Assisted suicide amendment defeat welcome

The House of Lords this evening rejected Lord Falconer’s pro-assisted suicide amendment to the government's Coroners and Justice bill. The vote was 194 to 141, a majority of 53.

Paul Tully, SPUC general secretary, has this evening told the media that:

“This was a significant victory for the right to life. Time and again Parliament has blocked attempts to undermine the protective ban on assisted suicide. It’s time for the Voluntary Euthanasia Society – now repackaged as Dignity in Dying – to drop its parliamentary campaign, a campaign which is offensive to very many people who live with, or care for those with, disability or terminal illness.”

Paul and Anthony Ozimic, SPUC communications manager, have filed the following report about this evening's debate:

The Falconer amendment was opposed powerfully by Baroness Campbell, the disability rights advocate who has spinal muscular atrophy. In a moving speech, she argued that the amendment would send a signal of despair to the disabled and the terminally-ill. She said that the Falconer amendment would change the “traffic-signal” from red to green for ending the lives of disabled people. This would be a major change in the way our culture regards people who are disabled. She noted that no major disability organisation supported the amendment – only a minority of vocal disabled individuals supported the measure.

Baroness Finlay, a palliative care specialist, pointed to the inadequacies of the amendment’s medical provisions. The second doctor’s signature requirement was ineffective in protecting the patients of the serial-killer Dr Harold Shipman. Several hundred of their falsified death certificates were signed by other doctors without raising any serious questions.

Lord Carlile QC, in a passionate demolition of the detail of Falconer suicide amendment, argued that the amendment would create a slippery slope. Lord Joffe claimed there was no slippery slope in Oregon, where assisted suicide is allowed. (Pro-life experts have shown that official information about assisted suicide deaths in Oregon is massively and sinisterly deficient.)

Lord Neill of Bladen said that, if Lord Falconer’s amendment was passed, it would be "inevitable that people will be pressured to signing up for death".

Baroness Kennedy QC, contrary to expectation, opposed the amendment. Although generally favouring personal choice, she argued that in the situation of offering assisted suicide to the terminally ill, the offer of choice would result in an erosion of choice.

The Bishop of Exeter, who has an adult daughter with Down’s Syndrome, pointed out that the “compassionate liberalism” advocated by the proponents of the Falconer amendment might be empowering for people like the articulate and self-assured members of the House of Lords. But for people who were less able to assert themselves – and many who are disabled are sometimes heavily dependent on others for assistance in making decisions – such empowerment is illusory or worse. Disabled people may internalise the notion that others know best, leaving them severely disadvantaged by such so-called choices.

Lord Walton of Detchant, an eminent physician, described Ludwig Minelli, the director of Dignitas Swiss suicide centre, as "something of a fanatic" He added that palliative care in The Netherlands, where euthanasia is legal, was in decline.

Lord (William) Waldegrave said allowing assisted suicide could lead to discriminatory healthcare rationing.

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk

Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy.

BREAKING NEWS Lords vote against assisted suicide amendment 194 to 141

This evening (7 July) the House of Lords voted against Lord Falconer's very damaging amendment to the Coroners and Justice Bill. More soon.

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk

URGENT Contact Lords immediately, assisted suicide debate today

This afternoon or this evening, Lord Falconer's very damaging amendment to the Coroners and Justice Bill is expected to come up for debate (see SPUC's previous campaign alert for in-detail information about the amendment). Please contact peers NOW and ask them to oppose Lord Falconer's proposal.

Some excellent resources, which can be forwarded as weblinks to Lords, are:

• Lord McColl's article in The Telegraph
• Baroness Jane Campbell in The Guardian
• Dominic Lawson in The Independent
• Joint letter from disability rights leaders

This blog also has many posts about assisted suicide and the Falconer amendment.

If you have been in correspondence with any Lords over the C&J bill, please consider forwarding one of these links to them, perhaps quoting whatever snippets of the articles are most telling. If you haven't been corresponding with Lords, please contact one or more of them now: you could simply select a Lord or Lords to write to who has the same initial as your surname: Lords are listed in alphabetical order on SPUC's website campaign page http://www.spuc.org.uk/campaigns (scroll to the bottom of the page).

Many thanks for your help.

(For information - please note that other threatening amendments tabled by Lord Alderdice and Lord Joffe have been withdrawn in the past day or so.)

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk

How Henry Kissinger ruined my Wimbledon final

Seeing Henry Kissinger at Wimbledon for the tennis (pictured) last Sunday prompted reflections which quite put me off the final.

Richard Ehrman, director of Policy Exchange, a non-party-political think-tank, had written in The Times last Saturday about how shifts in the world population give a military advantage to "underdeveloped" countries. The problem, he said, is that “even for a power as mighty and sophisticated as the US, occupying a Third World country with a fast-growing population means putting an uncomfortably large number of boots on the ground”.

Curbing the growing population of third world countries was very much on the mind of Henry Kissinger back in 1974, the man of whom we caught a glimpse on TV last Sunday as he sat in the crowd at centre court to watch the Wimbledon final. As I mentioned in my post on abortion and racism two weeks ago Henry Kissinger, Nixon's Secretary of State, was the author of the infamous NSSM 200 (National Security Study Memorandum 200), which recommended that the United States should promote population control in the developing world in order to secure American interests.

Kissinger’s study set the stage for the Chinese to adopt a strict population control policy in co-operation with UN agencies in 1979. The belief that population growth, at home and/or or abroad, is bad for a country's economic and security interests rapidly became official dogma in America, China, the UK and many other countries.

How disturbing, then, to read in The Times on Sunday that Dr Baige Zhao, head of the national population and family planning commission of China, spoke at a conference in London last week about how 400 million fewer births in China saved 1.6 billion tones of carbon emissions. He argued: “The same principles of population management that have been applied in China can be applied in the UK. The UK could learn from the Chinese experience.”

This is the China where only two months ago, Zhang Minan, a law professor at Guangzhou's Sun Yat-sen University and an expert on the the government’s population policy, told Reuters: "'They (the authorities) do have the right (to force abortions) ... " The same report interviewed a young Chinese woman, pregnant with four-month-old twins, who last February had been dragged into a maternity ward and had her belly injected with a needle in forced abortion. This is the China whose forced abortion policy was backed by Barack Obama in one of his first actions as President by restoring funding to UNFPA (and other organisations promoting abortion overseas), whose involvement in the forced abortion regime in China and elsewhere is all too well documented.

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk

Lord Lester's particularly weak article promoting assisted suicide

Lord Lester QC (pictured), the Liberal Democrat peer, has written a particularly weak article in favour of assisted suicide in today's Independent newspaper. I comment below in square brackets on a few of Lord Lester's points. You may like to draw upon my comments when you contact members of the House of Lords about amendments to undermine the law against assisted suicide. Time is running out, as the Lords will debate the amendments tomorrow, Tuesday, 7 July. Please read and respond to SPUC's action alert.

Lord Lester wrote:

"We all hope that, as our lives come to an end, we will be well cared for and will die peacefully and with dignity. We all hope – but many know of others who have had "bad deaths" and fear a similar fate for themselves." [JS: Lord Lester does not define a "bad death". There is a false presumption here that the possibility or probability of a "bad death" justifies an intentionally premature one i.e. assisted suicide/euthanasia.]

"We should celebrate life [JS: That's a bit rich coming from a supporter of abortion and embryo destruction!], and when death comes we should help the dying to end their lives as they wish [JS: But the very point of making assisted suicide legal is to allow the killing of people who are not dying i.e. not yet in the last hours, days or fortnight of life. There is a confusion here between dying and terminal illness, which is a disease likely to cause death within six to 12 months. Also, a patient's wish to be killed does not justify killing them.], and with respect for their dignity. [JS: But assisted suicide undermines people's dignity by sending the message that some people are better off dead.]

"The wonders of modern science have greatly prolonged the normal span of human life, but modern medicine has also created difficult ethical problems about how to balance the right to life and the patient's right to choose to accept or refuse medical treatment when life has become unbearable and death is imminent." [JS: But there is no difficulty here: it is ethical, and has always been lawful, for a patient to refuse to accept treatment where death is imminent. Lord Lester speaks of when 'life has become unbearable', yet what should weighed is not whether life is unbearable but whether the patient's treatment is unbearable.]

"[N]ot everyone wants to die in a hospice and not everyone wants doctors and nurses to strive to keep them alive." [JS: But no one is forced to die in a hospice. Palliative care can be delivered at home or in other settings, and hospice patients sometimes leave hospice to die at home. Treatment which is futile, burdensome disproportionate to benefit or where the patient's death is imminent may ethically and legally be withdrawn. There is no justification for assisted suicide or euthanasia.]

"Like many others, I believe that we need a legal framework which would allow doctors and nurses to be able lawfully to treat terminally ill patients to relieve their suffering as well as pain, even though it would be a virtual certainty that the treatment would shorten their lives." [JS: In fact, correct medical treatment, such as correct doses of painkillers, actually lengthens rather than shortens life. Doctors and nurses treat to relieve suffering every day. Poisoning a patient to death with an overdose is not medical treatment but intentional killing.]

"The Coroners and Justice Bill currently before the House of Lords modernises the language of the Suicide Act 1961, but the Bill does not address the current failure of the law to distinguish between those who maliciously encourage suicide and those who compassionately assist the death of a terminally ill, mentally competent adult." [JS: But assisted suicide is in itself malicious. The intentional killing of an innocent human being is recognised in international human rights law as intrinsically -and therefore always - wrong, and as the worst of crimes.]

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk

A rebuke to society's double-standards around ability and disability

Anthony Ozimic, SPUC's communications manager, has this evening sent me his reflection after watching today's marathon Wimbledon men's final:

"Today and for the last fortnight millions around the world have been watching the Wimbledon tennis tournament. All the players have, of course, above-average physical powers, and many are regarded as attractive enough to be fashion models.

"Yet, in its wonder at the players' powers and beauty, is not our society in danger of ignoring the daily victories of countless unknown people over the challenges of disability? Many people rejoice at the endurance involved in a five-set Grand Slam final, a round-the-world yacht race or the conquering of Everest. Yet the same people recoil when it is suggested a disabled child should be allowed to be born, or an injured rugby player stopped from an assisted suicide, or an elderly stroke victim given continued treatment and care.

"A rebuke to society's double-standards around ability and disability is the inspiring story of Nick Vujicic. Nick was born without limbs, except for one foot attached to his left thigh. He is now a motivational speaker, preacher and sportsman. Do visit Nick's website Life Without Limbs. As a child, Nick overcame suicidal thoughts when he realised the courage of disabled people was an inspiration to others. Assisted suicide, in contrast, is a counsel of despair to the disabled."

Please use this blog-post when you contact members of the House of Lords about amendments to undermine the law against assisted suicide. Time is running out, as the Lords will debate the amendments as early as this Tuesday, 7 July. Please read and respond to SPUC's action alert.

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk

Elderly will be even less safe from abuse if assisted suicide ban removed

An elderly lady was dehydrated to death in a private care home in London, her daughter has claimed. The Daily Mail reports that Jeanne Matthews, 80, suffered extreme dehydration, being given as little as a thimbleful of water a day.

Apart from the frequent reports of neglect of the elderly, we shouldn't forget that euthanasia by neglect is now enshrined in English law, by the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The Act builds upon court rulings which have condemned mentally incapacitated patients to death by dehydration and starvation. If assisted suicide also becomes part of English law, an additional means of lethal abuse will be opened, for the malicious, the uncaring and the irresponsible to use against the vulnerable.

The facts of Jeanne Matthews' death seem to be obscure and disputed, which is not uncommon in end-of-life cases. We cannot rely upon the medical authorities to report fully and honestly the facts in countries or states where assisted suicide and euthanasia are permitted. It is therefore imperative for the protection of elderly and other vulnerable patients that assisted suicide is banned in English law. Time is running out, as the House of Lords will debate amendments on assisted suicide as early as this Tuesday, 7 July. Please read and respond to SPUC's action alert.

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk

Wise words from doctors' leader on assisted suicide

Following the BMA's vote against assisted suicide on Wednesday, Dr Brian Keighley, deputy chairman of the BMA in Scotland, said:

"It is clear that doctors do not wish to play a role in assisting a patient's death. Assisting patients to die prematurely is not part of the moral ethos or the primary goal of medicine. If the legislation were to be changed, it would have serious negative consequences on the relationship between doctors and their patients. It remains vital that access to the best quality palliative care is available in order to ensure that terminal suffering is properly managed."

Wise words. Please forward them to members of the House of Lords today, because they are likely to debate amendments on assisted suicide on Tuesday - see SPUC's action alert for more information.

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk

National petition day against school abortion push

Tomorrow (4 July), hundreds of pro-life campaigners throughout the UK will be seeking signatures from the general public and church-goers for SPUC's petition against the promotion of abortion in schools.

Tony Mullett, the national co-ordinator of the petition day, said:

"The aim of the petition is stop schools being turned into abortion referral centres. Abortions are being arranged for children in schools behind their parents backs and one out of three secondary schools already has a school-based clinic where sex advice can be offered and abortions can be arranged without parents knowing. Successive governments have targeted young people with sex education telling them where to get contraception and abortion advice. But sexual diseases and abortions continue to increase among the young. The policy has failed, and now they are arranging secret abortions, destroying unborn children and leaving young teenage mothers to deal with the aftermath of abortion. It is profoundly evil."

SPUC's goal is to reverse the government's approach and end the promotion of secret abortions through schools.

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk

Senior legal figures oppose assisted suicide amendments

Five senior legal figures have signed a letter to The Times to oppose amendments to the government's Coroners and Justice bill, amendments which would undermine the law against assisted suicide. The five figures are:

• Lord Mackay of Clashfern, who was Lord Chancellor under Margaret Thatcher
• Baroness Butler-Sloss, the former president of the Family Division
• Lord Brennan QC, a deputy High Court judge
• Lord Carlile QC, the government's independent reviewer of anti-terrorism laws; and
• Lord Elystan-Morgan, a former solicitor.

The pro-euthanasia lobby cannot claim that this ad hoc group is simply a representation of the pro-life movement. Although Lord Brennan, former president of the Catholic Union, is a prominent defender of pro-life principles, in contrast Lord Mackay is a strong supporter of destructive embryo experimentation, and Baroness Butler-Sloss issued court rulings which allowed the euthanasia of mentally-incapacitated patients.

Their letter reads (in part):

"The State has a fundamental duty to protect the lives of its citizens ... What is now being suggested — a regime for exonerating assistance with suicide in advance of the act and removal of the CPS’s right to investigate after the event — would disturb this balance in favour of persons who might be inclined to encourage and assist others with suicide for other than altruistic reasons."

The coming together of these senior legal figures with such disparate views reflects the widespread opposition to the proposed amendments. Please tell members of the House of Lords about this letter when you contact them about the amendments - please see SPUC's action alert of 6 June.

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk

Bishop of Winchester writes against assisted suicide amendments

Michael Scott-Joynt (pictured), the Anglican bishop of Winchester, has written a strong article for the Church of England newspaper against amendments which would undermine the law against assisted suicide. His article is fitting counter-part to Monday's joint letter by religious leaders on the same theme. I provide some key points below, though do read the full article here. Please tell members of the House of Lords about the Bishop of Winchester's article when you contact them about the amendments - please see SPUC's action alert of 6 June. The bishop wrote:

• "[T]o legalise assistance [in suicide] is surely to encourage it.
• "Those pressing for a change in the law mainly have in mind a small minority of highly resolute people who argue not just for their own but for everyone’s 'autonomy' over themselves and their own lives. But even these people, let alone the rest of us, are not in reality 'autonomous'; everyone’s life is bound up with, depends upon and influences the lives of others...
• "Parliament has a particular duty to care for the very many who in illness, pain, fear and loss of their faculties may be more vulnerable, than the resolute and articulate few, to the influence and persuasion of others or indeed to the persuasion of their own care and anxiety for their families...
• "Parliament also has a duty to defend the integrity and trustworthiness of the medical and nursing professions – again with an eye especially on the need of the most vulnerable to be able to trust those professionally engaged in their care.
• "[V]ery seriously ill, and dying, people very often continue to be an inspiration and an encouragement, a blessing and a gift, to those around them, especially when they are surrounded by good medical care and by sheer human love and compassion."

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk

BMA vote against assisted suicide welcome

I've just heard that the British Medical Association (BMA), at its annual representative meeting (ARM) today, has voted against assisted suicide. The delegates voted on the motion:

"That this Meeting would support a change in legislation to:

(i) ensure that those accompanying the patient at an assisted death, but not actively participating, will not be subject to criminal prosecution;

(ii) allow the choice of an assisted death by patients who are terminally ill and who have mental capacity."

Clause (i) was defeated by 52% to 44% (with some abstentions), and clause (ii) lost by a large majority on show of hands.

SPUC is a core member of the Care Not Killing Alliance (CNK) which campaigns against euthanasia. In a press release about the BMA vote, Dr Peter Saunders of CNK said:

"By rejecting this motion today the BMA has affirmed its longstanding opposition to a change in the law and has chosen to stand with the RCP [Royal College of Physicians], the RCGP [Royal College of General Practitioners], the RCN [Royal College of Nursing] and the two thirds of doctors who consistently say in all opinion polls that they do not wish the law to change."

The BMA's vote is of course great news for the cause of life and the defence of the vulnerable, particularly in the light of the amendments proposed to the government's Coroners and Justice bill due to be debated next week (probably on Tuesday, 7 July). Please tell members of the House of Lords about the BMA vote when you write to them to oppose Lord Falconer's amendment - see SPUC's action alert of 6 June.

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk