Life, death and slippery slope. What the British media have been arguing about this week

The Voluntary Assisted Dying Bill proposes to give terminally ill adults in England and Wales the right to receive medically assisted dying, provided they have less than six months to live.

This phenomenon is sometimes called “euthanasia” in Russian, but it is not quite the same thing. Euthanasia is a procedure that can be carried out without the person’s knowledge if he or she is not conscious and will never return to it, while in Britain it is the conscious decision of a person to leave life that is being discussed.

It would seem that what could be clearer than the right of a terminally ill person to leave life painlessly and under the control of doctors, so as not to suffer and not to torment loved ones? But there are those who do not agree with this. For example, the head of the Anglican Church, the Archbishop of Canterbury, said back in October that the idea is dangerous and, if such a law is passed, it will be the beginning of a “slippery slope” – if we allow the terminally ill to die, then others will seek this right.

The Archbishop was also supported by representatives of other faiths: a coalition of 29 British religious leaders issued a statement opposing the law.

Some columnists have condemned the interference of religion as savagery. Among them, for example, The Guardian columnist Simon Jenkins, who writes that the debate reminds him of a return to the Dark Ages, and that Britain, which once considered itself a progressive country, is not, since religious beliefs can influence politics.

And as for the practical rather than religious questions raised by opponents of the new law, here Jenkins writes that the answers to each of them have already been answered by other countries that introduced similar laws much earlier than Britain:

“The best example is probably the Australian state of Victoria, which has [rules] similar to those proposed for England and Wales. There there has been no spike in suicides, no signs of coercion, no shortage of palliative care, and certainly no absurd requirement to obtain court authorization. Other countries […] find ways to protect people from the risk of coercion while respecting their right to free choice. And we are discussing this as if the UK is on Mars.”

In addition to the speech by religious leaders, Britain’s Justice Minister Shabana Mahmood made a lot of noise when she said she was against the new law, primarily because of her religious beliefs. She was vehemently condemned for this statement by fellow partner Lord Falconer, a staunch supporter of the law, who said she was imposing her religious views on others.

However, Mahmoud has supporters in the press. One can read journalist Catherine Pepinster’s column in The Independent, where she sensibly explains why arguments of faith should not be removed from the debate. Her argument is that religion, unlike politics, has an idea of the value of each individual, and that the best of modern Western civilization grew largely out of Christianity.

More practical arguments against the new law are made by former doctor and politician Liam Fox in The Independent. He is concerned about the possible impact of the new law on vulnerable groups such as people with developmental disabilities. Drawing on his experience of working (as an MP) on the Down’s syndrome law, he emphasizes that people with developmental disabilities still receive less proper medical care than others. Such people die sooner in hospitals, are more likely to face staff neglect, and disproportionate use of Do Not Resuscitate orders. Fox points out that rushing the bill through without transparent and robust protections will put already marginalized populations at risk, who have the least ability to advocate for their rights.

Liz Carr, actress, wheelchair user and disability rights advocate, wrote about roughly the same thing in The Guardian. “Parliamentarians can trust doctors. But disabled people like me can’t,” is the title of her column, in which she writes that medics too often choose not to put too much effort into saving people with disabilities. “We know all too well that some people’s lives are less valuable than others,” she writes, and it is for that reason, not religious reasons, that she opposes the new law.

And today, November 29, after hours and hours of emotional debate, members of the UK Parliament approved a bill legalizing assisted dying – it was supported by 330 votes to 275.

Petition for a new election

Another important topic discussed by columnists from various publications was a petition to call new elections. It was initiated on the website of the Parliament by a simple Briton, the owner of three pubs in the Midlands named Michael Westwood, and it gained almost 2.9 million votes in a matter of days. “I want there to be another general election. I believe the current Labor government has reneged on the promises it made in the run up to the last election,” was the text of the petition.

The observers were almost unanimous in the opinion that this petition will not affect anything. Firstly, Parliament is of course obliged to consider these manifestations of “direct democracy”, but that does not mean that it is obliged to respond to them at all. And besides, it cannot be taken seriously simply because this site does not properly verify its users, and it is not clear who these nearly three million people are, what they have to do with Britain, and where they are expressing their discontent with Labor.

Many remembered the famous 2019 petition to cancel “Brexit”, which garnered more than 6 million votes. It led to nothing – the “Brexit” took place as planned.

However, the sheer popularity of such a petition is in itself a wake-up call for Labor, who should draw conclusions.

Rachel Cunliffe wrote an article in the New Statesman about what those conclusions should be:

• They are clearly dissatisfied, and that’s not so much a problem with the decisions they’ve made (which are perfectly reasonable) as it is with a lack of communication.
• It’s too early to bury the right. Despite Labor’s victory in July, neither the Conservatives nor the “Farageists” have gone to their holes to lick their wounds, but are still here and are using every opportunity to put sticks in their wheels.
• Elon Musk is a force. Since the popularity of the petition is largely due to his reposting, and since he has long since become Keir Starmer’s personal troll, shouldn’t we consider inviting him to Downing Street for a cup of tea, for example?

Migration: has it risen or fallen?

If you’ve been reading the news this week and can’t work out what’s going on with migration and why some articles citing the same Office for National Statistics (ONS) figures say it’s at a record high and others say it’s at an all-time low, you’re not alone. Ed Conway of Sky News was also puzzled by this question, but found the answer. In short, the figures the ONS gives are often provisional (“provisional”) and then refined. This time it turned out that the final net migration figure for the period from June last year to June this year was one and a half times higher than the provisional figure, and that’s what caused the confusion.

Conway’s brilliant and short analysis will tell you more about how it all happened. Read on and remember that data is a tricky thing in itself, and when it gets into the media and into the hands of politicians, the result can be something very far from the truth.

And finally: the new Jaguar commercial.

Legendary British automaker Jaguar recently decided to change its image and released a commercial in such new tones that Nigel Farage himself couldn’t accept it, ranting against the brand, berating their new logo and video (“Which doesn’t even show the car once!”) and predicting that Jaguar would deservedly go bankrupt.

Jaguar didn’t keep quiet and responded that this was the case: our car buyers are aging people and the brand had decided to rejuvenate itself and reach out to a new audience. “An audience that is demographically far removed from Mr. Farage,” said Rowdon Glover, the group’s managing director.

This, in turn, did not trouble The Telegraph columnist Michael Deacon, who made the right observation: “Isn’t it true that in our sad reality, if anyone can afford a £100,000 Jaguar, it’s rich old men, while young people are scraping together their last pennies to pay the rent on a moldy storeroom in a Chancellor’s block of flats?”. The managing director’s foolish, Deacon thought, answer further emphasized that their rebranding was also foolish.

However, there were some who loved it. For example, Darren Stiles, an openly gay man and longtime auto columnist for the leading gay magazine Attitude, not only rejoiced at how the new Jaguar ad pissed off Farage (and with him, Ilon Musk, Andrew Tate, Tommy Robinson and other new internet homophobes), but even proudly announced that he had put down a deposit on a new Jaguar.

Let’s be happy for Styles (even if demographically he’s still closer to Farage than the audience the car brand is trying to reach).