Government Coffers, welfare and reflections
Government coffers, welfare reform, fertility rates, 57 years on and the Assisted Dying Bill: The domestic headlines this week indicate there is not enough money in the Central Government coffers, without mention of local authorities, council tax, bin collections and the potholes in the roads! Consequently, welfare reform has been announced so that available funds can be more prudently spent. The funds are not there because of increased cost / overheads, an ageing population, creating increased demands and therefore, cost, on the NHS. Fertility rates are at the lowest levels ever, (not least of all, because of housing costs). As the fertility rates become lower the working population will become smaller, so there will be fewer tax payers and therefore even less money going into Government coffers while cost continue to rise. (Consider China’s so called ‘one child policy’, the politics may be different but the impact will be the same.)
Since the Abortion Act came in to force in the 1960’s with its ‘safeguard’ of 2 medical practitioners allowing for a pregnancy to be ‘terminated’ have been eroded (Evidenced by being able to purchase the ‘morning after pill’ via the internet; one high street supplier, at least, indicating ‘for future use’ so, hardly ‘emergency’). Given the erosion of such ‘safeguards’ over 57 years in that arena, what of 57 years hence and the future with the ‘Assisted Dying Bill’?
If, as has been spoken about, the judiciary is not in place to oversee that due, correct and legal process is adhered to by all concerned, but rather anonymous ‘experts’ (whose dispositions of mind and heart may not be known) and whose subjective involvement in each ‘case of assistance’ might obscure their oversight, what reassurances will there be in another 50 years that those who are regarded as a ‘burden’ or who see themselves as such, against involuntary euthanasia? If there is an ever-diminishing economic situation with ever rising costs and an on-going erosion of any sense of human dignity, the Bill cannot be seen to guarantee to provide against involuntary euthanasia some 50 years hence.
Consider also, the number of high-profile cases, whereby, for whatever reasons, ‘officialdom’ has seen a catastrophic failure in the ‘duty of care’. Such high-profile cases point to the fact that a single High Court Judge, retired or otherwise, will not have the capacity to head up a commission to oversee every case of ‘assisted dying’ which is offered up by a plethora of local authorities and its team of “experts”.
An article in Saturday’s ‘Telegraph’ by Ollie Corfe, quoting Liz Emerson, of the ‘Intergenerational Foundation’, helps to illustrate concerns about how economics will impact on the ‘Assisted Dying Bill’ should it become law:
“Older generations’ wilful disregard for the very real economic plight experienced by younger generations may be driving these intergenerational tensions.
“In the 1970s, a home could be bought with a mortgage around three times a person’s annual income. Today’s house prices demand seven times annual incomes outside London and twelve times income in the capital.” (See: The ‘uncomfortable truth’ behind wealth-hoarding boomers )
