Why are they all smiling!
The title gives the impression this Bill is all about helping those in extreme medical circumstances out of their dilemma by killing them. For some it makes sense, for many it is a form of legalised murder.
Far too many influences are involved that are not in any way wanting to help the afflicted but hasten them on their way for their own advantage, whether they be individuals or organisations i.e. the State.
The fact this Bill is a private members’ one does not disguise an element that shows all the signs of relieving older people of the help they need as they approach their later days.
There was a time when older family members were automatically brought ‘home’ to see out their days in the bosom of the family. That of course was a long time ago, now they become a nuisance only. Contact often is because family members can see a pot of gold within reach, I doubt if many reading this will not have across the family members descending like vultures when a grandparent dies in the belief they are entitled to what is left; I have seen it in my own family, it is not something to be proud of and the usual suspects turn up every time like locusts.
I have heard many such cases from friends over the years so I am hardly surprised how widespread it is when it happens.
Now it appears that governments want to get in on the act. In the Lords Matthew Parish was mentioned for his recent piece in the Times…..
https://x.com/i/status/1968979274775277584:
“The elderly and infirm are a ‘drain on resources’”. Lord Curry of Kirkharle quotes Matthew Parris in The Times saying it would be good if they felt pressure to end their lives early. This is the chilling attitude that legalising assisted suicide would normalise.
An interesting issue is the MP who put forward this private members bill. Kim Leadbetter is a strange choice for Westminster. Being the sister of the murdered MP Jo Cox seems to be enough to have chosen her for the shoo-in, hardly a reason on its own for being selected but many both in the Commons and the Lords have got there by association of one sort or another over the years and it still goes on. Her main distinction since winning the seat is to be very coy about her sexuality as her Muslim supporters are not known for being tolerant to sexual deviation so she butters them up to the detriment of everything else. Still she has got this far with the Bill and it looks as though it will pass in one form or another. What her motivation was for presenting the bill in the first place is not known, was it actually her or is she a proxy for the government as a whole?
There is generally a support group for assisted dying that is purely financial. Many commentators have voiced concerns over the cost of social care and the NHS (in general unaffordable), coupled with the increase in the aged population. Yet this is not a problem that has crept up unforeseen. The figures since the start of the last century show a steady rise in longevity and as with so much else little has been done to meet the inevitable demands it would bring, yet strangely the government of the time while worried about the costs is introducing ever more items to increase life expectancy, such as medical advances, better (though that is increasingly abused) diet, and lifestyle changes.
As with most advances there is a downside, in this case the cost as the recipients are of the older retired age group.
So once again many who believe they are being in some way robbed of services and financial gain see assisted dying as a way to lessen the load so to speak by targeting the group that takes most of the resources.
We saw some of this during Covid as explained in my last piece on the NHS, and the care home murders, for that is what they were went unchallenged and no one has been brought to book for the decisions made, truly one of the most disgraceful decisions made in recent times. That was even repeated when and after the instances leaked out, no one cared, so there is a problem and we cannot trust governments to legislate on this matter; they are not to be trusted.
And if anyone believes the never ending lawyer fest that is the Covid enquiry will bring answers to this and people to book, I have a bridge to sell you.
Strangely during all the discussions on this Bill between the great and the good and the indifferent, at no point has the use of DNR (Do Not Resuscitate) notices in hospitals been raised. As I have previously written I am one of the few to have had a DNR notice put on them and lived! I do know what I am talking about. Finding other examples is easy: I have spoken to three people I know, one an old friend, who have had partners and family members suggested for DNRs at their time in hospita. These were thankfully resisted by family members and all those patients are leading normal lives, which begs the question about the criteria in place for issuing these notices in the first place - or is there a simpler explanation? I leave that thought with you.
In my case the protocols were not followed, to the extent that my wife was not aware of what had happened. When she visited me the day after being told ‘I was unlikely to make it’ she found I had been moved and put in a bare room and all the medical support had been withdrawn. The ‘doctor’ was summoned to explain what had happened but failed to appear and made an appointment for the following morning. He failed to show again and my wife rightly went ballistic.
Fortunately one of the nurses that had been looking after me got hold of the doctor’s superior who came down and came in to see me and reported back to my wife. He felt it was a wrong decision, had me fed, cleaned up , changed my medication put me back on a ward and here I am. The original doctor to all intents disappeared never to be seen again.
https://www.nhs.uk/tests-and-treatments/do-not-attempt-cardiopulmonary-resuscitation-dnacpr-decisions/If you read the above it shows that little or nothing applied to my case and what was not revealed to my wife/family.
That story has all the hallmarks of the NHS not wanting to spend any more money on a patient. That one doctor who never went through the protocols thought it was an easy way out. Harsh you say? Not really, to not even have the decency to explain what he had put in motion was at best poor and at worst a dereliction of duty. How many in the same position would have accepted the original decision and let the patient die believing all they had been told (or not told)?
Despite my semi comatose state I was aware of my position and remember vowing to try and go home. I actually managed to get out of the bed and crawled because I could not walk at that stage, before (I presume) being found on the floor and put back in the bed. Surely my being able to do that would have triggered some sort of message that something was not right here. The memory of being in that windowless barren room very much alone is something that the comatose state I was in only partially blots out and will always haunt me. God knows what it must be like for someone who is fully functional.
But the Bill is for people who have full mental capacity and with a prognosis that they have only six months to live. Who decides the six months. The examples I have given presumed the patients were not going to survive but all are still here, one of them ten years later and living a near to normal life.
The safeguards are a problem. In my case we had
Health Power of Attorney, but it was not asked about and my wife did not know that it applied to DNRs; it does of course and except in extreme cases a DNR can not be given to anyone with that power of attorney without going before a judge first to decide on the way forward. Where does this sit with the Assisted Dying Bill?
Yes I can see circumstances where excess pain and suffering that have become intolerable with no hope of a reverse in that status are grounds for a decision to end life. But what happens with mental problems? I had an aunt who suffered from dementia and suffered from mini strokes. She was in a private nursing home because she had the money to fund it and was not expected to last beyond a year or so. In fact she lasted fifteen years with no quality of life at all for most of that period; for her an end would have been merciful.
There are so many variables in this that a one size bill does not fit the case. It has never been an easy decision even when using DIGNITAS as the same problems exist there.
The great and the good in the Lords have to my surprise passed the Bill. Considering the age of many in that place I can only assume they voted that way in the belief that this bill will in no way ever affect them. The talk of saving money that came up with some of them was a case of this is for them not us. Beware: this is a very dangerous path to set out on.
