In the name of progress: eugenics then, euthanasia now
Progress may be the most dangerous two-syllable word in politics. Slapped on to all sorts of monstrosities it has become a means of justifying inadequate arguments and evading scrutiny. To the unthinking politician, if an issue constitutes progress it is inevitably part of a wider move towards enlightenment, is an inherently good step and, crucially, must happen sooner or later. The belief means identifying barriers to progress; and, by extension, viewing their removal as a social good.
This isn't a modern outlier or bug but a longstanding feature of progressive thought. It was in the name of progress that the Fabian and socialist eugenicists – from Beatrice and Sidney Webb to Bertrand Russell and Marie Stopes – advocated the sterilisation of the disabled and sick during the 20th century. It was in the name of progress that George Bernard Shaw supported 'the socialisation of the selective breeding of man', even, chillingly, proposing the euthanasia of the mentally ill and other members of the 'unfit' classes via 'extensive use of the lethal chamber'. In short; a very dangerous word indeed. This isn't just a history lesson either; the groups these people supported still exist. Dignity in Dying, the main advocacy group for assisted dying, was founded by a member of the Eugenics Society and was known until 2006 as The Voluntary Euthanasia Society.
In our own day, the same concept is being invoked once more as a sort of unanswerable force. The debate over assisted suicide is intensifying on both sides of the Border this week, as Kim Leadbeater's Private Members' Bill returns to Parliament and Holyrood MSPs voted in favour of a similar Bill proposed by Lib Dem Liam McArthur. In her efforts to champion her Bill on social media, the former is emerging as someone with Van Gogh's ear for diplomacy; both tactless and self-aggrandising. This week she dismissed opponents as 'scaremongering and ideological', while quoting praise of herself from a supporter, describing her as a 'social reformer'. At least irony hasn't been assisted with its death.
The inconvenient truth is that, in this case progress involves the sidelining and rejection of the very people whose needs it claims to advance. The Royal College of Physicians recently published a statement warning that the Bill's 'deficiencies' render it unsafe for patients and doctors. Was this 'scaremongering'? Every user-led disability group opposes the change, as do a majority of palliative care professionals. Are they 'ideologues' too?
If Leadbeater is foolish and groups like Dignity in Dying malign, there is a third and more complacent category of argument invoking the consistently-disproven concept of 'the right side of history'. It is telling that despite supporting assisted suicide in principle, former Scots Tory Leader Ruth Davidson couldn't quite endorse the parallel Bill before Holyrood in its current form. Instead, in a column this week, she urges MSPs simply to trust that they will be able to iron out any problems at a later date. She also cites the number of countries around the world offering assisted suicide as if this, in itself, constituted an argument. What many of these jurisdictions actually show is quite the opposite to Davidson's Panglossian faith that everything will work itself out.
A particularly invidious aspect of this debate has been the manipulation of language. Not only is there a tendency to imply, per Leadbeater, that the pro-side has a monopoly on compassion, relatives' understandable efforts to prevent their loved ones from taking their own lives have sometimes been reframed as 'coercion'. During the 'expert' witness testimony, one Australian MP referred to ' assisted dying ' in exquisitely Orwellian fashion, as a form of 'suicide prevention'. There has even been some squeamishness about using the word 'suicide' at all, though the Bill would by definition amend the 1961 Suicide Act. It's as if they fear this serious change to the social fabric will be impossible without annexing language to limit what their opponents may say. And now, showing tragedy and farce are far closer than we think, Kim Leadbeater is apparently a 'social reformer'.
Parliament's own impact assessment also reveals this tendency. It was slipped out under the radar on Friday afternoon after the local elections. This too contained the dystopian language we've come to expect from the debate; focusing on the service's 'inclusivity'; perhaps to give women, disabled and vulnerable people equal access to death. The Bill already covers a far wider remit than its proponents initially promised. The irony is that Leadbeater and her allies no doubt think of themselves and their actions as progressive. Yet each of them is simultaneously engaged in the business of ignoring the voices of the poor and the vulnerable.
This Bill is so comprehensively at odds with the principles of previous social reform that enacting it will mean rewriting the Bill on which the National Health Service was forged. The legislation is so far-sweeping that the Bill's proponents may become the first people to undo the basic healthcare principle that life should be preserved. This is worth restating for all the 'sensibles' out there; it wasn't Mrs Thatcher or 'Tory privatisation', but a Labour backbencher who will fundamentally change the stated purpose of the NHS – and in a final irony, will do so not in the name of profit but of progress.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
41 minutes ago
- The Independent
Palestine Action to be banned after break-in at RAF base
The Home Secretary is preparing to ban Palestine Action following the group's vandalism of two planes at an RAF base, the PA news agency understands. Yvette Cooper has decided to proscribe the group, making it a criminal offence to belong to or support Palestine Action. The decision comes after the group posted footage online showing two people inside the base at RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire. The clip shows one person riding an electric scooter up to an Airbus Voyager air-to-air refuelling tanker and appearing to spray paint into its jet engine. The incident is being also investigated by counter terror police. The Home Secretary has the power to proscribe an organisation under the Terrorism Act of 2000 if she believes it is 'concerned in terrorism'. Proscription will require Ms Cooper to lay an order in Parliament, which must then be debated and approved by both MPs and peers. Some 81 organisations have been proscribed under the 2000 Act, including Islamist terrorist groups such as Hamas and al Qaida, far-right groups such as National Action, and Russian private military company Wagner Group. Another 14 organisations connected with Northern Ireland are also banned under previous legislation, including the IRA and UDA. Belonging to or expressing support for a proscribed organisation, along with a number of other actions, are criminal offences carrying a maximum sentence of 14 years in prison. Friday's incident at Brize Norton, described by the Prime Minister as 'disgraceful', prompted calls for Palestine Action to be banned. The group has staged a series of demonstrations in recent months, including spraying the London offices of Allianz Insurance with red paint over its alleged links to Israeli defence company Elbit, and vandalising Donald Trump's Turnberry golf course in South Ayrshire. The Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA) welcomed the news that Ms Cooper intended to proscribe the group, saying: 'Nobody should be surprised that those who vandalised Jewish premises with impunity have now been emboldened to sabotage RAF jets.' CAA chief executive Gideon Falter urged the Home Secretary to proscribe the Houthi rebel group and Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps, adding: 'This country needs to clamp down on the domestic and foreign terrorists running amok on our soil.' Former home secretary Suella Braverman said it was 'absolutely the correct decision'.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
EU cites ‘indications' Israel is breaching human rights obligations over conduct in Gaza
The EU has said 'there are indications' that Israel is in breach of human rights obligations over its conduct in Gaza, but stopped short of calling for immediate sanctions. 'There are indications that Israel would be in breach of its human rights obligations under article 2 of the EU-Israel association agreement,' states a leaked document from the EU's foreign policy service, seen by the Guardian. Couched in the typically cautious language of Brussels, the document nevertheless represents a significant moment in Europe's relations towards a longstanding ally. The closely guarded paper, which will be presented by the EU foreign policy chief, Kaja Kallas, to European foreign ministers on Monday, cites assessments by the international court of justice, the office of the high commissioner for human rights, and numerous other UN bodies, while saying that it does not represent 'a value judgment' by any EU official. The finding has been seen as a foregone conclusion since a review of the EU-Israel agreement was put on the agenda last month by 17 EU member states, led by the Netherlands, a traditional ally of Israel. EU officials were tasked to see whether Israel's internal and international relations were based on 'respect for human rights and democratic principles' against the backdrop of near-daily fatal shootings of Palestinian civilians seeking food. The review was triggered by Israel's blockade of the Gaza Strip, amid widespread horror over the ongoing bombardment that has laid the territory waste and killed more than 55,600 people – mostly civilians – since 7 October 2023, according to the Gaza health ministry. The EU discussion is complicated by Israel's airstrikes on Iran, which may restrain some governments from putting pressure on Israel. Soon after Israel began waging war against Iran, the European Commission president, Ursula von der Leyen, 'reiterated Israel's right to defend itself'. She has previously faced criticism for not speaking up over the humanitarian consequences for Palestinians of Israel's onslaught. The EU-Israel association agreement, signed in 1995, underpins a trade relationship worth €68bn (£58bn) between 27 European countries and the Middle Eastern country. The EU is Israel's largest market and accounts for about one-third of its trade. Israel is also a member of the EU's Horizon research funding programme, and has secured grants worth €831m since the current programme began in 2021. The document emerged after more than 100 campaign groups urged the commission this week to suspend the association agreement. 'A weak or inconclusive review of Israel's compliance with article 2, and/or failure by the commission and council to suspend at least part of the association agreement, would ultimately destroy what's left of the EU's credibility [and] further embolden Israel authorities to continue their atrocity crimes,' reads the statement, signed by 113 civil society groups including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. Eve Geddie, the head of Amnesty International's EU office, said the decision to launch a review had come 'tragically, devastatingly late' and that while it was important, as time passed Israeli forces had become 'more and more emboldened'. Separately, eight EU member states have written to Kallas urging her to look into discontinuing trade of goods and services from the occupied Palestinian territory. The letter, organised by Belgium, states the EU is obliged to respond to an opinion from the international court of justice last July ordering Israel to end its occupation of Palestinian territories as soon as possible. In a landmark – albeit non-binding –ruling, the court said other states were under an obligation not to recognise the occupation as lawful. 'We have not seen a proposal on how to effectively discontinue trade of goods and services with the illegal settlements,' states the letter, calling for the EU to set out a timeline for reaching 'full compliance' with the advisory opinion around its first anniversary. EU policy on Israel has been hobbled by difficulties finding unanimity among 27 member states with starkly different views, from countries that have recognised Palestine, including Spain and Ireland, to staunch allies of the Israeli president, Benjamin Netanyahu, such as Hungary and the Czech Republic. The tide turned last month when the Netherlands, a strong ally of Israel, launched a call to review the EU-Israel association agreement, following the largest protests on Dutch streets over a foreign policy question in decades. The Dutch foreign minister, Casper Veldkamp, a former ambassador to Israel, argued that Israel's blockade of the Gaza Strip was a breach of international law and therefore the association agreement. An unexpectedly large number of countries agreed, although the question was not put to a vote. The EU is far from united over what to do next. A full suspension of the agreement, which requires unanimity, is seen as impossible, given the certainty of a veto from Hungary, the Czech Republic or Germany. The EU only needs a weighted majority to suspend favourable trade terms or Israel's participation in Horizon, but even those outcomes are highly uncertain. Hildegard Bentele, a German centre-right MEP who chairs the European parliament's Israel delegation, criticised moves to question the agreement. 'This will not have any influence on the Israeli government. I am very sure about it. This will put us in a less influential position,' she said in an interview earlier this month. Kallas's predecessor Josep Borrell, however, has criticised Europe for shirking its moral responsibilities over Gaza. In a typically outspoken speech, he argued the EU should use the association agreement as a lever to demand that humanitarian law is respected. In a further illustration of the EU's foreign policy knots, Hungary is blocking EU sanctions against Hamas and violent Israeli settlers. Kallas earlier this week voiced frustration at critics that have accused the EU of silence and inaction, citing the need to find consensus. 'Sanctions need unanimity. And again I'm representing 27 [countries].' She argued that presenting sanctions that would inevitably fail was pointless: 'I feel better myself that I've done something, but actually I know that this will not go through … and then it will just show that we don't have a common position.'
Glasgow Times
an hour ago
- Glasgow Times
Rantzen: MPs backing assisted dying Bill will protect people from ‘bad death'
The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill will now head to the Lords after clearing the Commons on Friday afternoon, with MPs voting 314 in favour, 291 against, majority 23. Dame Esther, a notable supporter of campaign Dignity in Dying who has stage four lung cancer, told the PA news agency: 'This will make a huge positive difference, protecting millions of terminally ill patients and their families from the agony and loss of dignity created by a bad death. 'Thank you, Parliament.' Dame Esther Rantzen's daughter, Rebecca Wilcox, speaks to the media while on the phone with her mother (Yui Mok/PA) Campaigners inside Parliament and outside in Parliament Square were jubilant and tearful following the result of the vote. Some MPs lined up to shake hands with or hug Kim Leadbeater, the Bill's sponsor through the Commons. Ms Leadbeater described the vote as a 'result that so many people need'. The Labour MP for Spen Valley said: 'Thank goodness we got the result that so many people need, but I also feel that it was done really respectfully and the atmosphere in the chamber was very civilised.' Outside, a cheer erupted as the result was announced on a livestream to a crowd who had huddled together in anticipation. Many cried and hugged each other, while others popped champagne. Dame Esther's daughter, Rebecca Wilcox, called her mother in front of supporters and told her she wished she was here. Ms Wilcox came to Parliament Square following the vote and hugged fellow campaigners and friends. She told PA that she gave Ms Leadbeater's mum a 'big hug' following the result and added: 'I don't know whether to have a drink or a really big cry. 'There were a few of us in the public gallery and we were all holding hands. I felt like we were on a rollercoaster. 'It was the longest pause when everyone came in and we were waiting for the four and when I heard a three for the 'ayes' I was quite positive. 'It was quite extraordinary. I turned around and gave Kim's mum a great big hug.' Rebecca Wilcox celebrates with Dignity in Dying campaigners (Yui Mok/PA) Sarah Wootton, chief executive of Dignity in Dying, told the crowd: 'This is for all the people who couldn't be here today. This vote sends a clear message. Parliament stands with the public and change is coming.' Sian Berry, a Green Party MP and one of the proposers of the Bill, told PA: 'We all have experience of loved ones at the end of their lives that have influenced this. So many of my constituents have written to me telling me their stories. You really feel the importance of what you're doing this for. 'I'm confident we have made the Bill robust and I do believe this reflects public opinion.' Supporter Tim Murphy, 39, from London, said: 'My friend David went to Dignitas four years ago and he had to die sooner than he should have had there been a workable law in this country. 'This will impact so many people. So much of the [opposition] campaign has been hypothetical situations in the future but not taking into consideration the actual deaths that have occurred.' Those opposed to the Bill were visibly disappointed. People had gathered to pray before the vote but the crowd of white-shirted campaigners quickly dispersed following the result. Many packed up their signs and left the square and did not speak to the press. Dignity in Dying campaigners in support of the assisted dying Bill celebrate in Westminster (Yui Mok/PA) Bishop of London Dame Sarah Mullally, a former chief nursing officer for England who sits in the House of Lords, said: 'Every person is of immeasurable and irreducible value, and should be able to access the care and support that they need – a principle that I know is shared by those of all faiths and none. 'We must oppose a law that puts the vulnerable at risk and instead work to improve funding and access to desperately needed palliative care services.' Sean Redfearn, 26, representing Christian Concern, said: 'It's disappointing the nation is stepping closer for people to take their own lives.' 'There is no progress as progress suggests flourishing and there's no flourishing with allowing the ending of a life.'
