and preserve life, not take it away. The state should never offer death as a service.”
Given that a Muslim politician publicly expressed her support for life, one may expect all members from the Church of England to do so.
Wrong.
Former Archbishop of Canterbury, George Carey, even put together a religious argument championing “assisted dying” (as if quoting religious texts like the Bible can still strike a familiar chord with many secular British nowadays). Carey’s move certainly did not go unnoticed by left-wing outlet The Guardian.
In contrast, the present archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, decried Leadbeater’s bill as dangerous, saying it could pressurize people to request for “assisted suicide”.
Fortunately, certain members of the Roman Catholic Church in England have publicly voiced God’s law and Church teaching, opposing the proposed bill.
For instance, Cardinal Vincent Nichols of Westminster, the president of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales, penned a pastoral letter he released ahead of the proposed legislation’s formal introduction.
In a notable excerpt, Cardinal Nichols stated:
“A law which prohibits an action is a clear deterrent. A law which permits an action changes attitudes: that which is permitted is often and easily encouraged. Once assisted suicide is approved by the law, a key protection of human life falls away. Pressure mounts on those who are nearing death, from others or even from themselves, to end their life in order to take away a perceived burden of care from their family, for the avoidance of pain, or for the sake of an inheritance. I know that, for many people, there is profound fear at the prospect of prolonged suffering and loss of dignity. Yet such suffering itself can be eased. Part of this debate, then, must be the need and duty to enhance palliative care and hospice provision, so that there can genuinely be, for all of us, the prospect of living our last days in the company of loved ones and caring medical professionals. This is truly dying with dignity. Indeed, the radical change in the law now being proposed risks bringing about for all medical professionals a slow change from a duty to care to a duty to kill.”
In another part of the letter, Cardinal Nichols reminded his flock about how life is “ultimately a gift from the Creator” and that “every human being is made in the image and likeness of God”.
Echoing Cardinal Nichols’ letter, Fr. Armand de Malleray, a French priest from the Fraternity of St. Peter (FSSP) based in England, gave a powerful sermon affirming the sanctity of all human life. During the sermon, Fr. de Malleray encouraged members of the congregation to read a Vatican document regarding the sanctity of human life.
My Catholic friend Daniel Risdon, voiced his concern for Leadbeater’s bill, in an eloquently penned letter to his MP Matt Turmaine (full text below):
“Dear Matt Turmaine MP,
In anticipation of the vote on Kim Leadbeater MP’s Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill this week, I am writing to you to outline my position and concerns around the topic. Whilst I understand that there will be a range of views and a depth of feeling around this emotive topic, I believe that as a society, we must consider all the aspects around this issue and consider the best course of action for all involved. Whilst I appreciate that on one hand, nobody wants to see their friends and family suffer or have a prolonged struggle at the end of life, I believe that the proposed solution offered here would be highly damaging for society.
I am proud to live in a society which has been built on the value for all human life as well as upholding the dignity of every person, regardless of social status, creed or circumstance. I am a strong believer that we can measure the strength of a society by how it treats the weakest among us. This year has been a profoundly difficult one on a personal level, having lost my father to cancer in July. He suffered greatly in his final months and became totally dependent on my mother and I for his basic needs such as providing his medication and meals. It was a great cause of distress to us that the palliative care team did not attend to him throughout his final months which allowed his pain to reach high levels. To watch a loved one suffer so greatly was very traumatic and I would have done anything within my power to alleviate his suffering. That being said, at no point during these trying times would I have even dreamed of looking to take his life myself or ask a medical professional to do this. Whilst his situation was grave, the very thought of taking his life would have been beyond the pale.
My concern is that hard cases can often lead to badly implemented laws. Whilst I am not questioning the sincerity and good will of those who wish to impose these new measures, I do believe that they would be in error to being about such a fundamental change to how we view the end-of-life question. Whilst my father received no palliative care from the NHS, he did spend his final twelve hours in the Peace Hospice in town. Even though the time there was all too brief, the love and care shown was without compare. There are no words to describe the incredible work that they do and this excellent work in end-of-life care is to be encouraged and supported. I strongly believe that we should work towards providing a happy death with a natural end rather than bringing about the end ourselves. The Hippocratic Oath states “First, do no harm” and to ask healthcare providers to end life rather than protect it would set a most dangerous precedent.
Many doctors I have known have always spoken with great joy about their vocation and how they moved into the field of medicine to help people and work with the most vulnerable. As the law currently stands, they are not allowed to euthanise their patients and nor do I think the majority of them would want to. However, if the law were to change, with what confidence can we say that they will themselves be protected from a multitude of issues down the line? For example, will conscience protections be in place for those who are not comfortable with the procedure? Whilst it may be simple on paper to state that they cannot be forced to participate, how can we measure the impact on their career and whether they will be marked out as rigid or unwilling to tow the party line, therefore raising potential stumbling blocks if they wished to progress in their careers in medicine? Whilst a doctor’s freedom of conscience is protected by Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), they can be coerced by other means which may not appear so explicit. Another concern would be allocation of resources in an already overstretched health service. The bill may cause for the health service to take a more calculated approach rather than human based one and consider whether resources would be better served being saved and used on people who aren’t terminally ill or seeking to be euthanised.
Whilst advocates for a change in the law will be keen to point to the various safeguards that will be in place and disagree with the concept of a “slippery slope” to more liberalised interpretations and implementations of the law, I am not confident that enough will be done to protect vulnerable people. A major cause of concern for me is the idea of coercion and none of the arguments set out to prevent this being an issue bring me great comfort. The very idea of coercion is something that is hard to accurately measure or quantify, and whilst we can point out explicit examples of coercion, and rightly oppose them, my worry would be with more subtle and understated forms. For example, as many people in younger generations struggle to get onto the housing ladder or face other financial hardships, perhaps they may be tempted by the prospect of receiving their inheritance earlier than expected. And even if it is not people motivated in that way themselves, perhaps the ill and suffering will see themselves as a burden and in the way of allowing their families to receive this financial windfall. Furthermore, even removing the financial aspect entirely, perhaps people will wrongly see themselves as purely a burden and that caring for them is an unnecessary evil which they have imposed on their loved ones. Whilst end of life care is hard work and has a great physical and emotional toll, I believe that I speak for many when I say that such work is done out of love and any struggles connected are shouldered with gratitude and love. I believe that an unwanted side effect of the legalisation of assisted suicide will be a shift in how we view the value of life, both for those who suffer and those who are related to the dying. If we legally allow for assisted suicide, we will quickly see a deterioration in how we view the value of human life at this vital stage.
Having read into the bill in detail, I am also very unnerved by some of the proposals and the vagueness of quite important definitions. Whilst most people will have a good understanding of what is meant by terminal illness, the bill has a very broad definition and can include seemingly unrelated issues such as diabetes and anorexia. Additionally, Section 2 of the bill seems to suggest that medical treatment which could increase the life expectancy of someone terminally ill beyond six months is discounted. Whilst there is a difference between maintaining and extending life rather than just making the patient comfortable for the time that remains, this bill would risk shifting the emphasis from care to bringing about a swifter conclusion.
As we have not implemented assisted suicide as a nation already, we don’t have direct anecdotal evidence to refer to in order to weigh up the costs and benefits of such a change to the law. We can however look at how it has been implemented in other nations and what impact it has had. In places such as Oregon and Washington in the United States, it has been recognised that the safeguards can be easily circumvented through various means such as doctor shopping as well as a change in approach to the end-of-life question which was exacerbated through the introduction of assisted suicide. In Canada and Switzerland, euthanasia has become commonplace, and the scope of availability has been greatly expanded beyond what was originally envisioned. The risk of introducing assisted suicide in the UK is very dangerous and like a Pandora's box, once opened, will not easily be closed. Additionally, I appreciate that there is extremely limited time to amend a bill after the second reading so therefore it is most pressing that the bill is opposed now, as later may not be possible.
Whilst there can be no doubts that the best thing for society is the greatest care for every person at the end of their life, I believe that we need to focus on improving the quality of palliative care, not helping people to end their lives. This is arguably the most important vote to come to the House in many years and I cannot emphasise how important it is for us as a society to take this topic with great seriousness and vote appropriately. Whilst there are issues with palliative care provision, as well as mental health and other areas of medical provision, I believe that a compassionate society would look to be there to stand with and support the suffering, assisting them with dignity to die a happy and natural death rather than to put them down as you would a sickly animal. I ask you to please vote against this bill on 29th November.”
Latest from RTV — WORLD WAR III: When Neocons and Christian Zionists Collide
