Medical errors and organ harvesting can now be obscured via medically-assisted suicide in the UK

The UK Parliament just passed the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, making it perfectly legal for terminally ill individuals 18-years-and-over to end their own life with medical assistance. Previously, England, Wales and Northern Ireland considered assisted-suicide a crime, and those convicted could face up to 14 years in prison. Specifically in England, euthanasia was once considered manslaughter, and those convicted could face a life sentence in prison. Those were the days when all human lives mattered and medical ethics were defended. Now, medical errors and organ harvesting operations can be covered up by medically-assisted suicide, and patients can be routinely given a hopeless prognosis, with a quick, sadistic, doctor-endorsed exit from this world.

UK government takes neutral position as medical suicide becomes law

Ms. Leadbeater, the sponsor of the assisted suicide bill, said that the bill includes proposed safeguards that are the “most robust” in the world. Dissenting members of parliament warn that the bill poses a “slippery slope towards death on demand.” However, when cabinet members began speaking out about the dangers of this new bill, they were ordered to take a neutral stance.

Among those publicly backing the bill is Dame Esther Rantzen, the broadcaster/campaigner who is battling stage 4 lung cancer. Following her diagnosis, Esther announced that she had signed up to Dignitas, the Swiss euthanasia organization.

In a letter to all 650 Members of Parliament, Dame Esther urged MPs to carefully consider the debate on the issue, regardless of their stance. “This is such a vital life-and-death issue, one that we the public care desperately about,” she wrote. “It is only right that as many MPs as possible listen to the arguments for and against and make up your own minds, according to your own conscience, your personal thoughts and feelings.”

Anyone expected to die within 6 months can be killed by doctors

Candidates for euthanasia would include anyone who has a terminal illness that “can reasonably be expected to cause their death within six months.” The person must also be mentally competent, have lived in England or Wales for at least one year, and be registered with a general practitioner’s practice.

If a patient requests assistance to end their life, a preliminary discussion would take place to explain the requirements and process. The first step would involve the patient signing a declaration, witnessed by a coordinating doctor and another witness. If the patient is unable to write their name, an authorized person can sign on their behalf. The coordinating doctor would then conduct an initial assessment to determine if the patient meets the eligibility criteria, ensuring the person has a “clear, settled, and informed wish to end their own life,” that the decision is voluntary, and that there is no coercion or pressure involved.

A second independent doctor would carry out a separate assessment, during which they would discuss the patient’s prognosis, available treatment options, including palliative or hospice care, and how the assisted dying process would proceed. Both doctors would also remind the patient that they can stop the process at any time, and where appropriate, encourage a discussion with loved ones. If there are concerns about the patient’s mental capacity, a referral for a psychiatric assessment could be made.

Should the second doctor reject the application, the coordinating doctor could seek a second opinion. If both doctors agree that the patient qualifies, the case would move to the High Court, where a judge would verify that all criteria have been met. The court may question the patient, doctors, or others involved in the process. Finally, the patient would make a second declaration. Both the initial and secondary declarations could be revoked at any time by informing the coordinating doctor or any registered practitioner at their GP practice, either orally or in writing.

Covering up medical error, organ harvesting and the potential abuse of psychiatric patients

Now, doctors are often wrong when predicting the timeline of one’s life and death, and they don’t always understand the progression of an individual’s illness or what caused it in the first place. A doctor’s colleagues often step in to confirm the other doctor’s bias, so having a second opinion doesn’t always help. The medical field is permeated by group-think. Also, the courts notoriously follow the recommendations of doctors, so the process can easily be corrupted to expedite death and cover up mistakes in the medical field. In fact, a patient may be given less than six months to live because the doctors made mistakes in the first place — mistakes that can easily be covered up with a helpless, suicidal prognosis and the expedited killing of the patient.

Euthanasia also opens the door for lucrative organ harvesting operations. Patients may be deemed “terminally ill” so the patient can be strategically killed, their organs procured for clients around the world.

While the current bill excludes mental health disorders and disabilities from eligibility of assisted suicide, it wouldn’t be long before there is enough medical justification to label psychiatric patients with a “terminal illness.” Currently, a terminal illness is defined as an “inevitably progressive illness, disease or medical condition which cannot be reversed by treatment.” The reality is, many psychiatric disorders cannot be reversed by treatment and are even made worse by the treatment protocols. How long will it take before psychiatric patients with suicidal tendencies are given the green light to end their life with medical assistance?

Indeed, the slippery slope of assisted suicide has begun in the UK.

Sources include:

Express.co.uk

Express.co.uk