James Ball’s “The burden of assisted dying” (TNE #408) gave pause for thought. I have always been minded to support assisted dying, not least as I would not want myself nor a fellow human being to be forced to go through a painful and degrading death, one where if a pet were the subject it might invite prosecution.
Yet Ball’s point on the slippery slope “from an option to a default” is well made, and indeed we have an example. Many years ago after much consideration I joined the organ donor register and I took comfort in the thought that I might make a very personal, potentially life-saving gift to someone I would never know.
I was therefore extremely put out when the government changed the register from opt-in to opt-out so that donation, if no action is taken, is the default position.
Bob Hale
Portishead, Bristol
I have just emailed my MP urging her to support the upcoming Assisted Dying bill. I am 74, and outlying parts of me are already calling in to say they are struggling. I have an end-of-life statement, lodged with my GP, my solicitor and my husband, which clearly states my final wishes, but I contemplate the “pre-final wishes” stage with encroaching dread.
Are those MPs advocating the sanctity of human life at all costs prepared to fund the NHS to a level where it can care for the terminally ill in a decent and humane manner? Will they put money into hospices – run outwith the NHS and currently reliant on charity shops or private donations?
Can they assure me that when I require it, there will be a fully staffed geriatric ward with expert nurses or, alternatively, home helps, equipment, GPs who can visit daily to monitor my health, respite care when we need it, or a death doula to sit and ease my final departure?
Given that the previous government actively contemplated “culling” the elderly during the Covid epidemic, and the current government has just removed my winter fuel allowance, I do not hold out much hope.
I also wonder whether the same MPs would allow a beloved family pet to linger on in great pain and distress? I think not. So why should different criteria apply to me? Yes, there have been great advances in medicine that means many can survive for much longer than their predecessors. But maybe we have now reached the stage where we ought to stand back and give “the patient” autonomy over their end-of-life decisions.
The poet Arthur Hugh Clough wrote: “Thou shalt not kill; but need’st not strive/Officiously to keep alive”. I concur wholeheartedly.
Carol Hedges
The unedifying start to the assisted dying debate referred to by James Ball is highlighted I think by the “choice card”, constantly played by most supporters. We all deserve a choice about when and how we meet our death, goes their argument. And probably there are few who would object, in principle, to the importance of freedom of choice in society.
But this is a freedom that must be tempered by the rights of others. For example, many may feel that, given the choice, they would elect not to pay taxes. Yet that is not a choice which is offered to them, since we know that others in society would be harmed.
In the same way, we know that assisted dying has societal effects that ripple outwards to the whole community. Thus, assisted dying will alter the relationship between doctor and patient; it will become a vehicle by which pressure to end their lives can be exerted on the most vulnerable; and, even if no such pressure is deliberately intended, many who are suffering from pain and illness are likely to infer from society’s support for assisted dying that their life is worth little, and that others could benefit from their early demise.
And, of course, in its present parlous state, the NHS itself could also be such a beneficiary, causing yet more conflict to arise for those nearing the end of their life.
Robert Behrman
Cookham Dean, Berkshire
James Ball’s critique of the NHS flies in the face of all the evidence testifying to its problems and solutions (TNE #408). He claims that because the NHS is our national religion we are “locked into a toxic relationship with” it. In mouthing the mantra that the model itself is broken he falls into a right wing trap. Prior to the impact of austerity under the Tories, which hollowed out the public realm, the NHS ranked first in a comparison of 11 countries’ health systems conducted by the Commonwealth Fund. By 2021, its overall ranking was no 4.
A consensus exists among all the key health thinktanks and recent reviews and commissions that the NHS model remains fit for purpose. There is no convincing case for it to be replaced by a social insurance model, which would incur additional costs and disruption.
Tackling social care and improving the public’s health are both overdue priorities that would ease pressure on the NHS. In addition, after 15 years of underinvestment, new investment is needed of 4% per year. Only then can the NHS recruit and retain the staff it needs. Health and wealth go together, so funding the NHS should be regarded as an investment, not a cost.
David Hunter
Richmond, North Yorkshire
Unleashed: unwanted and unread
Thank you Matt D’Ancona for an excellent article on Unleashed (TNE #408). You have saved me the pain and anger of reading the machiavellian fiction and the revulsion of contributing to the author’s income.
John Crossman
Credit where it’s due
As lead designer on The World At War, I was stunned to see our historic title design filling the front page of TNE #408. An instinctive search for the credit revealed the designer to be “TNE”. Uncanny.
John Stamp, Ian Kestle and I designed and shot the opening and end titles and, along with Lester Halhed, all of the graphic content for the 26 episodes that made TV history.
That being said, I confess to feeling proud and flattered to have joined the gallery of equally historic TNE covers that have brightened my Thursday mornings in retirement.
Tony Bulley
Telling Brexit like it is
Re: Luke McGee’s “Starmer’s stepping stones” (TNE #408). Perhaps talking about Brexit “is not worth the aggro for the current government”, but what about taking on the would-be slappers-down, what about a real leader with the courage to explain every falsehood about Brexit and its consequences, and to offer an alternative vision?
The political skills required are not trivial. You can’t change the situation unless you try.
We are not talking here about getting closer to the EU or rejoining to any extent for its own sake. It is for the benefit of the country. It’s no good if the Brexiteers and the newspapers wrap themselves in the flag – their claims to patriotism are bogus, their aspiration to sovereignty hollow. Let’s hear a leader say that and say it as many times as necessary.
Britain never suffered as an EU member. All Britain’s problems were made at home by bad Tory governments (and their fear of Nigel Farage).
Adam Bukolt
We need a PM with vision and moral clarity. Not some weak, economically illiterate technocrat who values red wall voters over the majority and common sense.
Lauren Smith
Moving sharply back towards the EU simply is not possible right now. It would take up far too much bandwidth and there is too much to do elsewhere.
If Labour can get a second term then hopefully they have time then for referendums and all the drama that it will entail, but right now we need our parliament to be dealing with housing laws, upskilling careworkers and helping the NHS.
Part of the reason we are in this terrible mess is that we abandoned all the normal functions of government simply to deal with Brexit.
Ann Harries
Those who argue for a softly, softly return to the EU never explain how Britain is supposed to manage, let alone prosper, in the meantime.
We are too big to be Singapore, too small to rely on our domestic market, like the US, and too far from the Pacific for cooperation with CPTPP to significantly boost our trade. We are stuck as an isolated outlier and day by day Brexit sucks the life out of our country. And the recent studies reported in TNE suggest it’s only going to get worse.
We cannot afford to wait 10 or 20 years to return to the EU. We must return now. There is no other credible option if we wish to avoid terminal decline.
Mark Grahame
Eyes and ears in Gaza
Re: Paul Mason’s “The west needs a new strategy for Netanyahu” (TNE #408). The first thing the west should insist on is free media access to Gaza. Let CNN, the BBC, France 24, Sky, Deutsche Welle, Rai etc into Gaza so they can document exactly how Israel is enabling all the humanitarian aid to a starved and homeless people while not killing civilians.
The media then will also be able to document how all those murdered children were actually really standing in front of Hamas fighters while the Israeli Occupation Forces tried to defend themselves against 16,000 now dead children.
After that, the west needs to stop all arms being sold to Israel.
Richard Riddle
Paul Mason discusses a two-state solution that would require the removal of 700,000 Israeli settlers in the West Bank, many of whom are fanatical and armed. This simply isn’t going to happen.
Palestinians know that Israel will never allow a proper Palestinian state to exist. I dare say most diplomats know it too. Yet the tired old cliche of the “two-state solution” is still trotted out every night on the news.
The first thing that needs to happen is for everyone to accept some cold, hard truths.
RS Prior
Off the leash
Two TNE #408 pieces caught my eye, about two of the most self-serving, unhinged and mendacious people on the lunatic fringe of UK politics, namely Isabel Oakeshott and Boris Johnson.
Unhinged – the satire on Johnson’s doorstop of a book – applies to both, but unfortunately Unleashed – the book itself – will also continue to be true if we pay any attention to his rantings and ravings. Oakeshott is at best a second-rate opinionated hack with an ego on a par with Johnson’s.
These two pariahs are only in it for themselves, for the oxygen of publicity. The best course of action is to ignore them. Narcissists hate being ignored.
I no longer listen to or read anything they say or write. The number of those who do are reducing to a very small but dangerous core of similar fantasists who presumably find in them a reflection of themselves.
Rex Nesbit
Right to choose
Re: Nigel Warburton’s Everyday Philosophy on the right to choose (TNE #408).
The point from conception to viability outside the womb at which human rights are acquired is a matter of legitimate difference of opinion.
Most people believe that you cannot force someone to carry the baby of your rapist, but some people have the absolutist viewpoint that consent is irrelevant, termination is murder anyway. That is one (extreme) opinion and cannot be binding on others.
Many people apparently believe that the only “allowed” form of contraception is abstinence and therefore there cannot be an accidental conception. This is one interpretation of one religion. My freedom doesn’t end at your religious beliefs!
Peter Basford
Herts
BELOW THE LINE
Comments, conversation and correspondence from our online subscribers
Re: “Brexit on the rocks” (TNE #408). I find this wholesale retreat from empire disgusting! First we sell out Diego Garcia and now we’re about to do it to Gibraltar. Where will our Dreadnoughts refuel, where can our fleets of Vulcan bombers land when we have to give “Johnny Foreigner” a damned good thrashing? I have a perfectly good atlas from 1921 so I know what I’m talking about!
(I’m genuinely only joking but I am horrified at most of the twaddle coming out of Fleet Street and a horrible feeling that a sizeable percentage of the population believe this.)
Christopher Harrison
“Meeting Italy’s oldest bartender” (Carousel, TNE #408) was a pretty inspiring article. There’s something about predictability, routine and a sense of duty that make people feel safe. In my 50s now and have one eye on the fantasy of retiring. But Rene has made me feel a bit of a fraud with her commitment and love of her work and the people she serves.
Denny Ford
Re: Alastair Campbell’s Diary on emotion over economics (TNE #408). The truth is that the poorer half of society have not benefited from the neoliberal policies of Thatcherism and Labourism of the past 45 years in the UK, nor in the US from Reaganite and Clintonite policies.
The benefit of Biden is that he has increased spending as a riposte to Trump. And Biden has adopted Trump’s protectionism and nativism. These have great resonance with white working-class people.
Labour’s problem is they are ill-equipped to cope with both a Trump presidency and the failure for the poorer half of society of the economic policies they have adopted.
Roger Steer
I agreed with much of Marie Le Conte’s Dilettante on a disappearing internet (TNE #408). The internet seems to be all about scale these days – pictures and videos getting millions of views, websites needing ever-greater amounts of traffic to survive. I long for an internet again where niche was king, where a handful of people with a shared interest could find their place. That seems a long time ago now.
Daniel Essex
The internet was frustrating rubbish when it first appeared. While I agree with Marie Le Conte, don’t we need to give AI a chance?
Mark Rowlands
JOIN THE CONVERSATION
Subscribe and download our free app to comment and chat with our writers
