Latest news with #Peers
Daily Mail
21-06-2025
- Health
- Daily Mail
Fast-track suicide if you pay extra, discount deals for couples and you don't even have to be terminally ill: Inside Germany's morally queasy approach to assisted dying where business is booming for the pedlars of euthanasia
Last week, the UK's highest elected officials ruled on the most existential of questions: how we choose to die. At its third reading, the Assisted Dying Bill passed the Commons by a slim majority of 23 votes, and now its fate lies with the Lords, where it faces a bumpy ride before it becomes law. The upper chamber, for instance, will examine if a three-person panel of professionals (from law, psychiatry and social work) offers greater safety and oversight in approving a patient's application to die than a High Court judge, as was originally proposed. Peers will have at their disposal the grim cost-benefit analysis to the NHS in accelerating the deaths of the terminally ill, released last month under the cover of the local election results. According to the report, as many as 1,300 people are expected to apply to die in the first year, saving as much as £10million in medical bills. But can the health service cope with this demand, especially as NHS staff will be offered an opt-out from the ugly business of state-sponsored suicide? No doubt private health providers are already bending the ears of peers for a slice of the death industry pie. It would be tempting to allow private enterprise to take some of the strain, but I urge the Lords to look at how business seized the opportunity with morally queasy gusto in my native land, Germany, where some firms offer a 'fast track' service for people who can pay more and even special discounts to couples wishing to hasten their demise. Pictured: Pedestrians walk past the posters promoting the Assisted Dying bill at Westminster Underground station In Germany, anyone 18 or over can lawfully commit suicide with the help of a third party. Yes, anyone. There is no requirement for the person to be six months from death, nor is there any specification over having a life-limiting or debilitating illness (as in the UK Bill). A perfectly healthy university student can seek help to kill themselves for no better reason than they are fed up with life. Hannelore Kring, 83, is typical of Germany's liberal approach to assisted suicide. A recording of her death featured in a podcast by news broadcaster WDR and it is a spine-chilling reminder of how relaxed my countrymen are about dying. At an undertaker's, Frau Kring is accompanied by two 'death helpers' – a nurse and retired teacher – and sounds relieved her life will end in a matter of minutes. Dressed in black and with make-up, as if attending a party, she suggests a dance with the nurse. Indeed, she is not ill, she is as healthy as anyone in their 80s. She has run a second-hand men's boutique in Hamburg but feels life's no longer worth living. She's lonely, all her friends have died and the state of the world depresses her. The helpers ask if she really wants to go through with it. 'Absolutely!' she replies enthusiastically. The nurse hooks her up to an infusion of a lethal dose of narcotics – a 'suicide cocktail'. She merely has to turn a valve, letting the toxic chemicals enter her bloodstream, putting her to sleep for ever. It's important she takes the final step herself, otherwise the helpers could be charged with manslaughter. Assisted suicides like this have been fully legal in Germany since 2020, although legislation has been a generation in the making. After the Second World War the subject was largely taboo, in no small part due to revulsion at the Nazis' Aktion T4 programme, which entailed the 'mercy killing' of 300,000 disabled people. By the 1970s and 1980s, a push for more patient autonomy led to court decisions in 1984 and 1990 that ensured suffering, bed-ridden people had the right to stop treatments that prolonged their lives. With the 2009 Patient Directive Law, people could include such instructions in a living will if they became incapacitated. This gave legal protections to doctors offering assisted suicide. But then the public grew uneasy at what seemed a creeping commercialisation of the right to die. Healthcare is not free at the point of use in Germany, so the nation is more comfortable than the UK with private provision within the system. But only up to a point. Many were appalled in 2014 when a Berlin urologist Uwe-Christian Arnold revealed he had helped 'several hundred people' take their lives since the late 1990s for fees of up to €10,000. Christian groups accused him of undermining the sanctity of life. The German Medical Association threatened him with a €50,000 fine, saying doctors should prolong life, not give their patients lethal poisons. Arnold took them to court over the fine and won. Also in 2014, a right-to-die association in Hamburg caused uproar for offering fast-track assisted suicide consultations in exchange for higher membership fees. Its normal rate was €2,000, with a waiting time of a year, but it introduced a jump-the-queue service for €7,000. Other providers offered discounts for couples interested in dying together. These were grisly bargains that lead many to regard Germany as a Las Vegas of suicide, which was anathema to a country that saw itself as otherwise Christian and conservative. Church groups took to Berlin's streets as legislators sought to crack down on the industry. Arnold and others passionately defended their businesses. The 'death helpers' argued the issue was comparable to abortion: a ban would be unfair to the terminally ill, who shouldn't have to travel to places like Switzerland to end their lives with dignity. The debate ended with parliament banning 'commercial' assisted suicide under Chancellor Angela Merkel in 2015. Subsequently, only friends and relatives who received no money for their assistance could help someone end their life. Legal challenges were launched by right-to-die advocates and people suffering terminal illnesses. In a 2020 judgement, the Constitutional Court said the freedoms enshrined in the country's post-war constitution meant 'the decision to take one's own life must be respected by the state as an act of personal autonomy'. Those who had been put out of work by the previous ruling were free to ply their trade once again. Five years after that decision, it feels like we're back to the Wild West of pre-2015. Assisted suicide in Germany is an unregulated free-for-all. A slew of undertakers, lawyers and independent doctors are facilitating a rising toll of assisted deaths. Last year it was about 1,000, though no one is keeping exact figures. Likewise there's no central registry of providers. Nearly anyone can set up shop. The largest player in the business is the German Association for Humane Dying (DGHS), which charges €4,000 a suicide but offers a discounted €6,000 for couples. It says that of the 623 people for whom it arranged suicide last year (it forwards requests to independent teams of doctors and lawyers), 22 per cent were just 'fed up with life'. Two-thirds were female. DGHS spokesperson Wega Wetzel says: 'Women are more likely to be widowed and 'left over' than men. Women are more likely to plan and communicate, while men often choose 'hard' suicide methods such as hanging.' Equally worrying is the fact that nothing prevents young people from choosing the path of assisted suicide. The youngest case I heard of was a 21-year-old man. The only requirement spelled out by the court was that the person be 'freely responsible' for their decision. At least DGHS, to maintain its reputation, has doctors and lawyers screen applicants to ensure they understand what they're getting into, that they're not being coerced and that they do not show symptoms of mental illness or dementia. But nobody knows how many independent providers are making money with assisted suicide. Nobody knows how they are screening clients, particularly in the more affordable services where standards may be lower. A study last month in the British Medical Journal analysed 77 assisted suicides in Munich. It found that one patient's consultation with a clinic lasted 55 minutes and the death was booked for the next day. The assisting physician in another case was a relative of the patient. In a 2022 case, the suicidal person was judged of sound mind based on a five-year-old mental capacity evaluation. But there is still broad support for the right to die: 80 per cent of Germans feel it's appropriate for the critically ill. But just 30 per cent say it should be available to people with a long life ahead of them, and only 3 per cent for young people having a crisis. Ute Lewitzska, professor for suicide studies at Frankfurt University, sees a fundamental change in how we deal with growing old. 'Supply creates demand,' she says. 'The 2020 court decision didn't just open a crack in the door, it flung the door wide open – and we're not going to be able to close that door again.' The fear is a normalisation of assisted suicide. For some it's a humane way to end one's life; for others it's an easy solution to suffering that's being oversold. Dr Lukas Radbruch, director of palliative care at University Clinic Bonn, has worked with end-of-life patients for three decades. He says many more now ask about assisted suicide but 'so many people are not sufficiently informed. Or we have doubts about how voluntary their choice is. Or we realise they still want to live, even if they say they want to die.' Sometimes a suicidal person needs counselling, not the means to kill themselves. Where do you draw the line? Dr Radbruch asks. In 2023 the German parliament tried to hammer out rules to provide clearer guidance, but MPs couldn't reach a consensus. Like many in the West, Germany seems destined to grope its way through this ethical minefield with no transparent way forward that is satisfactory for all. I do not envy the task ahead for Britain's Lords. My country's experience offers a salutary lesson that for the Bill to become law, they must make black and white what is a painfully grey issue.
Telegraph
20-06-2025
- Health
- Telegraph
The Lords must now revise this dreadful assisted dying Bill
Britain is a less civilised country today. Seldom has the House of Commons enacted legislation with such potentially calamitous consequences as the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, which has passed its third reading by a majority of 314 to 291. The narrow margin of victory for the assisted dying Bill indicates that opinion had turned against the legalisation of euthanasia during the process of scrutiny, but not in sufficient numbers to defeat it. The only hope of mitigating its worst aspects now lies with the House of Lords. The Lords is a revising chamber and it should now do the job that the Commons failed to do: proper scrutiny. In this case, the revision required to make this legislation workable and safe will have to be radical. This Private Member's Bill was not in the Labour manifesto and so the Upper House is much less limited by convention in the scope of possible amendments. Peers are not generally eager to correct the follies of MPs, but this time their Lordships' duty is to make root and branch changes to the Bill, even if this risks confrontation with the Commons. In particular, the bishops of the Church of England have a responsibility to speak out much more clearly on a matter of such moral gravity. We know that in countries where euthanasia has been legalised, a large and growing proportion of all deaths are now assisted by doctors. In Canada, for example, some studies suggest up to 10 per cent of all lives will end in this way. Surely the Lords Spiritual should be leading the national conversation about what is likely to become reality here, too, in the very near future. Many people will rightly feel a sense of dread at the prospect of death on the NHS. When the new law takes effect in 2029, our health service will be obliged to offer assisted suicide as though it were just another form of care. Palliative care (already the Cinderella of the NHS) will now compete for resources with the new 'service'. As we report, assisted death is likely to overwhelm the NHS and finally break its budgets. Doctors will have to offer lethal drugs to any and all patients who are deemed to be terminally ill, as long as they have mental capacity. Those who meet the criteria could include patients with all kinds of disabilities, people with Down's Syndrome and those with eating disorders. The panels that will decide whether to authorise assisted dying do not need to have personal knowledge of the patient, nor to inform families or friends. They need only decide on the balance of probabilities that the patient is not being coerced. How did Britain find itself saddled with such a 'bad Bill', as the Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch called it, on a matter of such cardinal importance? The Prime Minister must carry much of the blame. Unwilling to shoulder responsibility, he chose to pass the buck to Kim Leadbeater, a backbench MP with more zeal than sagacity. A Government Bill would have allowed much more time to examine the practical costs and benefits of shoehorning the provision of medicalised death into a service designed to preserve life. One of Sir Keir Starmer's predecessors, Gordon Brown, rightly observed that in the name of autonomy the Bill sets up a false choice. Patients who request assisted dying will in future have a legal right to receive it, 'without guaranteeing anything approaching an equivalent right to high-quality palliative care for those close to death', he said. The refusal of the Commons to acknowledge this glaring injustice now places the onus on the Lords to enable physicians to offer terminal patients a genuine choice. Whatever one's views about the principle of assisted dying, this Bill is a case of legislating in haste and repenting at leisure. Posterity will have to live with its lasting impact on the relationship between the public and the medical profession. But it is not too late for peers to remedy some of the Bill's flaws.
New Straits Times
13-06-2025
- Politics
- New Straits Times
Education Ministry urges action on paedophile social media content
KUALA LUMPUR: The Education Ministry has called for immediate action to combat pornographic and immoral content involving students on social media platforms. Minister Fadhlina Sidek said recent reports highlighting the existence of paedophile pages displaying images of schoolchildren must be taken seriously and stopped. "The presence of social media pages that share explicit and immoral content must be curbed. These must be reported immediately, and firm action taken," she said. Fadhlina said the ministry already has in place the Reproductive and Social Health Education Guidelines (Peers) to raise awareness of reproductive health, especially among students, teachers, and parents. She added that under the 2027 school curriculum, the time allocated for Peers lessons would be increased to strengthen the module's impact. "All Education Ministry institutions are required to follow the current guidelines in dealing with issues of sexual harassment. "Psychosocial support services must also be continuously enhanced to assist students," she said. Fadhlina also urged parents to be more proactive in educating and protecting their children from the threat of sexual harassment at home. "They are responsible for ensuring that their children's dignity is protected," she added. Yesterday, it was reported that social media influencer Wee Yun Nee, popularly known as Mekyun, had filed a police report after discovering a Facebook group that had posted, among other things, pictures of her younger self. In a social media post, Wee said she lodged the report at the federal police headquarters and was accompanied by sher lawyer and brother, Jason.
CTV News
04-06-2025
- Climate
- CTV News
CTV National News: Fire crews hailed as heroes by residents of Alberta hamlet
Watch The residents of the Alberta hamlet of Peers is praising fire crews for saving their homes from a potentially devastating wildfire. Kathy Le has their story.
The Advertiser
03-06-2025
- Entertainment
- The Advertiser
Ebden and Peers edged out in Paris thriller
Veteran Australian doubles duo Matt Ebden and John Peers' hopes of repeating their Paris triumph in last year's Olympic Games on the clay of Roland Garros have hit the buffers in a titanic quarter-final against Brits Joe Salisbury and Neal Skupski. Last August, the Aussies clinched gold on Court Philippe Chatrier and in February, after a Davis Cup tie, they decided to team up on tour in search of more men's doubles glory. On Tuesday, on a breezy Court Simonne-Mathieu at the French Open, Ebden and Peers looked on course for the semis when they won a marathon first set 7-4 on a tiebreaker - just reward for the pressure they had exerted when the No.8 seeds were serving. But Peers twice had treatment for his heavily-strapped right elbow and Ebden's serve was broken late in the second and early in the third sets as Salisbury and Skupski hit back to win 6-7 (7-4) 6-4 6-4. It was a gutsy effort by Peers, 36, and Ebden, 37, who live near each other in Perth and were seeded No.15 at Roland Garros. Having trailed 4-1 in the decider, they broke Skupski for 4-2 and Peers showed no ill effects from his sore arm to hold serve confidently for 3-4. Another shift in momentum looked on the cards but the Brits had just enough of a lead to get them over the line three games later, in 2 hours 35 minutes, as Skupski held serve to love. The British pair will next face the US pair Christian Harrison and Evan King, who beat No.2 seeds Harri Heliovaara and Henry Patten. Veteran Australian doubles duo Matt Ebden and John Peers' hopes of repeating their Paris triumph in last year's Olympic Games on the clay of Roland Garros have hit the buffers in a titanic quarter-final against Brits Joe Salisbury and Neal Skupski. Last August, the Aussies clinched gold on Court Philippe Chatrier and in February, after a Davis Cup tie, they decided to team up on tour in search of more men's doubles glory. On Tuesday, on a breezy Court Simonne-Mathieu at the French Open, Ebden and Peers looked on course for the semis when they won a marathon first set 7-4 on a tiebreaker - just reward for the pressure they had exerted when the No.8 seeds were serving. But Peers twice had treatment for his heavily-strapped right elbow and Ebden's serve was broken late in the second and early in the third sets as Salisbury and Skupski hit back to win 6-7 (7-4) 6-4 6-4. It was a gutsy effort by Peers, 36, and Ebden, 37, who live near each other in Perth and were seeded No.15 at Roland Garros. Having trailed 4-1 in the decider, they broke Skupski for 4-2 and Peers showed no ill effects from his sore arm to hold serve confidently for 3-4. Another shift in momentum looked on the cards but the Brits had just enough of a lead to get them over the line three games later, in 2 hours 35 minutes, as Skupski held serve to love. The British pair will next face the US pair Christian Harrison and Evan King, who beat No.2 seeds Harri Heliovaara and Henry Patten. Veteran Australian doubles duo Matt Ebden and John Peers' hopes of repeating their Paris triumph in last year's Olympic Games on the clay of Roland Garros have hit the buffers in a titanic quarter-final against Brits Joe Salisbury and Neal Skupski. Last August, the Aussies clinched gold on Court Philippe Chatrier and in February, after a Davis Cup tie, they decided to team up on tour in search of more men's doubles glory. On Tuesday, on a breezy Court Simonne-Mathieu at the French Open, Ebden and Peers looked on course for the semis when they won a marathon first set 7-4 on a tiebreaker - just reward for the pressure they had exerted when the No.8 seeds were serving. But Peers twice had treatment for his heavily-strapped right elbow and Ebden's serve was broken late in the second and early in the third sets as Salisbury and Skupski hit back to win 6-7 (7-4) 6-4 6-4. It was a gutsy effort by Peers, 36, and Ebden, 37, who live near each other in Perth and were seeded No.15 at Roland Garros. Having trailed 4-1 in the decider, they broke Skupski for 4-2 and Peers showed no ill effects from his sore arm to hold serve confidently for 3-4. Another shift in momentum looked on the cards but the Brits had just enough of a lead to get them over the line three games later, in 2 hours 35 minutes, as Skupski held serve to love. The British pair will next face the US pair Christian Harrison and Evan King, who beat No.2 seeds Harri Heliovaara and Henry Patten. Veteran Australian doubles duo Matt Ebden and John Peers' hopes of repeating their Paris triumph in last year's Olympic Games on the clay of Roland Garros have hit the buffers in a titanic quarter-final against Brits Joe Salisbury and Neal Skupski. Last August, the Aussies clinched gold on Court Philippe Chatrier and in February, after a Davis Cup tie, they decided to team up on tour in search of more men's doubles glory. On Tuesday, on a breezy Court Simonne-Mathieu at the French Open, Ebden and Peers looked on course for the semis when they won a marathon first set 7-4 on a tiebreaker - just reward for the pressure they had exerted when the No.8 seeds were serving. But Peers twice had treatment for his heavily-strapped right elbow and Ebden's serve was broken late in the second and early in the third sets as Salisbury and Skupski hit back to win 6-7 (7-4) 6-4 6-4. It was a gutsy effort by Peers, 36, and Ebden, 37, who live near each other in Perth and were seeded No.15 at Roland Garros. Having trailed 4-1 in the decider, they broke Skupski for 4-2 and Peers showed no ill effects from his sore arm to hold serve confidently for 3-4. Another shift in momentum looked on the cards but the Brits had just enough of a lead to get them over the line three games later, in 2 hours 35 minutes, as Skupski held serve to love. The British pair will next face the US pair Christian Harrison and Evan King, who beat No.2 seeds Harri Heliovaara and Henry Patten.
