DEVELOPING: THE END OF LIFE BILL HAS PASSED 314 TO 291 IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS

“The War on the Inherent Value of Life, specifically looking at UK Lawmakers having Backed the End of Life Bill”. Now, in light of the vote on the 20th of June, the legislation now goes to the House of Lords. And in essence, the Bill wishes to allow terminally ill adults with less than six months to live, to apply for assisted death, subject to approval by two doctors, a panel with a social worker, senior legal figure and psychiatrist.

Let’s address these provisions; beginning with the six months to live criterion. Now, this cannot be stressed enough, but there actually is NOT a way to predict exactly how long someone will live, because life expectancy can only provide a statistical estimate based on various factors. More specifically, life expectancy is an average, and individual lifespans can vary significantly. Factors like age, sex, genetics, lifestyle, and health conditions all play a role in determining how long a person might live (in the natural sense). But all of these factors are VARIABLES, which means they are high;y irregular and differ with each person. Therefore, if these factors are so subject to inconsistency, why should they be used to inform a law of general application?

This is to say, considering that life expectancy differs with each person, why would we subject people to a standard that assumes they are homogenous? This then lets us know that to use life expectancy as a criterion does not necessarily translate to compassion for a terminally ill patient; rather it amounts to an easy consideration for people looking for less complex reasons for ending a person’s life, because they just have to ESTIMATE that the person will not live beyond six months. And yet, society is replete with cases of people who challenge the propensity of medical literature to use estimates. For instance, there are many people who had cancer and were given 2-6 months to live, but are in remission. People who were in a coma for weeks, but woke up. And so, given the fact that there are variables that undermine the accuracy of the six month mark, the medical industry has a duty to do no harm.

The second criterion is that of allowing a mentally competent terminally ill person to apply for assisted dying. This language is a bit sneaky because it undermines key considerations for consent that society has largely come to accept, by requiring that it be a mentally competent person who requires assisted dying. The reason this undermines key considerations for consent is that when a person is under pain or a particularly challenging circumstance, the (often emotional) desire to escape that pain or discomfort often clouds their judgement. This is why torture (in addition to being inhumane) is also said to be ineffective, because when a subject is being inflicted with pain, they will say or agree to anything in order to get it to stop. Therefore, that person is not incentivised by well calculated reasoning, and rather by a desire to end a painful experience. Well, the same reasoning applies with any person who is trying to escape chronic pain or discomfort – including terminally ill patients.

But, even if there is no chronic pain, elderly patients and those with disabilities (who are those most affected by this bill) face indirect duress due to social factors. This is to say, even if they are NOT acting out of  compulsive need to escape pain from illness, the pressure of being a burden on society and loved ones is a big consideration. For instance, in 2014, when the End of Life Bill was being debated and failed to pass, one of the arguments made against the Bill was (ironically) from Labour’s Yasmin Qureshi, who said her mother of 83 years had been given three days to live by doctors, and began to say she felt like a burden on her family and could not go on (meaning she wanted to be euthanised), AND YET she survived and fully recovered!

Furthermore, the bill does not require a person to be assessed for all health, social, psychological, functional, and environmental needs. Instead, it only requires that those involved are satisfied that an individual has capacity and is free from coercion. And yet, introducing a holistic assessment may actually address treatable needs that would otherwise influence older people to choose an assisted death. This involves looking into all aspects of a person’s life to assess whether there are needs that are not being met, that may also be causing suffering. For example, an older person may be feeling lonely or isolated, which can be resolved through referring them to a voluntary-sector befriending service. In geriatric medicine, this type of assessment is known as Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (or CGA) and is the cornerstone of good healthcare for older people. Therefore, it should be unacceptable that older people may choose an assisted death due to factors that could be addressed through a CGA. But, here’s an excerpt from the debate.

AGAIN, TO ALLOW SOME DEGREE OF EUTHANASIA USHERS IN EXTREME APPLICATIONS OF IT

The second argument we’d like to make against this development in the UK, is that of extreme application. Whenever society gives room for ultra-liberal positions to a minor degree, these allowances progressively become extreme applications. For instance, abortion was only for rape victims, mentally ill mothers or in cases where there is a threat to the life of a mother, but today, the UK allows them till birth, without justification. Gay couples only demanded to get married, but now some corporations and government agencies face social pressure to cater to DEI and LGBT focused demands, or risk cancellation. Similarly, feminists claimed differences between men and women were abstract, and now transgender people claim gender is fluid and biological facts are allegedly discriminatory. [PAUSE] All of this is proof that minor allowances for ultra-liberal positions and agendas become extreme applications.

Well, in this case, euthanasia for mentally sound terminally ill patients with less than six months to live is predictive programming for a world where the elderly are euthanised with little to no consent. I say this because this is already happening – in particular, DNR (or Do Not Resuscitate) orders are being put on people without consultation or consent. End of life drugs are also being administered to people deemed not worthy of living. For instance, a short video was made in 2022 when there were just a few relatives of involuntary euthanasia victims in a support group in the UK, and the number of those in the support group quickly grew to 148.

So, in other words, to say that the End of Life Bill is about ushering in predictive programming for a world where the elderly are euthanised with little to no consent is not some hyperbolic argument: it is a critique of a failing status quo, while highlighting that this Bill therefore, serves to protect his diabolical conduct by passing it off as legislatively acceptable conduct. Afterall, in the status quo, patients are supposed to speak to a doctor and explain their reasons for wanting to refuse CPR through the DNR order (as an exercise of agency and demonstration of their mental competency) and yet they are being murdered!

ON PRACTICAL APPLICATION, THE U.K. ALSO CANNOT JUSTIFIABLY EMBRACE EUTHANASIA

Let’s also consider practical applications, because the End of Life Bill fails the legitimacy test in this respect as well. First, the bill does not sufficiently consider the role of healthcare professions other than doctors. This is to say that many older people are cared for by a wide range of healthcare professionals, including nurses and allied healthcare professionals. And yet, the EOL Bill is framed around an outdated medical model of healthcare and does not refer to the role of the wider multidisciplinary team, instead focusing on the role of medical practitioners. Many older people will not have a strong or continuous relationship with a medical practitioner, and often a nurse or an allied health professional may take on this role. Senior decisions are not always taken by doctors, and consultant nurses often lead palliative care teams – while they are not central to the Bill.

Secondly, older people often feel pressures associated with getting older, such as requiring care, and the need to give up their home. The bill does not have robust procedures in place to safeguard older people from harm, which, based on what we’ve discussed, is intentional. Furthermore, at Committee Stage, the Bill’s so-called “strongest safeguards in the world” originally involving oversight by two doctors and a High Court judge, were replaced with a panel consisting of a lawyer, a psychiatrist, and a social worker. But, that is not strengthening protections, at best it inserts people who have the capacity to make an argument that would absolve the hospital of guilt; but also fails to adequately address the issue of mental capacity (as we have already discussed).

Thirdly, major professional bodies have raised concerns. For instance, the Royal College of Pathologists raised concerns about the practical implications for its members. Then, the Royal College of Psychiatrists further warned that patients with treatable mental illnesses might fall under the scope of this Bill, and the Royal College of Physicians has expressed fears that some individuals may seek assisted dying simply because they feel their care needs cannot or will not be met. All of these are crucial practical considerations that undermine the claimed legitimacy of this Bill.

Then, another important practical consideration is that the unequal and inadequate provision of palliative and end of life care in the UK is not recognised within the bill. Palliative and end of life care services are under-resourced in the UK, and there are variations in services across the country. As a result, many people who may require these services are unable to access them. This is important to note because repeated reference is made within the bill to “available palliative, hospice or other care”, requiring a medical practitioner to discuss these options with the patient. But, a concern then arises that older people may be influenced to choose AD because of the lack of palliative and end of life care available. Good-quality end of life care is not currently available to everyone in the UK, and so improving this situation should be a higher policy priority than legalising AD!

THE UK ‘END OF LIFE’ BILL PERPETUATES ELDERLY ABUSE IN THE MEDICAL INDUSTRY

This development in the UK is also not in isolation; because it is part of a broader problem of elderly abuse as well. In particular, you’d recall that we have discussed that some hospitals are actually legally (so to speak) injuring and killing patients. More alarming is the fact that this has to do with plain poor hospital care for vulnerable patients, who end up being ill-treated in the absence of an advocate. Among such patients are often the elderly. While elder abuse can happen anywhere, it is especially prevalent in institutional settings like nursing homes and hospitals! Reports indicate that around 1 in 6 elderly persons experienced some form of abuse in community settings, such as nursing homes, in 2021. HOWEVER, data on the extent of elder abuse in hospitals is scarce and difficult to obtain, in large part because many cases of elder abuse are not reported or recognised by healthcare providers, family members, or the victims themselves.

That said, studies conducted in different nations have attempted to estimate the prevalence and characteristics of elder abuse in hospitals. For example, a study conducted in China found that 36.2% of hospitalised older adults reported experiencing at least one type of abuse during their hospital stay. Another study conducted in Brazil found that 32% of hospitalised older adults reported experiencing at least one type of abuse during their hospital stay. Still, one can expect that in reality, these numbers are, unfortunately, much higher. But here’s a doctor explaining the extent of the abuse when it relates to how medicine is and IS NOT administered.

Well, even though elderly abuse tends not to be reported extensively, why are hospitals not evaluating their care practices and how they contribute to the health challenges experienced by patients – especially because many of the challenges mentioned by the doctor we just heard are now fairly known. For instance, many people are aware of the potential to contract infections in a hospital; many people are also aware of the potential to contract superbugs, which are strains of bacteria that are resistant to several types of antibiotics, as a result of overexposure to antibiotics. Therefore, the immediate question that follows these revelations is what is then being done to address these issues. And, unfortunately, according to the same doctor, not much.

So, it appears that not only are hospitals placing profit above patient care by denying them medicines that cost from $5 to $50 dollars, but they are also not liable for the issues resulting from their poor care practices? This means there might not be an incentive for improvement in patient care. And I say this considering hospitals that are especially well-resourced, and have the capacity to do better; because – often – the reason why denying a patient medicine is a problem is NOT because the medicine is not there. When a hospital lacks the necessary resources for procedures and care, it is a shortage problem and not necessarily one that we attribute to the care practices of hospitals themselves.

THESE ANTI-LIFE LAWS FROM THE UK ARE MOTIVATED FROM THE SPIRIT REALM

But ultimately, the UK terminally Ill Adults or End of Life Bill represents a digression from Godly Wisdom. When significant changes take place as a consequence of sinister influence, it is often a gradual process. A catalyst takes place, the slow burn begins, and then a threshold is crossed, and suddenly the narrative changes. For instance, Europe was pivotal in taking the Sopel to other continents, and yet, today, the Christian faith and doctrine in Europe is not as valued as it was; in fact, in a number of places, people have great reverence for their government and secular law instead.

This highlights the significant shift in social narrative in Europe, and the gist of the spiritual war in today’s discussion; which is that when laws are made in the UK, it is not the Wisdom of God and Scriptures that are at the fore of the discussion, rather it is diabolical activities of witches in the UK, and something must be done.

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso