In a surprising move, the Scottish Parliament this week voted to reject assisted suicide. And it wasn’t even close – 57 for and 69 against, with every party except the Lib Dems and the Greens having a majority voting against. Why did this happen? Especially when at the first two stages of the bill it comfortably passed. 

And therein lies the answer. As MSPs got to look more closely at what was involved, they realised that the bill itself was badly worded and had insurmountable difficulties – like compelling staff and organisations who did not want to participate in ‘mercy killing’ to do so.  

Like the threat of people feeling coerced. The bill would have made the treatment available to terminally ill, mentally competent adults who have been given less than six months to live – but opponents said there were not enough protections against coercion.  

Like the government admitting that money would have to be taken from other frontline NHS services to provide for assisted suicide.  The irony of taking money from the sick in order to kill people was not lost on some MSPs. 

Read it all.

The Scottish parliament has rejected a bill that would have seen the country introduce assisted suicide, in what is the latest victory for the vulnerable the world over in recent weeks, writes JASON OSBORNEhttps://t.co/PdDInXhp1z

— gript (@griptmedia) March 19, 2026

The Scottish Parliament’s rejection of a Bill to legalise assisted dying has been welcomed by the Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, the Rt Revd Rosie Frew, and by Christian campaigners in the country.

On Tuesday evening, Members of the Scottish Parliament (MSPs) rejected, by 69 votes to 57, the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill, which had been introduced by Liam McArthur MSP. The Bill sought to allow an assisted death for terminally ill adults who had decision-making capacity and had six months or less to live.

In a statement issued shortly after the vote, Ms Frew said: “I recognise that the outcome will be a disappointment to many, but it was clear that the safeguards included did not offer sufficient protection.

“We have been consistent in our position that we need to prioritise the development of excellent palliative care services that are universally available and fully funded. Without that, had the Bill passed, we would fear that many vulnerable people might have seen an assisted death as their only realistic option.”

Read it all.

The Scottish Parliament’s rejection of a Bill to legalise assisted dying has been welcomed by the Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, the Rt Revd Rosie Frew, and by Christian campaigners in the country#churchnews #churchtimes https://t.co/NhNTeIZ6GR

— Church Times (@ChurchTimes) March 18, 2026

The BBC reported on Monday that 100 Labour MPs had written to the Prime Minister arguing that, if assisted dying legislation does not pass, trust in politics will be undermined.

But the Labour MP Jessica Asato, who opposes the Bill, told the BBC: “The sponsor of the Bill has rejected 99 per cent of suggested improvements and amendments in the House of Lords and so it still contains all the same faults and issues. Any MP that voted to push this Bill through would do so knowing that it is unsafe and would harm vulnerable people.”

A new Whitestone poll of more than 2000 UK adults for Care Not Killing shows that the public wants Parliament to prioritise safety over choice.

Asked if they would support a law that enabled patient choice, but was implemented in a way that put other patients and vulnerable people at risk, respondents opposed the move by 42 per cent to 35 per cent. The proportion of those who “strongly” backed putting safety over choice was more than double the proportion of those who said the opposite (26 per cent to 12 per cent).

Read it all.

As the assisted-dying Bill runs out of debating time in the House of Lords, the Christian Labour peer Lord Rook on Friday tabled three amendments on protecting vulnerable people from coercion and safeguarding young people#HouseofLords #debate https://t.co/2Q3MhOVc5N

— Church Times (@ChurchTimes) March 16, 2026

Adults age 65 and older who completed five to six weeks of cognitive speed training — in this case, speed of processing training, which helps people quickly find visual information on a computer screen and handle increasingly complex tasks in a shorter time period — and who had follow-up sessions about one to three years later were less likely to be diagnosed with dementia, including Alzheimer’s disease, up to two decades later, according to new findings published today in Alzheimer’s & Dementia: Translational Research and Clinical Interventions.

This National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded study is the first randomized clinical trial, and only study of its kind, to assess 20-year links with dementia, including Alzheimer’s disease, among adults who participated in the Advanced Cognitive Training for Independent and Vital Elderly (ACTIVE) study. Investigators enrolled 2,802 adults into this study in 1998–99 to assess long-term benefits of participants randomized to three different types of cognitive training — memory, reasoning and speed of processing — in comparison to a control group who received no training. In the three training groups, participants received up to 10 sessions of 60–75 minutes of cognitive training that took place over five to six weeks. Additionally, half of participants were randomized to receive up to four additional cognitive training sessions, or boosters, which took place 11 and 35 months after the initial training.

In this 20-year follow-up study, investigators found that 105 out of 264 (40%) participants in the speed-training group with boosters were diagnosed with dementia, which was a 25% reduced incidence compared to 239 out of 491 (49%) adults in the control arm. This was the only intervention with a statistically significant, or meaningful, difference compared to the control group.

Read it all.

A type of cognitive training that tests people's quick recall seems to reduce the risk of dementia, including Alzheimer's disease https://t.co/1ntw4Q2cgE

— New Scientist (@newscientist) February 12, 2026

Still, finding enough volunteers for the ministry is a challenge. Many people will help with Christmas caroling events at the retirement homes or attend special classic-movie nights that Twilight Hope puts on at facilities. But only a few volunteers come out consistently.

Some people find long-term care facilities intimidating. “I think it’s because there’s weird smells, there’s scary noises, sometimes there’s bells going off,” [Stephanie] Smith said. “Some of the facilities feel like hospitals, and that freaks people out.” 

Yet she believes those feelings fade quickly. “Once you get in there, and once you get over that, and once you start to get to know the people, you’re gonna fall in love with them,” she said. “They’re so wise. They have whole histories behind them, a life to share.” 

She noted that residents especially enjoy when children visit. One volunteer, Jake Alger, has been serving and bringing his children with him for the past 18 years. His youngest is 6 and is a favorite among the residents.

“Jesus tells us to love our neighbor, and the reality is a lot more of our neighbors are going to be older,” Smith said. “There’s a real sense
of urgency.”

Read it all.

(CT) Some people find long-term care facilities intimidating. “I think it’s because there’s weird smells, there’s scary noises, sometimes there’s bells going off,” Smith said. “Some of the facilities feel like hospitals, and that freaks people out.”

Yet she believes those…

— Kendall Harmon (@KendallHarmon6) January 16, 2026

Week two of the assisted suicide Bill Select Committee in the House of Lords showed that when Parliament hears from those most at risk, the Bill’s argument collapses. Disability rights campaigners, human rights experts, and mental health specialists gathered to reveal the dangers, shattering the illusion of effective safeguards.

The week began with evidence from leading palliative clinicians, care providers, and a representative from Age UK. Dr Sam Ahmedzai, a pro-assisted suicide doctor, acknowledged that “there will be mistakes and casualties” if the Bill passes. Even he, an assisted suicide fan, could not hide the reality. People would die who should not.

Baroness Hayter, a stalwart of the pro-camp, unwittingly admitted that it is very hard to safely legislate for introducing assisted suicide. Pro-assisted suicide Justice Minister Sarah Sackman floundered, offering evasions and vague complaints about the current law’s “conundrums” and “real difficulties” but few answers. Sackman’s silent sidekick, Paul Candler, spoke for less than 30 seconds during the 75-minute session.

A senior representative from Mind outlined threats to suicide prevention efforts. Dr Sarah Hughes said that Mind simply cannot support the Bill in its current form. Jurisdictions that have legalised assisted suicide have seen the law expand quickly, she said, and assessments by video call are utterly insufficient. Cherryl Henry-Leach, Chief Executive at Standing Together Against Domestic Abuse, summarised this well by stating, “It will be very difficult to deliver assisted dying safely”.

Paralympic legend and member of the House of Lords Tanni Grey-Thompson delivered one of the committee’s most emotional interventions. She branded the Bill “a danger to disabled people,” explaining through obvious emotion how parents fear how their adult children with Down’s syndrome will be treated if they outlive them. Baroness Grey-Thompson dismantled the Bill’s six-month prognosis safeguard, calling it “arbitrary” and a “best guess,” and warned it would not protect disabled people at all. She told her fellow parliamentarians that no disability organisation supports the Bill.

Read it all.

Those most at risk from this law are clear that assisted suicide is unsafe, writes @fleurmeston https://t.co/fTiDsUwZbL

— The Critic (@TheCriticMag) November 3, 2025

…as retirement moves online there will be costs that society must reckon with. Older folks’ devices, unlike those of teenagers, are usually connected to credit cards. Door-to-door conmen, who have long preyed on the elderly, can now go iPad-to-iPad. Governments rightly strive to protect children from online predators. They must recognise that there is another, fast-growing vulnerable group to look after.

A second cost is misinformation. Pensioners are twice as likely as under-25s to use news apps or websites. Older people also appear to be more susceptible than others to online hoaxes (which artificial intelligence promises to make still more convincing). As older generations shift from spending their time in front of Fox or the BBC to spending it on YouTube or TikTok, they are entering a Wild West of information. And when the elderly are misled it is everyone’s problem, because they are the most likely to vote.

Screen time has a mixed impact on loneliness. Screens are companions for the isolated. But they can also be a substitute for real life. E-commerce removes the hassle of the weekly shopping trip—but also the social interactions that come with it. Consumers are free to make such choices. But for the infirm, the siren song of the sofa is especially strong. Balancing the pros and cons of screen use is easier for teenagers, whose time online is curbed by teachers during the day and parents in the evening. Older folk lack these informal mediators.

Read it all.

As retirement moves online there will be costs that society must reckon with. At least old people’s rocketing screen time should make for a measured debate on digital matters https://t.co/o5cC9O4Yoq

— The Economist (@TheEconomist) October 24, 2025

Alzheimer’s disease has proved to be a tricky target, and researchers and drug developers have been pursuing effective treatments for decades. Debates rage over the disorder’s underlying causes, and various approaches have faced one hurdle after another. But the field has reached a turning point. Over the past four years the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved several therapies that address some of the condition’s potential biological roots rather than merely mitigating symptoms—a key scientific milestone. Despite the advances, however, there is still a long list of open questions and so much work to be done.

The brains of people who die with Alzheimer’s show a distinct biology: clumps or “plaques” of amyloid beta proteins in spaces between neurons and tangles of tau proteins that accumulate primarily within the nerve cells. One prevailing theory holds that amyloid builds up early, and tau tangles develop when nerve cell damage is underway but cognitive symptoms are not yet apparent. Over time these pathogenic, or disease-causing, proteins disrupt nerve cell communication. The newest treatments—lecanemab and donanemab—bind to amyloid beta proteins, clear them from the brain and modestly slow cognitive decline.

But the progression from disease-linked proteins to actual dementia is long and inexact, and amyloid and tau proteins accumulate in people with other neurodegenerative disorders, too. With Alzheimer’s there is often a 20- to 30-year lag between the initial detection of amyloid and obvious cognitive decline. According to one study that predicted disease risk based on demographic data, death rates and amyloid status, fewer than one quarter of cognitively healthy 75-year-old women who test positive for amyloid in a spinal fluid analysis or positron-emission tomography (PET) brain scan will develop Alzheimer’s dementia during their lifetime. Such findings suggest that amyloid alone is not driving disease progression and have spurred scientists to investigate other strategies.

Read it all.

Alzheimer’s Drugs Are Finally Tackling the Disease Itself. Here’s How
While our understanding of Alzheimer’s disease is far from complete, the latest therapies, and others in more than 100 clinical trials, offer new hopehttps://t.co/8XvYneCgSy

— Global Health Observ (@GlobalPHObserv) September 16, 2025

If doctors find it too difficult to assess ‘unbearable suffering’ they referred the person to an ‘end of life’ clinic. If the second doctor did not agree it was referred to a third doctor. This becomes ‘doctor shopping’.

A committee cannot assess if someone’s suffering is ‘unbearable’.

Doctors have to be able to imagine a person’s suffering. But autistic pain is difficult to assess and so doctors have to take the autistic person’s word for it. The suffering of an autistic person is different from that of a non-autistic person.

In quite a few instances there was no physical illness that was terminal. One person found it too difficult to eat more than three meals a day – required because of their condition.

The Dutch ‘openness’ is good and good that there is scrutiny through the reports being made available online.  There was a change in the culture and unspoken pressure to accept this way of dying.  But there is no 6 month limitation and the law may be being expanded too much. The interpretation of the law expanded while the law itself was unchanged,

Disabled people cannot be excluded from the law on account of their disability because that would be discrimination. The disabled have the same rights as everyone.

Read it all.

Bishops decried the proposed legalisation of assisted dying on Friday, as the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill came to the House of Lords for the first of two days of debate.

“If passed, this Bill will signal that we are a society that believes that some lives are not worth living,” the Bishop of London, the Rt Revd Sarah Mullally, said. It would become, she said, the “state-endorsed position”.

Bishop Mullally, a former Chief Nursing Officer, questioned whether Parliament had properly listened to the advice of medical experts, including professional bodies which have expressed concerns about the legislation.

The Bill also failed in its “central claim” to give people choice about the manner of their death, she said. “A meaningful choice would see the measures in this Bill set alongside easily available, fully-funded, palliative and social-care services. Without a choice offered, this choice is an illusion.”

Read it all.

"A meaningful choice would see the measures in this Bill set alongside easily available, fully-funded, palliative and social-care services. Without a choice offered, this choice is an illusion.” – @bishopSarahMhttps://t.co/y4bKSThSPJ

— Church Times (@ChurchTimes) September 12, 2025

A report published last October showed retired clergy to be the largest group among ordained ministers in the Church of England. They outnumber licensed clergy in every diocese — in some, by a factor of more than two.

Taken together, the number of clergy pensioners and their spouses, plus retired self-supporting ministers, approaches 25,000, suggests Canon Julian Hubbard, a former Director of Ministry at the Archbishops’ Council, and, since 2020, Retired Clergy Officer (RCO) for Guildford.

He is the author of the report The Role and Work of Retired Clergy Officers in the Dioceses of the Church of England. Forty-one out of the 42 dioceses responded to the survey of what that ministry comprised, which revealed a wide variation, depending on size, geography, and culture.

Read it all.

Retired clergy ‘keeping the show on the road’ https://t.co/oTdDJsWvtz

— Church Times (@ChurchTimes) June 28, 2025

In an historic vote, MPs have approved a bill which would pave the way for huge social change by giving terminally ill adults in England and Wales the right to end their own lives.

The Terminally Ill Adults Bill, which was backed by 314 votes to 291, will now go to the House of Lords for further scrutiny.

The bill was approved with a majority of 23 MPs, representing a drop from the first time it was debated in November, when it passed by a margin of 55.

The vote came after an emotionally-charged debate which saw MPs recount personal stories of seeing friends and relatives die.

Read it all.

MPs back legalising assisted dying in historic Commons vote

Full story @fayebrownSky ⬇️https://t.co/1ABPztFnPF

— Sky News (@SkyNews) June 20, 2025

What Ilyich faces in the final moment is grace. He is graced with the realization that he needs to offer care. Knowing that the real is compassion is not his accomplishment but is the gift of his son’s presence. We, who would so quickly assist him out of this life, would do so because we can bear with neither grace nor compassion. They ask too much of us for another. 

Because death is not taken from him by “assistance” that offers no real help, Ilyich is graced with realization that death is no more. “Instead of death there was light.” He sees this light and realizes that “death is over . . . there is no more death.” Ilyich’s realization echoes Revelation 21:4 that “death will be no more.” Only a culture that can see death and care for those who are dying can be a culture open to the One who bore all our burdens. Christ’s dying offers us abundant life even in our deaths if we are willing to face them. In his Good Death, death itself dies. Euthanasia denies us a good death because it is the denial of care, the denial of facing death authentically, and the denial of the goodness of life. It is thus the denial of the Author of Life—or of any possible spiritual breakthrough at all.

Each fall for many more years, my students and I will read a novella about a dying, loveless lawyer from Tsarist Russia. We will ask what the real life is and wonder if we are living it. We will consider what love and care look like and whether we live in a culture in which we bear each other’s burdens. To bear those burdens is to face our deaths together. The direction of our culture is increasingly toward “death pods” where we will die alone, because we, like Ivan, have refused to really live together. Resisting such a culture of solitary and uncared for assisted dying will take legislation, but it will also require that we spend some time with Ilyich and try to recover the goodness of a good life and of a good death. Someday I will face death. Someday my students will face it as well. Will we do so in a world detached from reality or attached to it? A culture that dispatches the burdensome or bears their burdens? A culture that offers care or that offers death? The euthanasia of Ilyich would have made impossible his eu thanatos. Our society’s growing practice of euthanasia may well prove to be the denial not only of our good deaths but also of the only real thing, a good life.

Read it all.

Resisting the march of euthanasia will require numerous approaches. I hope this reflection on the good death of Ivan Ilyich contributes in some small way. https://t.co/wOO6VTKdnF

— Terence Sweeney (@TerenceJSweeney) February 19, 2025

While few modern proponents of doctor-assisted death would argue that sick people should “make way” when their lives become a draw on others’ resources, they don’t appear to believe this—inevitable—outcome should prevent the practice from being legalized. This troubling attitude goes against the U.K.’s historically Christian approach to dying people, including the belief that every person has intrinsic value, and every life ought to be equally cherished and protected.

Every single one of us has been or will be a “burden” on others. When we are young, we depend upon the care and provision of our parents. When we grow ill, or elderly, we require support from our family and friends. This is not a bad thing; to be human is to be dependent. When it comes to helping those with terminal illness, properly resourced palliative care is highly effective at mitigating suffering and ensures that every patient hears a loving message: “It’s good that you’re alive.”

U.K. politicians must ask themselves what kind of society they want to create: One where an individualistic “right to die” sees vulnerable and marginalized Britons confronted with the option of suicide and pressured to pursue it; or a society where suicide is never viewed as a fitting response to suffering, where every citizen is recognized to have intrinsic and equal value, safeguarded from harm, and offered compassionate, life-affirming support.

As the Canadian ethicist Ewan Goligher noted: “A nation’s laws are a teacher.” Legalizing assisted suicide teaches society to doubt human value and to see it as merely extrinsic and conditional. Prohibiting it reflects the true depth of human dignity.

Read it all.

It’s Good That You’re Alive https://t.co/n78pfTOVXG “As the Canadian ethicist Ewan Goligher noted: ‘A nation’s laws are a teacher.’ Legalizing assisted suicide teaches society to doubt human value and to see it as merely extrinsic and conditional”

— David Mulroney (@David_Mulroney) January 17, 2025

New cases of dementia will double by 2060, when 1 million U.S. adults are projected to develop the memory-robbing condition each year, according to a sobering new study published Monday in the journal Nature Medicine.

The new analysis shows that the risk a person faces over their lifetime is higher than some previous estimates: After age 55, 4 in 10 adults are likely to develop some form of dementia. That’s in part because the new analysis is based on decades of close follow-up, including regular cognitive assessments, of a racially diverse group of people — a quarter of whom were Black and face an increased risk of dementia.

“If you start at age 55 and go forward until your 95th birthday, there are two options: You die before dementia, or you get to dementia before death,” said Josef Coresh, founding director of the Optimal Aging Institute at the New York University Grossman School of Medicine. From age 55 to 75, he noted, the risk of developing dementia is only about 4 percent. That increases substantially over the next two decades, particularly after people’s 85th birthdays.

Read it all.

1 million U.S. adults will develop dementia each year by 2060, study says. Important story by ⁦@Carolynyjohnson⁩ https://t.co/1H2tmnKtLM

— Laurie McGinley (@lauriemcginley2) January 13, 2025

Referring to the prevalence of suicide and how “huge efforts” are being made “to try to prevent people feeling despair and feeling that they have no other choice but to take their own lives”, Archbishop Martin said, “I find a profound contradiction between that and the idea of assisting somebody to take their own life at any stage during their life.”

He noted that fears and concerns regarding the introduction of assisted suicide were voiced to some extent during the lead up period to the Westminster vote.

“In Ireland we need a very careful reflection on this.” He expressed disappointment that the Dáil “seemed to be rushing to adopt what we [the Irish bishops] believe was a flawed report of the Oireachtas Committee just before it broke up for the election.”

“It gave me some consolation to see that none of the parties appeared to be making the introduction of assisted dying in Ireland a manifesto issue and therefore I feel that none of the parties have actually a mandate now to proceed on this issue.”

“I really do feel that our concerns about the slippery slope, how this issue invariably gets expanded and increased as time goes on, which we see from other countries, is something we should reflect long and hard about.”

Read it all.

Archbishop ‘very disappointed’ over assisted dying vote https://t.co/2kBwTtpM9A

— Eamon Martin (@ArchbishopEamon) December 23, 2024

Christians are not alone in valuing life; many Jews, Muslims, and other people of goodwill also affirm the intrinsic goodness of human life. But there is a distinctly Christian conviction at work here, and it is bedrock to our faith: Every human being, from conception to death, is created by God, loved by him, and stands under his protection. 

The claim that innocent human life is inviolable is not primarily a claim about us humans, then, but about our Creator. To murder (or torture or enslave, as the church father Gregory of Nyssa saw as early as the fourth century) is to trespass without authority, to assert rights where one has none. It is to unsay God’s “very good” spoken over a fellow creature, to reject and despise a man or woman whom the Lord has brought into being and for whom Christ died. Inviolability is the upshot of our creation in the divine image. 

Unlike many topics in theology and ethics, this is not an issue on which the church has ever been ambiguous. There were no early church councils to debate the taking of innocent life. It didn’t take centuries of conflict to adjudicate. On the contrary, Christians were known from the start for their adamant rejection of pagan disrespect for those unwanted by their families or deemed socially useless—the unborn and newborn, disabled and elderly. 

Read it all.

Why do Christians oppose euthanasia?

Brad East’s answer:https://t.co/cviFstiPVB

— Christianity Today (@CTmagazine) December 11, 2024

As a supporter of assisted suicide, Lord Sumption’s argument is commendably honest. He recognises that the Leadbeater bill creates a new kind of society. Although it sprinkles us all with the same fairy dust of autonomy, our new-found entitlement does not land on us all equally. Rather, because of pre-existing social inequalities, it creates two distinct groups. In one, we find “strong-minded, articulate individuals.”

They have a high sense of self-worth and good support networks. To them, assisted suicide represents an idealised form of dying on their own terms. It is an empowering possibility for a future dark day, an option (perhaps that such a person will never actually use) rather than an obligation. In the other group, Lord Sumption writes, we find “the genuinely vulnerable”. For many reasons (illness, old age, hard life circumstances) people in this group often feel dictated to by life. They cannot hold prime ministers to personal account, and are not of much interest to the media. In many cases, their support networks are threadbare.

Lord Sumption admits that such people have good reason to fear the Pandora’s Box opened by Leadbeater’s bill. For them, in time, it will be less an empowering hypothetical option for a future day and more a dark cloud that will hang over every day, a silent obligation to be resisted rather than a liberating insurance plan. Although he supports assisted suicide, it is for the sake of the vulnerable that he is unable to “rejoice” in the first wave of an incoming tide.

Read it all (subscription).

Excellent piece!

“When elevated to life’s highest value, autonomy is an uncompromising and rapacious master. Given time, the strength of its logic bursts through our arbitrary restrictions on it.” –@DrJamesEglinton https://t.co/BbAOKmEeWl

— Keith Plummer (@XianMind) December 7, 2024

Bishop Mullally, who is the C of E’s lead bishop for health care and a former Chief Nursing Officer for England, said: “The Church of England believes that the compassionate response at the end of life lies in the provision of high quality palliative care services to all who need them.

“Today’s vote still leaves the question of how this could be implemented in an overstretched and under-funded NHS, social care, and legal system. Safeguarding the most vulnerable must be at the heart of the coming parliamentary process; today’s vote is not the end of the debate.”

The Archbishop of York was reported in the Guardian as saying: “I regret this decision. It changes the relationship between the state and its citizens, between doctors and their patients, and within families between children and their terminally ill relatives. Once begun it will be hard to undo and control.”

Read it all.

Church figures have expressed concern after the first steps towards making assisted dying legal in England and Wales were taken on Friday. https://t.co/O4jCF3HaEI

— Church Times (@ChurchTimes) December 2, 2024

MPs have backed proposals to legalise assisted dying in England and Wales in a historic vote which paves the way for a change in the law.

In the first Commons vote on the issue in nearly a decade, MPs supported a bill which would allow terminally ill adults expected to die within six months to seek help to end their own life by 330 to 275, a majority of 55.

It followed an emotional debate in the chamber, where MPs from both sides shared personal stories which had informed their decisions.

The bill will now face many more months of debate and scrutiny by MPs and peers, who could choose to amend it, with the approval of both Houses of Parliament required before it becomes law.

Read it all.

MPs back proposals to legalise assisted dying https://t.co/fPRg05cakA

— BBC News (World) (@BBCWorld) November 29, 2024

Some time ago, I found myself sitting at a dinner opposite a Labour peer. We chatted over various things as the evening proceeded. Just before we were getting up to leave a new topic came up. “I am a convinced campaigner for assisted dying,” she said. “As a bishop, I suspect you’re not. Why don’t you think we should do it?” Put on the spot, struggling to know what to say, and knowing I probably had one line to deliver as we stood up to leave, I said something like this: “Life is a gift from God. It’s not up to us to decide when it ends.” She looked across at me with a pitying look and walked away, clearly unconvinced.

I’ve often wondered what I should have said. Lord Falconer suggests that only secular people like him are ‘objective’ and religious people like me or Shabana Mahmood are biased and therefore our views are to be discounted. The idea that his secular perspective is not colouring his views, but that our religious ones are, or that he is not imposing his beliefs on others whereas we are, is of course, as Isabel Hardman has argued, philosophical nonsense.

Our religious beliefs shape our views, as his secular views shape his. The question is which perspective gives us a better, healthier and more coherent way of living together. I spoke recently to a key figure in the Church of England’s response to Assisted Dying who told me in no uncertain terms that religious arguments simply don’t wash in this debate. We have to use pragmatic and political ones that appeal to a wide audience. And so, the main arguments we have heard from church leaders and others against assisted suicide refer to the slippery slope argument: that legislation will inevitably in time become looser to include more candidates; care for the vulnerable, such as the elderly or the disabled who will feel pressurised into taking their own life, or, as the Health Secretary Wes Streeting has argued, the fact that palliative care is not yet robust enough in our health system to enable a proper choice.

Read it all.

My thoughts on why religion matters in the assisted dying debate https://t.co/SJBK4fUI3B

— Graham Tomlin (@gtomlin) November 27, 2024

Don’t turn our doctors into killers, says the Star. Like several of the opposing factions to the bill, it cites Canada as exemplifying the slippery slope, with one in twenty deaths there being by assisted dying.

This argument that the bill will open up unforeseen consequences for the disabled, and indeed for the unfortunate residents of bad care homes, is common, Archbishop Welby, facing down former Archbishop Carey, said that assisted dying was in effect a sword of Damocles over the disabled and aged. We should add that many Canadians choosing state sponsored suicide cite feeling a burden on family and caregivers as their motive. Canada surely vindicates Welby.

This argument really is cogent and necessary, but is it sufficient for a Christian view which sees humanity made in the image and likeness of God, leading to the doctrine of the sanctity of life? As Frost says this a doctrine that has permeated and grounded western civilization. Is it not simply wrong to kill people even those begging to die? Hospices and care giving was the Christian answer, but Christianity is fading fast with its practical altruistic legacy of looking after the sick and dying.

Lord Frost has pointed to our society’s reliance on Judaeo Christian ethics for all its institutions and to the perilous situation of breaking with this tradition of the sanctity of life for a callous utilitarianism. So far his is the deepest theological apologia for the classical Christian ethic of life  on offer, we trust Christian leaders will step up to the challenge soon.

Read it all.

Ask MPs to oppose assisted suicide ✋

Some helpful tips here 👇 https://t.co/wr1LYSQylr

— Better Way (@betterwayUK) October 24, 2024

“It’s very important that we discuss it here in the Senedd today because although the private member’s bill is going forwards in Westminster, if it were passed the implication would be very important in Wales because we have responsibility for health and social care.”

Ms Morgan said it is important to have safeguards to ensure people meet specific criteria, with medical people present when the decision is made….

Carys Moseley, a public policy researcher and analyst for Christian Concern based in Cardiff, said the group was “concerned” about the motion.

She said: “We’ve got a visual display of the actual cases that have been happening in different jurisdictions in the western world.

“These are tragic cases – diabetes being treated as a long-term illness in Oregon, assisted suicide the fifth leading cause of death in Canada – these are very grave issues.”

She said the public question the issue more when they hear about other countries.

“Once you introduce this choice – dying – there is a pressure then which eventually becomes a duty to die,” she said.

“There isn’t such a thing as (going on) ‘your own terms’, because it affects all the doctors that become responsible for killing patients or assisted killing rather than preserving life.

Read it all.

The Welsh Senedd, which has a progressive majority, has overwhelmingly voted down a motion to legalise assisted suicide. The more people learn about assisted suicide the less they like it. pic.twitter.com/fww05M1fLi

— Yuan Yi Zhu (@yuanyi_z) October 23, 2024

The Bishop of Newcastle, Dr Helen-Ann Hartley, wrote on X/Twitter: “By all means let’s have the debate. Consideration should also be given to proper investment in pal­liative and social care. And let’s call it what it is: assisted suicide. It’s a slip­pery slope and an absolute de­­grada­tion of the value of human life.”

The Bill was also condemned by leaders of the Church in Wales, who said in a statement on Tuesday that the Christian faith had always been rooted “in the reality of pain and mortality”, as well as “the incalculable value of each human person, irrespective of social standing, access to resources, or physical or mental ability. . . In that spirit, shown to us in the person of Jesus, we give our heartfelt support to the extension of the best possible palliative care to all who require it, so that no limits are put on the compassion which we show as individuals and as a society.”

“This is an extremely difficult issue over which different people, including Christians, will have arrived at differing views with the best of intentions,” said the statement from the Archbishop of Wales, the Rt Revd Andrew John, with the Bishops of Bardsey, Llandaff, Monmouth, St Davids, St Asaph, and Swansea & Brecon.

Read it all.

Bishops warn of ‘duty’ to die if Leadbeater Bill is carried https://t.co/owjUo4W5Xz

— Church Times (@ChurchTimes) October 16, 2024

… legalising assisted suicide would disproportionately impact many millions of vulnerable people, who might perceive themselves as a burden on those around them and the health service. My concern is that once you can ask for assisted suicide, it soon becomes something that you feel that you ought to do. Permission slips into being duty. This does not represent true choice for all, and I worry that no amount of safeguards will ensure everyone’s safety at the most vulnerable point of their lives.

A good death and compassionate care should be available to everyone, but the Bill being introduced today will not achieve that.”

Read it all.

Not half.

Assisted Dying Legislation is 'Dangerous' says Archbishop Welby – BBC News https://t.co/NhK26S8S9c

— Erica Wooff (@ericauk) October 16, 2024

As this debate unfolds there are three points I would like to put before you. I hope that you will take part in the debate, whenever and wherever you can, and that you will write to your Member of Parliament.

The first point is this: Be careful what you wish for.

No doubt the bill put before Parliament will be carefully framed, providing clear and very limited circumstances in which it would become lawful to assist, directly and deliberately, in the ending of a person’s life. But please remember, the evidence from every single country in which such a law has been passed is clear: that the circumstances in which the taking of a life is permitted are widened and widened, making assisted suicide and medical killing, or euthanasia, more and more available and accepted. In this country, assurances will be given that the proposed safeguards are firm and reliable. Rarely has this been the case. This proposed change in the law may be a source of relief to some. But it will bring great fear and trepidation to many, especially those who have vulnerabilities and those living with disabilities. What is now proposed will not be the end of the story. It is a story better not begun.

The second point is this: a right to die can become a duty to die.

A law which prohibits an action is a clear deterrent. A law which permits an action changes attitudes: that which is permitted is often and easily encouraged. Once assisted suicide is approved by the law, a key protection of human life falls away. Pressure mounts on those who are nearing death, from others or even from themselves, to end their life in order to take away a perceived burden of care from their family, for the avoidance of pain, or for the sake of an inheritance.

Read it all.

This Wednesday a bill will be introduced to Parliament proposing a change in the law to permit assisted suicide. As this debate unfolds, I ask you to play your part in it. Write to your MP. Have discussions with family, friends and colleagues. And pray.https://t.co/mgjUOwehms

— Cardinal Nichols (@CardinalNichols) October 10, 2024

Public pension systems in the U.S. have seen a significant increase in unfunded liabilities, particularly during the Great Recession. Between 2007 and 2010, unfunded liabilities grew by over $1.11 trillion—a 632% increase—reflecting the financial challenges faced during that period. Despite some improvements in funding ratios over the last decade, these liabilities have continued to rise, underscoring ongoing financial pressures.

As of the end of the 2023 fiscal year for each public pension system, total unfunded public pension liabilities (UAL) reached $1.59 trillion, with state pension plans carrying the majority of the debt.

The median funded ratio of public pension plans stood at 76% at the end of 2023, but stress tests suggest that another economic downturn could significantly increase unfunded liabilities, potentially raising the total to $2.71 trillion by 2025.

Read it all.

At the end of the 2023 fiscal year, the nation's public pension systems had $1.59 trillion in total unfunded liabilities.https://t.co/msg89p70Mr

— Pension Integrity Project (@ReasonPensions) October 3, 2024

The Bishop of London, Sarah Mullally, the joint lead bishop on health care for the Church of England, echoed Bishop Smith’s concern.

She said: “No amount of safeguards could ensure the safety of the most vulnerable in society, should there be a change in the law allowing for assisted suicide”

Bishop Mullally, a former chief nursing officer for England, said: “I worked for many years as a nurse in the NHS, including as a cancer specialist, and I understand first-hand the crucial importance of compassionate care and dignity for all patients, including those who are most vulnerable and reaching the end of their lives.

“In the Church of England, we are backing urgent calls for adequate funding and resourcing of palliative care services, to ensure the highest possible standards of care for all. This should include action to ensure that our hospices receive the level of state funding that they are so badly lacking at present.”

Read it all (registration or subscription).

Letby and Shipman murders show NHS workers cannot be trusted on assisted dying https://t.co/51pSDKdIzO

— Anna Gaudreault (@ladevita12) October 5, 2024

Earlier this year, full-time carer Mary hid all the knives in her home. Her husband Richard, nine years after his diagnosis of Alzheimer’s aged 55, had become angry and unpredictable. For the first time, Mary, a former fashion designer, was scared of him. Over the course of two quick weeks, it became apparent that it was no longer safe for her to live in the same house and in August, she made the heartbreaking decision to move him into a care home.

Mary and Richard’s story was one of several told in Channel 4’s hour-long documentary Anna Richardson: Love, Loss & Dementia. Best known for her work presenting headline-grabbing shows on provocative subjects like Naked Attraction and The Sex Education Show, Richardson wanted to shine a light on what she views as another taboo topic: dementia. “We are not talking about the fact that it’s a crisis,” she said of the disease which brutally entered her life with her father’s diagnosis of vascular dementia.

Formerly a leading figure in the Church of England, 83-year-old Jim now lives semi-independently in an assisted living facility. The film opened with Richardson receiving an alert while on holiday – Jim had suffered yet another fall. Aware that he is still in the relatively early stages of symptoms – he knows who she is and retains his sense of humour (pretending to row a boat as Richardson pushed his wheelchair around his hometown) – she acknowledged what is to come: “Either one day, he will have a catastrophic stroke. Or he will just get incrementally worse.”

Read it all.

In this one-off doc, @AnnaRichardso shares how this debilitating disease affected her family after the onset of her father’s vascular dementia – exploring myths, social taboos and the new drugs that provide hope for the future. #LoveLossAndDementia, 10pm on @Channel4. pic.twitter.com/3AjCbKxl3J

— 4Viewers (@4Viewers) October 2, 2024

Longevity has officially become a competitive sport.

Welcome to the “Rejuvenation Olympics.” In this contest founded by tech entrepreneur and longevity bro Bryan Johnson, anti-agers take their health obsession to new levels. Just not dying isn’t enough. Instead, you have to not-die better than your competitor.

You may know Johnson, 46, as the man who founded—and sold, for $800 million—the payments company Braintree. Or you may know him as “that crazy guy trying to not die,” as Johnson self-identifies in his X bio. He says he has spent millions on a viral self-experiment to age as little as possible—one that involves a regimen of dozens of daily powders and pills, gene therapies and more. 

Once he began publishing his methods and corresponding health data, he encountered reactions from skepticism to outright vitriol. He decided to reframe his pursuit like a professional sport—and invite other players to the game.

Read it all.

Outliving Your Peers Is Now a Competitive Sport

Longevity zealots vie in contest to slow aging; ‘that crazy guy trying to not die.’

By @AlexLJanin @WSJ

Featuring: @julsg50 @bryan_johnson @siimland @Dode__Man https://t.co/27EZDhne9K

— Agingdoc⭐David Barzilai🔔MD PhD MS MBA DipABLM🩺 (@agingdoc1) July 11, 2024