Scottish parliament votes against ‘assisting dying’

On 17th March, a Bill to legalise assisted dying in Scotland was rejected at its final parliamentary stage by 69 votes to 57, with one abstention and two members not voting.

Twelve MSPs changed their position since the first vote in May last year, many of them influenced by evidence from palliative care specialists, who argued that good end-of-life care reduces the demand for assisted dying.

In its final form, the Bill limited assisted dying to mentally competent adults resident in Scotland with a terminal illness, who made a voluntary and informed request free from coercion, verified by at least two doctors. The person would have had to administer the life-ending medication themselves; direct euthanasia, involving a doctor administering the substance, was not permitted.

Over time, the debate shifted from the abstract question—“should this be considered?”—to a more practical one: “is this workable and safe enough to enact?” Some MSPs who supported the principle were ultimately not convinced that the proposed safeguards were sufficiently robust or effective.

A recurring concern was not only the risk of explicit coercion, but the more subtle possibility that individuals might feel pressure because they are ill, dependent, costly to care for, or perceive themselves as a burden. The committee’s Stage 1 report had already highlighted safeguards as an area requiring strengthening, and warned that eligibility criteria might, over time, be challenged and widened.

Concerns were also raised about the protection and role clarity of healthcare professionals. The British Geriatrics Society, for example, wrote to MSPs ahead of the final vote, stating that the Bill did not contain adequate safeguards to protect older people and failed to sufficiently protect healthcare professionals who do not wish to participate.

Those MSPs who changed their position came from across the political spectrum (five Conservatives, four SNP, and three Labour), underlining that this was not a party-political issue.

The Scottish National Party did not impose a party whip, treating the vote as a matter of conscience. In the final division, SNP MSPs voted 37 in favour and 22 against, while the Health Secretary, Neil Gray, abstained.

The SNP leader and First Minister, John Swinney, voted against the Bill. He stated: “I am concerned that it will fundamentally change the relationship between patients and doctors in a detrimental way. I am concerned that vulnerable individuals in our society, who may feel that they are a burden to their loved ones or to society, may opt to end their life prematurely. And lastly, I am concerned that the legislation will not protect us from the scope of this legislation being extended, and I think that would be regrettable.”

His predecessor, Humza Yousaf, had also opposed assisted dying during his time as First Minister. Likewise, former First Minister Nicola Sturgeon expressed similar concerns, warning that what is presented as a “right to die” could, for some, become “a duty to die”.

“The issue that most concerns me is a situation where somebody, even if it is a small number of people, feels an internal pressure to exercise a right to die. It becomes not a right to die, but a duty to die”, she said to Sky News.

This outcome in Scotland comes at a time when similar proposals in England and Wales have also struggled to secure parliamentary approval, encountering significant resistance, particularly in the British House of Lords. In a society as secular and multicultural as the United Kingdom, such decisions suggest that concerns about safeguarding the vulnerable and preserving the integrity of medical care continue to carry weight across political and cultural divides. There is reason to hope that Irish policymakers, too, will approach the issue with similar prudence, resisting pressure from lobby groups and upholding a commitment to the protection of human life and dignity.

The devastating decline of marriage in Britain

 

Marriage is in very poor shape in Britain, a fact very starkly revealed in a new report from the Centre for Social Justice (CSJ). The reports points to a long-term and historically unprecedented decline in marriage across the country.

In England and Wales, the number of marriages has fallen from 400,000 in 1973 to 224,402 in 2023, despite the population rising from 56 to 67 million. Apart from the Covid years, this is the lowest annual total since records began in the 19th century. Ireland has experienced a comparable shift. The marriage rate has declined steadily over the past two decades and is now below the EU average and at its lowest level outside the pandemic years. In both countries, population growth has not translated into more marriages, suggesting a deep cultural change rather than a temporary fluctuation.

The retreat from marriage is especially evident among the young. In Britain, 62pc of men had married by age 25 in 1970. By 2000 this had fallen to 11pc, and today it is just 2pc. More men are married for a second time by age 40 than have ever married by age 25. Ireland shows the same pattern of postponement.

This shift is reflected in rising ages at first marriage. In England and Wales, the median age at marriage has reached 34.8 for men and 33.0 for women, compared with 25.8 and 23.2 respectively in 1980. Ireland is following a similar trajectory, with family formation taking place later in life.

These changes have clear demographic consequences. In the UK, if a woman has not had a child by age 30, there is roughly a 50pc chance she will never become a mother, and fertility rates among ever-married women are markedly higher than among those who never marry, according to the report.

The wider social context of relationships has also changed in Britain. The CSJ report notes that cohabiting relationships are more likely to end in separation and are associated with higher levels of domestic abuse and loneliness compared to marriage.

Religious marriage has declined sharply in Britain, falling from half of all weddings in 1992 to just 15pc in 2023. Ireland still differs somewhat, with church ceremonies accounting for just 35pc of marriages in 2024 compared with 95pc in 1994.

Despite all this, the desire for marriage, while much weaker, has not disappeared. Among those under 30 in Britain, 80pc of unmarried men and 86pc of unmarried women still say they hope to tight the knot one day. The real question, then, is why something so widely desired is happening less often and later in life.

As Dan Lilley, Programme Lead at the Centre for Social Justice, says: “This [the huge decline in marriage] is devastating news. Marriage is one of the most important foundations of society with clear benefits across our country. Better outcomes for children, less loneliness, greater prosperity and birth rates. This is without mentioning the productivity and other economic benefits”

“People want to get married. We need to be helping foster good relationships and an environment where marriage is much easier.”

These trends closely mirror developments here in Ireland described in the Iona Institute’s recent paper On the Wrong Course.

One in three pregnancies in England now end in abortion

New official figures show that abortions in England and Wales reached a record high in 2023, while the number of births continued to fall. As a result, about one in three pregnancies now ends in abortion.

According to the latest statistics, 278,740 abortions were carried out in England and Wales in 2023, an enormous number. This represents a 10.6pc increase on the previous year and marks the highest number ever recorded. Ten years earlier, in 2013, 190,800 took place.

At the same time, the number of births continued to decline. In 2023 there were 591,072 live births in England and Wales compared with 698,512 in 2013. The decline in births comes despite a growing population, something that is driven almost entirely by immigration.

Comparing the number of terminations with the number of births, we see that there were approximately 47 abortions for every 100 live births. This represents a substantial shift from the previous year, when the figures stood at 37 abortions per 100 live births.

Taken together, these figures mean that England and Wales now have the highest proportions of pregnancies ending in abortion in the Western world.

Scotland has seen a similar overall trend. In 2024 (Scotland’s data is reported a year ahead of England and Wales), there were 18,710 abortions, a 3pc increase on the 18,242 recorded in 2023. Ten years earlier, in 2014, they were 11,787.

While abortion numbers have been rising gradually for over a decade, the most recent data show a sharper increase. One likely explanation is the widespread use of abortion pills. Originally introduced as a temporary measure during the Covid pandemic, the option to take abortion pills at home was made permanent in England and Scotland in 2022. As a result, 72pc of abortions in England and Wales in 2023 took place at home, and 57.1pc in Scotland in 2024.

The England and Wales report also shows that a large proportion of abortions are repeat procedures. In 2023, 42pc of women having an abortion had previously had one or more abortions, up from 37pc ten years earlier.

The breakdown by marital status has remained broadly unchanged. In 2023, 82pc of abortions were carried out on women recorded as ‘single’. Of these, 52pc were unmarried but in a relationship. These proportions have been relatively stable over the past decade. A married woman is vastly less likely to have an abortion than a unmarried woman.

The data also include women travelling from abroad. In 2023, 235 women resident in Ireland had abortions in England, up from 201 the previous year. Among them, 55pc were single, 13pc had previously had an abortion, and 72pc identified their ethnicity as Irish. For 62pc of these women, the abortion was authorised under Ground C (mental or physical health).

In at least 50 cases, the baby was diagnosed with Down Syndrome, up from 37 the year before. However, the true number may be higher, as such diagnoses were underreported in earlier years.

With abortion rates at record highs and births continuing to fall, what will be the UK’s long-term demographic future?

English hospices may soon be forced to close before of euthanasia law

 

The Catholic Bishops of England and Wales have warned that the future of Catholic care homes and hospices is in doubt if the assisted suicide legislation currently before parliament is passed because they may be forced to comply with its provisions, thereby totally violating their own ethos.

The warning came following the recent passage of the End of Life Bill by the House of Commons.

The Bill provides no protections for institutional conscience. An amendment to the Bill, which would have explicitly allowed institutions to not be involved with assisted suicide, was rejected at the report stage.  Faith-based hospices may be compelled to participate in practices that directly contradict their founding mission: to care, not to kill. If they refuse, they could face defunding, reputational damage, or closure.

In its evidence to the Bill Committee, St. Gemma’s hospice in Leeds stated: “If compliance with assisted dying provision becomes a condition for NHS funding, institutions like St. Gemma’s may have no alternative but to cease operations entirely”.

The Catholic Bishops also highlighted another consequence of the Bill: the erosion of public trust. “The widespread support which hospices attract from local communities will also be undermined by these demands which, in many cases, will require these institutions to act contrary to their traditional and principled foundations”, they said in their statement.

Religious institutions risk losing not only funding, but also the moral credibility that sustains them. Their fears are already becoming reality overseas and now, perhaps soon, in England.

The most illustrative case comes from British Columbia, Canada. The Irene Thomas Hospice in Delta refused to allow euthanasia on its premises, in line with its pro-life ethos. In response, the provincial government withdrew $1.5 million in annual funding, the equivalent of 94pc of the hospice’s budget. Unable to continue, the hospice was shut down, and the province seized the facility, despite $15 million in privately donated assets raised by the local community. The forced closure became a chilling symbol of what can happen when religious conscience collides with state-endorsed euthanasia policies.

This is not an isolated case. Other religious institutions across Canada have faced similar pressures. St. Paul’s Hospital in Vancouver, a Catholic institution, was forced to host a euthanasia unit on its campus, despite objections from leadership and staff.

In Quebec, medical authorities now mandate that every palliative care unit, regardless of religious or ethical affiliation, provide euthanasia services.

The UK now risks walking the same path.

Although the Bill has passed the House of Commons, it must now undergo scrutiny and possible amendment in the House of Lords before receiving Royal Assent.

The Bill represents not merely a dramatic shift in end-of-life care policy, and for this reason alone it should be rejected, but it is also a potential erasure of pluralism in healthcare. Unless new legal safeguards are introduced, institutions rooted in conscience may disappear, replaced by a one-size-fits-all model that leaves no room for dissent.

What happened in Canada could soon happen in the UK.

England crosses another abortion red line

 

The House of Commons has just voted to decriminalise self‑induced abortions up to birth. What this means is that a woman can abort her child at any stage up to birth and not face criminal penalties.

This shocking decision is the biggest change in the English law pertaining to this issue since the Abortion Act in 1967.

It remains a criminal offence to help a woman with an abortion outside the legal bounds.

The current legislation allows abortions up to 24 weeks of gestation on certain grounds which are very broadly interpreted and applied, and even later in case of serious anomalies or where there is a perceived threat to the physical or mental health of the mother.

Those regulations remain for hospitals or clinics. What is new is that a woman who has an abortion outside those limits won’t be persecuted.

According to the latest figures, more than 250,000 abortions are performed every year in England and Wales. The equivalent of 54 abortions per 100 live births.

Removing criminal penalties could encourage late-term or unregulated home abortions, especially with easier access to abortion pills nowadays. Abortion pills can be obtained through remote consultation, during which crucial details such as gestational age and conditions of the pregnancy can be easily concealed.

But the change to the law, which now goes before the House of Lords, removes a further protection for unborn human beings. In theory, a woman can kill her baby on the day before it is due and face no criminal charge. (In practice, women were very rarely prosecuted for having an abortion outside the legal limits).

Reaction from the Catholic Church and pro-life group has been swift.

The Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales stated: “This decision significantly reduces the protection of unborn lives and will result in grave harm for pregnant women. Women will be even more vulnerable to manipulation, coerced and forced abortions. This legal change will also discourage medical consultation and make the use of abortion pills for dangerous late-term, at-home abortions more likely.”

They continued: “Abortion is often chosen because of the personal challenges that a woman faces, as well as the lack of proper suitable guidance and support. The enacting of New Clause 1 will result in women being more alone, vulnerable, and isolated.”

Dawn McAvoy, from Both Lives Matter UK, commented: “In effect, parliament have voted to facilitate dangerous backstreet abortions [via the abortion pill at home] where dangerous, even late-term abortion is legitimised, and girls are left more vulnerable than ever.  This is just not healthcare, that is abandonment.”

Right To Life UK spokesperson, Catherine Robinson, said: “Pro-abortion MPs have hijacked a government bill to rush through this radical and seismic change to our abortion laws after just two hours’ debate. This is the primary time this extreme abortion amendment has been debated within the House of Commons, and there was no consultation with the general public on this seismic law change. We will likely be fighting this amendment at every stage within the Lords.”

In Northern Ireland, in 2019 the British government introduced a new legal framework stating that women “will not be criminalised in relation to their own pregnancy under any circumstances”.

Similarly, here in Ireland, legal limits and regulations do not apply to women that self-procure an abortion but campaigners such as the National Women’s Council of Ireland want to extend decriminalisation to anyone involved in abortions.

The quiet religious revival taking place in Britain

 

‘The Quiet Revival’, a major new report from the Bible Society in the UK has found something surprising: a significant upsurge in church attendance, especially among young people, challenging previous assumptions about Christianity’s long-term decline in that country.

Based on YouGov surveys of over 13,000 people in England and Wales, the report reveals a 56pc increase in regular church attendance (monthly or more) from 2018 to 2024, rising from 8pc (3.7 million people) to 12pc (5.8 million) of the population. This growth, dubbed a “quiet revival,” by the Bible Society, is most pronounced among younger adults, particularly Gen Z (18-24) and younger Millennials (25-34), and is accompanied by greater ethnic diversity in congregations. While overall Christian identification has fallen to 39pc among the general population, those who identify as Christian are increasingly active, engaging in prayer, Bible reading, and community outreach, signalling a shift from nominal to intentional faith.

The most striking trend is the surge in church attendance among 18-34-year-olds, with Gen Z leading the charge. For 18-24-year-olds, regular attendance quadrupled from 4pc in 2018 to 16pc in 2024. The 25-34 age group also saw significant growth, rising from 4pc to 13pc. This contrasts with older generations: those 65+ increased from 14pc to 19pc, while 35-44-year-olds grew only modestly from 5pc to 8pc, and 45-64-year-olds saw a slight decline.

Notably, young men are driving this trend, with 21pc of 18-24-year-old men attending monthly last year (up from 4pc in 2018), outpacing young women, whose attendance rose from 3pc to 12pc. Among 18-34-year-olds overall, 18pc of white men attend monthly, up from 3pc, indicating the trend extends beyond ethnic minorities and is not fully explained by rising immigration.

Several factors seem to explain this rise:

1. Quest for Community: The report emphasises that young adults, grappling with loneliness, anxiety, and post-pandemic isolation, are being drawn to churches for connection. Over 60% of churchgoers aged 18-34 report a strong sense of belonging to their local area, compared to just 25pc of non-churchgoers. Peer networks are key, with 34pc of non-churchgoing 18-24-year-olds saying they’d attend if invited by a friend.
2. Search for Meaning: Economic pressures, mental health challenges, and disillusionment with secular liberalism help lead young people toward faith. The report notes 35pc of 18-24-year-olds over believe in a higher power, and 40pc pray monthly, the highest of any age group. Churchgoers in this bracket report higher life satisfaction and lower anxiety, particularly among young women, who show a 21-point drop in frequent depression compared to non-churchgoing peers.
3. Spiritual Engagement: Young Christians are highly active, with 80pc of 18-34-year-olds reading the Bible weekly (compared to 71pc of 35-54-year-olds) and 80pc feeling confident discussing their faith. Curiosity about Christianity is also quite high, with 25pc of non-churchgoing 18-24-year-olds interested in learning more about the Bible.
4. Denominational Shifts: Growth is strongest in Catholic and Pentecostal churches. Among 18-34-year-olds identifying as Catholic, Mass attendance rose from 22pc to 41pc, and Pentecostal from 10pc to 18pc, while Anglican attendance in this age group fell from 30oc to 20pc.

Immigration significantly contributes to this revival, diversifying congregations and bolstering attendance, particularly among 18-34-year-olds. One in five churchgoers (19pc) is from an ethnic minority, rising to nearly a third (32pc) among 18-54-year-olds.

The report contrasts youth-led growth with stagnation among middle-aged groups and cautions against over-optimism, noting that churchgoing doesn’t always equate to deep faith. Bible engagement is rising—12pc of the population reads the Bible weekly outside services, up from 6pc—but 79pc rarely encounter it. The revival is uneven, thriving in urban areas with dynamic churches but less evident in rural or traditional settings.

For 18-34-year-olds, the report suggests churches must nurture this interest through discipleship, as many newcomers lack theological grounding. The mental health benefits underscore churches’ social value.

‘The Quiet Revival’ documents a remarkable resurgence in UK church attendance, with 18-34-year-olds, especially Gen Z men, at the forefront. Driven by a hunger for community, meaning, and spiritual engagement, this group has quadrupled attendance in six years, favouring Catholic and Pentecostal churches.

This is a good news story showing a very welcome interruption to the long-term decline in church attendance in the UK. Hopefully it is not a mere interruption, but a sign of a genuine revival.

Lessons so far from the British ‘assisted dying’ debate

The assisted suicide bill regrettably passed its second reading in the UK House of Commons last week, with 330 MPs voting in favour and 275 against. Among Labour MPs, 58pc supported the bill, as did 60pc of Reform Party representatives, while only 19pc of Conservative MPs backed it. On the plus side, more Labour MPs voted against than had once been predicted and perhaps the bill can be defeated, or at least watered down at a later stage. It intends to allow those within six months of death to end their own lives via a doctor-prescribed poison.

The bill will now move to the committee stage for detailed scrutiny before returning to the Commons for a third reading, expected in April.

Supporters of the bill have used euphemistic language, such as the term “assisted dying”, misleading the public and obscuring the fact that a person is ending their own life, which is suicide.

During the parliamentary debate, a Labour representative objected to the use of the word “suicide”, as offensive and incorrect. Danny Kruger, a Tory MP and prominent opponent of the bill, replied that one of its effect was to amend the Suicide Act.

This tactic of changing the language using neutral or positive words has been central to the campaign led by groups like Dignity in Dying, formerly the Voluntary Euthanasia Society, which frames the bill as a compassionate choice that ensures dignity for terminally ill patients. Euphemisms manipulate public perception and mask the bill’s potential risks. A recent survey showed that support for the bill goes significantly down when respondents are correctly explained what “assisted dying” really means. Many confuse it with palliative care.

Another misleading tactic is the denial of the slippery slope effect, i.e. that the restrictions for accessing assisted suicide or euthanasia are gradually lifted with time, as it has happened in other countries.

Deputy Leadbeater, said on BBC radio that “once the bill is passed, it cannot be changed”.

This false claim was repeated by the Economist magazine: “some cannot shake the fear that Ms Leadbeater’s law would be a slippery slope. If they mean that the criteria would sneakily be broadened to include the mentally ill or disabled without further legislation, then the facts are against them. In no case has an assisted-dying law restricted to the terminally ill expanded in this way”.

But it is undeniable that every piece of legislation can be changed in the future, by politicians or by courts. In many states with assisted suicide laws, the courts have re-interpreted those laws to broaden the grounds more than legislators envisaged. Moreover, one of the effects of legalising assisted suicide/euthanasia is the change in social attitudes towards the practices, which in turn stirs further changes in the law.

We also that the campaign for assisted suicide has been bolstered by plenty of money.

For example, in the London Underground, where at least one suicide attempt occurs every week, lots of posters were on display including one showing a woman dancing in the kitchen alongside the words: “My dying wish is my family won’t see me suffer. And I won’t have to.” These highly insensitive billboards were later covered with posters promoting the Samaritans helpline.

Deputy Kim Leadbeater, who sponsored this bill, is the Chair of More in Common UK. This network is supported by organisations like the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, and the Open Society Foundations, led by George Soros, which have a long history of promoting population control initiatives. Will we see something similar happening here? With a new Government due to be agreed after last week’s election, assisted suicide and euthanasia are sure to be somewhere in the programme for the new Dail.

Some surprising opposition to England’s ‘assisted dying’ bill

On Friday, the UK House of Commons will vote on a bill by a Labour MP to introduce assisted suicide in England and Wales. Some interesting opposition to it has emerged.

Prime Minister Keir Starmer has said a whip would not apply and Labour party members could “vote their conscience”, but some important members of his Cabinet and also other Labour MPs have expressed concerns.

The most prominent opponent is the former Prime Minister Gordon Brown who said that the early loss of his daughter Jennifer, who lived only eleven days, taught him that the focus should be on the improvement of palliative care.

“An assisted dying law, however well intended, would alter society’s attitude towards elderly, seriously ill and disabled people, even if only subliminally, and I also fear the caring professions would lose something irreplaceable – their position as exclusively caregivers”, he wrote in an opinion piece for the Guardian.

The bill pertains only England and Wales, while Scotland is considering its own legislation. Brown is Scottish.

At least five cabinet ministers will vote against the proposed bill, including the Deputy Prime Minister Angela Ryner, who has opposed similar legislation in the past.

Wes Streeting, the Health Secretary, has raised concerns that the bill could pressure terminally ill patients to end their lives to save NHS resources, potentially leading to a “chilling” scenario where financial considerations influence patient choices.

Shabana Mahmood, the Justice Secretary, has also indicated her opposition. “I feel that once you cross that line, you’ve crossed it forever. If it just becomes the norm that at a certain age or with certain diseases, you are now a bit of a burden… that’s a really dangerous position to be in”, she said.

Education Secretary, Bridget Phillipson, suggested there were not enough safeguards in the Bill.

Jonathan Reynolds, the Business Secretary, has also stated his opposition to the proposed legislation. “Constituents will know in the past I have always voted against proposals to change the law in this way. This is mainly because I have profound concerns about how vulnerable people could be protected should this happen”, Reynolds wrote on Facebook.

As of today, eight members of the UK Cabinet have publicly declared their intention to vote in favour of the assisted suicide bill.

Another leading Labour figure to come out against the bill is the major of London, Sadiq Khan.

The Conservative Party’s leadership has also permitted a free vote on the bill, enabling MPs to decide based on their individual convictions. This approach reflects the deeply personal nature of the issue and acknowledges the diverse opinions within the party.

Three former Conservative Prime Ministers – Boris Johnson, Liz Truss and Theresa May –  have stated they will vote against the proposal.

The Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales has actively campaigned against the bill. In 2024, Cardinal Vincent Nichols issued a pastoral letter urging Catholics to oppose the legislation, warning that it could shift medical duty from care to the facilitation of death.

New poll shows public misgivings about euthanasia

 

A new poll highlights significant public concerns about the potential legalisation of euthanasia and assisted suicide in the UK. It also highlights contradictory attitudes. There is broad support for allowing the procedures but nervousness about how it may work out.

While a majority may support “assisted dying” in principle, many feel that the complexities and risks involved make it unsafe for implementation in Britain. A substantial 60pc worry that pro-euthanasia legalisation would alter the doctor-patient relationship, and 56pc fear it could normalise suicide.

Concerns also include the possibility of pressuring vulnerable people, especially under the strain of NHS budgets, to choose death. 43pc fear it could incentivise health professionals to encourage some patients to take their lives.

The poll found that most people supported legalising euthanasia or assisted suicide but believed it would backfire in practice. (Curiously, the poll found that the 18-24 age cohort is the only in which the majority of respondents does not support a change in the legislation.)

Moreover, 70pc of respondents believe that countries like Canada and the Netherlands have “gone too far” with similar laws.

In both of these countries some of the worst fears of euthanasia critics have been confirmed (see here and here) and these fears are confirmed by a new report about Canada titled “From exceptional to routine”.

This study shows that “Medical Assistance in Dying” (MAiD) was introduced in 2015 as a rare option and it is now the fifth cause of death in Canada.

While the number of denied requests continue to decrease every year, approved cases went from 1,028 in 2016, the first year of operation, to 13,241 in 2022. This represents a thirteenfold increase. No other country has seen such a dramatic rate of growth.

Unlike other jurisdictions, the criminal prohibition in Canada on euthanasia and assisted suicide was overturned not through new legislation but through the courts. It was originally intended for exceptional cases and then, in a few years, most of the initial safeguards have been removed by judges or by legislators.

For instance, there was a minimum ten-day assessment period for MAiD but a government bill removed it in 2021. The median time between written request and death in 2022 was only eleven days, and it is possible for requests to be assessed and provided in a single day.

Moreover, the previous requirement that the patient give final consent before administration of death is now no longer mandatory.

Euthanasia and assisted suicide became initially available to persons whose death was “reasonably foreseeable” and later it was extended to anyone considering that their physical suffering, from a disability for example, is intolerable to them.

One of the few restrictions still in place is again under attack. Currently, people suffering solely from mental disorders are not eligible for MAiD but a very recent case aims at removing this safeguard as it is considered discriminatory.

If it is offered to those who are in physical pain, why not to those who are in mental pain, argue the pro-euthanasia campaigners.

The growing acceptance and expansion of euthanasia and assisted suicide in Canada, including the potential for its use solely in cases of mental illness, raises alarms about the inevitable slippery slope such legalisation would create. Something worth considering before any attempt to change the law, here or in the UK.

Unlike Ireland, Britain can see the problem with international surrogacy

 

Ireland has recently passed one of the most permissive surrogacy law in Europe. To appreciate how extreme this law is, it can be compared with what is in the report issued last year by the Law Commission of England and Wales, in collaboration with the Scottish Law Commission.

This report reviews the current legislation and case law in the UK, which is already liberal by international standards, and proposes recommendations, including a draft bill for potential implementation. Unlike us, it recommends against international surrogacy.

Currently, in the UK, surrogacy is permitted, but the commissioning parents can apply for a parental order only after the child is born. The report recommends a new pathway so that the commissioning parents do not need to make an application to the court but, instead, their pre-conception agreement with the surrogate mother is registered by a newly proposed regulatory body, and they become legal parents as soon as the child is born.

The report repeatedly specifies that the pre-conception agreement is not a contract and is not enforceable by the parties against each other as a matter of contract law. The gestational mother can withdraw her consent before birth and up to six weeks after the baby is born.

In Ireland, the regulatory authority approves the surrogacy agreement before birth, and the application for a parental order is made after birth. This is the case for domestic and international arrangements.

The UK law reform, however, recommended against including international surrogacy arrangements in their proposed pathway, using the same arguments presented in Ireland—unfortunately without success—by the few members of the Oireachtas who opposed the new legislation.

“We have concluded that international surrogacy arrangements should be excluded from the new pathway, as we are concerned by the risks of exploitation since international surrogacy is beyond the jurisdiction of surrogacy regulation in the UK. … Such international surrogacy arrangements are almost invariably commercial in nature,” the report says.

The report highlights ethical, legal, and practical challenges. It acknowledges that international surrogacy often occurs in countries with weaker regulations, increasing the risk of exploitation of surrogate mothers. These women may face inadequate legal protections, poor healthcare, and financial arrangements that are not transparent or fair. The disparities in legal standards between countries can also create significant legal uncertainties for intended parents, particularly when bringing the child back to the UK.

“The risks of exploitation will depend on the effectiveness of regulation provided by national laws in different countries, and the impact that the payment available to women to be a surrogate can have on the lives of the surrogate and her family. Concerns may be greatest where regulation is inadequate, the sums of money payable to women who act as surrogates are life-changing, and where women do not have equal access to employment, education or other opportunities. While we do not consider that all international arrangements will necessarily be exploitative, we consider that the risk of exploitation is considerably higher than in domestic agreements and that those risks cannot be controlled by domestic laws”, says the report.

The UK Law reform document also notes the potential risks to the welfare of the child, including issues related to legal parentage, citizenship, and the child’s right to know their origins. The lack of international agreements on surrogacy standards exacerbates these risks, leading to inconsistent practices and outcomes.

Similar concerns were raised at the hearings of the Special Oireachtas Committee, even by some state officials, but they have been completely ignored by the Government. It is not an exaggeration to say that Ireland new surrogacy legislation is extreme, with no concern for the exploitation, commodification, and psychological harm caused, here and abroad.

Should we stop beginning Oireachtas sessions with a prayer?

 

A member of Cork City Council has called for an end to saying a prayer at the start of council meetings, appealing to the principle of the ‘separation of Church and State’. Cllr Pádraig Rice noted that more than 50 years ago, the people of Ireland voted to remove the special position of the Catholic Church from the 1937 Constitution. “That seems to have been ignored by Cork City Council. With the prayer and the crucifix, it still feels like 1930s Ireland in there,” he said.

But prayers are not just said at council meetings, they are also said at the start of sessions of the Dail and Seanad. However, the origins of this tradition are not so much a legacy of our Catholic history, and are much more connected to British parliamentary practice, which we follow.

The custom of beginning official proceedings with a prayer is found in a lot of countries that follow the British parliamentary tradition, including the UK itself, the US, Canada, Australia and South Africa.

In the UK, prayers have been a fixture in Parliament since around 1558. Every sitting of both the House of Commons and the House of Lords begins with prayers led by the Speaker’s Chaplain in the Commons and a senior bishop in the Lords.

The Northern Ireland Assembly begins with a silent period of prayer or reflection. The Scottish Parliament, instead, has a multi-religious ‘Time for Reflection’ at the beginning of each week. Ireland and Malta, which were both under British rule, are the only European countries maintaining this tradition of initial prayers.

Aside from the countries listed above, others that have prayers at the start of parliamentary meetings are Kenya, Uganda, Ghana, and Namibia, again all of which have historical ties to the UK.

In contrast, this is much less common in French-speaking African countries, with Muslim-majority Senegal being an exception. Beginning with the French Revolution, France has enforced a very strict form of secularism, often more than in the US which is almost founded on the separation of Church and State, even though religion remains a prominent feature of public life.

In Asia, the Indian Parliament traditionally begins its sessions with a short silent prayer or meditation. Pakistan and Bangladesh start their parliamentary sessions with a recitation from the Quran, while in Sri Lanka, prayers from different religious traditions are offered. Again, these countries have historical links with Britain, all being former colonies.

In South America, where Catholicism is traditionally prevalent, formal prayers at the beginning of parliamentary sessions are not customary, with these countries often emphasising the secular nature of their state procedures. Nonetheless, in Europe, some religious elements are still present in legislative bodies even if formal prayers are not common. For instance, a survey by the Oireachtas Library and Research Service found that 10 European countries have a parliamentary chapel or prayer room, and 18 offer religious services within their premises or outside, usually at the start of the year or on special occasions such as Christmas or commemorations. In the United States, both the House of Representatives and the Senate have chaplains.

While prayer before proceedings is more of a British tradition, religious iconography in public venues is prevalent in other European traditions. Crucifixes are commonly displayed in public buildings, including government offices and schools, in Italy, Poland, Austria, and some parts of Germany. An absolute ban on such displays is instead a key feature of the French concept of laïcité. Many European countries also have crosses in their flags, a heritage of Christianity, even if the religious symbolism is largely lost today.

Praying before parliamentary work has deep historical roots in many legislative bodies worldwide, and the practice varies significantly across different countries, reflecting diverse cultural and religious landscapes.

In Ireland, in 2017, after numerous calls to end the tradition, the Oireachtas decided to retain the daily prayer at the start of each business day. Additionally, a 30-second period of silent reflection was incorporated into the Standing Orders. This compromise appears to be a reasonable solution that accommodates individuals of all faiths or none. Removing the prayer entirely would not only have dismissed a long-established and deeply felt custom but also denied a brief yet meaningful moment that many consider important. This approach balances respect for tradition with inclusivity for a diverse population.

The number of abortions in hte UK reaches a new high

 

The number of abortions carried out in the UK in 2022 rose to its highest ever, according to new data, while births continued to decline. More than a quarter of pregnancies are now terminated before birth.

The year 2022 marked the highest number of recorded abortions in England and Wales since the Abortion Act was introduced. According to the latest official statistics, there were 251,377 abortions in 2022, reflecting a huge 17pc increase over the previous year. This significant surge has brought the annual abortion rate to 20.6 per 1,000 women aged 15 to 44 years. The rate was 16.4 ten years earlier.

Also in 2022, there were 605,479 births in England and Wales, which translates  to approximately 37 abortions for every 100 live births. In other words, for every 100 babies conceived, more than a quarter (about 26) were aborted.

Scotland also saw a rise in terminations of life. Scottish statistics are reported a year ahead compared to English data, showing that in 2023 there were 18,207 abortions, a 10pc increase from 16,607 in 2022. This increase was observed across all age groups, with the abortion rate rising from 16.1 to 17.6 per 1,000 women aged 15–44, up from 11.5 in 2013.

While the rise had been gradual and constant over the past decade, recent figures represent a sharper uptick, explained by the widespread use of abortion pills. These accounted for 86pc of all abortions in England and Wales in 2022, and for 98pc in Scotland. Introduced as temporary measures during the Covid pandemic, the English and Scottish governments made the option to take both abortion pills at home permanent in 2022. Consequently, 61pc of all abortions in 2022 took place at home in England, while the figure for Scotland in 2023 was 57.6pc.

The England and Wales report highlights that a significant proportion of abortions in 2022 were repeat procedures. Specifically, 41pc of women undergoing abortions had previously had one or more abortions, up from 37pc in 2012.

Regarding marital status, the data remains consistent with previous years. In 2022, 82pc of abortions were performed on women whose marital status was recorded as ‘single.’ Among these, 51pc were single with a partner. These proportions have remained relatively stable over the last decade.

In 2022, 201 Irish residents had an abortion in England, not a substantial change from the 206 in the previous year. Of these, 53.5pc were single and 10pc had had a previous abortion. 80pc identified their ethnicity as Irish. For women resident in Ireland, the proportion of abortions performed under Ground C (the mental or physical health of the woman) increased from 50pc in 2021 to 63pc in 2022, while those under Ground E (substantial risk of fetal abnormality) decreased from 50pc to 37pc.

In at least 37 cases the baby was diagnosed with Down Syndrome, but in this respect the statistics are incomplete, and the actual number might be higher.

Public opinion and policymakers should reflect on these tragic figures and discuss how to reverse the deadly trend. Instead, both governments and opposition parties in the UK, as well as here in Ireland, are making abortion laws and policies increasingly liberal. This, coupled with the declining numbers of births and marriages, raises significant concerns about the future demographic and social landscape.

English bishops issue guidance to voters ahead of UK General Election

 

A General Election is due to take place in the UK on July 4. The Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales (CBCEW) have issued comprehensive guidance for voters ahead of the election. It applies Catholic social teachings to the issues of the day. The guidance emphasises the need to prioritise gospel values and the common good in political decision-making.

Below is an overview of the key topics highlighted by the bishops:

Domestic Poverty and Family Life and Taxation

The hierarchy urge voters to consider policies that support families, especially those struggling with poverty. This includes advocating for fair tax policies that do not disproportionately burden low-income families, ensuring access to affordable housing, and providing adequate social security benefits. The bishops stress the importance of safeguarding family life and creating an environment where children can thrive, which includes support for child-rearing parents and those with other caring responsibilities.

Faith schools and education

The bishops ask the the Government to recognise that “parents are the first and primary educators of their children and ensure that this right permeates through all education policy.” The bishops warn of campaigns to get rid of schools with a religious character, and to change the curriculum so that schools would no longer be able to keep their Catholic ethos. They ask the Government to support Catholic schools through policy and legislation which protects the legal foundations of well-established Catholic education.

Right to life

The bishops urge voters to consider policies that protect life from conception to natural death. This includes opposing abortion and euthanasia, and supporting measures that provide care and support for the vulnerable, including the elderly, the disabled, and the terminally ill. The CBCEW advocate for a society that values all human life and provides the necessary support systems to uphold this value. They ask the Government to end the practice of medically unsupervised abortions in the home, through pills. They also oppose the attempts to extend abortion limits further.

Environment

Reflecting the teachings of Pope Francis in his encyclical “Laudato Si'”, the bishops call for policies that reduce carbon emissions, promote renewable energy, and encourage sustainable living practices. Additionally, they asked the Government to assist poorer countries to meet their targets and obligations regarding the environment.

International Relations

Here the bishops call on the Government to work internationally to promote genuine human rights that respect the dignity of all people, and to partner with faith communities in helping deliver aid to the world’s poorest people. The bishops believe that “the Government should welcome refugees and asylum seekers with compassion, and ensure that the UK has both a fairer system of immigration and asylum and a secure border.”

Migration

The bishops call for a “compassionate and just approach” to immigration and asylum policies. They advocate for the protection of the rights and dignity of migrants and refugees, ensuring that they are treated with respect and provided with opportunities to work as soon as is practical. They should not be detained for substantial periods, the bishops say.

Criminal Justice

The bishops stress the importance of a criminal justice system that upholds the dignity of all individuals, including both victims and offenders. They advocate for a system that balances rehabilitation and punishment, supports restorative justice practices, and addresses the underlying social issues that contribute to criminal behavior.

In a video appeal, the president of the CBCEW, Cardinal Vincent Nichols, stresses the importance of active political engagement for all citizens, particularly Christians who are called to bring gospel values into the public sphere. He encouraged voters to question political candidates on the key issues the bishops highlighted and to make informed decisions that promote the common good.

How family breakdown perpetuates social disadvantage

Family breakdown is one of the chief reasons why many people in Britain remain in poverty and cannot climb up the social ladder, according to a major new report called “Two nations”, published by the Centre for Social Justice. The essential argument is that social disadvantage contributes to family breakdown, and in turn makes it even harder to escape from poverty. It is a vicious cycle.

The report lists the causes of social deprivation: “The most disadvantaged across our nation are not always those who have the least money but those whose lives are marked by wasted potential driven by family breakdown, educational failure, worklessness, addiction, and debt”.

The same certainly applies here in Ireland and the Dublin riot was probably evidence of that.

Family breakdown causes not only human misery, the report points out, but it costs an estimated £51 billion to public services every year.

While divorce rates have remained relatively steady in Britain since 1980, the increase in family breakdown is now primarily attributed to the dissolution of cohabiting partnerships, rather than divorce itself because many couples never marry at all anymore.

The poorest families are hit hardest by a family breakdown: a teenager growing up in the poorest 20pc of households is two-thirds more likely to experience family breakdown than a teenager in the top 20pc.

Marriage brings not only financial stability to the family but also better mental health and cognitive development for children.

Families that reported problems with family functioning exhibited higher levels of mental disorders compared to the general population.

The analysis from the CSJ found that “those who experience family breakdown are 2.3 times more likely to experience homelessness, 1.7 times more likely to experience mental health issues and 1.6 times more likely to experience debt.”

In the UK, 23pc of families are headed by a single parent, compared with an EU average of 13pc. The figure in Ireland is 17pc.

Over 40pc of births in this country now take place outside marriage, although about half of those are to cohabiting parents. Over time, the percentage of children in Ireland being raised by a lone parent is surely set to increase.

In Britain for the first time more children are born to unmarried mothers than to married mothers. The report found there are significant differences among ethnic groups. Fifty-one percent of Black, or Caribbean families are headed by a lone parent, compared with an average of 16pc for those from an Asian ethnicity, and 22pc for those from a White ethnicity.

In most of the cases (84pc), lone parent families are led by the mother. In cases of family dissolution, it is almost invariably the father who departs from the household.

Absent fathers are a major societal problem and the report estimated that 2.6 million children in Britain do not have a father who lives with them at home.

The “Two Nations” report underscores the imperative to promptly address the ramifications of family breakdown. Without the foundation of a stable family life, built on marriage, the most disadvantaged will persist in experiencing poverty and enduring detrimental effects on their mental health.

An Iona Institute report published in 2019 showed that in Ireland, as elsewhere, people from the most disadvantaged groups are by far and away the most likely to have experienced family breakdown which further perpetuates their disadvantages.

What one charity worker told the CSJ almost certainly applies to Ireland as well: “One of the things we get frustrated with when we’re working with Government and MPs is that they seem to forget how important family is to all of us. They never really take it into account when they’re making policy.”

Abortion pill risks not being properly explained to women

 

Women are not being made fully aware of the risks that can be associated with abortion pills, a conference organised by Bios Centre in Britain has been told. Over the phone consultation adds more danger to their use. The same applies here in Ireland where 133 “adverse incidents” related to abortion have been reported by women to the State Claims Agency over the last five years, according to figures obtained by Peadar Toibin.

Abortion pills have become the most common method for terminating a pregnancy, particularly in the early stages of gestation.  In Ireland, women up to nine weeks pregnant usually take the abortion pills at home, following a consultation with a GP or a family planning clinic, either in-person, or by phone or video call.

However, the safety and the effectiveness of this method, particularly when used outside a hospital, has been questioned by Dr Greg Pike of the Bios Centre, who was addressing a conference this week organised by the Centre.

Is women’s choice really based on informed consent, he asked? Do they know and understand the danger of taking such pills?

“Women have been misled by abortion providers”, he said. They are not made fully aware of risk and the effectiveness of the abortive pills, Dr Pike claimed.

Citing research, he noted that 40pc of women who have taken those pills said they experienced more pain than expected. These figures raise questions about whether women are properly informed of these statistics before being prescribed the abortion poll.

Furthermore, the seminar was told, there has been no proper study conducted on the psychological effect of seeing the dead embryo following the abortion.

In Ireland, the HSE guidelines rather callously say: “You can decide how to dispose of the pregnancy remains. They can be flushed down the toilet, or wrapped in tissue and disposed of as you wish.”

This is how a Scottish woman who saw her little child expelled after an abortion pill-induced termination recalls the shocking experience: “In hindsight I wish I hadn’t looked but I did, and that was probably the most traumatic thing I’ve ever seen or done. I thought ‘what on earth?’”

The possible trauma associated with this dramatic experience needs to be properly investigated, the seminar heard.

Some studies found that the pills can fail up to 10pc of the time, with the pregnancy occasionally continuing, the fetus not being spontaneously expelled, or an additional dose of drugs being required.

When this happens at home, there is a higher likelihood that the drugs are not taken as recommended, resulting in higher rates of failure.

An investigation conducted in England has found that “1-in-17 women having an induced medical abortion are subsequently treated at an NHS hospital for complications arising from an incomplete abortion with retained products of conception.”

There are no data available for Ireland.

During the Covid emergency in March 2020, Simon Harris, who was then the Minister for Health, introduced remote consultation by phone or video call for women requesting abortions, also known as teleabortion.

Now that the emergency is ended, this provisional measure should be discontinued but it is likely that the ongoing review of the abortion services will keep it instead.

The HSE has admitted that it does not collect data about complications arising after an at-home abortion. It also recognised that women who have a remote consultation, on the phone or on video call, maybe be subject to coercion.

Dr Pike, who has studied coercion, noted that not all women go back to their doctor after receiving the pills. Others admitted not having used the drugs, and could even have passed them to other women. “There is an association of abortion and trafficking. We know that there is a strong pressure on women involved in trafficking to have an abortion. The tele-abortion model makes it easier for abusers to get hold of the drugs and force them on to women”, he pointed out.

All of these concerns suggest that remote consultation and the use of abortion pills outside of hospitals should be discontinued. The ongoing review of abortion in Ireland should take these issues into consideration.