Anglican Mainstream

By Tim Stanley, Telegraph

By Peter Saunders, CMF

In this last week both Belgium and the Netherlands have taken major steps towards euthanasia for children.

By Wesley J Smith, LifeSite News

Child euthanasia: It’s all over but the final voting in Belgium as the Parliament agrees across party lines that doctors should be able to euthanize children. From the Presseurop story:

In the wake of several months of testimony from doctors and experts in medical ethics, a Belgian Senate committee will on June 12 examine the possible extension of the country’s euthanasia law to include children.

 

“On both sides of the linguistic border, liberals and socialists appear to agree on the fact that age should not be regarded as a decisive criteria in the event of a request for euthanasia,”De Morgen. They want doctors to decide on a minor’s capacity for discernment on a case by case basis.

by Tom Mortier, LifeSite News

The law states that doctors can help patients to die when they freely express a wish to die because they are suffering intractable and unbearable pain. The patient needs to consult a second independent doctor; for non-terminal illnesses an independent psychiatrist must approve. In practice, however, this independence is irrelevant. Belgium is a small country and compliant doctors are easy to find.

By Peter Saunders, CMF

'I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect.'

So reads the Hippocratic Oath, which until recently used to be taken by all graduating doctors.

From Voice for Justice UK

Euthanasia is back in the spotlight this week as Lord Falconer introduces the latest version of his Bill to legalise assisted dying into the Lords, and Jane Nicklinson and Paul Lamb take their appeals to the High Court. This is an issue that keeps coming back … endlessly. And will presumably continue, until campaigners achieve what they see as victory. There is a significant development this time, however, because Paul Lamb, paralysed from the neck down as result of a car accident in 1990, is petitioning for the right to have a doctor kill him. The effect of this, should he win, would be to legalise murder.
 
By contrast, Lord Falconer is calling for physician assisted suicide, to be permitted where two doctors agree the patient is suffering from terminal disease and has no more than six months to live. Compared with Paul Lamb’s campaign, this sounds positively reasonable, but there are a whole raft of reasons why both attempts should fail. 

For a start, it is notoriously difficult to predict how long someone has to live, so immediately the primary basis of Lord Falconer’s Bill runs into problems. But even more compellingly, we know from the example of abortion that it would not long remain limited to a handful of the most distressing cases a year. In 1967, when abortion, was legalised, it was on the understanding there would be no more than two or three hundred cases per annum, for women in extremis. Within a year of passing, that figure had leapt to 6,000, and now regularly we are seeing around 200,000 a year, 98% of which are for ‘social causes’, meaning there are no legitimate medical grounds for termination at all, but that the baby is for some reason unwanted.

If, moved by compassion, we now allow assisted dying for those extreme cases of unbearable suffering, how long before we see a similar jump in figures to include the disabled, depressed, and anyone whose quality of life can be judged in some way deficient? How long before assisted suicide imperceptibly slips into euthanasia, as doctors take in upon themselves to be judge and jury in the trial for life? After all, isn’t this what’s happening already with the Liverpool “Care” Pathway, and it’s not even legal yet?
 
No, we should think long and hard before, for whatever reason, we legalise murder in our society. And we should definitely not place this kind of burden on our doctors, who surely entered the profession on the understanding they were going to save lives and help; not end them.
 
In many ways, with all the furore over the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill currently before Parliament, and the precarious state of government following the recent local election results, it feels almost as if this latest attempt might slide through under the radar. Certainly, Lord Falconer has said he is optimistic that this time it will pass through the Lords without opposition.

This must not be allowed to happen. If you agree, please, write to a member of the House of Lords today and let them know your views. Don’t let this invidious measure pass because their Lordships have read the press and think that this is what the country wants.

By John Bingham, Telegraph

Terminally ill patients will be able to obtain a fatal dose of drugs to kill themselves if they can persuade two doctors that they have made up their mind to end their lives, under plans being put before Parliament today.

A long-awaited bill being published by the former Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer has parallels with the 1967 Abortion Act by placing responsibility for authorising the action in the hands of two doctors.

They will be required to sign statements saying that they believe that the patient is likely to have less than six months to live and that they have reached a “clear and settled intention” to end their life.

The patient would then be prescribed a fatal dose of drugs which they would “self administer”, under a system similar to that operating in the US state of Oregon.

But it is understood the proposed British system would allow doctors, or specially nominated nurses, to assist patients who cannot take the drugs unaided.

And they would be required to deliver the fatal prescription in person to the patient’s home and must stay there – although not necessarily in the same room – either while they take it or decide against doing so.

Read here

Read also:  A charter for killing grannies and the malign meddling of Labour's Lord High Busybody by Quentin Letts, Mailonline

Lord Falconer’s assisted dying bill is an insult to everyone, God and Politics in the UK

By John Bingham, Telegraph

Terminaly ill patients will be able to ask their doctor for a lethal dose of drugs to end their lives as part of a major new push to change the laws on assisted suicide.

The former Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer, will present a bill to the House of Lords next week which would introduce a system similar to that in place in the US state of Oregon.

It would allow doctors to provide a fatal dose of drugs to patients judged to have less than six months to live.

The patients would then have to administer the substance themselves although they would be able to get help if they could not lift it or swallow it independently.

But it would not enable people such as the right-to-die campaigner Tony Nicklinson, the “locked-in” syndrome sufferer who starved himself after losing a legal battle last year, to end their lives as it only applies to those deemed to be terminally ill.

The bill, which will be tabled on May 15, is based on the conclusions of Lord Falconer’s Commission on Assisted Dying, a group of peers and academics which held hearings in the style of a royal commission.

Read here

By Peter Mullen

“Most religious people in Britain are in favour of assisted suicide,” reports the BBC. This information is supplied by an organisation called the Westminster Faith Debates which claims to have discovered that 82% of religious people – except Baptists, Muslims and Hindus – think that people “have the right to choose when to die” and 70% would like to see a change in the law to allow it. Clarification is called for. In the natural course of events very few people choose when they will die: you simply depart when your number is up. Besides, how can a broad sociological definition of “religious” exclude Baptists, Muslims and Hindus? But further clarification is required because the BBC report is extremely misleading as it goes on to say that people who actually practise their religion are not generally in favour of assisted suicide.

This raises the interesting question of how a person who does not practise his religion comes to be described as “religious.” Is he like the vegetarian who regularly tucks into a beefsteak? Or is he a modern Pharisee, that is one who says the Creed but doesn’t believe the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection – much like many of the senior clergy?

Mind you, old people are such a nuisance aren’t they? It would be a great benefit to all those thrusting youngsters if we could justify helping the crinklies fall of their pegs. But how could you even start to justify such an atrocity? You would need a moral philosopher to provide you with good reasons. Luckily, there is no shortage of such eminences. For instance, the philosopher Baroness Warnock (aged 89) says that retirement homes are “a terrible waste of money that my family could use far better.” She thinks that old people with dementia should consider suicide rather than be a burden on their family: “In other contexts, sacrificing oneself for one's family would be considered good. I don't see what is so horrible about the motive of not wanting to be an increasing nuisance.”

Read the rest of this entry »

By John Bingham, Telegraph

Fears about standards care for terminally ill people in the NHS are fuelling support for the legalisation of assisted suicide, a study suggests.

More than a third of those who said they support a change in the law cited a belief that dying people cannot expect to receive “decent” care at the end of their lives among their reasons.

And while a conviction that people in the 21st century should have a “right to choose” how and when they die dominated the thinking of supporters of assisted dying, only a minority of opponents cited traditional arguments based on life being “sacred”.

The findings emerge from detailed polling of than 4,000 people by YouGov on behalf of the organisers of the regular Westminster Faith Debates.

Overall seven out of 10 people polled agreed with the notion that people with “incurable” illnesses should have the right to ask close friends or relatives to help them commit suicide, without the risk of those people being prosecuted.

Only 16 per cent were actively opposed to the suggestion while 14 per cent were torn.

Read here

By David Baker, Christian Today

Paul Lamb suffered serious injuries in a road accident 23 years ago and now has no function in any of his limbs except a little movement in his right hand. He is challenging a High Court ruling against doctor-assisted death next month. In a statement he said: "I am in pain every single hour of every single day. I have lived with these conditions for a lot of years… I feel I cannot and do not want to keep living."

Mr Lamb is not simply asking for assisted suicide. As he himself is incapable of playing any part in ending his life, he is seeking deliberate killing by a doctor. He is also not terminally ill – which is why even Sarah Wootton, chief executive of the pro-euthanasia group Dignity In Dying, has said she cannot support him.

Nonetheless, whether we are talking about assisted suicide, or active euthanasia as in this case, there are similar general principles that help us think through these very complex and distressing issues.

First of all, deep compassion must be felt for Mr Lamb. He is enduring a situation beyond the experience of most of us. Yet, at the same time, from a Christian perspective, the action that results from compassion must be guided by right thinking, and not simply by the emotion itself. Compassion for someone does not mean inevitable agreement with what they want.

Read here

By Peter Saunders, CMF

I have previously highlighted the rapid escalation of euthanasia and assisted suicide cases in the Netherlands, Oregon and Switzerland in recent years but Belgium is eclipsing all of these countries in the race to become the ‘world leader’.

From Herald Scotland

PATIENTS as young as 18 will be able to register their wish for assisted suicide with their GP under the bill independent MSP Margo MacDonald is bringing to the Scottish Parliament.

Ms MacDonald said she wanted people to be able to notify their doctor of their wishes in the event of a terminal or irreversible illness and have it kept on record.

She outlined her plan, which she hopes will allay fears about pressure being placed on the elderly or disabled to end their lives, at a conference on end of life choices organised by the Scotland Patients Association.

Retired GP Dr Iain Kerr, who confessed in The Herald last week to helping elderly patients end their lives earlier this month, was in the audience and spoke to Ms MacDonald.

She said she felt emotional about bringing the bill to parliament before the summer, saying she knew a lot of people hoping to benefit from it.

Her previous attempt to legalise assisted suicide in 2010 failed to win the necessary political support.

Ms MacDonald said: "I am much more confident. I think we can get it through. It is a better bill and opinion has moved on."

Read here

By Steve Doughty, Mailonline

An 83-year-old dementia sufferer plans to die at the Dignitas assisted suicide clinic, it was claimed yesterday.

The British professional man would be the first to end his life at the Swiss clinic purely because of dementia.

His plans were publicised by Michael Irwin, a campaigner nicknamed Dr Death, who says he has helped at least 25 people who have died at Dignitas and advised many more.

Mr Irwin, 80, has been investigated in the past over assisted suicide – an offence carrying a 14-year jail sentence – but has never been arrested.

Around 150 Britons are thought to have died at the clinic, which exploits liberal Swiss laws on assisted dying.

Among them were a number of people who were not dying, notably 23-year-old Daniel James who was paralysed because of a rugby injury, and musician Sir Edward Downes.

The decision of a dementia sufferer to use Dignitas will alarm right-to-life and disability campaigners because of the implication that those with Alzheimer’s or similar conditions should consider killing themselves

Read here

Psychiatrist who supplied report to man with dementia so he could kill himself at Dignitas needs to be investigated by the police by Peter Saunders, CMF

by Peter Saunders, CMF

By Peter Saunders, CMF

From EA

by Peter Saunders, CMF

By Peter Saunders, CMF

Lord Falconer (pictured) has announced that he will seek to introduce his DiD-backed assisted suicide bill in the House of Lords in May. In line with the recommendations of his sham 'Commission on Assisted Dying', Falconer will push for doctors to be empowered to help mentally competent adults with less than one year to live to kill themselves. New figures from Oregon, whose laws are Falconer's inspiration, serve as a grave warning of the consequences of enacting such legislation – especially given that Oregon's laws are based on a more limited six-month prognosis.

The vast range of different agendas within the pro-euthanasia movement would almost certainly prompt incremental extension once the principle of assisted suicide is established, and Falconer's so-called 'safeguards' are very similar to those in the Joffe Bill which the Lords rejected in 2006.

As politicians begin to consider the upcoming debate, Lib Dem peer Lord Carlile corrected misconceptions regarding legalisation of assisted suicide – which the Liberal Democrats support – as espoused by a party activist. The stakes could hardly be higher.

Read here

Wesley J. Smith, First Things

When a social movement must rely on euphemisms to obfuscate its goals, it is a good bet that there is something wrong with its agenda. From the very beginning of the modern movement, euthanasia advocates have euphemistically bent language as a means of convincing society to endorse killing—an accurate and descriptive term that simply means to end life—as an acceptable method of ending human suffering.

Euthanasia, from the Greek, literally means “good death.” As the historian Ian Dowbiggin has noted, the term once described “a calm and easy” natural death at home, “so family members and friends could say their farewells.”

That changed after an 1870 essay by a teacher named Samuel D. Williams was published arguing that the value of human life depends on whether it is “worthwhile”—an idea known today as the “quality of life ethic”—and moreover, that mercy killing and assisted suicide should be allowed for those who are “hopelessly suffering.” The essay went viral—to use today’s terminology—and within a few years, the word euthanasia had taken on its modern meaning. The euthanasia movement has been coining new definitions and idioms ever since.

Read here