Government’s latest legislative programme bad news for pro-lifers

 

This Dail is back in session. What are some of the issues we should be looking out for in the autumn term? One is the promised “hate crimes” bill which may affect freedom of religious expression. Another, not totally unrelated, is the proposal to ban pro-lifers from holding even silent vigils outside facilities where abortions take place. For now, the Bill to regulate Assisted Human Reproduction has been paused, but mainly, it seems, to pave the way for international commercial surrogacy.

The so-called “Save Access Zones” Bill is listed as ‘Priority Legislation’ in the Government’s new Legislative Programme. It will ban pro-life activists from praying or protesting or holding vigils near hospitals and clinics that offer abortions. The General Scheme of this Bill was approved by the Government at the end of July. Once drafted, it will have to pass pre-legislative scrutiny and, probably before Christmas, it will be presented to the Oireachtas.

If and when it is passed into law, it will be one of the few such pieces of legislation anywhere. Other countries have more respect for freedom of protest. Even the Gardai Commissioner said that there was no need for such legislation as current laws can deal with whatever issue might arise.

The law will prohibit any activity that might ‘interfere’ with a woman’s decision to have an abortion, from coming within 100 metres of facilities that perform or facilitate abortions. This law was promised by the Government at the time of the abortion referendum in 2018 but it has been constantly delayed because it is possibly unconstitutional as it limits the right to expression and to protest.

The Bill on incitement to violence and hate crime will also be published in the Autumn by the Minister for Justice. This legislation will create new “hate crime” offences when certain offences are aggravated by alleged hatred towards a protected characteristic such as sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, race, nationality or religion.

The Iona Institute made a submission on the proposed legislation to the Department of Justice, highlighting certain difficulties in determining what is really “hateful”. In attempting to regulate “hate speech”, the law could have a chilling effect on freedom of expression, including religious freedom of expression.

What is missing from the Priority Legislation list is the Assisted Human Reproduction Bill, which covers a large number of issues such as surrogacy, IVF, gamete donation, embryo experimentation, etc.

The Bill has a long history. It was drafted in 2017 and presented to the Oireachtas with substantial changes in March this year. It has now been paused by the Government because the recommendations of the Joint Committee on International Surrogacy have to be considered.

The Joint Committee wants the recognition of international commercial surrogacy, but the current draft AHR Bill does not allow commercial surrogacy in Ireland. Government officials told the Committee that this would create a double standard if we recognised it overseas but not here.

Commenting last week on the Joint Committee recommendations, Minister of State Mary Butler acknowledged that “The undertaking of surrogacy arrangements in other jurisdictions raises complex ethical questions … There are also highly divergent views within the EU on this issue, with a number of member states prohibiting all forms of surrogacy.”

This has been interpreted as a suggestion that international surrogacy would not be part of the AHR Bill, causing a protest from those who want us to recognise commercial surrogacy in some form.

While Justice Minister Helen McEntee said Thursday that the Government will amend the AHR Bill to regulate international surrogacy, on the same day, Minister for Health Stephen Donnelly speaking to the Dáil seemed to be less assertive on this issue.

For reasons explained in this document from the Iona Institute, surrogacy of all kinds, but especially the commercial variety, is extremely problematic.

Overall, the Government’s legislative programme is bad news for those who value the right-to-life, freedom of religious expression, and who oppose the commodification of children and women’s wombs that is entailed by commercial surrogacy.

Plus l’euthanasie est légale, plus elle tue sans raison

Selon le rapport officiel du ministère canadien de la santé, plus de 10 000 citoyens sont morts d’euthanasie dans ce pays en 2021. Dix fois plus qu’il y a cinq ans.

Ce chiffre a augmenté de 32 % en un an seulement, ce qui confirme qu’une fois introduits, l’euthanasie et le “suicide assisté” deviennent des normes sociales acceptées, presque des devoirs, pour ceux qui souffrent ou ont perdu la volonté de vivre.

Selon le rapport, 36 % des personnes qui ont été euthanasiées l’année dernière se considéraient comme un fardeau pour leur famille et leurs amis, tandis que plus de 1 700 personnes souffraient d’isolement et de solitude. Motivés, c’est-à-dire plus par des causes sociales et psychologiques que par la maladie, comme l’a malheureusement fait de manière retentissante, le réalisateur français Jean-Luc Godard (1930-2022) ces derniers jours.

Les détails du document publié par le ministère canadien sont également révélateurs : ils montrent ce qui pourrait se passer dans n’importe quel autre pays si certaines pratiques étaient légalisées.

Le Canada a introduit l’euthanasie et le “suicide assisté” en 2016. Initialement, l’accès était limité aux malades en phase terminale, mais en 2019, la Cour supérieure du Québec a jugé cette limite inconstitutionnelle, et par conséquent en 2021, le gouvernement fédéral a étendu ce qui était appelé par euphémisme “aide médicale à mourir” aux patients non malades en phase terminale. La loi de 2021 a également supprimé certains garde-fous, comme le délai d’attente de dix jours pour une évaluation avant une intervention chirurgicale et l’obligation de proposer l’alternative des soins palliatifs. À partir de l’année prochaine, elle étendra également la “bonne mort” aux patients souffrant uniquement de maladies mentales. Mais un pays vraiment compatissant devrait offrir autre chose qu’une injection létale aux malades et aux personnes seules. Au contraire, indique le rapport, 31 664 personnes ont été tuées de cette manière depuis l’introduction de la loi en 2016.

Ces chiffres, comparés à l’année dernière (10 064), indiquent une multiplication par dix par rapport à 2016 (1 018), et représentent 3,3 % de tous les décès enregistrés au Canada en 2021. Le chiffre varie selon la zone géographique, mais en Colombie-Britannique, près d’un décès sur vingt est désormais dû à l’euthanasie.

Le “suicide assisté” autorisé par la loi se fait par auto-administration de médicaments létaux, mais il s’agit d’une pratique rare : seulement sept cas en 2021. Presque tous les patients sont plutôt tués directement par un médecin ou une infirmière. Il s’agit aussi bien d’hommes (52,3 %) que de femmes, et l’âge moyen est de 76,3 ans : 77 ans pour les femmes et 75,6 ans pour les hommes.

L’extension de l’euthanasie aux malades en phase non terminale en vertu de la loi de 2021 l’autorise si les personnes atteintes souffrent d’une maladie définie comme “incurable” ou si elles sont handicapées et souffrent aussi bien psychologiquement que physiquement. 219 personnes qui ont été euthanasiées l’année dernière n’étaient pas en phase terminale. Comme cela n’est possible que depuis juin de cette année, les données du rapport ne portent que sur un semestre et il est donc facile de prévoir que les cas vont, au minimum, doubler.

L’âge moyen des patients en phase non terminale qui ont eu recours à l’euthanasie est de 70,1 ans, soit plus de six ans de moins que l’âge moyen des patients en phase terminale. Parmi ces décès, 37% concernent des personnes âgées de 18 à 64 ans, tandis que pour les malades en phase terminale, le chiffre est beaucoup plus faible, moins de la moitié (16,7%). Autrement dit, plus l’euthanasie est libéralisée, plus les victimes sont jeunes.

La cause la plus fréquente de souffrance, tant pour les patients en phase terminale que pour les autres, est la perte de la capacité à s’engager dans des activités significatives (86,3 %). Plus de 3 500 d’entre eux ont déclaré qu’ils se sentaient accablés par la famille, les amis ou les soignants, et (comme mentionné) plus de 1 700 ont souffert de solitude et d’isolement.

Seuls 4 % des demandes d’aide à mourir ont été refusées parce qu’elles ne répondaient pas aux critères requis, tandis qu’environ 2 % des personnes qui en avaient fait la demande initiale ont ensuite changé d’avis ou sont simplement décédées de causes naturelles plus tôt.

La maladie la plus courante parmi les malades en phase terminale est le cancer (65,6 %), tandis que parmi les malades en phase non terminale, on trouve des maladies neurologiques telles que la démence ou la maladie d’Alzheimer. L’expérience canadienne, bien que brève, confirme néanmoins qu’une fois l’euthanasie ou le “suicide assisté” introduits, les limites fixées au départ sont lentement levées, le nombre de victimes augmente et il est difficile de revenir en arrière. La même chose s’est produite en Belgique et aux Pays-Bas.

Legendary Pakistani Singer goes Metal [Sanson Ki Mala Pe]

The more euthanasia is legal, the more it kills for no reason

According to the official report of the Canadian Ministry of Health, more than 10,000 citizens in that country died of euthanasia in 2021. Ten times more than five years ago.

The number grew by 32 percent in just one year, confirming that once introduced, euthanasia and the so-called assisted suicide become accepted social norms, almost duties, for those who are suffering or have lost the will to live.

According to the report, 36 percent of those who were euthanized last year considered themselves a burden to family and friends, while more than 1,700 suffered from isolation and loneliness. This means that they were motivated to end their lives more by social and psychological causes than by illness. Like, sadly, and resoundingly, French filmmaker Jean-Luc Godard (1930-2022), who recently ended his life this way.

Moreover, the details of the document released by the Canadian ministry are revealing: they show what could happen in any other country if certain practices were legalized.

Canada introduced euthanasia and assisted suicide in 2016. Initially, access was reserved only for the terminally ill, but in 2019 the Superior Court of Quebec ruled the limit unconstitutional and, as a result, in 2021 the federal government extended what was euphemistically called “medical assistance in dying” to non-terminally ill patients. The 2021 legislation also removed some safeguards, such as the ten-day waiting period for evaluation before the procedure and the requirement to offer the palliative care alternative. From next year it will also extend “good death” onto patients suffering solely from mental illness. But a seriously compassionate country should offer more than a lethal injection to the sick and lonely. Instead, the report says, 31,664 people have been killed in this way since the law was introduced in 2016.

These figures, compared to those of last year (10,064), indicate an increase of precisely ten times from 2016 (1,018) and amount to 3.3 percent of all deaths recorded in Canada in 2021. The figure varies by geographic area, but in British Columbia nearly one in twenty deaths now occurs through euthanasia.

Assisted suicide allowed by law occurs through self-administration of lethal drugs, but it is rare practice: only seven cases in 2021. Instead, almost all patients are killed directly by a doctor or nurse. They are both men (52.3%) and women, and the average age is 76.3 years: 77 for women and 75.6 for men.

The extension of euthanasia to the non-terminally ill under the 2021 law allows it if the sufferers have an illness defined as “incurable” or if they are disabled and suffer as much psychologically as physically. The 219 people who were euthanized last year were not terminally ill. Since this has only been possible since June of that year, the data in the report refer to only one half of the year, so it is easy to predict that the cases will double, at the very least.

The average age of non-terminal patients who have resorted to euthanasia is 70.1 years, which is more than six years lower than the average age of terminal patients. Of these deaths, 37 percent involved people between the ages of 18 and 64, while for the terminally ill the figure is much lower, less than half (16.7 percent). That is, the more euthanasia is liberalized, the younger its victims are.

The most common cause of distress, for both terminal and non-terminal patients, is the loss of the ability to engage in meaningful activities (86.3%). More than 3,500 of them reported feeling burdened by family, friends or caregivers, and (as mentioned) more than 1,700 suffered from loneliness and isolation.

Only 4 percent of requests for assisted dying were denied because they did not meet the necessary criteria, while about 2 percent of people who initially requested it later changed their minds or simply passed away earlier from natural causes.

The most common disease among the terminally ill is cancer (65.6 percent), while among the non-terminally ill are neurological diseases such as dementia or Alzheimer’s disease. Canada’s experience, though brief, still confirms that once euthanasia or “assisted suicide” is introduced, the limits initially set are instead slowly removed, the number of victims rises and turning back is difficult. The same happened in Belgium and the Netherlands.

Exploring the link between family breakdown and anti-social behaviour

 

When we see reports about anti-social behaviour and criminality – for example, the ramming of a garda car in Dublin this week – no-one ever explores whether there might be a link with family breakdown. It would be surprising if this was not sometimes the case. Plenty of studies overseas have established such a link, but here the question seems to be taboo.

Former American president, Barack Obama, was willing to make the connection. When running for the presidency in 2008, he spoke about the issue.

On Father’s Day that year, in an address to a church in Chicago, he said: “We know the statistics — that children who grow up without a father are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime; nine times more likely to drop out of schools and 20 times more likely to end up in prison. They are more likely to have behavioural problems, or run away from home or become teenage parents themselves. And the foundations of our community are weaker because of it.”

Was he wrong? Might the same thing be happening here? Is what he described playing out on our streets?

In August 2011, there were riots in London that ignited concern about family breakdown and the number of children growing up without a father.

David Lammy, the Labour MP for Tottenham, said in response: “In areas like mine, there is none of the basic starting presumption of two adults who want to start a family, raise children together, love them, nourish them and lead them to full independence. The parents are not married and the child has come, frankly, out of casual sex; the father isn’t present, and isn’t expected to be. There aren’t the networks of extended families to make up for it. We are seeing huge consequences of the lack of male role models in young men’s lives.”

Would a politician from any of the main parties say something similar here?

Studies confirm what Obama and Lammy had to say. For example, this comparative review of the scientific literature on the family describes the conclusion that broken homes cause crime as “sturdy”.

It said: “Meta-analyses consistently find that children who are raised in homes in which at least one biological parent is absent face a higher prevalence of adolescent delinquency.”

The authors of the study explored juvenile delinquency and found that “those who experience high levels of family instability (three or more transitions) are not only more likely to be arrested, but are also significantly more likely to experience incarceration in adulthood.”

A report from The Iona Institute, called “Mind the Gap: how marriage and family differ by social class”, found that in Ireland the most socially disadvantaged are the least likely to marry and the most likely to divorce.

The report, based on CSO data, shows that adults in professional occupations are more than twice as likely to be married as unskilled workers (65.7pc vs 31.8pc). Does this really have no social consequences whatsoever?

In 2011, David Lammy set up set up an all-party group on fatherhood, because he was worried the subject was not getting enough attention. In Ireland, it receives almost none. It’s time to make amends.

 

PS. This article sets out very well some of the issues raised here.

Più l’eutanasia è legale, più ammazza senza motivo

Secondo il rapporto ufficiale del ministero canadese della Sanità, sono oltre 10mila i cittadini che in quel Paese sono morti di eutanasia nel 2021. Dieci volte di più rispetto a cinque anni fa.

Il numero è cresciuto del 32% in un solo anno e questo conferma che, una volta introdotti, eutanasia e cosiddetto «suicidio assistito» diventano norme sociali accettate, quasi doveri, per quanti soffrono o hanno perso la voglia di vivere.

Secondo il rapporto, il 36% di quanti hanno ottenuto l’eutanasia lo scorso anno si considerava un peso per la famiglia e per gli amici, mentre oltre 1.700 soffrivano di isolamento e di solitudine. Motivati, cioè, più da cause sociali e psicologiche che dalla malattia. Come, tristemente, e clamorosamente, il regista francese Jean-Luc Godard (1930-2022) nei giorni scorsi.

I dettagli del documento diffuso dal ministero canadese sono del resto rivelatori: mostrano quanto potrebbe accadere in qualsiasi altro Paese, qualora certe pratiche venissero legalizzate.

Il Canada ha introdotto eutanasia e «suicidio assistito» nel 2016. Inizialmente l’accesso era ristretto ai malati terminali, ma nel 2019 la Corte Superiore del Québec ha giudicato incostituzionale il limite e, di conseguenza, nel 2021 il governo federale ha esteso a pazienti non terminali quella che, con un eufemismo, è stata chiamata «assistenza medica al morire». La legislazione del 2021 ha anche rimosso alcune salvaguardie, come il periodo di attesa di dieci giorni di valutazione prima dell’intervento e l’obbligo di offrire l’alternativa delle cure palliative. Dall’anno prossimo estenderà pure la «morte buona» a pazienti che soffrono unicamente di malattie mentali. Ma un Paese sul serio compassionevole dovrebbe offrire qualcosa di più di un’iniezione letale a chi è malato e solo. Invece, afferma il rapporto, da quando la legge è stata introdotta nel 2016, 31.664 persone sono state uccise in questo modo.

Queste cifre, paragonate a quelle dello scorso anno (10.064), indicano una crescita appunto di dieci volte rispetto al 2016 (1.018) e ammontano al 3,3% di tutte le morti registrate in Canada nel 2021. Il dato varia a seconda delle zone geografiche, ma nel British Columbia quasi una morte su venti avviene ora tramite eutanasia.

Il «suicidio assistito» consentito dalla legge avviene attraverso l’auto-somministrazione di farmaci letali, ma è pratica rara: solo sette casi nel 2021. Quasi tutti i pazienti vengono invece uccisi direttamente da un medico o da un infermiere. Sono sia uomini (52,3%) sia donne, e l’età media è di 76,3 anni: 77 per le donne e 75,6 per gli uomini.

L’estensione dell’eutanasia ai malati non terminali prevista dalla legge del 2021 la consente qualora i sofferenti siano affetti da un male definito «incurabile» o se siano disabili e soffrano tanto psicologicamente quanto fisicamente. 219 persone che sono state sottoposte a eutanasia lo scorso anno non erano malati terminali. Poiché questo è stato possibile solo a partire dal mese di giugno di quell’anno, i dati del rapporto si riferiscono soltanto a un semestre e quindi è facile prevedere che i casi, come minimo, raddoppieranno.

L’età media dei pazienti non terminali che sono ricorsi all’eutanasia è di 70,1 anni, ossia oltre sei anni meno dell’età media dei pazienti terminali. Il 37% di queste morti ha interessato persone di età compresa tra i 18 e i 64 anni, mentre per i malati terminali il dato è molto più basso, meno della metà (16,7%). Ovvero, più l’eutanasia si liberalizza e più sono giovani le sue vittime.

La causa di sofferenza più comune, per i pazienti terminali e non, è la perdita della capacità di impegnarsi in attività significative (86,3%). Più di 3.500 di loro hanno dichiarato di sentirsi di peso per la famiglia, per gli amici o per chi si prendeva cura di loro, e (come detto) più di 1700 soffrivano di solitudine e isolamento.

Solo il 4% delle richieste di morte assistita è stato rifiutato perché non soddisfaceva i criteri necessari, mentre circa il 2% delle persone che ne avevano fatto inizialmente richiesta ha poi cambiato idea o è semplicemente deceduto prima per cause naturali.

La patologia più comune fra i malati terminali è il cancro (65,6%), mentre fra i non terminali sono le malattie neurologiche quali demenza o morbo di Alzheimer. L’esperienza del Canada, seppure breve, conferma ancora che, una volta introdotti eutanasia o «suicidio assistito», i limiti posti inizialmente vengono invece pian piano rimossi, il numero delle vittime sale ed è difficile tornare indietro. Lo stesso è avvenuto in Belgio e nei Paesi Bassi.

Why Governments should pay more attention to family stability

 

Almost half of children born in the UK in 2000 did not grow up with both of their biological parents throughout their childhood, according to a new report by the Children’s Commissioner, Rachel de Souza. This is because so many are born to lone parents, or else see their parents (married or cohabiting) separate.  This matters, because children benefit from being raised by their two birth parents in a stable, loving relationship.

The report, commissioned by the UK Government, is called ‘Family and its Protective Effects’.  It finds that while 44pc of those born in 2000 didn’t live with both their biological parents throughout their entire childhood, the figure for those born in 1970 was 21pc.

It says that 23pc of families in the UK are headed by a lone parent, compared with the EU average of one in 8.

Since 2001, the percentage of families headed by a married couple has declined from 65pc to 63pc, while the percentage headed by a cohabiting couple has risen from 11pc to 14pc.

Some children might start life with married or cohabiting parents, who then split up, but then later the mother or the father finds a new partner or marries again so the child is back in a two-adult household.

The 2011 census shows that 10pc of couple families with dependent children involve ‘step’ relationships.

Lone parent families, which are led by women in 90pc of cases, are more likely to be experiencing financial difficulties, according to the report. “In 2020, 49pc of children living in lone parent families were in relative poverty after housing costs compared to 25pc of children living in married or cohabiting families.” (p. 17)

Married couple families are larger. Fifty-two percent of lone parents and 50pc of cohabiting parents have only one dependent child, compared to only 3pc of married couples.

Marriage is particularly strong in families of Asian descent, who also have low cohabitation rates, but 57pc of ‘Black Caribbean’ and 44pc of ‘Black African’ families are headed by a lone parent and also have lower marriage rates, compared to the rest of the population.

There are many factors influencing those rates. For example, the report finds that if the mother is from a lower socio-economic group, she is more likely to be a lone parent, but significantly, “religion explains more of the variation in marriage rates than mother’s age, ethnicity, socio-economic status, education, or region” (p. 20). In other words, religious people are more likely to be married.

If we consider families with dependent children, 55pc of non-religious households are headed by married parents, compared with 91pc of those who are Hindu, and 64pc who are Christians.

Twelve percent of Christian couples with children are cohabiting, but only 1pc of Hindu couples and 2pc of Muslims. Among with those no religion, 23pc of families with children are cohabiting.

The report highlights the protective effect of the family in terms of the well-being of its members and long-term positive outcomes for children.

It acknowledges that children who suffer the separation of their parents are more likely to be disadvantaged across a range of outcomes including emotional well-being and education. It also notes that the impact of the parental separation depends on the level of conflict between parents. Referring to the studies of sociologist, Paul Amato, it says that when parental conflict is high, young adults have better outcomes if their parents separated, but when parental conflict is low, the reverse is true.

(We have covered those studies here and here).

This newly published report offers a comprehensive picture of family life in contemporary UK.

Its greatest limit is that, while it stresses the importance of the quality of the relationships within the family, it does not give sufficient relevance to marriage itself.

“The quality of relationships between family members is more important for well-being than family structure.”, it says. Yes, but good outcomes for children are consistently associated with having married parents, so perhaps the study is going out of its way to appear non-judgemental.

Regardless of that fact, it would be good if the Government here had the wit to commission a similar study because a growing number of children in this country as well do not grow up with both of their parents throughout their childhood.