UNESCO downgrades the role of parents

 

Parents have long been regarded as the primary educators of their children. This is recognised in some of the foundational human rights documents of the post-World War 2 world. But a new UNESCO document now demotes parents to the role of children’s ‘first educators’ and promotes the role of other bodies in the educating and raising of small, pre-school children.

In November, UNESCO (the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation) published their ‘Draft Guiding Principles on the Right to Early Childhood Care and Education (ECCE)’.

This draft document provides guidance for governments in designing and implementing policies and programs that promote ‘comprehensive early childhood care and education’, which seems to chiefly mean daycare.

The document lumps in parents with “other primary caregivers” as the children’s “first educators.” (Article 44).

It is important to read this new document in light of previous UN documents, particularly with regard to the role of parents and the family in education.

For instance, Article 26 (3) of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) explicitly states: “Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.”

This gives parents not only the primary responsibility, but also a “prior right”, which means their authority supersedes that of others, including the State, when it comes to making decisions about their children’s education.

The UDHR, proclaimed in 1948, places parental authority and decision-making rights at the forefront, with little mention of the State’s role in the lives of children. This may have been partly a reaction against the State taking too much interest in fascist and communist countries in the education of children.

Similarly, the European Convention on Human Rights says: “the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions.” The State is  very much the servant of the parents.

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), adopted in 1989, recognises the family’s role as fundamental in a child’s upbringing (Preamble and Articles 5, 18).

The Preamble to the CRC refers to the family as “the fundamental group of society and the natural environment for the growth and well-being of all its members and particularly children”. This is the same wording as in the UDHR (“The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society”, art. 16). The new UNESCO draft document, however, never refers to the family as natural or fundamental.

Moreover, Article 5 of the CRC clearly affirms that the State respects the rights of parents to guide their children in exercising their own rights.

“States Parties shall respect the responsibilities, rights and duties of parents … to provide, in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child, appropriate direction and guidance in the exercise by the child of the rights recognized in the present Convention.” (Art. 5)

Of course, what does “evolving capacities” mean, and who decides when a child (that is, anyone under 18) has reached a point where, for example, they can read and watch what they want; parents or the State?

Article 18 of the CRC says that the State must support parents in their responsibilities through institutions and services.

The new UNESCO document envisages a bigger role for the State in family life.

For example, in Article 1 of the Preamble we read: “Every young child, from birth to 8 years of age, has the right to early childhood care and education (ECCE) in its different forms, encompassing physical, socio-emotional, cognitive and linguistic development”.

What does it mean by “early childhood care and education”? Commonly, this means daycare. Is UNESCO really saying that small children have a ‘right’ to be in daycare, meaning parents have a duty to put them there? What kind of education will they receive in such places? How much of this will be dictated by the State?

Our own Government certainly wants as many children as possible in daycare.

This UNESCO document is a step in the wrong direction. It needs to restore the view that parents are the primary educators, rather than merely the first educators of children.

A major new report paints an alarming picture of demographic decline

Falling fertility rates are propelling the major economies toward a major reckoning, according to a new study by the McKinsey Global Institute, one of the world’s leading management consulting firms.

As the report, entitled “Dependency and Depopulation? Confronting the Consequences of a New Demographic Reality” confirms, a huge and growing portion of the global population now resides in countries where fertility rates have fallen well below the replacement threshold of 2.1 children per woman.

In Ireland, it is currently at 1.5. Only in sub-Saharan Africa are fertility rates still well above replacement level.

This trend indicates that, by the end of the century, several major economies could witness population reductions ranging from 20pc to 50pc. For instance, China’s population has been decreasing year on year, with a reduction of 1.4 million in 2024 alone, and in 2100 will have less than half of the current population. Like the rest of East Asia, China does not want mass immigration to help alleviate the problem. However, even if China were to try this approach, there are simply not enough people in the world who can come to China and balance out its population decline between now and the end of the century.

The big decline in fertility rates is creating a growing unbalance between generations.

With families shrinking in size almost everywhere, for the first time in history a sharply declining number of young people will have to support for a fast growing cohort of older people who are not working.

The report calls “first wave economies” those regions that are at the forefront of experiencing demographic shifts associated with declining fertility and ageing populations.

In  what it calls ‘Advanced Asia’ (Australia, Japan, New Zealand, Singapore, and South Korea), ‘Greater China’ (Mainland China, Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan) and ‘Western Europe’, there were 6.8 working-age individuals for every person over 65 years in 1997. Today this ratio is 3.9 to 1 and by 2050 it will fall to just two working age people for every retiree.

These changes pose challenges for economies traditionally reliant on a robust working-age demographic to support economic growth and social welfare systems.

To counteract this growing imbalance between the workers and those who depend on them – the McKinsey report claims – these countries would need to amplify productivity growth by two to four times the current rates or encourage individuals to work an additional one to five hours weekly. Moreover, retirement systems may require adjustments, potentially directing up to 50pc of labour income to cover the increasing gap between the financial needs and the income of the elderly population.

In confronting the consequences of demographic change, societies enter uncharted waters, according to the report.

“Even if global fertility rates were to jump overnight to the replacement rate, it would take 20 years, give or take, for those additional babies to become adults and begin contributing to economic growth through work”, the report notes.

The bad news is that no country so far has been able to return to replacement levels after falling below. 

The report suggests that migration can play a role in addressing labour shortages but only for a short period of time because many developing countries, which currently supply a large share of migrants, are expected to experience their own demographic transitions, leading to reduced migration flows in the long term. 

Demands of employers can’t dictate childcare policy

 

A new survey from the Dublin Chamber of Commerce (DCC) finds that a lack of affordable childcare affects employers’ ability to attract new employees. Aebhric Mc Gibney of DCC was interviewed on Morning Ireland about the survey, and as usual no consideration was given to all the parents of young children, especially mothers, who would prefer to mind their children at home rather than put them in daycare. It is like the referendums of last March never happened.

The latest ‘Business Outlook Survey’ by the DCC found that childcare challenges impact almost nine-in-ten (88pc) businesses to some degree.

Childcare availability and costs affect workforce participation and productivity, as employees struggle to balance work commitments with parental responsibilities, says the DCC.

The DCC has asked the next Government to prioritise a public model of childcare. “Moving to a public model will be critical for ensuring a steady supply of affordable, quality childcare and building a more sustainable and diverse labour market,” said Mia Finnegan, Public Affairs Executive at Dublin Chamber.

Nonetheless, while employers’ concerns about childcare availability and costs are valid in their own narrow way, they should not be the sole determinant in shaping childcare policies.

A survey commissioned by The Iona Institute last year, and conducted by Amarach Research, revealed that more than two-thirds (69pc) of mothers with children under 18 would prefer to stay at home with their children if financial circumstances allowed. Furthermore, 76pc of these mothers feel that women who work in the home are undervalued by society. These findings suggest a strong inclination among mothers towards full-time caregiving, provided economic conditions are favourable.

We can’t expect employers to care too much about this very large group. They want everyone out working, after all, because that helps their businesses. But it can’t be the only consideration for Government policy in this area.

According to the DCC survey, companies are trying to accommodate the needs of employees who are also parents in various ways. For example, 74pc offer remote work options and/or providing flexible working hours (70pc) arrangements.

Over a third (36pc) allow part-time work or reduced hours for parents with childcare needs, while 31pc offer paid parental leave or additional leave options.

While businesses may advocate for enhanced public daycare services to support working parents, it is also crucial to acknowledge and respect the desires of many mothers and fathers to prioritise home-based caregiving. Part-time work, reduced hours and additional leaves would allow those who want to continue to be employed to balance their work and parental responsibilities.

A public model of childcare would not suit every family. Childcare policies should strive to accommodate the diverse needs and preferences of parents, and to repeat, the demands of employers cannot be the decisive factor in the debate about childcare. A comprehensive strategy that considers the preferences and needs of parents, particularly mothers, is essential for creating a supportive environment for all families.

Curbs on religious freedom remain high in much of the world

 

What is the current state of religious freedom in the world? The latest report from the prestigious Pew Research Centre finds, not good. The report covers 2022, and finds that curbs on religious practices and beliefs remained at high levels worldwide.

The study, which assesses government-imposed restrictions and societal hostilities towards religion across 198 countries and territories, found that restrictions remain widespread, with notable regional and national variations.

The study uses measures called the ‘Government Restrictions Index ‘(GRI) and the ‘Social Hostilities Index’ (SHI) to quantify restrictions. The GRI examines twenty forms of government action, such as banning religious groups or restricting preaching, while the SHI assesses thirteen indicators of societal hostility, including religious conflict and harassment, for example, when a mob attacks a church. The research draws on sources such as the US State Department’s annual religious freedom reports and other data from the Council of Europe and the United Nations.

The report showed no significant improvement from 2021. The GRI remained at 3.0 out of 10, its highest recorded level. Similarly, the SHI, which evaluates religion-related societal hostilities, held steady at 1.6. These may not sound high, because they are average figures, but there is huge variation by country. In China, for example, there are very extensive government restrictions on religion. In India, attacks by Hindu militants on Christians are commonplace.

Although the average global scores have not changed, the number of countries experiencing high or very high levels of government restrictions rose to 59 in 2022, up from 55 the previous year. This marks the highest figure since the study began in 2007.

The report found harassment of religious groups by governments or groups in society in 192 of the 198 countries surveyed.

This represents a record high, surpassing the 190 countries reported in 2021. Government harassment occurred in 186 countries, an increase from 183 in the prior year, while societal harassment affected 164 countries, a consistent figure from 2021.

Physical harassment, including assaults, property damage, and displacement, also rose. Incidents were reported in 145 countries, up from 137 the previous year. Both government actors and private individuals were equally likely to engage in such harassment, with incidents involving either group occurring in 111 countries.

The Middle East and North Africa remained the regions with the highest levels of government restrictions, with their median GRI score rising from 5.9 to 6.1. While the Americas reported the lowest levels, with a median GRI score falling from 2.1 to 1.8. Europe also saw a slight decrease, with its score dropping from 3.1 to 2.9.

Mind you, the score for Europe of almost 3 (the world average for government restrictions on religious freedom) throws up certain questions about the methodology. It makes it appear that Europe is quite a bad place for religious freedom in global terms, which is clearly not the case in general terms, unless having an Established Church, as in say, Britain, Greece or Norway, counts as something bad. Moreover, severe Government restrictions on religious freedom in places like Russia and Ukraine does drag up the score.

There is also growing societal hostility in some European countries towards certain religious groups, not least Jews. But in France (say), Christian churches are sometimes attacked.

Among the world’s 25 most populous nations, notable trends include China’s “very high” levels of government restrictions paired with “low” social hostilities. Vietnam and Turkey exhibited “very high” government restrictions and “moderate” levels of societal hostility.

While global averages remain steady, the record number of countries with severe government restrictions underscores the persistent challenges facing religious freedom worldwide. The steady rise in harassment, both by governments and groups, signals the need for continued vigilance and advocacy.

Regional disparities highlight the varying dynamics of religious restrictions. As the Middle East-North Africa region continues to experience the highest levels of government restrictions, countries like the United States and Canada maintain relatively low levels. However, global stability in these indices shows no significant progress.

This annual report offers a reminder of the ongoing struggles faced by religious communities globally and the critical need for international cooperation to uphold the principles of religious freedom.

Euthanasia continues to go out of control in Canada

 

The number of euthanasia cases continues to rise in Canada, according to the latest official report on the topic, raising further alarm, particularly among disability rights groups. Even some early supporters of ‘Medical Assistance in Dying’ (MAID) are now voicing concerns.

Last year, 15,343 Canadians died by euthanasia or assisted suicide, according to the ‘Fifth Annual Report on Medical Assistance in Dying’. This marks a 15.8pc increase over 2022 and represents 4.7pc of all deaths in 2023. Since its legalisation in 2016, there have been 60,301 cases of assisted suicide and euthanasia cases in Canada that we know of.

Adding to these frightening figures, 2,906 individuals died last year before their euthanasia requests could be fulfilled. Meanwhile, 496 individuals withdrew their requests.

Canada allows both assisted suicide, where the patient self-administers lethal drugs (except in Quebec), and euthanasia, which is administered by a doctor or nurse. Self-administration is extremely rare, with fewer than five cases reported last year, showing that people are scared to take a poison themselves.

Dementia was cited as a medical condition in 241 euthanasia recipients in 2023, and in 106 of these cases, dementia was their sole condition.

Not all those who received euthanasia were terminally ill. In 622 cases, natural death was not deemed “reasonably foreseeable.” This category, called Track 2, allows euthanasia for non-terminal patients. Some could have lived for a decade or longer but chose euthanasia due to isolation or feeling like a burden. Euthanasia can be requested when someone experiences “physical or psychological suffering that is intolerable to them.” This is another example of the slippery slope in action.

Isolation or loneliness was significantly more common among Track 2 patients (47.1pc) compared to Track 1 patients (those within six months of death) at 21.1pc, but we can still see feeling isolated was significant. Crucially, 45.1pc of Track 1 and 49.2pc of Track 2 patients cited feeling like a “burden on family, friends or caregivers” as a key reason for their suffering.

Among Track 2 recipients, where death was not foreseeable, women constituted 58.5pc of cases. These patients were typically younger and had lived with their conditions for much longer. Perhaps this is also a function of the fact that women typically live longer than men and are more likely to be widowed and therefore living alone.

The percentage of disabled individuals among non-terminal euthanasia recipients was significantly higher: 58.3pc compared to 33.5pc among those within six months of death. They are heavily over-represented in Canada’s euthanasia statistics.

“When other people express loneliness or a loss of dignity or a desire to die, we usually respond with support or prevention. But with people with disabilities, we respond with an offer for MAID,” said Isabel Grant, a law professor at the University of British Columbia.

This same group of non-terminal patients had, on average, lived with a disability for a fifth of their lifespan.

According to the report, 594 individuals received euthanasia under a waiver of final consent arrangement due to a loss of capacity. This means they were euthanised based on a prior request, even though they could no longer give consent.

Euthanasia was legalised in Canada in 2016 following a case brought by the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA). However, the regime has become so permissive that even the BCCLA has raised concerns, particularly about euthanasia for prisoners and disabled individuals. The organisation has highlighted reports of people accessing MAID due to intolerable social circumstances or being offered it in cases that may not meet legal requirements.

“Of particular concern are reports of MAID being used in prisons while incarcerated individuals were shackled to their beds, the programme’s lack of legal oversight, disproportionate representation of impoverished people receiving assisted suicide, and healthcare practitioners offering MAID when patients sought support for living,” the BCCLA stated.

In Europe last year, deaths outnumbered births by 1.2 million

 

New figures from Eurostat, the statistical office of the European Union, confirm the growing demographic crisis facing Europe. Last year, deaths across the EU outnumbered births by almost 1.2m, and this is only going to get worse. Births have not outnumbered deaths since 2012.

This is a consequence of fertility rates being well below replacement level across the continent and in some cases for decades.

At the beginning of 2023, according to Eurostat, there were 448.8 million people living in the European Union. The only reason this is little different from 20 years ago is because of immigration.

The average number of births per 1,000 persons living in the EU has dropped from 10.6 in 2008 to 8.7 in 2022.

One way of analysing fertility trends is to look at how many babies are born to mothers aged 40 and older compared to all babies born in a year. It shows the degree to which people are delaying having children.

In Ireland in 2022, 11.2pc of all births in 2022 were to mothers aged 40 and over, the highest in Europe. This has soared from 3.4pc in 2002.

Across the EU, the figure was 6pc in 2022, meaning many women in Ireland are waiting a particularly long time to have children, for whatever reason.

The proportion of births to mothers aged at least 40 in the EU as a whole was 2.2pc in 2002.

In Ireland, the mean age of first-time mothers is the third highest in Europe, at 31.5 years. The EU average is 29.7 years.

Ireland used to have the highest fertility rate in the EU – 1.97 births per woman in 2002 – but now it has decreased significantly. The current value (1.56) is slightly higher than the European average (1.46) but way below what is needed to ensure a natural balance between births and deaths, which is 2.1 births per woman.

Among EU countries, France has currently the highest total fertility rate (1.79), followed by Romania (1.71) and Bulgaria (1.65). The lowest rates were found in Malta (1.08), Spain (1.16) and Italy (1.24).

While the population is growing, due to immigration and people are living longer, there are ever fewer young people.

In the last 20 years, the percentage of people aged 0 to 19 years of age across the EU declined from 22.6pc to 20.1pc. Over the same period, the share of persons aged 65 and over increased in all EU countries 16.2 to 21.3.

Over the past twenty years, the Irish population grew by a massive 32.9pc, from 3.7 million in 2003 to 5.27 million last year. Much of this is immigration-driven. To put this into perspective, the total population of the EU increased by only 4pc during the same period.

In Ireland, births still outnumber deaths, although the gap between the two has halved in the last ten years. In due course, given our low fertility rate, deaths will outnumber births as elsewhere.

The European demographic crisis, which is already here, will affect Ireland as well, even before ours hits us directly, simply because our fate is so tied to Europe’s in multiple ways. It is time we began to have a serious discussion in Ireland about this topic.

Will we ever have an honest discussion about divorce in Ireland?

 

Divorce will affect children for the rest of their lives, well into adulthood, but people don’t want to hear this because it makes them feel bad about their decisions, says Spectator columnist, writer and broadcaster, Bridget Phetasy.

A piece she wrote a few months ago titled “How divorce never ends”, is based on her personal experience and presents the lifelong impact of parental break-up on children. It caused a huge reaction, for and against. Those who supported the article were themselves usually children of divorce. Those who reacted angrily were often the parents who exhibited great defensiveness about what they had done, even though Phetasy was at pains to say parental separation, for example when the relationship is abusive, is justified.

Phetasy (née Walsh), whose parents divorced when she was 12, recounts how her life and that of her future husband – also a child of divorce – were upended. Their school achievements declined, and they fell into rebellious behaviours. The logistical challenges of splitting time between parents, with cross-country travel and fractured holiday traditions, contributed to instability and neglect. Lacking proper supervision, the children often resorted to reckless behaviour.

“So often it feels like two people are just ‘over it’ [meaning the parents] and want to move on with their lives and be single again instead of doing whatever it takes to make it work for the kids. People don’t want to hear this because it makes them feel bad about their decisions. Divorce sucks. It never ends and it should be a last resort”, she wrote.

Phetasy – a former columnist for Playboy magazine, of all things, – is now a mother and uses her parents’ shortcomings as a guide for what not to do.

“Before I had a kid, I asked people who came from similar backgrounds how they managed to raise great, well-adjusted kids. They always said the same thing: “I just did the opposite of what my parents did.’”, she writes in her piece.

She argues that divorce is too often treated casually, with little regard for its profound and enduring impact on children.

She admits harbouring lasting anger and grief over her parents’ prioritisation of new relationships over their children’s well-being. These feelings persist into adulthood, particularly as the complexities of managing relationships with multiple sets of grandparents now affect her own family.

Talking to the feminist podcaster Louise Perry, she recalls the reactions from readers of the piece and also from followers of her YouTube channel.

“People lie to themselves about how hard it is on the kids. There’s this lie: kids are resilient, they’ll be fine. It was heartbreaking reading the initial flow of comments that came in.  First you get the flood of people who feel seen and heard and validated. “Thank you so much this was my experience. I felt I this brought up so many emotions of my own”, and then you get the backlash and the people misinterpreting you and taking it out of context”, she told in the interview.

Commenting on Bridget Phetasy’s article, Louise Perry noticed that the consideration of what is a truly valid reason for divorce often leads to exaggeration of issues, while many overlook the long-term impact on their children, whose lives will be shaped by the decision for decades to come.

The majority of break-ups occur in low-conflict marriages, where the impact on children is often more profound due to the unexpected and therefore more traumatic nature of the separation. In such cases, it is usually in the best interest of the children for the parents to remain together.

2025 will mark 30 years from the divorce referendum in Ireland, where now over 320,000 adults are today divorced or separated and hundreds of thousands of children affected. This anniversary will surely be celebrated with enthusiasm, but a mature assessment will consider the voices of people like Bridget Phetasy who have suffered because of their parents’ decisions.

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.

Sono poeta

 

Sono poeta (U. Bottoni)

Allor lento io vagando, ad una, ad una

                                                            Palpo le piaghe onde la rea fortuna,

                                                            E amore, e il mondo hanno il mio core aperto.

                                                                                                            UGO FOSCOLO.

In quei momenti che la barca mia,

S’arena sopra il mare de la vita,

Quando più oscura ne divien la via

E sitibonda mugghia l’acqua ardita,

 

Quando la mente fugge nel mistero                                    5

E sol rimane la realtá crudele,

Quando ne’ spazi vagola ’l pensiero

E provo del dolor l’acerbo fiele,

 

Sento una voce allora mugolante

Che irridendo nel cor vibra secreta                                    10

E mi ripete in quel penoso istante

«Tu non hai vena, tu non sei poeta!»

Auro d'Alba, 1906.

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.