Ten questions you never hear asked on the media

I was on the Radio Four Today programme earlier this week debating Lord Falconer (listen here for Radio Four and here for Radio Five Live and ) on whether or not assisted suicide should be legalised in the light of ten years of British people going to the Dignitas facility in Switzerland to end their lives.

Prior to our debate the programme ran a prime time recorded interview with Win Crew, wife of one of the first Britons to die there which I listened to in the taxi on the way in.

It was typical of such interviews. The usually robust Evan Davies
(pictured), rather than giving her a challenging and searching cross-examination, instead reverted to slow underarm bowling in the apparent hope that she might hit each question over the boundary in the cause of legalisation.

She, not understandably, made the most of being given an international media platform to propagate her views effectively unchallenged.

The BBC later gave the interview huge prominence in keeping with their ‘assisted suicide cheerleader’ policy whilst our debate was relegated to the graveyard slot just prior to 9am.

In the light of this not atypical experience I was interested to see this post on Life Site News on the not unrelated issue of abortion – another where the liberal elite who dominate the media do what they can to ensure that really searching questions are never asked.

I have virtually never heard these ten questions asked (or answered) on media but invite anyone with a prochoice position to attempt to answer them either here or elsewhere.

They come from over the pond in the lead up to the US presidential election but apply equally well here.

Here’s some food for thought then from Trevin Wax at thegospelcoalition.org blog — ‘Ten questions you never hear a pro-choice candidate asked by the media’.

1. You say you support a woman’s right to make her own reproductive choices in regards to abortion and contraception. Are there any restrictions you would approve of?

2. In 2010, The Economist featured a cover story on “the war on girls” and the growth of “gendercide” in the world – abortion based solely on the sex of the baby. Does this phenomenon pose a problem for you or do you believe in the absolute right of a woman to terminate a pregnancy because the unborn fetus is female?

3. In many states, a teenager can have an abortion without her parents’ consent or knowledge but cannot get an aspirin from the school nurse without parental authorization. Do you support any restrictions or parental notification regarding abortion access for minors?

4. If you do not believe that human life begins at conception, when do you believe it begins? At what stage of development should an unborn child have human rights?

5. Currently, when genetic testing reveals an unborn child has Down’s Syndrome, most women choose to abort. How do you answer the charge that this phenomenon resembles the “eugenics” movement a century ago – the slow, but deliberate “weeding out” of those our society would deem “unfit” to live?

6. Do you believe an employer should be forced to violate his or her religious conscience by providing access to abortifacient drugs and contraception to employees?

7. Alveda King, niece of Martin Luther King, Jr. has said that “abortion is the white supremacist’s best friend,” pointing to the fact that Black and Latinos represent 25% of our population but account for 59% of all abortions. How do you respond to the charge that the majority of abortion clinics are found in inner-city areas with large numbers of minorities?

8. You describe abortion as a “tragic choice.” If abortion is not morally objectionable, then why is it tragic? Does this mean there is something about abortion that is different than other standard surgical procedures?

9. Do you believe abortion should be legal once the unborn fetus is viable – able to survive outside the womb?

10. If a pregnant woman and her unborn child are murdered, do you believe the criminal should face two counts of murder and serve a harsher sentence?

Ten years of assisted suicide at Dignitas – another excuse for an international news story

Now that the Tony Nicklinson case is over and the next assisted suicide bills (from Falconer in the House of Lords and Macdonald in Scotland) are not to be debated until next year one could be forgiven for thinking that the relentless media pressure for the legalisation of euthanasia might relent for a few weeks.

But no – first we have the pronouncements of junior health ministers Norman Lamb and Anna Soubry giving their support for the legalisation of assisted suicide and now the BBC, in its role as cheerleader for assisted suicide, is making an international news story about the fact that it is ten years since the first Briton went to the Dignitas suicide facility in Zurich to kill himself.

This is actually a non-story. The on-going sad procession of desperate Britons on the Swiss suicide trail is in reality a tiny trickle but every new case is seized upon by sections of the British media, and especially the BBC, in an attempt to create the impression that there is a huge ‘unmet need’ and as a further opportunity to say again that we must have the debate that we have actually not stopped having constantly for the last six years.

In fact, given that the BBC repeatedly breaches international suicide prevention guidelines in its coverage, it is not beyond the realms of possibility that a significant number of those travelling abroad have been encouraged to do so by seeing others doing it on television with full media and celebrity support.

The carefully orchestrated and well-funded celebrity driven campaign run by Dignity in Dying, the former Voluntary Euthanasia Society, is skilled at getting hugely disproportionate coverage for every new case it can find and the BBC, in particular, is only too willing to provide them with an international media platform.

Today's story is in the news because DID obtained some new figures from Dignitas and sent out a press release to sympathetic media outlets including the BBC. The BBC have also given prominence to an emotive hard case in a prime time slot on Radio four whilst relegating a more serious examination of the issues to a time when far fewer people were listening.

The reality is that between 2002 and 2011 a total of 182 Britons – on average 18 per year – have killed themselves at Dignitas. Numbers per year since 2006 have been relatively constant between 20 and 30 per year.

These numbers are a tiny fraction of the 550,000 natural deaths that occur in Britain each year and a very small trickle compared with the 650 and 13,000 who, on the basis of the 2005 Lords Select Committee report, it was estimated would die in Britain annually under an Oregon or Dutch-type law respectively.

The 700% increase in assisted suicides amongst Swiss nationals since 1998, along with the disturbing 18% annual increase in euthanasia in the Netherlands over the last year will sound strong alarms to legislators in Britain that we should not be contemplating going down this route.

Reports from the Netherlands of psychiatric and dementia patients being euthanized and mobile euthanasia clinics along with Belgian accounts of organs being harvested from euthanasia patients and 32% of all euthanasia deaths being ‘without consent’ understandably fuel this concern.

Public opinion polls supporting a change in the law can be easily manipulated when high media profile (and often celebrity-driven) ‘hard cases’ are used to elicit emotional reflex responses without consideration of the strong arguments against legalisation.

But when these arguments are heard decision-makers have consistently voted against. There have been over 120 attempts to legalise assisted suicide through US state parliaments all of which have failed in the last fifteen years.

British parliaments have also rejected any loosening of the law here three times over the last five years – in 2006, 2009 and 2010 - on the basis that any change would place pressure on vulnerable people (those who are elderly, disabled, sick or depressed) to end their lives for fear of being a financial or emotional burden on others.

More than seven out of ten MPs refuse to back calls to legalise assisted suicide as shown in a recent ComRes poll.

The vast majority of UK doctors remain opposed to legalisation along with the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Physicians, the Association for Palliative Medicine and the British Geriatric Society.

Similarly all major disability rights groups in Britain have resisted any change in the law believing it will lead to increased prejudice towards them and increased pressure ‘to seek help to die’.

The first duty of Parliament is to protect its citizens. Elder abuse and neglect by families, carers and institutions is real and dangerous and a law allowing the active ending of life could be so easily exploited and abused. This is why strong laws are necessary.

The British Suicide Act is thereby shown to remain fit for purpose. Through its blanket prohibition on all assistance with suicide, it continues to provide a strong deterrent to the exploitation and abuse of vulnerable people whilst giving both prosecutors and judges’ discretion in hard cases. It strikes the right balance, is clear and fair and does not need changing.

Ten years of Dignitas and ongoing media pressure should actually change nothing.

Trickle of British suicide cases to Dignitas continues as Swiss vote for status quo

Switzerland's parliament voted against a bid to toughen controls on assisted suicide this week, rejecting concerns about foreigners travelling to the country to die.

Members of the lower house of parliament voted against changing the code, arguing self-regulation by right-to-die organizations such as Exit and Dignitas worked and the liberal rules protected individual freedoms.

The vote in parliament mirrors a referendum in Zurich last year when voters rejected overwhelmingly proposed bans on assisted suicide and ‘suicide tourism’.

Assisted suicide has been allowed in Switzerland since 1941 if aided by a non-physician who has no vested interest in the death. Assisted suicide is also legal in the US states of Oregon and Washington. Euthanasia is permitted only in the Netherlands, Luxembourg and Belgium.

The number of Swiss residents who died by assisted suicide rose by 700% between 1998 and 2009, according to official statistics, with almost 300 Swiss residents dying this way in 2009, compared to 43 in 1998.

According to figures I obtained today, Dignitas (pictured above), the only Swiss association that helps applicants from abroad commit suicide, has so far accompanied 1,298 people in taking their own lives. Of these cases, 664 came from Germany, 182 from Britain, 129 from Switzerland, 117 from France, 33 from Italy, 27 from the United States and 17 from Spain.

The controversial Dignitas facility run by Ludwig Minelli, who has called assisted suicide ‘a marvellous possibility’, has attracted much criticism in recent years over discarded cremation urns dumped in Lake Zurich, reports of body bags in residential lifts, suicides being carried out in car parks, the selling of the personal effects of deceased victims and profiteering with fees approaching £8,000 per death.

Although most assisted suicides have been carried out for patients suffering from cancer, multiple sclerosis or motor neurone disease there have also been case reports of people who could have lived for decades ending their lives (including those with arthritis, blindness, spinal injury or diabetes)

Thus far about 182 Britons in ten years – on average 18 per year – have killed themselves at Dignitas. The full numbers are as follows:

2002 1
2003 15
2004 10
2005 15
2006 26
2007 17
2008 23
2009 27
2010 26
2011 22

The British media give huge publicity to cases that do occur creating the false impression that there is a growing demand when in fact this is not the case at all.

These numbers are a tiny fraction of the 550,000 natural deaths that occur in Britain each year and a very small trickle compared with the 650 and 13,000 who, on the basis of the 2005 Lords Select Committee report, it was estimated would die in Britain annually under an Oregon or Dutch-type law respectively.

A recent study by Clive Seale at Brunel University found no cases of assisted suicide in Britain itself.

The huge increase in assisted suicides amongst Swiss nationals, along with the disturbing 18% annual increase in euthanasia in The Netherlands over the last year (in figures released earlier this week) will sound strong alarms to legislators in Britain that we should not be contemplating going down this route.

The right to die can so easily become the duty to die and any change in the law will inevitably place vulnerable people at risk out of fear of being a burden to others. It is appropriate that more than seven out of ten MPs refuse to back calls to legalise assisted suicide as shown in a recent ComRes poll.

The British Suicide Act is thereby shown to remain fit for purpose. Through its blanket prohibition on all assistance with suicide, it continues to provide a strong deterrent to the exploitation and abuse of vulnerable people whilst giving both prosecutors and judges discretion in hard cases. It strikes the right balance, is clear and fair and does not need changing.

British parliaments have rightly rejected any loosening of the law here three times over the last five years – in 2006, 2009 and 2010 - on the basis that any change would place pressure on vulnerable people (those who are elderly, disabled, sick or depressed) to end their lives for fear of being a financial or emotional burden on others.

The Swiss vote means that the small number of British people travelling to Switzerland to end their lives will probably continue but we should continue to resist any calls from pressure groups to weaken the law here in the UK.

What we weren’t told about Terry Pratchett’s ‘award-winning’ euthanasia documentary

Fantasy novelist Terry Pratchett has won a Bafta for his ‘documentary’ ‘Choosing To Die’, in which he followed a man with motor neurone disease to Switzerland in order to film him killing himself at the Dignitas facility.

The man’s wife, who was clearly very uncomfortable about the whole event, but went along with it out of deference to her husband, was prevented from comforting him as he died by one of the facility staff.

The film generated a huge number of complaints to the BBC.

At a recent meeting where I was speaking a woman told me that she had always supported assisted suicide before seeing the film, but that watching it had caused her to change her mind. She now strongly opposes a change in the law.

Pratchett is one of the celebrity Patrons of Dignity in Dying, the former Voluntary Euthanasia Society, and helped to finance the discredited Falconer Commission into assisted suicide, which was itself conceived by the pressure group.

I have blogged previously about the BBC acting as a cheerleader for euthanasia by supporting films like this and also the dangers of suicide contagion, or the Werther effect, following such depictions.

In another blog I have listed the twenty things that the Pratchett ‘documentary’ did not tell us about euthanasia in Europe.

Huge increase in assisted suicide cases in Oregon and Switzerland sounds strong warning to Britain

There has been a massive increase in cases of assisted suicide in both Oregon and Switzerland over recent years according to the latest figures.

The Oregon ‘Death with Dignity Act’ allows terminally-ill Oregonians ‘to end their lives through the voluntary self-administration of lethal medications, expressly prescribed by a physician for that purpose’.

It also requires the Oregon Health Authority to collect information about the patients and physicians who participate in the Act, and publish an annual statistical report.

The latest figures show that cases of assisted suicide have gone from 16 in 1998 to 71 in 2011, an increase of 450% (see chart).

The US state of Oregon legalised assisted suicide in 1997 following a referendum. Thus far over 100 attempts to get other US state parliaments to change their laws have failed and only the state of Washington has followed suit, again on the basis of a referendum.

Switzerland has seen a 700% increase in assisted suicides over the same period. Swiss authorities have recorded a steady rise of assisted suicides in recent years, from 43 in 1998 to 297 in 2009. Earlier figures are not available, even though assisted suicide has been legal in Switzerland since 1942.

These figures include only Swiss nationals and not the growing number of people from abroad who are making use of facilities like Dignitas.

The experience of both countries demonstrates that when assisted suicide is legalised there will inevitably be incremental extension.

A major factor fuelling this increase is suicide contagion - the so-called Werther effect. This is particularly dangerous when assisted suicides are backed by celebrities as they are here and given high media profile as they are frequently by the BBC.

The Oregon and Swiss numbers may not seem large to some but we need to remember that Oregon and Switzerland have small populations relative to the UK.

Back in 2006 the House of Lords calculated that with an Oregon-type law we would have about 650 cases of assisted suicide a year in Britain. But given the increase of numbers in Oregon the UK equivalent would now be well over 1,000. Currently assisted suicide is illegal here and we see only 15-20 Britons going to Dignitas in Switzerland to die each year.

However, later this year we will see renewed attempts to change the law in this country.

Margo Macdonald is planning to present a bill based on the Oregon model to the Scottish Parliament and the pressure group Dignity in Dying (formerly the Voluntary Euthanasia) is planning a mass lobby of the Westminster Parliament on 4 July in support of a new bill they plan to introduce by means of their parliamentary wing, the All Party Group on ‘Choice at the End of Life’.

We should learn from the Oregon and Swiss experience and be resisting these moves.

Any change in the law to allow assisted suicide (a form of euthanasia) would inevitably place pressure on vulnerable people to end their lives so as not to be a burden on others and these pressures would be particularly acutely felt at a time of economic recession when many families are struggling to make ends meet and health budgets are being slashed.

And once legalised there will inevitably be incremental extension as we have seen in Oregon and Switzerland. Legalisation leads to normalisation.

Let’s not go there.

Significance of Dignitas assisted suicide deaths greatly overhyped

An article in the Daily Telegraph this morning attempts to make news of the fact that figures from Dignitas, the Swiss assisted suicide organisation, show a slight rise in the number of Britons registered.

893 members from this country had registered with the controversial facility by the end of last year,up 14 per cent on the figure for 2010. This means that more Britons belong to Dignitas than people from every other country except Germany.

In total, 182 people from this country have now ended their lives with the group’s help since it was set up in 1998, although the annual figure fell from 26 in 2010 to 22 last year.

No doubt this report will lead for further demands from the pro-euthanasia lobby for a change in the law.

But we need to keep it all in perspective.

These Dignitas deaths, around 20 per year, represent a tiny fraction, less than one in 25,000, of the 500,000 natural deaths that occur in Britain annually. They also need to be set alongside the 1,200 deaths we would see annually, based on House of Lords calculations, with an Oregon type law in Britain, or the 13,000 deaths we would see with a Dutch law.

They also represent an infinitesimal minority of the 70,000 people living with multiple sclerosis, the 120,000 living with Parkinson's disease or indeed the more than 150,000 who die from cancer each year.

There will always be a small group of desperate people taking desperate measures to push the boundaries of any law. This does not mean we should change the law. The present laws against assisted suicide and euthanasia in Britain provide a powerful deterrent against exploitation and abuse whilst giving discretion to judges and prosecutors to temper justice with mercy in hard cases. They are working well and do not need changing. The law is there to protect those who are vulnerable and not to give liberties to the determined.

The hugely disproportionate media coverage given to this small number of tragic cases, fuelled by the public policy machinery of the pro-euthanasia lobby with its celebrity advocates and aided and abetted by the BBC in its capacity as euthanasia cheerleader creates the false impression that droves of British people are participating in euthanasia tourism.

This is profoundly misleading but it is sadly also leading some vulnerable people to be caught up in the suicide contagion created leading to copycat suicides. If instead the BBC and other media outlets abided by international guidelines on media suicide portrayal and promoted good care there would fewer desperate people taking these desperate measures and more who could approach natural death with less fear and anxiety.

And better care and support is the bottom line. Anyone who has suffered personally, or seen a loved one suffer from a progessive neurological disease or cancer, will know what a challenge these illnesses can be. But our proper response should be to make the very best care and support much more widely affordable and accessible rather than resorting to selective reporting and scaremongering; assisted living, not 'assisted dying'.

British Suicide Act remains fit for purpose and does not need changing in wake of Swiss vote

Voters in Zurich, Switzerland, have today rejected proposed bans on assisted suicide and ‘suicide tourism’.

A proposal to restrict access for foreigners to assisted suicide only to those living at least one year in the canton was rejected by 78.4 per cent of voters.

A second popular initiative launched by fringe conservative parties the Federal Democratic Union and the Evangelical Party seeking a national ban on assisted suicide was rejected by an ever greater majority.

The main right-wing and left-wing parties had campaigned against both initiatives, calling on their supporters to vote against them.

Under Swiss law it is legal to assist a person to commit suicide as long as the helper has no vested interest in the death. It is legal to procure lethal medication for another person but not to administer it. About 200 people commit assisted suicide each year in Zurich.

Dignitas, the only Swiss association that helps applicants from abroad commit suicide, has so far accompanied 1,138 people in taking their own lives. Of these cases, 592 came from Germany, 160 from Britain, 118 from Switzerland, 102 from France, 19 from Italy, 18 from the United States and 16 from Spain.

But another group, Exit, will only help those who are permanently resident in the country - saying the process takes time, and much counselling for both patients and relatives.

An earlier opinion poll had suggested that two thirds of Swiss people were concerned about suicide tourism. However this does not seem to have outweighed the general support for the status quo in today’s referendum.

The controversial Dignitas facility run by Ludwig Minelli, has attracted much criticism in recent years over discarded cremation urns dumped in Lake Zurich, reports of body bags in residential lifts, suicides being carried out in car parks, the selling of the personal effects of deceased victims and profiteering with fees approaching £8,000 per death.

Although most assisted suicides have been carried out for patients suffering from cancer, multiple sclerosis or motor neurone disease there have also been case reports of people who could have lived for decades ending their lives (including those with arthritis, blindness, spinal injury or diabetes)

Thus far about 160 Britons in ten years – on average 16 per year – have killed themselves at Dignitas. This is a very small trickle compared with the 650 and 13,000 who, on the basis of the 2005 Lords Select Committee report, it was estimated would die in Britain annually under an Oregon or Dutch-type law respectively. The numbers in Oregon in particular have since increased significantly since 2005 and a more accurate estimation now would be 1,200 British deaths annually with an Oregon-type law.

A recent study by Clive Seale at Brunel University found no cases of assisted suicide in Britain itself.

The British Suicide Act is thereby shown to remain fit for purpose. Through its blanket prohibition on all assistance with suicide, it continues to provide a strong deterrent to the exploitation and abuse of vulnerable people whilst giving both prosecutors and judges discretion in hard cases. It strikes the right balance, is clear and fair and does not need changing.

British parliaments have rightly rejected any loosening of the law here three times over the last five years – in 2006, 2009 and 2010 - on the basis that any change would place pressure on vulnerable people (those who are elderly, disabled, sick or depressed) to end their lives for fear of being a financial or emotional burden on others.

The Swiss vote means that the small number of British people travelling to Switzerland to end their lives will probably continue but we should continue to resist any calls from pressure groups to weaken the law here in the UK.