This is parliamentary hubris at its worst
Having given up on its half-baked attempts to 'drive up living standards', the Starmer administration now appears to be embarking on a killing spree. Those advancing the decriminalisation of late-term abortion and legalisation of state-assisted suicide seem to believe we are witnessing 'Parliament at its best'. I'd argue this is British politics at its hubristic worst.
Consider the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) legislation. Such a serious change in our civilisation should not have been brought in via a Private Members' Bill, allowed to scrape through the Commons amid heated accusations of distortions of the truth, blatant procedural failures, and MPs who were rushed through debates without adequate time to consider its contents.
A change of such magnitude, unmentioned at the general election, should have been introduced by a properly prepared Green Paper, then a White Paper, or possibly even a Royal Commission. It should not have been a few hours of debate and a rigged committee stage, passed with sly help from a Government unwilling to publicly advocate the change, but willing to skew the process in its favour.
The result is a law risking a massive amount of harm. Those who think the NHS can be trusted with the power to kill its patients deliberately (as opposed to in the natural course of its business) have clearly not attempted to see a GP nor been near a hospital lately. They also haven't read the 150-page impact assessment, which looks like a 'Green Book' exercise conducted by tone-deaf junior civil servants. It claims costs would be low, even going so far as to suggest assisted dying could save the NHS money.
Part of this exercise says that four months of medical care would no longer be provided on average to those patients opting for assisted dying. That, in 'year one' (actually half a year), between 273 and 1,078 people in England and Wales would request assistance to end their lives, rising to somewhere between 1,737 and 7,598 in the tenth (full) year.
This number seems rather low, given that Canadian doctors, with a smaller population, helped more than 15,000 to die in 2023. The Bill's advocates claim that the scope of the legislation is much narrower than in Canada – but I suspect that based on the experience with abortion laws, that judicial interpretation and legislative amendments will probably widen it over time.
However, many start the process of applying for 'voluntary assisted dying', and the number who actually reach the ultimate stage would be rather smaller. In the two months the approval process takes to complete, many would withdraw their application, some would die before approval, and others would become incapable of giving legal consent. All of which implies a good deal of wasted effort – and probably some emotional wear and tear – by doctors, administrators, pharmacists, and lawyers, which could impact on willingness to be involved, or lead to slapdash performance.
The NHS is in such a state of collapse, despite a budget of £210 billion this year, that there are men, women and children who should be alive today who are dead because of its 'care'. Can it really be expected that assisted dying will be the one part of the system that functions without the errors that characterise the rest of the health system? I highly doubt it.
Look at NHS performance in other fields and mistakes are practically guaranteed: the health service paid out a record £2.82 billion on settling medical negligence claims in 2023-24, an increase of over £180 million from the previous year. How long would it take for the first assisted dying lawsuits to start coming in? Then there are the practical limits to its implementation: close to half of doctors (47 per cent) recently surveyed by the BMA are not willing to breach the Hippocratic Oath's injunction which says: 'I will not give a drug that is deadly.'
If we are going to allow people to end their lives, it should not be within the state-run healthcare system. But nor should it be in the care home sector. Can you imagine the worry for the frail and perhaps confused when Dr Death turns up for the weekly cull? Instead, we could mimic the abortion model: procedures carried out largely in outside clinics, partly privately funded. Or the hospice model of charities receiving some NHS funding. Or perhaps we follow the Dignitas scheme: a fee-paying service provided by non-profits, as required by Swiss law.
To date, the legislative process has been driven by emotion, short-sightedness, and by politicians who are so powerless that the only lever they seem able to pull is the one which finishes us off early. It has been rushed through by amateur policymakers oblivious to how it will work in practice, who have ignored the complexities of assisted dying in favour of a debased utilitarianism. Let's not now make bad law worse.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News
32 minutes ago
- Sky News
More Britons than ever struggling to make ends meet, report warns
More people than ever are struggling to live on their current income - while just a third say they are living comfortably, according to new research. Rising prices and sluggish pay increases have put many people's finances under strain in recent years. A record 26% now say making ends meet is difficult. Before the pandemic, it was 16%. 2:32 Two-thirds also say their incomes haven't kept up with inflation, according to the British Social Attitudes report. That's only marginally better than the 70% recorded during the height of the cost of living crisis in 2023. Frozen tax thresholds also appear to be hitting home, with 61% saying taxes on low earners are too high, while 44% believe middle income earners also pay too much. Those figures are up nine points and 13 points respectively since 2016. However, when it comes to the highest earners, 44% believe their taxes are too low. 2:01 The report also asked people about the welfare system - a timely insight with Labour MPs currently rebelling over plans to save £5bn from the budget. It found support for more spending on disability benefits is at a record low of 45%, down from 67% in 2017 - but only 11% think spending should be reduced. About 29% of those polled think it's "too easy" for people to get disability benefits - but the same percentage also feel it's "too difficult". Meanwhile, long waiting times appear to have played a part in the finding that a record 59% are now dissatisfied with the NHS. In 2019, it was just 25%. Only 21% said they were satisfied with the health service. 3:50 The report is based on a representative, random sample of more than 4,000 people in the UK and was produced by the National Centre for Social Research. It's the longest-running measure of public opinion in Britain, having started in 1983. Professor Sir John Curtice, senior research fellow, said: "The public are well aware of Britain's problems - not least those of a failing health service and an economy in which many are struggling to make ends meet. "Yet rather than turning their back on the state, for the most part, the public are still inclined to look to government to provide solutions." 1:05 Defence was also a key theme of the report - and researchers found about 40% of Britons support spending more money on weapons and troops. A fifth (20%) said they would like to see a reduction. It comes as the government revealed it was buying at least 12 stealth jets that can carry nuclear weapons, and as NATO countries, including the UK, promise to increase defence spending. The National Security Strategy also said the UK must prepare for the potential of a "wartime scenario" in the "UK homeland" for the first time in many years. Almost everyone surveyed (90%) considered Russia a serious threat to world peace, followed by Iran (78%), North Korea (77%), Israel (73%), and China (69%). The percentage supporting more defence spending remains relatively unchanged since 2016, before Russia invaded Ukraine. However, the share supporting an increase is significantly higher now than that in 2006 (28%) and in the 1990s (17%).
BBC News
an hour ago
- BBC News
Heat pumps and EVs making progress, UK climate advisers say
More people are buying electric cars and installing heat pumps than ever before, but those numbers need to increase even further, according to the government's climate independent Climate Change Committee said that the government needed to make sure that households benefit from the switch to cleaner technologies through lower bills."The government has made progress on a number of fronts, including on clean power, [but] they need to do more on making electricity cheap," Emma Pinchbeck, chief executive of the CCC, told BBC response Energy Secretary Ed Miliband thanked the committee for its advice and said it was committed to bringing down bills. By law, the UK must stop adding to the total amount of planet-warming greenhouse gases in the atmosphere by 2050. This is known as "net zero".Reaching net zero carbon dioxide emissions globally is widely seen as essential to limit further warming. Previous political consensus around the UK's target has broken down, however, with Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch branding it "impossible" and Reform using the phrase "net stupid zero". But the committee argues it is achievable and could lead to long-term economic benefits. "[The UK] can absolutely meet net zero by 2050," said Ms gas emissions within the UK's borders have already fallen by more than half since that's mostly because polluting fossil fuels – particularly coal – have been increasingly replaced with renewable energy like wind and solar for electricity generation. The UK's biggest emitters last year were transport and buildings, which will also need to get cleaner to help reach net CCC sees signs of progress, including a near doubling of the number of electric cars on UK roads in the past two years. Nearly one-in-five new cars sold in 2024 was has helped to reduce emissions from transport – not counting planes and ships – for the second year in a row, even though traffic levels rose last new electric cars remain more expensive to buy than their petrol equivalents, the CCC expects them to cost the same in a couple of second-hand models are already as cheap, and electric cars can be more economical to run too."We see these transitions happen surprisingly fast once they get going, usually starting slowly and accelerating rapidly, where falling prices and rising demand reinforce each other," said Dr Emily Nurse, the CCC's head of net zero."When that's combined with effective policy, it really can lead to this rapid change." Heat pump progress but a long way to go Sales of electric heat pumps are growing quickly too, up by more than half last year, thanks partly to grants introduced under the Conservatives, the CCC said. But they still remain well below committee also praised the new government's relaxation of planning rules, which it says should encourage more people to install heat even after grants, they can be expensive to install and while they are much more efficient than a gas boiler, they are not necessarily cheaper to because the cost of electricity is so high, something the CCC has repeatedly said needs tackling. Make electricity cheaper The single largest reason for the rise in household electricity prices in recent years is the increase in wholesale costs, driven by international gas prices, the CCC says."The only way to get bills down for good is by becoming a clean energy superpower and we continue to work tirelessly to deliver clean power for families and businesses," argued Energy Secretary Ed the committee adds that electricity bills are artificially high because charges are added to them to support largely older renewable energy projects – which were more expensive – as well as energy efficiency Monday the government announced plans to remove these costs for some them from household electricity bills too would be a quick fix to the UK's high prices, making it much cheaper to run an electric car or heat pump, the committee these costs would have to go somewhere, potentially onto general would take "about £200 off the average [household] bill but at a cost of about £6bn per year to the Exchequer," said Adam Bell, director of policy at Stonehaven Consultancy and former head of energy strategy at the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. Additional reporting by Jonah Fisher and Miho Tanaka Sign up for our Future Earth newsletter to keep up with the latest climate and environment stories with the BBC's Justin Rowlatt. Outside the UK? Sign up to our international newsletter here.
Sky News
an hour ago
- Sky News
In dramatic move, UK to buy F-35 stealth jets that can carry US nuclear warheads
The UK will buy at least 12 F-35 stealth jets that can carry nuclear warheads in the most significant strengthening of its nuclear capability in a generation, the government has said. Today, Sir Keir Starmer will tell a summit of NATO allies in The Hague that the new squadron will join an alliance mission that can be armed with US nuclear weapons. The dramatic move will doubtless draw condemnation and concern from Russia and China. But it comes at a time of growing global insecurity - and as the prime minister and his European and Canadian counterparts scramble to convince Donald Trump they are serious about bolstering their ability to defend Europe, instead of overly relying on the United States. The US president, a long-standing NATO sceptic, raised questions about whether he would uphold the alliance's founding Article 5 principle - that an attack on one is an attack on all - before he even arrived in the Dutch city last night. 0:36 An urgent need to keep Mr Trump on side has prompted NATO allies to agree to increase spending on defence and national resilience to a new target of 5% of GDP by 2035. As part of this push to rearm, Sir Keir will give the Royal Air Force the ability to carry airborne nuclear warheads for the first time since the 1990s. "In an era of radical uncertainty we can no longer take peace for granted," he said. "These F-35 dual capable aircraft will herald a new era for our world-leading Royal Air Force and deter hostile threats that threaten the UK and our allies. "The UK's commitment to NATO is unquestionable, as is the alliance's contribution to keeping the UK safe and secure, but we must all step up to protect the Euro-Atlantic area for generations to come." 1:05 It was not immediately clear when the F-35 jets would be bought or how much they will cost, but the new squadron will be part of a NATO-led nuclear deterrence mission. That is in contrast to the UK's national nuclear deterrence, based on a fleet of four nuclear-armed submarines, though they too are used to defend the whole of the alliance. Mark Rutte, the head of NATO, applauded the plan - saying: "The UK has declared its nuclear deterrent to NATO for many decades, and I strongly welcome today's announcement that the UK will now also join NATO's nuclear mission and procure the F-35A. "This is yet another robust British contribution to NATO." Aircraft operated by a small number of NATO countries, including Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands, are cleared to carry US-provided nuclear weapons in a war. The RAF and the Royal Navy already operate F-35B jets that can fly off Britain's two aircraft carriers, but they are not equipped to drop nuclear warheads. The new planes will be the F-35A variant, operated by the air force, that take off from land but can fly further and be armed with nuclear or conventional weapons. The government said they would all be based together at RAF Marham in Norfolk. The government has long planned to purchase a total of 138 F-35 aircraft, but has so far only acquired around three dozen - seven years since the first jets entered service. The decision to purchase 12 of the A-variant does not mean extra aircraft. It just means a diversification in the fleet - something the RAF has long been pushing for - though it's a decision some in the Royal Navy have long pushed back against, believing it would reduce even further the number of the B-version that operate from their carriers. 2:38 The government described the plan to purchase nuclear-capable aircraft as the "biggest strengthening of the UK's nuclear posture in a generation". Defence Secretary John Healey said a major defence review published earlier in the month highlighted new nuclear risks. "It recommended a new UK role in our collective defence and deterrence through a NATO-first approach," he said. However, the public version of the Strategic Defence Review stopped short of making any specific recommendation. It merely said "the UK must explore how to support the US and its NATO allies in strengthening extended deterrence across the Euro-Atlantic". The F-35 aircraft is made by the US defence giant Lockheed Martin, but the British defence company BAE Systems is also a key contributor.
