The right to die -v- the right to life

Image

The EU Directive published today on the right to die places the EU Commission on a direct collision course with the Council of Europe, which is still, in its European Convention on Human Rights, rather sold on the outdated notion of humans having a so-called “right to life” (Article 2).

The right to life is incorporated into UK law by the Human Rights Act 1998.  Because today’s Directive has direct applicability, the right to die established in today’s Directive is directly incorporated into UK law, with immediate effect, by the European Communities Act 1972.  This is an Act, which, as the late Master of the Rolls Lord Denning observed, Parliament may not have the freedom to repeal that it imagined it would have, when it passed the Act, even if UKIP gets elected to power.

As from today, therefore, without Parliament having to lift a legislative finger to implement the EU provision, the new British right to die now sits uncomfortably alongside the old British right to stay alive.

In many cases, the right to choose, of the patient himself, in this case to choose whether to stay alive or to be killed, will doubtless govern which of the two conflicting rights trumps the other.  However, in the cases of patients lacking the mental capacity to tell us whether they want to live or to die, some very interesting test cases are doubtless in the offing.

When the individual whose life is at stake lacks the mental capacity to decide for himself, who will decide for him, and on what basis? What if their family members do not agree?  For example, in the case of an unhappy or indifferent senior citizen with dementia, what happens if his son wants him dead, but his daughter wants him alive?  Or, in the case of a child too young to express verbally an informed choice as to whether he would prefer to be killed, or allowed to continue his life for its natural course, what if the mother wants the child dead, but the father wants the child alive?  Which relative’s wishes trump those of the other relative, in such difficult cases, and on what basis?

Happily, the Directive does make some small effort to address these difficult questions, in the brief section towards the end, on “safeguards”.  However, the safeguards seem to have been drafted primarily with elderly candidates for euthanasia in mind.  (Doubtless this is because the economic ill-effects were uppermost in the minds of the EU Commissioners when drafting the safeguards, of denying the right to die to unproductive senile baby boomers whose children are fed up with them losing control of their bowels at home.)

But equality is a well-established doctrine of modern European jurisprudence, reflected both in the cutting edge wisdom of the EU, and the antiquated vestigial impact of the anachronistic Convention of yesteryear.  And one well-recognised “protected characteristic” (to borrow a phrase from the Equality Act 2010) of today’s equality ethos is age.  Age Equality demands that the involuntary euthanasia safeguards promulgated in the Directive should be applied equally to granny, who has lost her mental capacity, and to junior, when junior is still only a baby, and who has thus not yet developed his or her own mental capacity, or (at least) the ability to communicate his preferences.

In the famous Factortame test case, the House of Lords considered the effect of the European Communities Act 1972 upon the later Merchant Shipping Act 1988.  The court drove a cart and horse through the doctrine of the Legislative Supremacy of the Queen in Parliament.  The court simply “disapplied” the later Act, as though Parliament had never even bothered to pass the Merchant Shipping Act in the first place.  The entire Merchant Shipping Act became a nullity.  It was as good as repealed, by our highest court, which knew that it and the rest of us were subservient to the EU, and which reminded Parliament in no uncertain terms that so was Parliament, and retrospectively to boot.

If the safeguards in today’s euthanasia Directive, drafted with those near the natural ends of their lives in mind, are applied evenly to those at the beginning of their lives, our new Supreme Court will need to deploy considerable sophistry, in order to avoid disapplying the Abortion Act 1967, by applying the same reasoning as prevailed in the House of Lords in Factortame.

The profitability of the killing industry overall won’t be affected, because what will be lost on the roundabouts will likely be gained on the swings, so-to-speak.  The British Pregnancy Advisory Service and others have the option of diversifying, to save their businesses from bankruptcy, and perhaps even to cash in on the latest change big time. Fewer customers, but much bigger ones, would be carried through their doors.  They could charge the relatives more for each unit of human death service delivered than they have been getting away with charging per capita for the greater number of little ones killed hitherto.

But what about the climate?  In which direction will the calorific yield move, of the sum total of the corpses that fuel the crematoria that nowadays heat our hospitals?   The yield will certainly increase in the short term, as the new law is tested in the courts.  But long-term?  It’s hard to say.  On the one hand, as abortionists love to remind us (as though this was remotely relevant to the ethics of their industry), many of their victims are really quite small when they meet their untimely ends.  But on the other hand, an awful lot of the little ones euthanased have gone up the chimney since the Abortion Act 1967, Roe v Wade, etc.  Eight million or so in the UK the last time I checked, and about seven times that number in the USA.   I will leave to others the task of calculating the net effect upon anthropogenic climate change of today’s surprising change in the law.  Will the change increase or reduce the affect upon the climate wrought by the carbon footprint of humanity’s killing and incineration of its unwanted members?

This is a year that is likely to be remembered in British legal history for many generations.  If the lawyers are on their toes, today’s EU Directive will enrich their beleaguered professions, lead to a resolution of the pension crisis in about twenty five years time, and in the mean time save many a father from the grief of losing a son or daughter to the widespread euthanasia of the very young, at the whim of his son or daughter’s mother.  This change will save more innocent lives amongst the young and small, than the guilty and the innocent lives of the large and aged it destroys put together.  Provided, that is, that the benefits of the euthanasia safeguards, drafted for the benefit of the old, and hidden near the end of the EU Resolutionare extended to the young, in the name of Age Equality.

Advertisements

9 Comments

Filed under April fool!, Human Rights, Law, Pro-life, Satire and humour

9 responses to “The right to die -v- the right to life

  1. Gagged Dad

    It irritates you when people misuse words. Good examples of oft-misused words you have cited include: “awesome”, “utterly”, “fantastic”, “incredible” and “literally”.

    Well, this story is awesome, although not literally so. It is utterly fantastic. I am sure that many of those reading this will think that this EU Directive to be simply incredible.

    But the observation I find it interesting, is that, for all that, this story is clearly not utterly incredible.

    Today is a good day, and this is as good a method as any, for your bringing to public notice, possible contenders to become the latest successor to James Stuart. I don’t mean, by his successor, our present monarch now. You know that that is Our Sovereign Lady Queen Elizabeth II, or Elizabeth the Rubber Stamp, the affectionate title you proposed for her yourself, because of her legion derogations from her coronation oath. I mean King James’ successor as the contemporary holder of the coveted title first conferred upon him, The Wisest Fool in Christendom.

    Gagged Dad
    I am the grateful guest blogger who was allowed to contribute the piece here, my own true story, entitled
    Two year-old’s contact stopped with “homophobic” dad

  2. KEVIN

    welcome to the orwellian nightmare,there engineering political correctness so that anything goes, the goal is to destroy the family, and replace it with the state,YOUR BRAVE NEW WORLD AWAITES YOU

    PS PLEASE CHECK OUT THE WORK OF ALAN WATT ON CUTTING THROUGH THE MATRIX

  3. TI

    John Allman IS “gagged dad”….he is very very unwell. who writes an article and then appears to answer it……..conman comes to mind.

  4. Lofthouse

    Ah the fudge of it all!
    As Mrs Van Ouillen proved in Holland 12 years ago or so, even when you leave an advance directive refusing euthanasia, your relatives can still inherit the bungalow early by giving permission for you to be kept ‘comfy’ with analgesics and sedatives.

    The medic involved only got one week’s probation (that’ s home tagging in Holland)….still practicing to this day.

    As the ECtHR has ruled that there is no ‘right to medical treatment’, and the NHS and their contract killers in end of life care are STILL TO THIS DAY mis-advising patients they cannot refuse ‘pain relief and sedation’ in an advance directive (100% untrue,but see it at : http://www.macmillan.org.uk/Cancerinformation/Livingwithandaftercancer/Advancedcancer/AdvanceDecision.aspx under ‘What can’t you refuse’) , the truth is , they can kill you off anytime they like. The LiverpoolCarePathway (midazolam, cyclizine and diamorphine combined in a syringe driver – so they have a synergistic effect on respiratory supression) and pretend they’re angels.

  5. Lofthouse

    Fascinated you mention dementia patients and advance directives are a can of worms John.
    Do you know what Norman Lamb and Mrs Neuberger left out of the non-Art 2 compliant review of the #liverpoolcarepathway?
    A cull of the state-funded dementia patients who were filling up BUPA care homes after the huge bills started piling up . Once the value of their properties has disappeared at the private rate of £500 a week, the state started paying their bills , but at only £135 a week – BUPAs profits went down as their care needs increased, and the entire care package agreement between the state and bupa was going seriously wrong.

    So BUPA paid MarieCurie plc (owners of the LCP copyright) a staggering £1 million to put the liverpool care pathway into all of its dementia care homes in 2007 (see http://www.gponline.com/palliative-care-charities-land-1-million-bupa-fund/article/931915 ) . This was the illegal version – v.11 LCP -which had no consent process on it and thus breached the MCA and the Ovviedo convention, and of course the ‘no treatment about me without me ‘ NHS constitution pledge. No consent process was added until Dec 2009 and even then, there was no recall of the former version). The Government (or Alan Johnson, who was SSHealth at the time, then paid the ghastly freakish inventor of the LCP (Ellershaw) £400 K to write a research project about it.
    The research project was due to be published in 2012, but its been delayed no less than 4 times now – I’m a scientist John, you have problems getting a delay of even a month on grants worth that much). There were no ‘recruitment problems’ at all, because all those patients were sitting ducks.
    It will never be published because of course, it was proof of a rather widespread and nasty thing called corporate manslaughter (or even a string of murders). The DOH is exempt but charities like MarieCurie, and the NHS were liable (relevant date is April 2008 onwards).

    Pullicino attended Norman’s ’round table ‘ meeting and asked for a Judge led public inquiry with evidence on oath. He didnt get one.

    Neuberger (who I cannot imagine didnt consult her brothers in law on the legalities of the matter) and dear phoney Norman Lamb (a qualified solicitor no less) have said in FOIs that a) they took no legal advice on their review, and b) that they received 0 submissions about care home use of the LCP or any evidence compatible with ‘death hastening’.
    We are unable to assess the truth of that, as they also refused to publish all the submissions to her inquiry in redacted form.

    They’ve basically performed an ‘AktionBrandt’ – trying to get any info out of NHS England or the DoH is absolutely futile 🙂

  6. Mark

    We’re culling the elderly .
    The ‘Shipman Safeguards’ on controlled drugs audits were quietly removed by the CQC in 2013 using 2ndary legislation.
    The exemptions from the fuss and bother of proving to a copper how much morphine you have actually injected into a patient, and how much you prescribed but didn’t use have been swept away for ‘small hospital type units employing less than 10 full time staff members)….That’s every hospice/palliative care unit in the country isn’t it 🙂 (see: http://www.cqc.org.uk/content/controlled-drugs-accountable-officers ).
    SERCO run end of life care in Norman Lamb’s area (Norfolk) – we’re back to SS officers donning white coats and passing themselves off as medical staff for the promotional videos according to @NHSNaziHunters

Hint: likes, follows and comments cheer me up!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s