Assisted dying, abortion, grooming gangs...Britain is morally deformed
I've a friend in a nursing home with very bad cancer. Physically, he feels OK, but there are hints of mental confusion. One afternoon we watched a quiz show on a blank television that wasn't turned on. It was proof, he said, that his mind couldn't be going because he got all the answers right.
With the passage of Kim Leadbeater's Bill – save a stay of execution in the Lords – he suddenly looks like a candidate for assisted dying, and yet his suffering strengthens the case against. My friend, at this stage, is miserable less because of the tumour than because he's poor – can't afford a home care – and anxious because he wakes up in a strange place and imagines he's been kidnapped.
He tells me he is at the centre of a plot by the state to kill the old by driving them mad. Though I assure him that no government is competent enough to pull such a thing off, I'm beginning to wonder if he has a point.
Last week, the Commons voted to decriminalise abortion and legalise state-assisted suicide, the latest twist on 'cradle to grave'. Supporters spoke of humanising the law, of continuing the 'progressive' effort begun in the 1960s when abortion was first permitted. But there's a big contextual difference. Social liberalism in a time of economic growth was about increasing choice; today, in a period of austerity, it suggests narrowing options.
Can't afford a baby? Terminate it. Worry you might burden the grandkids? Take a seat in the suicide pod. Of course this isn't what MPs meant by voting this way – but when you cut benefits for the elderly and cap them for children, and then make it easier to destroy yourself or your baby, it's hard not to infer a link.
People keep saying to me, with a dash of British humour, that the state intends to kill us all to save money. Let's assume this is wrong. Let's call the speculation tasteless. Nevertheless, we have to account for why so many people feel this way, for the historic loss of trust.
This is not some opioid-induced fantasy; human beings respond to cues. The third story in the grimmest week of Starmer's premiership was the publication of the Casey report, which confirmed that Asian men raped girls, and that officials declined to act because it might appear racist.
This is mind-blowing stuff and shows how morally deformed our establishment now is. It has no coherent understanding of good and evil – in the difference between innocence and guilt – and in its yearning to look good by its own bizarre standard, it permits evil to flourish. In 2025, a person who prays outside an abortion clinic faces arrest. Meanwhile, a foreign-born, convicted rapist might avoid deportation by invoking their human rights.
Religion, in fact, barely featured in the assisted dying debate, except to suggest that opponents might be acting under orders from the Pope. This fantasy pays a backhanded compliment to a faith that has been losing its influence for a very long time. As far back as 1937, Cosmo Gordon Lang, the archbishop of Canterbury, abstained in a Lords vote on divorce because he judged it 'no longer possible to impose the full Christian standard by law on a largely non-Christian population'.
Christianity defined the West for so many centuries that its loss is experienced as the death of a fixed order, but we mustn't forget that Jesus was a revolutionary who overturned an even older system of ethics. Pagans, who largely felt life was meant to be enjoyed, thought the martyrdom-chasing Christians were nuts. One can see why. They taught that death is not the end, life is a test, and suffering is an opportunity to imitate the crucifixion.
For example: the 7th century saint Cuthbert had a best friend, Herbert, and the two men dreamt of spending eternity together. But Cuthbert was a famously holy man, so would pass through purgatory to Heaven fast, whereas Herbert was just a very good man, so, they feared, might take longer – delaying their reunion. How did God fix the problem? He generously gave Herbert a long, painful illness, so that when he died on the same day as Cuthbert, his soul was so cleansed by suffering that they entered paradise at the same time.
Weird, isn't it? Yes, but it also seeded into the West the idea that our life belongs to God, that He made us in his image, and this is a foundation for the principle that you can't take away another's life at will. This gradually flowered into rights for women or slaves, the peace movement and abolition of the death penalty.
The problem with a commandment, of course, is that it's inflexible: it extends to unwanted foetuses and relatives in pain. Around the 19th century, we detached God from ethics, getting around the 'Thou Shalt Nots' and opening morality up to negotiation. Add individualism, toss in consumerism, and moral action today is contingent upon personality, economics, circumstance.
Back when I was a socialist, before religion came into it, I wasn't comfortable with the idea that one unborn baby gets to live because its parents happen to be married and rich, whereas another is aborted because its mother is single and poor. Humanistic morality seemed surprisingly naive about the reality of the human condition, its appetites and deprivations.
Looking at my friend in the nursing home, to what possible extent can one say he has 'agency'? I'm not sure he understands his diagnosis. The notion that he might have a chat with Kim Leadbeater, she with a smile and a clipboard in her hand, and make a rational choice to die next Wednesday afternoon is preposterous. The opportunity for error or manipulation is self-evident, yet many cannot, or will not, see it.
For anyone who does choose assisted dying, I hope Christians respond with mercy. We are not in charge of Britain, haven't been for a long time, and I'm not sure I'd want to be. The best options left are to witness and accompany, to do the sometimes depressing, occasionally rewarding work of being with people when they go. I enjoy holding my friend's hand. I'd never have done that when he was healthy.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
33 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Students will spend 25 YEARS on their phones if screen habits don't change, study finds
Students will spend 25 years glued to their phones if they don't change their screen habits, a study has found. The average school, college or university student spends five and a half hours on their phone per day, which could amount to 25 years of their lives. And the four per cent who spend nine hours or more on their phone could see themselves wasting 41 years of their lives locked into a screen. The research, which was conducted by Fluid Focus over the first five months of the year, highlights rates of smartphone usage, the negative impact it has on learning and attention span, and student's desire to reduce it. Their figures are based on a waking day of 16 hours and 72 years of smartphone use from the age of 11 to 83. To get their figures, they tracked the screen times of 1,346 secondary school pupils, 198 university students and 1,296 people at further education colleges. App genres which dominated the screens were social media, messaging and streaming. Screen time averages increased with age - from five hours and 12 minutes for secondary school students to six hours and 12 minutes for university students. For many students, their phone was the first thing they check when they wake up and the last thing they look at before bed. Worryingly, 68 per cent of students believe their academic performance is impacted by their phone use. Despite this self-awareness, around 40 per cent admitted to constantly checking their phone while studying. Checking your phone seems like a harmless habit, but another study found it can take 20 minutes to regain focus afterwards. Dr Paul Redmond, who studies generational change, called the findings 'quite stark'. He was director of student experience and enhancement at Liverpool University, one of 18 institutions involved in the research. He added: 'I think what's powerful is how students feel that it's damaging their academic performance. That awareness that "I could do so much better if I manage this".' Nearly half of students (47 per cent) said their sleep is disturbed because of late-night phone usage, a figure that rose to 66 per cent for those at university. Dr Redmond said it was helpful to talk with young people about strategies to manage screen time. He explained how one new technique they tried out was to put elastic bands around their phones so when they took them out to go on them 'they were made to stop and think about why'. Lisa Humphries is associate principal at Chichester College Group where some of the 11,000 students across its seven constituent colleges participated. She said: 'By the time we see them in college, they've had five, six, seven years of living inside their phone. The levels of social anxiety are crippling in the young people we're seeing, and it comes from that whole thing. 'Everyone's living in their bedroom on their phone, and they're not outside, and they're not socialising, communicating. They're not developing those skills to build relationships.' The report's authors urge schools, colleges and universities to make digital wellbeing part of their curriculum and strategic plans. They even encouraged them to reward students who display healthy digital behaviours. Another suggestion was to cut university lectures from 60 or 90 minutes to blocks of 30 minutes in order to cater to the new generations short attention spans. They added the single biggest change a student can make is leaving their phone outside the bedroom up to 45 minutes before they want to go to sleep. The authors also called for ministers to treat technology overuse as a public health problem and want their to be a public health campaign targeted at Gen Z. Glenn Stephenson, co-founder of Fluid Focus, said: 'This research is a mirror. It forces us, as a society, to confront an uncomfortable truth: we unknowingly handed powerful, addictive technologies to children during their most formative years — without fully understanding the risks in doing so. 'However, what was great to see, and what should give us all hope, is that students aren't oblivious to the impact — far from it. They're aware, reflective, and increasingly motivated to change. 'Many are already trying. They just need to be met with the right education, the right tools and the belief that change is possible.' Another study found three quarters of Gen Zs admitted struggling to maintain concentration while interacting with someone and 39 per cent feel a strong urge to look at their device. Social events (28 per cent), speaking with friends (18 per cent) and parents (17 per cent) are some of the scenarios where the younger generation stop paying attention. And 28 per cent said they are even switching off at work, affecting their productivity. The study of 2,000 18 to 28-year-olds found that Gen Z will reach for their phone after just two minutes and 15 seconds of talking to someone. The biggest temptations when chatting face-to-face with someone include checking messages (48 per cent), scrolling social media (44 per cent) and even opening YouTube (18 per cent). Calls (32 per cent), WhatsApp messages (23 per cent) and social media mentions (14 per cent) are deemed hardest to ignore. The research, commissioned by AXA UK as part of the annual Mind Health Report, found 63 per cent admit they struggle with real-life interaction – and 77 per cent use their phone as a form of escape.
BreakingNews.ie
42 minutes ago
- BreakingNews.ie
What you need to know about sarcoma – the cancer you've never heard of
When most people think of cancer, names like breast, lung, or prostate cancer instantly come to mind. However, there's another, lesser-known form called sarcoma that affects thousands of people in the UK every year, yet rarely makes headlines. Despite its relative obscurity, it's one of the most aggressive and challenging cancers to diagnose and treat. Advertisement Ahead of Sarcoma Awareness Month (July), we got in touch with Helen Stradling, head of support and healthcare professional engagement services at Sarcoma UK, to find out exactly what sarcoma is, why awareness is so low, and what some of the early symptoms are… What is sarcoma? Sarcoma refers to a broad group of cancers that start in the bones and soft tissues. Photo: Alamy/PA. Sarcoma is a type of cancer that can appear anywhere in the body and everyday 15 people in the UK are diagnosed with it, according to Sarcoma UK's website. 'In terms of breast cancer, lung cancer and bowel cancer, it's very obvious where they come from, whereas the word sarcomas doesn't really tell you anything,' acknowledges Stradling. 'Sarcomas are cancers of the bits and pieces that put us together, like nerves, bones, blood vessels and fat cells.' There are many different subtypes of sarcomas, but they are generally grouped into two main categories. Advertisement 'The main types are sarcomas of bone and sarcomas of soft tissue,' explains Stradling. 'The most common soft tissue sarcomas are the GISTs (gastrointestinal stromal tumours), liposarcomas and leiomyosarcomas, and in the bone sarcomas, the ones we tend to hear the most about are the osteosarcoma and Ewing sarcomas.' Why have many people never heard of sarcomas? 'I think it all comes down to the rarity of it,' says Stradling. 'We diagnose about 5,300 sarcomas in the UK every year, so it's very unlikely when somebody gets a sarcoma diagnosis that they've known somebody else that's had one. 'It's also not the type of cancer that you see spoken about very often in the media. A lot of people that get a sarcoma diagnosis have never heard of sarcomas before.' What are the symptoms? View this post on Instagram A post shared by Sarcoma UK (@sarcoma_uk) 'The main sign of a soft tissue sarcoma is a lump that you can see that is changing or growing,' highlights Stradling. 'Benign lumps are really common, but anyone who has a soft tissue lump anywhere on the body that is growing and changing needs to get that checked out.' Whereas, the main symptom of bone sarcomas is bone pain or swelling that tends to be worse at night. Advertisement 'There's a lot of reasons for joint and bone pain, but if you've got bone pain that you can't put down to any kind of injury, that is not relieving itself with painkillers or anything like that, and the pain wakes you at night, that's a red flag sign,' emphasises Stradling. However, GISTs sarcomas tend to be harder to identify. 'GISTs are a little bit more tricky, because you can hardly ever see anything from them,' says Stradling. 'It's more likely to show up with more subtle signs like bloating or blood in your vomit or stools. 'If you have got any these symptoms and you are being pushed back from healthcare professionals that you're seeing, we would urge you to keep going. If you are really concerned that it could be a sarcoma, mention the word to the professional so that it is something they can consider or start investigating.' Advertisement How is it diagnosed? Diagnosis of sarcomas usually start with an ultrasound or an X-ray. Photo: Alamy/PA. 'It usually starts with somebody either seeing their GP, a physio or a nurse and a lot of time it will be a soft tissue lump that's growing or bone pain,' says Stradling. 'With soft tissue sarcomas we tend to start with an ultrasound and with bone sarcomas we start with X-ray. 'If there's any concern that it might be something more sinister, the patient then has an MRI scan. But most importantly, once that MRI scan is done, we must get a biopsy, because with there being so many different subtypes, we need to know exactly which one we're dealing with to know which is the best treatment for you to have.' Like most forms of cancer, sarcomas can be found at different grades and are much easier to treat if you catch them early before they spread. 'The sooner we can get these diagnosed the better,' says Stradling. 'We know that getting patients into seeing the specialist teams and getting them started on treatment as soon as we can makes a huge positive difference for outcomes.' The primary focus of Sarcoma Awareness Month is to encourage earlier diagnosis and to improve treatment options for those affected by this disease. Photo: Alamy/PA. How is it treated? The primary treatment for sarcomas, both soft tissue and bone sarcomas, is surgery. The goal is to remove the tumour, along with a margin of healthy tissue to minimise the risk of recurrence, according to Sarcoma UK's website. Advertisement 'We really need to get the them at a size where we can do a surgery that isn't going to leave somebody with life-limiting mobility or not being able to do everything that they want to do,' says Stradling. 'We want to avoid the stage where the tumours have already spread, because then the treatments that we've got are limited.' Sarcomas can also be treated with chemotherapy and radiotherapy, often alongside surgery. 'We do use chemotherapy and radiotherapy for a number of sarcomas, but in a lot of the cases, we don't use them until they've already spread because we know that they're not as effective as we would like them to be,' explains Stradling. 'However, this is slightly different with the younger people that get the bone sarcomas, as they do tend to start with chemotherapy as a kickoff treatment. But in most cases, surgery is the first thing that needs to happen.'
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
STEPHEN DAISLEY: We're governed by a born-to-rule elite...and the WhatsApp scandal shows EXACTLY how out of touch they are
Against stiff competition, one of the most outrageous happenings inside Nicola Sturgeon 's government was the routine deletion of messages during the Covid-19 pandemic. The revelation came in evidence before the UK inquiry into the management of the global health crisis. One after another, senior figures in the Scottish Government admitted they had deleted WhatsApps and other messages. Sturgeon had erased her digital missives and so had John Swinney. National clinical director Jason Leitch described 'WhatsApp deletion' as 'a pre-bed ritual'. Senior civil servant Ken Thomson posted on message threads that their contents were 'discoverable under FOI' and advised: 'Know where the "clear chat" button is.' In office, Sturgeon seldom missed an opportunity to highlight where Scotland's government was outperforming England's, but here was one regard in which she was happy to be unexceptional. Senior Westminster figures got rid of their messages and their Holyrood counterparts were no better. Why am I raking up this ancient history when the world is exploding all around us? Well, because an important announcement was slipped out on Friday - usually a quiet day in Scottish politics - and I think it deserves a little noise. Deputy first minister Kate Forbes confirmed that her ban on ministers and civil servants using unofficial messaging apps to do official business was now in effect. The prohibition was initially trailed before Christmas and reflects concern about rules and practices at the height of the pandemic. Now, six months on, WhatsApp and similar platforms have been removed from government-issued phones, with the (common sense) exception of services that deal with public safety and emergencies, which will get longer to make the transition. Speaking on Friday, Forbes said: 'The use of mobile messaging apps increased during the pandemic as staff worked remotely in unprecedented and difficult circumstances. Having reflected on our working practices, we are now implementing changes to the use of such apps.' However, the Scottish Government should not be allowed to issue a lowkey update and then press on with other business. Let's recall how we got here. Because ministers aren't alone in having 'reflected' on their working practices. In addition to Lady Hallett's inquiry, and the negative public response to top officials wiping their communications archives, message retention was put under the microscope in the Martins Report. Former Channel Islands Information Commissioner Emma Martins was tasked with reviewing the Scottish Government's information protocols and what she found was lamentable. There was 'little to evidence a consistent and widespread knowledge, understanding, or application' of the policy on messaging apps, 'including rules around retention, exportation, and deletion'. There was 'insufficient evidence of a proactive strategy' on records management and 'an abundance of missed opportunities and early warning signs'. Martins concluded that it was 'impossible to take any comfort from the policy'. The report recommended a fresh approach to messaging apps that ensured 'all government communication is conducted in a managed environment' and that systems have 'appropriate security and data retention facilities'. Banishing external communications platforms from government phones is certainly a step in the right direction, but why is it a step that's needed at all? It's no coincidence that the minister rolling out these changes is one of the few who did the right thing when it came to pandemic-era communications. Whatever else her critics might say about her, Forbes understood her obligations to transparency and public accountability. Even after she was told to begin deleting messages with her private office two years after the outset of the pandemic, she retained all WhatsApps to and from Cabinet colleagues and government officials. Her integrity meant Lady Hallett's inquiry was able to access conversations at the most senior levels that would otherwise have been lost to the erase button. But that same integrity must compel the deputy first minister to be honest about this policy. Among the various security and data protection advantages of in-house communications networks, there is also the greater monitoring capability they hand to administrators. In plain language: it's harder for a user to delete messages from an in-house system than from WhatsApp or Telegram. On the most charitable reading of this policy, it's an admission that those in the most senior roles in the Scottish Government are inept in the proper use and storage of communications. A less charitable reading is that the Scottish Government does not trust its personnel, ministers and civil servants alike, not to scrub information that could be of national importance. That is a desperate state of affairs. As Emma Martins stated in her report, 'something went wrong for the Scottish Government' and the issue was one that 'runs much deeper than a single policy document or checklist'. An organisation, she said, needed 'those operating within it to share a basic set of values'. Abiding by the rules was 'not a tick box exercise' but 'a way of thinking', which must be 'embedded into everything', not to avoid 'the threat of sanction' but because 'it is the right thing to do'. Tel:ling ministers and officials to use only permitted messaging systems, to treat data with care, to retain communications or log their salient points - these are all well and good but the very fact that the people running the country need to be told this speaks to an institutional problem inside the Scottish Government. Systems and safeguards are only as good as the willingness of those who use them to abide by their spirit as well as their letter. The citizenry should feel reassured that public servants have the integrity to do the right thing without needing it spelled out to them. That they are storing messages properly because they recognise their obligations to scrutiny and transparency, not because a spreadsheet is monitoring their compliance. Kate Forbes did the right thing during the pandemic but her messaging policy can only succeed if there are enough like her in government, and that seems unlikely. A government marinated in spin and cynicism for so long isn't about to mend its way because of new rules. You need people in public life who are there for the right reasons. After 18 years of the SNP in charge, transparency and openness have been thoroughly sidelined. Going through the motions is not the same as genuine accountability, it's working to a policy rather than a moral principle. This administration talks a lot about its commitment to open government but time and again it is shown to be a hollow promise. We have a born-to-rule elite with altogether more confidence in their abilities than is merited and this arrogance has engendered a conviction that the public deserves to know only what their betters want them to know. This is no way to run a democratic government, but it is not a problem that can be tweaked away. It can be addressed only by a blunt and bracing assessment of the calibre of politicians and policymakers coming into Holyrood and a conversation about how we can do better. The WhatsApp deletion scandal was a low moment for devolved government in Scotland but it would be foolhardy to assume that the problem has been solved. Holyrood requires a new culture of integrity, transparency and accountability. The work of creating this culture cannot be undertaken by those responsible for the past two decades. It calls for a new government under new leadership.
