The succession of former British prime ministers who lined up in recent days to assert their compassion for the dying was quite something. David Cameron, Theresa May, Liz Truss, Boris Johnson — all of them wanting us to know just how much they cared. Imagine if this roll call of political powerhouses — each of whom was better placed than anyone to improve the fate of those with terminal diagnoses — had used that power, while in office, to do something concrete, tangible, to alleviate the terminal suffering that allegedly touched them so deeply. Imagine, in other words, if their actions then had matched their fine words now.
I do not doubt the strength of feeling behind this vote in favor of legalizing assisted dying in England and Wales, but as someone who has cared for thousands of people with terminal illnesses, I have to wonder at its sincerity, because every prime minister over the past 20 years — and every lawmaker for that matter — knows full well that much (though not all) of the pain and misery of dying can be alleviated with good palliative care. They also know how much suffering at the end of life is caused by basic National Health Service (NHS), social and palliative care simply not being there for patients.
Wes Streeting went one step further. The health secretary cited the threadbare realities of our underfunded, patchy, palliative care services as his primary reason for voting against the bill, stating (correctly) that the postcode lottery in care denies many patients a genuine choice at the end of life.
And he is absolutely right. I see them daily, the dying patients that British society fails. They arrive sometimes in the emergency room stricken with pain, desperate with fear, having begged for help and support that never materialized. After a few days of input from our team — the first palliative care they have ever received — their symptoms, their outlook and their hopes for the future can often be radically transformed.
So it is over to you, Streeting and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. What will you do now about those anguished, frail, pain-racked patients who sit and quake in death’s proximity as they are failed by the NHS, social care and society at large? Surely you are not going to permit MPs to usher in a law that makes dying easier while failing to address the underfunding that forces people with terminal illnesses to conclude that death is their only option?
Surely you will now commit an immediate — and massive — injection of public funds into properly resourcing UK palliative care so that 100,000 people every year do not die without the care they need? Do not become the latest political powerhouses who, when push comes to shove, turn their backs on dying people.
I know dying people were not in the Labour manifesto. I know they have not been mentioned in the flagship speeches. I also know that this is not surprising, because an ugly truth underpins this vote — death and dying remain taboo in modern Britain. So I take immense heart from the fact that, thanks to Kim Leadbeater’s bill, a respectful national conversation has begun about the way we die in Britain. However, one issue, above all, has to remain at its center.
We cannot continue to fail dying people by grotesquely underfunding palliative care. The issue will not go away. Fund palliative care properly, once and for all, Starmer and Streeting. The nation is watching.
Rachel Clarke is a palliative care doctor and the author of Breathtaking: Inside the NHS in a Time of Pandemic.
Why is Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) not a “happy camper” these days regarding Taiwan? Taiwanese have not become more “CCP friendly” in response to the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) use of spies and graft by the United Front Work Department, intimidation conducted by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and the Armed Police/Coast Guard, and endless subversive political warfare measures, including cyber-attacks, economic coercion, and diplomatic isolation. The percentage of Taiwanese that prefer the status quo or prefer moving towards independence continues to rise — 76 percent as of December last year. According to National Chengchi University (NCCU) polling, the Taiwanese
US President Donald Trump is systematically dismantling the network of multilateral institutions, organizations and agreements that have helped prevent a third world war for more than 70 years. Yet many governments are twisting themselves into knots trying to downplay his actions, insisting that things are not as they seem and that even if they are, confronting the menace in the White House simply is not an option. Disagreement must be carefully disguised to avoid provoking his wrath. For the British political establishment, the convenient excuse is the need to preserve the UK’s “special relationship” with the US. Following their White House
It would be absurd to claim to see a silver lining behind every US President Donald Trump cloud. Those clouds are too many, too dark and too dangerous. All the same, viewed from a domestic political perspective, there is a clear emerging UK upside to Trump’s efforts at crashing the post-Cold War order. It might even get a boost from Thursday’s Washington visit by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. In July last year, when Starmer became prime minister, the Labour Party was rigidly on the defensive about Europe. Brexit was seen as an electorally unstable issue for a party whose priority
After the coup in Burma in 2021, the country’s decades-long armed conflict escalated into a full-scale war. On one side was the Burmese army; large, well-equipped, and funded by China, supported with weapons, including airplanes and helicopters from China and Russia. On the other side were the pro-democracy forces, composed of countless small ethnic resistance armies. The military junta cut off electricity, phone and cell service, and the Internet in most of the country, leaving resistance forces isolated from the outside world and making it difficult for the various armies to coordinate with one another. Despite being severely outnumbered and
RSS