Connect with us

International

‘Wrong in principle’: Former UK prime ministers torch proposed assisted suicide legislation

Published

8 minute read

A nurse injects medicine for euthanasia to an elderly man in a hospital bed

From LifeSiteNews

By Jonathon Van Maren

As UK lawmakers prepare to vote on Kim Leadbeater’s assisted suicide bill, opposition mounts from ex-prime ministers, clergy, and healthcare leaders, who condemn the practice ‘in principle’ while warning of risks to vulnerable patients and flawed safeguards.

At least four former U.K. prime ministers have opposed Kim Leadbeater’s assisted suicide bill as the Friday vote looms. 

Former Labour Prime Minister Gordon Brown published his editorial opposing assisted suicide in the Guardian on November 22, revealing that the moments he and his wife spent with their dying infant daughter were among the most precious in his life and calling on Parliament to instead focus on improving end-of-life care. 

According to the Daily Telegraph, former British leaders Boris Johnson, Liz Truss, and Baroness Theresa May have all expressed their opposition to the deceitfully named Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill. May’s opposition to assisted suicide has not changed since she voted against it in 2015, and thus she expects to vote against the Leadbeater bill if it progresses to the House of Lords, according to sources close to May.   

Liz Truss has been forthright in her opposition, telling the Telegraph that she is “completely opposed” to assisted suicide: “It is wrong in principle: organs of the state like the NHS and the judicial system should be protecting lives, not ending them.” Boris Johnson also opposes the assisted suicide bill in its current form, the Telegraph reports. Rishi Sunak is not opposed to assisted suicide “in principle,” but has not stated which way he will be voting; Tony Blair has also thus far remained silent.  

Unfortunately, former prime minister David Cameron has changed his view on assisted suicide, stating that despite his previous concerns that vulnerable people might be pressured to end their lives, Leadbeater’s bill has “strong safeguards.” As several experts have already pointed out, Cameron is wrong about the bill – in fact, the legislation as written is vague, disastrous, and filled with loopholes.  

Indeed, the bill’s sponsor and most aggressive champion, Labour MP Kim Leadbeater, has suggested that fear of being a burden is a “legitimate reason” for dying – and the “safeguards,” such as Clause 25, which protects medical professionals involved in assisted suicides from civil liability, reveals who the safeguards are actually for.  

Although the assisted suicide camp still has more confirmed votes, opposition to the bill has been mounting in recent days. The Times condemned the bill, stating in no uncertain terms:  

Legislation sanctioning the killing of human beings, irrespective of life expectancy, is a matter worthy of the most rigorous debate. Ms Leadbeater implied only this week that doctors would be allowed to raise the issue of assisted dying with patients who had expressed no desire for it. Such flippant and ad hoc reasoning behind this most important of bills condemns it.

Even the Church of England has stepped up, with over 1,000 members of the Anglican clergy – including 15 bishops – signing an open letter stating: 

To reduce the value of human life to physical and mental capacity and wellbeing has sinister implications for how we as a society view those who experience severe physical or mental issues.

READ: Euthanasia advocates use deception to affect public’s perception of assisted suicide 

These religious leaders are joined by jurists such as former judge Sir James Munby and former attorney Dominic Grieve. Additionally, 3,400 healthcare professionals, including 23 hospice medical directors and 53 eminent medical professionals, signed a letter stating that Leadbeater’s bill “would threaten society’s ability to safeguard vulnerable patients from abuse.” London Mayor Sadiq Khan also opposes the bill.  

In response, suicide lobby group Dying With Dignity is pouring money into ad campaigns on social media, running 602 Facebook ads in the past month. Supporters of assisted suicide are claiming that a majority of the public supports the bill, and some polls indicate that over 60 percent do. However, as the saying goes, polls are taken to shape public opinion, not gauge it. From the Daily Mail: 

[A new poll] found that when presented with ten basic arguments against assisted suicide – based on experiences from other countries such as Canada where the practice is allowed – support collapses. In this case the proportion of “supporters” who did not switch to oppose or say “don’t know” fell to just 11 per cent, the polling found. Support fell in every social category by between 17 and 49 percentage points.

This poll reveals precisely why Keir Starmer, the U.K.’s first openly atheist prime minister, permitted such an important bill to be so rushed: the more people know, the more they oppose assisted suicide. Let’s hope that the pushback is enough to carry the day.  

Featured Image

Jonathon Van Maren

Jonathon’s writings have been translated into more than six languages and in addition to LifeSiteNews, has been published in the National PostNational ReviewFirst Things, The Federalist, The American Conservative, The Stream, the Jewish Independent, the Hamilton SpectatorReformed Perspective Magazine, and LifeNews, among others. He is a contributing editor to The European Conservative.

His insights have been featured on CTV, Global News, and the CBC, as well as over twenty radio stations. He regularly speaks on a variety of social issues at universities, high schools, churches, and other functions in Canada, the United States, and Europe.

He is the author of The Culture WarSeeing is Believing: Why Our Culture Must Face the Victims of AbortionPatriots: The Untold Story of Ireland’s Pro-Life MovementPrairie Lion: The Life and Times of Ted Byfield, and co-author of A Guide to Discussing Assisted Suicide with Blaise Alleyne.

Jonathon serves as the communications director for the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Digital ID

Age of online privacy coming to an end as Australia adopts digital ID

Published on

 

 

By 

 

Australia’s eSafety Commissioner Defends Controversial Online Age Verification Digital ID Methods

Julie Inman Grant, Australia’s eSafety Commissioner (to her critics – the country’s chief censor), has attempted to explain how Online Safety Amendment – Social Media Minimum Age Bill 2024 – will be enforced.

The bill mandates online age verification, and bans minors under 16 from using social platforms, in what is described as “the strictest crackdown” yet in the world – with many in the world, no doubt, looking at how things pan out in Australia before they make their own restrictive moves.

The “small” question that remains to be answered Down Under now is – how does the government propose to determine the age of a person using an online platform, before the government orders them to be banned?

Grant may be trying to sell one method as less invasive, less potentially harmful, and otherwise controversial than another – but they appear to be as bad as each other, only in different ways.

“There are really only three ways you can verify someone’s age online, and that’s through ID, through behavioral signals, or through biometrics,” she told NPR.

The “ID” route means that every internet user would have to provide government-issued documents to platforms, revealing their real-world identity to these platforms and anyone else they’re in business with (such as governments and data brokers) and ending online anonymity for everyone.

And that, in fact, is the only sure-fire way to determine someone’s age. The other two produce estimates. The biometrics Grant mentions refer to uploading selfies to companies like Yoti, who then guess a user’s age.

Related: The 2024 Digital ID and Online Age Verification Agenda

Better than the “ID” method – that is, if you believe it’s a good idea for minors, or anyone, to just hand over biometric data to third parties.

Then, there are “behavioral signals” – and it sounds positively bonkers that a government would entertain the idea of deploying such technology on/against its citizens.

Grant said she met with yet another third party in the US – “an age assurance provider” – this unnamed company doesn’t monitor and analyze your facial features, but hand gestures. For age verification.

Like so: “Say you do a peace sign then a fist to the camera. It follows your hand movements. And medical research has shown that based on your hand movement, it can identify your age.”

One way to look at all this is that tech is being developed to step up online surveillance, while a flurry of “think of the children” laws may be here to legitimize and “legalize” that tech’s use.

Continue Reading

Daily Caller

International Energy Agency should go on Trump’s Chopping Block

Published on

French President Macron has called the IEA the ‘armed wing for implementing the Paris Agreement

 

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By David Blackmon

Among the many promises and commitments that he has made during his ongoing transition period, President-elect Donald Trump has pledged to pull U.S. support for the World Health Organization and cancel its commitments related to the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement. If a new report issued this week by the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and incoming chairman Republican Wyoming Sen. John Barrasso, is any guide, Trump perhaps should add U.S. support for the International Energy Agency to his growing list of cancellation opportunities.

“French President Macron’s observation that IEA has become the ‘armed wing for implementing the Paris Agreement’ is regrettably true,” said the report. “With the many serious energy security challenges facing the world, however, IEA should not be a partisan cheerleader. What the world needs from IEA—and what it is not receiving now—is sober and unbiased analyses and projections that educate and inform policymakers and investors. IEA needs to remember why it was established and return to its energy security mission.”

The IEA was established in 1974 in response to the first Arab Oil Embargo which resulted in dramatically higher prices for crude oil and gasoline at the pump. Originally supported by 31 member countries including the United States, the agency’s mission was to provide accurate information related to global oil supply and demand which subscribing countries could use to help form effective energy policies. That original mission held firm for decades, during which the IEA was widely considered a leading source of real, unbiased energy information.

But politics tends to corrupt everything it touches, and the IEA has unfortunately proved to be no exception to that rule. As the politics surrounding climate alarmism rose to new highs following the signing of the Paris Climate Agreement, the agency came under increasing pressure to radically alter its mission from that of a provider of real information worthy of trust to more of an activist posture.

In 2020, the report notes, this led to a shift in the IEA’s mission statement and to a new design to its modeling processes that form the basis for its annual World Energy Outlook. As its modeling base case, the agency abandoned its longstanding Current Policies Scenario, which Barrasso’s report describes as “essentially a ‘business as usual’ reference case,” in favor of a more aggressive Stated Policies Scenario.

Barrasso’s report describes this new scenario as “a hypothetical outlook based on unimplemented policies and grounded in unrealistically optimistic assumptions about the pace and scale of the transformation, especially concerning the adoption of electric vehicles by consumers.” It is an approach intentionally designed to introduce bias into the modeling process, and thus into the IEA policy recommendations for which the modeling process serves as the foundation.

This inevitable bias had an immediate and very noticeable effect. In a report published by the IEA in May 2021 Executive Director Fatih Birol laughably stated that “there will not be a need for new investments in oil and gas fields” and urged oil and gas producers to halt investments in exploration and development of new oil reserves. But that was before oil prices exploded as global demand exceeded supply during the recovery from the COVID pandemic, and by August Birol had completely reversed himself, joining President Joe Biden in a desperate call for more oil drilling to help resolve the situation.

Obviously, this sort of flip-floppery does severe damage to the agency’s already crumbling credibility as well as to the justification for governments to continue pouring millions of dollars into its operations each year. Barrasso’s report correctly notes that the IEA’s “reputation has lost its luster.”

Barrasso’s report is blunt about the kinds of reforms he would like to see at the IEA, urging Birol to abandon its advocacy posturing against investments in oil, natural gas, and coal, and to “once again produce for its World Energy Outlook a real unbiased, policy-neutral ‘business as usual’ reference case of the kind the Energy Information Administration produces.”

The Wyoming senator stops short of calling for the U.S. defunding of the IEA, but the agency’s currency is information. If that currency has lost its value, then perhaps Trump should consider a more aggressive approach.

David Blackmon is an energy writer and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.

Continue Reading

Trending

X