Britain Already Has a “Government Policy of Silent Euthanasia”: Anti-Euthanasia Activists

By Hilary White

LONDON, September 24, 2009 ( - Evidence is mounting that Britain may already have not only de facto legalised assisted suicide thanks to new prosecution guidelines issued this week, but also involuntary euthanasia by means of a tangled combination of rationing of government-funded medical care, end of life medical practice protocols that allow the withdrawal of hydration and the existing Mental Capacity Act.

British and international anti-euthanasia and disability rights groups are expressing their alarm at the publication of prosecution guidelines earlier this week by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) for England and Wales. These guidelines make clear that those who assist someone commit suicide, but who do not have anything personal to gain by doing so, will not be prosecuted, even though assisted suicide technically remains a crime.

Alison Davis, head of the disability rights group No Less Human, told (LSN), "If the guidelines remain in force, we will see that those who assist suicide, whether for misguided 'merciful' or for merciless reasons, will be able to do so with impunity. Like many other disabled people I am alarmed by the DPP's guidelines."

But these same anti-euthanasia groups are also warning of a legal situation that already exists in Britain, in which patients and residents in hospitals and nursing homes are increasingly under threat of involuntary euthanasia, usually by a combination of deep sedation and dehydration.

While bills intended to weaken the legal prohibition on assisted suicide continue to be defeated at Westminster, existing guidelines for end of life care called the Liverpool Care Pathway, guidelines on healthcare rationing from the government's National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) and the 2005 Mental Capacity Act, have combined to create de facto legal euthanasia, which activists say is already being widely practiced.

John Smeaton, Director of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC), Europe's leading pro-life organisation, told LSN, "We have a government policy of silent euthanasia right now in this country.

"This is being brought about through a number of different factors, but significantly the Mental Capacity Act of 2005, that formally defined the provision of food and fluids as medical treatment."

Under the Act, such "medical treatment" can be withdrawn as "futile" - even from patients who are not terminally ill and can benefit from it - on the advice of a physician, until the patient dies. Anti-euthanasia activists have said that the determination that food and water constitute "futile treatment" in a patient who is not terminally ill really means only that it is the patient's life that is considered "futile."

According to an increasing number of reports, food and hydration is being removed from patients on the Liverpool Care Pathway in many cases where patients are not terminally ill but are merely elderly or suffering from dementia or stroke and would benefit from normal medical care. Under the protocol, the patient can be sedated or given pain medication; food and water are then withdrawn until death by dehydration.

A recent national audit by researchers with the Royal College of Physicians and the Marie Curie Palliative Care Institute found that, of 4,000 patients put on the Liverpool Care Pathway last year, 28 per cent of their relatives were not told that the patient was being cared for under the protocol. The report found that about 20,000 patients die this way each year in Britain. Only thirty-nine per cent of patients on the Pathway suffered from cancer, while others had conditions such as pneumonia, stroke, organ failure and dementia. The average age of patients was 81 and they were typically on the pathway for 33 hours before death. 76 per cent of families were told that their loved one "had entered the dying phase." The report also said that hospitals and care homes that routinely put patients under deep sedation should review their practices. 

The Pathway is now in use in 300 hospitals and 560 care homes across the country. Peter Millard, emeritus professor of geriatrics at the University of London, told media, "The risk as this is rolled out across the country is that elderly people with chronic conditions like Parkinson's or respiratory disorders may be dismissed as dying when they could still live for some time."

Millard blamed government downsizing of the British socialised medical system. "Governments have got rid of respite care and geriatric wards, so we're left with a crisis," he said.

"The Government has said let's develop a service to help people die at home - what they should be doing is helping them live. Only when death is unavoidable should you start withdrawing treatment."

SPUC's Anthony Ozimic said that euthanasia opponents had warned all along that the Labour government's 2005 Mental Capacity Act had "massive potential scope for euthanasia combining denial of food & fluids with sedation."

Ozimic said that although "assisted suicides usually involve mentally competent and ostensibly consenting persons, a significantly larger number of intentional killings may well emerge under government-endorsed end-of-life policies."

Referring to the guidelines on end of life care already in use in hundreds of hospitals and care homes, Ozimic said, "The Liverpool Care Pathway and the Mental Capacity Act involve the far larger number of patients who are not intent on suicide and whose diminished mental and physical powers leave them very vulnerable."

Read related coverage:

Britain Won't Prosecute Assisted Suicide: Chief Prosecutor

Britain's Pathway to Euthanasia - NHS Protocols for Dehydrating Disabled Patients to Death

British Doctors Practising "Slow" Euthanasia through Deep Sedation: BBC Report.

Share this article

Featured Image
John Jalsevac John Jalsevac Follow John

BREAKING: Planned Parenthood shooting suspect surrenders, is in custody: police

John Jalsevac John Jalsevac Follow John
By John Jalsevac

Nov. 27, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) - Five hours after a single male shooter reportedly opened fire at a Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood, chatter on police radio is indicating that the suspect has now been "detained."

"We have our suspect and he says he is alone," said police on the police radio channel. 

Colorado Springs Mayor John Suthers also confirmed via Twitter shortly after 7:00 pm EST that the suspect was in custody.

The news comes almost exactly an hour after the start of a 6:00 pm. press conference in which Lt. Catherine Buckley had confirmed that a single shooter was still at large, and had exchanged gunfire with police moments before.

According to Lt. Buckley, four, and possibly five police officers have been shot since the first 911 call was received at 11:38 am local time today. An unknown number of civilians have also been shot.

Although initial reports had suggested that the shooting began outside the Planned Parenthood, possibly outside a nearby bank, Lt. Buckley said that in fact the incident began at the Planned Parenthood itself.

She said that the suspect had also brought unknown "items" with him to the Planned Parenthood. 

Pro-life groups have started responding to the news, urging caution in jumping to conclusions about the motivations of the shooter, while also condemning the use of violence in promoting the pro-life cause. 

"Information is very sketchy about the currently active shooting situation in Colorado Springs," said Pavone. "The Planned Parenthood was the address given in the initial call to the police, but we still do not know what connection, if any, the shooting has to do with Planned Parenthood or abortion.

"As leaders in the pro-life movement, we call for calm and pray for a peaceful resolution of this situation."

Troy Newman of Operation Rescue and Rev. Patrick J. Mahoney, Director of the Christian Defense Coalition, also issued statements.

"Operation Rescue unequivocally deplores and denounces all violence at abortion clinics and has a long history of working through peaceful channels to advocate on behalf of women and their babies," said Newman. "We express deep concern for everyone involved and are praying for the safety of those at the Planned Parenthood office and for law enforcement personnel. We pray this tragic situation can be quickly resolved without further injury to anyone."

"Although we don't know the reasons for the shooting near the Planned Parenthood in Colorado Springs today, the pro-life movement is praying for the safety of all involved and as a movement we have always unequivocally condemned all forms of violence at abortion clinics. We must continually as a nation stand against violence on all levels," said Rev. Patrick J. Mahoney, Director of the Christian Defense Coalition, based in Washington, D.C.


Share this article

Featured Image
Wikimedia Commons
Dustin Siggins Dustin Siggins Follow Dustin

, , , ,

Rubio says SCOTUS didn’t ‘settle’ marriage issue: ‘God’s rules always win’

Dustin Siggins Dustin Siggins Follow Dustin
By Dustin Siggins

WASHINGTON, D.C., November 27, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) -- Surging GOP presidential candidate Sen. Marco Rubio, R-FL, says that "God's law" trumps the U.S. Supreme Court’s Obergefell decision imposing same-sex “marriage” nationwide.

The senator also told Christian Broadcast Network's David Brody that the Supreme Court's redefinition of marriage is not "settled," but instead "current law."

“No law is settled,” said Rubio. “Roe v. Wade is current law, but it doesn’t mean that we don’t continue to aspire to fix it, because we think it’s wrong.”

“If you live in a society where the government creates an avenue and a way for you to peacefully change the law, then you’re called to participate in that process to try to change it,” he explained, and "the proper place for that to be defined is at the state level, where marriage has always been regulated — not by the Supreme Court and not by the federal government.”

However, when laws conflict with religious beliefs, "God's rules always win," said Rubio.

“In essence, if we are ever ordered by a government authority to personally violate and sin — violate God’s law and sin — if we’re ordered to stop preaching the Gospel, if we’re ordered to perform a same-sex marriage as someone presiding over it, we are called to ignore that,” Rubio expounded. “We cannot abide by that because government is compelling us to sin.”

“I continue to believe that marriage law should be between one man and one woman," said the senator, who earlier in the fall was backed by billionaire GOP donor and same-sex "marriage" supporter Paul Singer.

Singer, who also backs looser immigration laws and a strong U.S.-Israel alliance, has long pushed for the GOP to change its position on marriage in part due to the sexual orientation of his son.

Despite Singer's support, Rubio's marriage stance has largely been consistent. He told Brody earlier in the year that "there isn't such a right" to same-sex "marriage."

"You have to have a ridiculous reading of the U.S. Constitution to reach the conclusion that people have a right to marry someone of the same sex."

Rubio also said religious liberty should be defended against LGBT activists he says "want to stigmatize, they want to ostracize anyone who disagrees with them as haters."

"I believe, as do a significant percentage of Americans, that the institution of marriage, an institution that existed before government, that existed before laws, that institution should remain in our laws recognized as the union of one man and one woman," he said.

Rubio also hired social conservative leader Eric Teetsel as his director of faith outreach this month.

However, things have not been entirely smooth for Rubio on marriage. Social conservatives were concerned when the executive director of the LGBT-focused Log Cabin Republicans told Reuters in the spring that the Catholic senator is "not as adamantly opposed to all things LGBT as some of his statements suggest."

The LGBT activist group had meetings with Rubio's office "going back some time," though the senator himself never attended those meetings. Rubio has publicly said that he would attend the homosexual "wedding" of a gay loved one, and also that he believed "that sexual preference is something that people are born with," as opposed to being a choice.

Additionally, days after the Supreme Court redefined marriage, Rubio said that he disagreed with the decision but that "we live in a republic and must abide by the law."

"I believe that marriage, as the key to strong family life, is the most important institution in our society and should be between one man and one woman," he said. "People who disagree with the traditional definition of marriage have the right to change their state laws. That is the right of our people, not the right of the unelected judges or justices of the Supreme Court. This decision short-circuits the political process that has been underway on the state level for years.

Rubio also said at the time that "it must be a priority of the next president to nominate judges and justices committed to applying the Constitution as written and originally understood…"

“I firmly believe the question of same sex marriage is a question of the definition of an institution, not the dignity of a human being. Every American has the right to pursue happiness as they see fit. Not every American has to agree on every issue, but all of us do have to share our country. A large number of Americans will continue to believe in traditional marriage, and a large number of Americans will be pleased with the Court’s decision today. In the years ahead, it is my hope that each side will respect the dignity of the other.”

The Florida senator said in July that he opposed a constitutional marriage amendment to the U.S. Constitution to leave marriage up to the states because that would involve the federal government in state marriage policies.

Featured Image
Former The View star Sherri Shepherd and then-husband Lamar Sally in 2010 s_bukley /
Steve Weatherbe

Court orders Sherri Shepherd to pay child support for surrogate son she abandoned

Steve Weatherbe
By Steve Weatherbe

November 27, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) -- Sherri Shepherd, a Hollywood celebrity who co-hosted the popular talk show The View for seven years, has lost a maternity suit launched by her ex-husband Lamar Sally, forcing her to pay him alimony and child support for their one-year surrogate son LJ. The decision follows an unseemly fight which pro-life blogger Cassy Fiano says has exposed how surrogacy results in “commodifying” the unborn.

Shepherd, a co-host of the View from 2007 to 2014, met Sally, a screenwriter, in 2010 and they married a year later. Because her eggs were not viable, they arranged a surrogate mother in Pennsylvania to bear them a baby conceived in vitro using Sally’s sperm and a donated egg.

But the marriage soured in mid-term about the time Shepherd lost her job with The View. According to one tabloid explanation, she was worried he would contribute little to parenting responsibilities.  Sally filed for separation in 2014, Shepherd filed for divorce a few days, then Sally sued for sole custody, then alimony and child support.

Earlier this year she told PEOPLE she had gone along with the surrogacy to prevent the breakup of the marriage and had not really wanted the child.

Shepherd, an avowed Christian who once denied evolution on The View and a successful comic actor on Broadway, TV, and in film since the mid-90s, didn’t want anything to do with LJ, as Lamar named the boy, who after all carried none of her genes. She refused to be at bedside for the birth, and refused to let her name be put on the birth certificate and to shoulder any responsibility for LJ’s support.

But in April the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, and now the state’s Superior Court, ruled that Shepherd’s name must go on the birth certificate and she must pay Sally alimony and child support.

“The ultimate outcome is that this baby has two parents and the parents are Lamar Sally and Sherri Shepherd,” Shepherd’s lawyer Tiffany Palmer said.

As for the father, Sally told PEOPLE, “I'm glad it's finally over. I'm glad the judges saw through all the lies that she put out there, and the negative media attention. If she won't be there for L.J. emotionally, I'll be parent enough for the both of us.”

But Shepherd said, “I am appealing the ruling that happened,” though in the meantime, Sally will “get his settlement every month. There’s nothing I can do.”

Commented Fiano in Live Action News, “What’s so sickening about this case is that this little boy, whose life was created in a test tube, was treated as nothing more than a commodity…Saying that you don’t want a baby but will engineer one to get something you want is horrific.” As for trying to get out from child support payments now that the marriage had failed, that was “despicable.”

Fiano went on to characterize the Shepherd-Sally affair as a “notable example” of commodification of children, and “by no means an anomaly.” She cited a British report than over the past five years 123 babies conceived in vitro were callously aborted when they turned out to have Down Syndrome.

“When we’re not ready for babies, we have an abortion,” she added. “But then when we decide we are ready we manufacture them in a laboratory and destroy any extras. Children exist when we want them to exist, to fill the holes in us that we want them to fill, instead of being independent lives with their own inherent value and dignity.”

Share this article


Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook