‘Kiss of Death’
Written by Ann Farmer
~~~ *** ~~~
[Ed: this article was sent to the DT as letter and is simultaneously published today in ‘The Conservative Woman’]
~~~ *** ~~~
Health and Social Care Secretary Matt Hancock has confirmed that ‘[p]eople can break lockdown in order to travel abroad for assisted dying’, saying that ‘flying to the Dignitas clinic in Switzerland would be considered a “reasonable excuse” under the travel ban’ (‘Terminally ill allowed to break travel ban for assisted dying’, Telegraph, November 6, 2020).
In fact ‘assisted dying’ is already available in this country – it is called palliative care, and should be offered to all; however, his intervention came in response to ‘an outcry over the case of a former NHS worker with terminal breast cancer who was forced to bring forward plans for her suicide at the Zurich facility due to fears the new lockdown rules would prevent her from travelling’; the 45-year-old ‘said she felt driven to “go now, before I am truly ready”.’
And yet the whole idea of assisted suicide is to bring death forward; nobody – including doctors – knows precisely how long patients will live, and many patients have outlived the most gloomy prognoses. One thing is sure, however: if allowed to seek help to commit suicide, a great many will ‘bring forward’ their deaths – and no one will ever know how long they might otherwise have lived.
The ‘right to die’ – more accurately known as the right to kill oneself – is presented as an individual matter into which the rest of society has no right to intrude. However, no man is an island – death does not only involve the one who dies, and as Mr Hancock should know only too well, thanks to the Government’s policy of prioritising saving the NHS over actually saving lives, there will be a great many more cases of terminal cancer; how very convenient, then, for a Secretary of ‘Health and Social Care’ to graciously allow such individuals to go somewhere else to be killed. And it is no coincidence that euthanasia saves money for health care administrators (see e.g. here).
Can the public – especially those ‘past their sell-by date’ – really trust a Government that forced care homes to take untested patients from hospitals (here), and presided over the blanket issue of ‘Do Not Resuscitate’ notices in care homes for the elderly and mentally disabled (here)? All this was justified because of Covid – and yet so was the decision to send abortion pills to women through the post, a ‘temporary’ measure that looks set to be made permanent (link). And the abortion clinics have remained open throughout the pandemic – as have Switzerland’s suicide clinics; apparently, it would not do to allow a deadly pandemic to get in the way of killing.
Mr Hancock ‘rebuffed calls for a government-led review of the current legislation’ on assisted suicide, insisting that ‘the Government was “neutral” on the matter and that any attempt to change the law must come from Parliament.’ However, Conservative MP Andrew Mitchell, a former Cabinet minister, who tabled the Parliamentary question about the woman who was prevented from going to Switzerland, is now an advocate of ‘assisted dying’, and he will no doubt be buoyed by Mr Hancock’s response, despite the fact that the last attempt to change the law, in 2015, was soundly defeated once Parliamentarians had had the opportunity to examine all the evidence of the terrible outcomes afflicting societies where the law has been changed. It is now even more clear how easily societies can slide down the slippery slope of convenience dressed up as compassion (see here).
Mr Mitchell said the new lockdown could nevertheless deter people from travelling for assisted suicide, adding: “This will undoubtedly cause many more Britons to suffer as they die due to the lack of a safeguarded law here in the UK.” As has been admitted publicly by one euthanasia advocate (link), legalising assisted suicide with ‘strict safeguards’ is seen by them as a way to ‘get our foot in the door’ prior to throwing it wide open when dying has become a way of life.
Mr Hancock has effectively changed the law, since he has accepted in fact that people can legally leave the country to do elsewhere what is illegal in this country – regarding which the Government is ‘neutral’. It could be argued that like ‘strict safeguard’, a ‘strictly neutral’ stance on assisted suicide is a mere prelude to accepting it. He did so, apparently, in response to the ‘outcry’ over this particular case, but significantly, the ‘outcry’ over people not getting the treatment they need because of Covid has produced no such swift and efficient response. And given the dire mental health impact of Covid restrictions, it is hardly a helpful response to tell people struggling with sickness and depression in a seemingly endless series of lockdowns that the only way to end it all is to go abroad to end it all.
Even if Covid health policy was initially made on the hoof, it is now reprehensible to take such decisions in full knowledge of what they could be covering up. Most bizarrely, Matt Hancock’s decision was made for ‘health’ reasons, and indeed travelling abroad to die could be justified on health grounds, given that those who do so will no longer be ill – because they will no longer be alive. It is argued that such people are ‘going to die anyway’ – well now that will be guaranteed. And the Government will be off the hook, having given those suffering under lockdown the false freedom of death.
The only way to end this mess is for UKIP to rise up to the occasion, challenge each issue and let it be known to the electorate at large to get them on our side in readiness for the big day when they can vote our members into Parliament. Just letting our opinions sit in the independencedaily.co.uk does not get far enough. Someone has to get these opinions into the TV and main media under the banner of UKIP in order to make a difference at a general election.
We need to get the masses agreeing with our members who will be standing for election; no use just quoting a source or our editor or anybody else. If we feel strong enough about an issue, we must own it to be effective, otherwise we’ll continue to get second or third place in any election. Personality and character of an aspiring UKIP MP matter more than simply criticising other party’s failing. The Party needs to be credible and capable of performing the tasks of administration and government to merit electoral votes. We need to let people know what we would do in any situation when we criticise; positively instructive criticism to show our prowess and ability to do the right thing if elected. UKIP needs to show the capability of our membership and appeal to those members who left to join the Brexit Party, who were dismissed from entering into the last general election.
I always had a low opinion of Johnson and Hancock what a dreadful pair of so called human beings they are why are the still in office they would fit nicely in the SS wake up Britain https://www.saveourrights.uk
What Switzerland chooses to do is their business.
I don’t want it in U.K. The D.N.R. ‘notices’ is already a back door way of getting it here. Those were encouraged under Hancock’s supposedly ‘being in charge’ of the N.H.S.
How much more will Hancock be allowed to get away with?
Insult after insult after insult from vile politicians. I’m more determined than ever to survive and fight back.
Indeed Mary. Society has lost its way already; government is hastening our demise.
…. and we allow it.
Then we get rid of the LibLabConSNP permanently they don’t care for us stop rewarding them