Demos's Report – not worth the paper it is printed on...

When Demos decided to provide accommodation and servicing to the Falconer ‘Commission’ on Assisted Dying, the Reverend George Pitcher, then the Daily Telegraph Religious Editor, wrote:

“Demos and its newly appointed Director, Kitty Ussher (a former MP) should be ashamed of themselves. Demos established over a decade a fine reputation for non-partisan analysis and discourse. That it has been co-opted by this shallow attempt to suggest that Falconer’s ‘Commission’ somehow bears the integrity of the House of Lords is not only shameful, but cheap and rather nasty.”

However, even more “cheap and nasty” is the latest Demos effort – a Report entitled The Truth About Suicide. It sets out to present itself as an academic exercise to unearth evidence to help in the development of strategies for “suicide prevention”. In fact, it early shows itself to be what most commonsensical people would describe as a “nudge, nudge, wink, wink” document, part of a concerted campaign to try to make British society believe that euthanasia/suicide is here and should be recognised as a  legitimate option.

Demos does not of course dirty its fingers by using terms such as “legitimate options” – but the first two sentences of its Conclusions tell us almost everything we need to know:

“This report has presented new evidence, collected from coroners and primary care trusts (PCTs), that at least 10 per cent of suicides that take place in England involve people with either a chronic or terminal illness. It is likely that this figure may be a significant underestimate, as we also found anecdotal evidence that some coroners currently choose not to include relevant health information within their inquest records, which are frequently the main input to PCTs’ suicide audits.”

When I first received the The Truth About Suicide I e-mailed it directly to a close personal friend, Alison Davis, and her carer, Colin Harte. Alison has spina bifida and is wheelchair-bound as well as being doubly incontinent. In fact, she is just the kind of person who the euthanasia lobby likes to present as wanting nothing more than death. Alison knows from personal experience how people will presume that because she has so many disabilities she would prefer to do without treatment. In fact, Alison is a great pro-life fighter and is national co-ordinator of  “No Less Human”, a national group of people with disabilities and their families and carers. When Alison and Colin read the document he e-mailed me to say that all one needs to read is the opening paragraph of the Conclusions which I have quoted above. As soon as I read the words I knew that we could expect every euthanasia lobby group to use exactly the same sentiments to open their press releases echoing their support for the Demos Report.

Indeed, just  as we could all have predicted, on the very day of publication of the Demos Report, Dignity in Dying (DiD) issued a press release – showing they had received the Report  well in advance of we lesser mortals who received it on the day of publication. The DiD press release had the heading: “One Suicide A Day Due to Chronic Illness”. What more could they want, I ask you, particularly as it was DiD which set up the the Commission on Assisted Dying, Chaired by their dear friend, Lord Falconer, and housed by Demos! The DiD press release continued:

“At least 10 per cent of suicides in Britain are linked to terminal or chronic illness and account for over 400 deaths each year... A study published by Demos reveals that in many cases people decided to end their own lives due to physical rather than mental illness. The report, The Truth About Suicide, also found that some people are killing themselves at ‘a younger age in order to avoid severe symptoms and greater pain in later life’... The report found that in 4,390 suicide cases last year, 10 per cent concerned people ‘experiencing some form of serious physical illness as an influencing factor’.”

The significance of the claims is that they have formed the basis of the persistent DiD campaign over the last few years seeking to justify changes to the laws on euthanasia and assisted suicide. However, Parliament has done its homework and has persistently rejected – by a substantial majority – all attempts to change the law. They recognise how dangerous it would be for the disabled, the elderly and the fragile – quite apart from turning doctors into killers rather than curers.

It is, of course, not surprising that some people who are very ill will commit suicide – particularly when they have just learned of the illness, as the Demos Report admits. Given time, they come to terms with the situation and the majority change their minds. But before then, they are at their most vulnerable and at the greatest danger of being open to pressure or manipulation. Moreover, there is no telling whether those who committed suicide had done so because of their illness, because they were depressed, because they had been abandoned at their time of need, or for any number of other possible reasons.

Earlier this year, when combatting the campaign waged by BBC personnel using programmes to promote the legalisation of euthanasia, SCOPE – the leading disability rights charity representing people with cerebral palsy – carried out a survey among disabled people to obtain their reactions to the euthanasia campaign. The SCOPE poll found that 70% of disabled people were concerned that a Reform of the law on assisted suicide would create pressure on vulnerable patients to “end their lives prematurely”. They also found that 3% of the 500 disabled people questioned in the ComRes Poll feared that they would personally come under pressure to commit suicide if the law were changed. Richard Hawkes, Chief Executive of SCOPE said:

“… while high profile lawyers, doctors and celebrities such as Terry Pratchett and Patrick Stewart grab the headlines, the views of the thousands of ordinary disabled people, who could be affected by this issue are rarely listened to.”

It is interesting that when the BBC carried a series of programmes promoting euthanasia for patients with Motor Neurone Disease (MND), I telephoned a programme research team to ask would they be interested in interviewing Pam Vack an RTL member suffering from MND. The researcher immediately snapped at me: “Is she a Catholic?“ It so happens that Pam is not a Catholic.  In any case, I asked what had her religion to do with it, adding: “Aren’t Catholics permitted to express an opinion on BBC.” I was adamant about leaving Pam’s details (including contact numbers), but neither she nor RTL heard anything more. We all need to remember that “ordinary disabled people are rarely listened to” because they are rarely given the opportunity to be listened to by the BBC and other media outlets following their example. SCOPE however is not the only group of major importance to disagree with Demos on the credibility of the Falconer Commission on Assisted Dying.

Virtually every disability human rights group in the country is opposed to the legalisation of euthanasia: they recognise the dangers, and they have checked and know what has happened in Holland, Oregon and other countries and areas where euthanasia is legal. All have refused to give any credibility to the Commission by submitting evidence (in comparison with Demos which not surprisingly is submitting its report, The Truth About Suicide). In addition, the BMA and almost every professional medical body have refused to submit evidence to the Commission on the grounds that it completely lacked any balance. In June, the BMA annual conference passed a Motion with a substantial majority condemning the Commission as biased. The Motion supported the decision of the BMA Ethics Committee in refusing to give evidence to the Commission as did a number of other medical organisations.  However, Britain’s major euthanasia lobby organisation, the BBC, failed to cover the BMA Motion on any radio or television programme – despite the previous very extensive coverage it had given supporting Lord Falconer’s much discredited Commission. It seems pretty pathetic that the Commission has been reduced to seeking credibility by obtaining a Report from the group housing them, Demos.

It must be noted that a number of professional bodies – including the World Health Organisation (WHO) – have persistently called on the media to take particular care in the manner in which they depict suicide. Preventing Suicide, A Resource for Media Professionals, the WHO guidelines (published in 2000) warned that people who may be disturbed, depressed or vulnerable can be influenced into taking their lives by the way in which suicide is portrayed in the media. The Report states:

“Suicide is perhaps the most tragic way of ending one’s life. The majority of people who consider suicide are ambivalent. They are not sure that they want to die. One of the many factors that may lead a vulnerable individual to suicide could be publicity about suicides in the media. How the media report on suicide cases can influence other suicides.”

In its programmes, the BBC has breached every rule put forward by the World Health Organisation. WHO guidelines warn against publicising suicide stories where celebrities are involved, explaining the methods used, showing pictures of the dead, and the scene of the suicide, as well as presenting suicide as a simplistic and acceptable act. In particular, the guidelines refer to the way in which television can influence suicidal behaviour and refer to a study showing an increase in suicides up to 10 days after coverage of suicides in news programmes.For years RTL, with many MPs (led by Jim Dobbin and, in previous parliaments, by the “two Anns” – Widdecombe and Winterton), have been fighting the BBC pro-euthanasia bias – and at last we seem to have made some headway in the fact that BBC did not give the Demos Report the publicity they could have expected only a short time ago. Moreover, where the BBC goes – others automatically follow and it is interesting that in this case, we have not seen (or heard) any coverage gained by the press releases from either Demos or DiD in any other media outlet or newspaper. The only actual publicity I have seen was an article in the Guardian by Louise Bazalgette, the leading researcher and author of the Demos report.

Having failed to gain any credibility through the professional medical bodies, the Commission and DiD have also been reduced to having to rely upon individual friends in the medical and associated professions. The latest “expert” to hit the headlines was Mr Martin Green, a dementia expert for the Department of Health,  who claimed that patients “who were too frail to take their own lives were being denied ‘choice’ and ‘autonomy’ because assisted suicide is illegal in the UK.” It will be no surprise to anybody to learn that Mr Green was one of the individuals who have already given evidence to Lord Falconer’s Commission. In an interview arranged with Tim Ross, Social Affairs Editor of the Daily Telegraph (28 Aug 2011), Mr Green urged ministers to review the law and suggested that a referendum or a free vote in Parliament should be called to settle policy on the issue. Mr Green, the chief executive of the English Community Care Association, which represents nursing and care home groups, is one of the government’s three national dementia “champions” and has been advising them since 2009.

DEMOS have claimed throughout, that their Report aimed to help in the development of strategies for “suicide prevention”. Yet, remarkably, nowhere in the document do they so much as hint at seeking to find whether there was or not any increase of suicides following a television programme on the subject. Heaven knows, the BBC has given them ample opportunities. This to my mind, makes the DEMOS Report pretty vacuous, hardly worth the bother of reading.

In calling for ministers to review the law and suggesting a free vote in Parliament Mr Green had the gall to totally ignore the history of events in Parliament – which typifies the whole tactic of DiD and people like Lord Falconer who persistently carry on their campaign pretending that the issue has not been settled. Although Mr Green is perfectly entitled to his pro-assisted suicide views, as a Government adviser he is surely not entitled to ignore parliamentary debate and decisions in promoting his own publicity-seeking agenda. In a memorandum, Lord Alton of Liverpool (David Alton) reminds us that in his statements Mr Green:

“... ignores two House of Lords Select Committee Inquiries into assisted dying, along with two free votes: presumably because they reached a conclusion with which he disagrees. On the last occasion, the inquiry covered some 246 Hansard columns and two volumes of 744 pages and 116 pages respectively, 15 oral sessions, 48 groups or individuals giving evidence, with 88 witnesses giving written evidence, 2,460 questions asked and the committee receiving 14,000 letters. After consideration of all the issues raised, as on the previous occasion, proposals to change the law were rejected by a wide margin. When the last vote took place in the House of Commons on a free vote the proposal was defeated by 91 votes to 236. In November last year the Scottish Parliament reached the same conclusion defeating Margo Macdonald’s attempt to legalise assisted suicide by a huge majority 85 to 16 votes.”

Lord Alton has been joined by Lord Carlile of Berriew in challenging the Spokesperson for Health in the Lords as to whether “Mr Green’s view represents the Government’s position and whether there are any Departmental advisors who reflect Parliament’s view – one which is shared by the BMA, the hospice movement, disability rights groups and most of the Royal Colleges.” They asked: “Perhaps you would be good enough to let us know who they are and whether they will also be issuing statements to the media.”

Personally speaking, I think that Mr Green should be removed from his office as a Government adviser. As I said earlier, he is perfectly entitled to his personal opinions on all issues. In totally ignoring parliament to gain publicity, however, he has very blatantly abused his position. Moreover, as “a very caring person” concerned for people’s rights, he has to my mind a frightening idea of “care”. In the Daily Telegraph, he admits it would be impossible to police any law no matter how carefully drafted to prevent abuses – the very thing that disabled people are most frightened of. He says:

“… even with safeguards that seek to ensure patients remain genuinely committed to their decisions, it would be impossible to eliminate the danger of abuse entirely… It might be a small minority but you will never ever be able to eliminate risk and you should never pretend you can”.

In the Netherlands in 2005, 500 patients (0.4% of all deaths) were given a lethal injection without request (End‐of‐Life Practices in the Netherlands Under the Euthanasia Act, Agnes van der Heide et al, New England Journal of Medicine 356, pgs. 1957, 1961 Table 1 [2007]).

However, don’t be led away imagining that the Demos Report and Mr Green’s published thoughts on the ‘right to die’ is the last we will hear from the euthanasia lobby before the publication of the Report from Lord Falconer and his Commission. That, I understand, will not be until nearing the end of the year. Before then, you can bet your shirt on publicly staged suicides and statements from individuals calling for “freedom of choice” being well-publicised at regular intervals. You can also bet your shirt on the euthanasia lobby stories ignoring the evidence, and behaving as though most of us were complete idiots who cannot see through their tactics.

So, its up to you to make sure that your MP and any other parliamentarians with whom you are in touch, or other friends are made aware of what they are up to. You can also ensure that they are given the facts and receive at least one copy of the Right To Life leaflet Facts on Euthanasia that “Dignity in Dying” Will Not Disclose To You. The leaflets can be obtained from Right To Life, PO Box 26264, London W3 9WF. Telephone 020 8992 7657. E-mail: info@righttolife.org.uk

"What price, democracy?" The Case for Early Day Motions

I am pretty tolerant when it comes to MPs and their problems. For example, I think many MPs had a pretty raw deal when the Daily Telegraph ran its campaign on parliamentary expenses, the obvious aim being to promote the paper’s circulation and its advertising revenue. And some of the MPs for whom I had the most sympathy included those whose objectives I disliked intensely. However, more on that another time…

The reason I mention it now is because there are other aspects of MPs’ work which frankly make me almost go ballistic. One is receiving letters from MPs (or copies of letters from MPs to constituents) saying why they refuse to sign Early Day Motions: “…they are very costly and they quote figures amounting to anything from £100,000 per EDM to over a £1,000,000 for the whole year… EDMs are not debated… the system is abused and some EDMs are ludicrous...”

These replies are coming from new MPs who, in fact, often show very little understanding of the processes of Parliament and how to use them.

In forty years, I have never known of anybody asking an MP to table an EDM who imagined it would be debated. Parliament’s own website makes this clear, and explains some aspects of using them:

“EDMs are used for reasons such as publicising the views of individual MPs, drawing attention to specific events or campaigns, and demonstrating the extent of Parliamentary support for a particular cause or point of view…. although there is very little prospect of EDMs being debated, many attract a great deal of public interest and frequently receive media coverage.”

Moreover, the parliamentary website gives a clear indication of the cost of EDMs which bear no relation to the exorbitant figures quoted by MPs. Under ‘Frequently Asked Questions: Business’ it states:

What is the average cost of an Early Day Motion (EDM)?

£290 (estimated figure for 2005-06).

The unavoidable fact is that EDMs are one of the few ways in which back-benchers can openly and affectively criticise what is happening in Parliament, and ensure that it is on the public record. This, on some occasions, can be displeasing to Ministers and to the Government itself. Hence our present problems and difficulties with a number of new Conservative MPs, who have been persuaded by Whips to refuse to sign all EDMs, generally quoting the cost.

One must ask “What price democracy… £290…??”

However, the MPs invariably write very friendly letters, assuring us that they will write to the Minister on behalf of the correspondent asking him/her to explain!

Frankly, most letters to Ministers and the replies are pretty useless. They not only keep any given issue “under wraps” (away from public scrutiny), but they also keep the MPs’ views and intentions out of sight of constituents. In any case, usually the response is written by a Civil Servant whose very duty it is to defend the status quo and the Minister! Moreover, on the subject of costs – think of the tens of thousands it must cost to have civil servants writing fatuous replies to provide smoke screens!

What About Parliamentary Questions?

Shortly after the last General election, I had the idea of returning to a tactic we used some years ago to good effect.

A number of MPs, of different parties, were asked to put their names into the ballot to table Parliamentary Questions (PQs) to the Secretary of State For Health (Andrew Lansley, see right) on the policy of distributing the morning after pill to under-age girls – which has seen such an increase in Sexually Transmitted Infections among adolescents. Other MPs were prepared to be in the House when Question Time came, so that we could have a meaningful debate with relevant facts and figures recorded in Hansard.

However, we fell at the first fence – not one of our MPs had their names pulled out of the ballot!

And it is through the Ballot that most other procedures are open to back-bench MPs… Private Members’ Bills… Oral PQs… Adjournment Debates… Westminster Hall debates… Ten-Minute Rule Bills… Almost the only exceptions are Early Day Motions and Written PQs. The latter can be very useful – but  they are not open to debate, and neither do they have the impact of EDMs which can be used to educate parliamentary colleagues on any given issue, as well  as informing public discourse.

As Parliament’s own website makes clear, many EDMs attract a great deal of public interest and frequently receive media coverage. One example concerned the occasion when the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) first published his Guidelines for people involved in a friend/relative’s assisted suicide. Quite clearly, the Guidelines changed (de facto) the law. Immediately after publication, the Rt. Hon. Ann Widdecombe (then, still in Parliament – see below), tabled an EDM which resulted in front-page banner headlines supported by other leaders of the All-Party Parliamentary Pro-Life Group (APPPLG) such as Jim Dobbin (see left). It accused the DPP of seeking to undermine the sovereignty of Parliament, and launched the All-Party Group’s campaign – and that resulted in the DPP back-peddling somewhat (although not entirely). No letter of protest to a Minister, or even to the Prime Minister, would have had such a result.

One of the Most Successful EDMs of all Time

To be truthful, Margaret Thatcher was never my favourite politician. However, whatever her failings may have been, she was far better than some of those who have followed her. For one thing, she had an enormous respect for Parliamentary Democracy. When she was Prime Minister, I know for a fact that she would bring EDMs which she thought to be important, to the attention of her Government Ministers.

In addition, she tabled what must have been one of the most successful EDMs of all time when she was Leader of the Conservatives opposing James Callaghan’s government. Her EDM simply said that the House had lost confidence in the Government, and called for it to resign. Virtually every Conservative MP, as well as some MPs of other Parties, signed the Motion. The EDM received tremendous publicity and Margaret Thatcher (confident of her support) took the next step. She tabled a Formal Motion of ‘No Confidence’ which was debated. James Callaghan lost the vote, and his Government had to resign, leading to the General Election of 1979 which Margaret Thatcher won with an overwhelming majority.

Some MPs may dislike Margaret Thatcher – but most have a respect for her. The fact that she recognised EDMs as a major plank in Parliamentary Democracy may make some of them at least think again. As has been discussed, ask MPs who quote the costs when they refuse to sign EDMs – “What price democracy?” And how much do they think it costs the nation to have civil servants writing replies to MPs letters to obscure the facts?

Below is EDM 1622 – which does not present the Department of Health or its Minister in a particularly favourable light. Bearing in mind that members of the Government or shadow Government usually do not sign EDMs, write to your MPs and urge them to give their signatures in support. Even if your MPs are Ministers or Shadow Ministers, please send them the Motion to draw their attention to the facts – which to say the least – are disreputable:

EDM 1622: CONSULTATION ON THE CARE OF WOMEN CONSIDERING INDUCED ABORTION

Date tabled: 17/03/2011

Primary sponsor: Dobbin, Jim.

Co-Sponsors: Benton, Joe; Coffey, Therese; Field, Frank; Glindon, Mary; Leigh, Edward

Total number of signatures: 24
Amess, David; Benton, Joe; Bruce, Fiona; Campbell, Ronnie; Coffey, Therese; Cunningham, Tony; Dobbin, Jim; Dodds, Nigel; Donaldson, Jeffrey; Dorries, Nadine; Durkan, Mark; Evans, Jonathan; Field, Frank; Glindon, Mary; Hamilton, Fabian; Leigh, Edward; Long, Naomi; Murphy, Paul; Pugh, John; Ritchie, Margaret; Rosindell, Andrew; Swayne, Desmond; Vickers, Martin; Walter, Robert.

“… this House notes that the Consultation Committee and Report of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) The Care of Women Requesting Induced Abortion fails in at least four criteria required by the Government Code of Practice; further notes that the Leader of the House has stated that the Government could not interfere because it was a RCOG Consultation Committee and not the responsibility of the Government (17 February 2011, Official Report, column 1145); further notes, however, that in the Answer to Lord Alton of Liverpool, Official Report, House of Lords, column WA425, the Government stated that the Department of Health commissioned and funded the review; further notes with grave concern, therefore, that the committee considering the review allowed only 21 days for consultation instead of at least 12 weeks as required by the Government's guidelines and that the membership consisted almost entirely of pro-abortion personnel including representatives from the UK's two main abortion providers, the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS) and Marie Stopes International; further notes it was not until a press release from BPAS quoted the guidelines and implied that they had been finalised that it became known to a majority of interested parties that the consultation existed, by which time there were only five days for interested parties to respond; further notes that the present guidelines include a number of claims which peer-reviewed medical literature suggest are inaccurate or misconstrued; and calls on the Government to establish a further consultation with a balanced membership under the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence which will be answerable to Parliament.”

The Biggest Euthanasia Lobby in Britain – The BBC

When the news broke on Sunday (15.5.11) regarding the Swiss suicide referendum, nobody should have been surprised by the BBC response. As always, it supported assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia. 

The story broke on the 6:00pm news – there were three interviews all backing death, 4 radio clips backing death, one against, 4 local radio items all favouring death, two listener comments backing death, one Swiss comment favouring life.

The Campaigners heard so far were Margo Macdonald (pro-assisted suicide), Peter Saunders (pro-life), 3 from Dignity in Dying, 1 from EXIT, 1 from the Society for Old Age Rational Suicide. All three organisations are pro-assisted dying and voluntary euthanasia.

Any suggestion the BBC is running a campaign… is of course without merit and a wicked invention by pro-lifers... or so we have been told for years and years!  Recently, however, we had thought we were at last making some impact.

Thanks to members and supporters of RTL bombarding the BBC with letters and complaints, regarding the propaganda film of Terry Pratchett accompanying a 71-year-old Motor Neurone Disease patient to the Dignitas clinic in Switzerland, and showing him committing suicide, the broadcasters actually have included an editorial on their website “explaining” their decisions.

Suffering from Amnesia...?

The item is written by BBC Programmes Editor, Charlotte Moore (see right), who shows a picture of Mr Pratchett (looking so smug that he could almost float away on the brim of his hat) and tells us:

“… it's not something that we'd ever take the decision to show lightly. Not only did we have to work closely with all of our contributors' families to make sure that the issue was handled as sensitively as possible, but we worked closely with our editorial policy team to make sure that all aspects of the documentary were in line with BBC Editorial Policy guidelines”.

Either Ms Moore suffers from amnesia or else she has presumed that the rest of us do. Peter Saunders, Chief Executive of the CMF, has drawn everybody’s attention to the bias of the BBC, with the following: “… This programme will be the fifth produced by the BBC in just three years, presented by a pro-euthanasia campaigner or sympathiser, which has been specifically designed to portray taking one’s own life in a positive light.”

The other programmes included a BBC Panorama documentary, ‘I’ll Die When I Choose’ in which Margo Macdonald MSP (see left) was given the floor to explain and promote her “End of Life Assistance (Scotland) Bill” just before it was first tabled. It was shown no less than four times between December 8 - 14, 2008. Despite the BBC continuing its campaign for the next two years, Scottish MPs, thankfully, did their homework and Ms Macdonald suffered a huge defeat when her Bill was thrown out by a vote of 85 to 16. That, however, did not stop the BBC. On the day it happened (November 2010) I was listening to BBC Five Live when an almost hysterical woman interviewer pleaded: “Margo, whatever happened?”

Miss Macdonald had the nerve to complain that the MSPs had voted against her because they were worried about the next election – which took place only on May 5th… six months later.

However, long before 2008, the BBC fed the public a constant diet of pro-euthanasia programmes and news items covering the deaths of Reg Crew, Diane Pretty, John Close and others whose cases were used to promote assisted suicide. At the time of the Diane Pretty case in 2003, I telephoned the BBC to ask if they would interview Mrs Pam Vack (see right), an RTL member who (like Diane Pretty) had Motor Neurone Disease and was willing to speak on a programme. The immediate response of the BBC researcher was to snap at me:  

             

             “Is she a Catholic?”

             “She is not”, I said. “But what has that to do with it?”

Apart from taking our telephone numbers – neither Pam nor RTL heard another word.

The next BBC propaganda essay (after the Margo Macdonald programme) was ‘A Short Stay in Switzerland’ (January 2009). This was a 90 minute docudrama starring Julie Walters for whom the BBC publicity department carried out a huge campaign promoting her views on the benefits of euthanasia. The programme told the story of Bath GP Anne Turner who went with her children to commit suicide at Dignitas in January 2006. It was screened seven times between the 25th January 2009 and 27th January 2010. BBC health correspondent Fergus Walsh, who accompanied Dr Turner on her final journey, actually played himself in the film. How impartial was that!

Moreover, it was not the first programme about Dr Turner. When she originally went to Switzerland in January 2006 to commit suicide, she was accompanied by Fergus Walsh and a full BBC crew who filmed the whole event, including sipping champagne with her three children before she drank her cocktail of barbiturates. It was evidently intended to appear sophisticated and care free. However, Mick Hume (by no means a pro-life supporter) described it in the Times as “A grisly theatre of death” (27.01.2006).

Both David and Jonathan Dimbleby are well known for their anti-life views, so it came as no surprise that the BBC selected Terry Pratchett to give the 34^th Richard Dimbleby Lecture, “Shaking Hands With Death”, when he claimed the right to be provided with assisted suicide because he had been diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease. 

It was all great fun… as he envisaged sipping poisoned champagne at his home in the garden. However, it was not very original – rather more a “take” from the Dr Turner programme. Peter Saunders tells us that, nonetheless, “a hand-picked audience in London signalled their approval as he spoke…”

Another example of BBC pro-euthanasia bias occurred when Jonathan Dimbleby had Deborah Annett as a member of the panel on the radio programme, Any Questions (17.3.06). At the time Ms Annetts was CEO of what was then the Voluntary Euthanasia Society (now ‘Dignity In Dying’). On the programme, she regaled the audience with a lurid description of Diane Pretty’s death:

“I'm thinking now of Diane Pretty, who I knew very, very well – she had a horrendous life and horrendous death at the end, and she received really good quality hospice care. The last week that she was in hospice she screamed in pain and agony every day, they could do nothing for her... in the end the only option was to sedate her…”

There was nobody on the programme to challenge Ms Annetts.

Yet, in total contrast, the Medical Director of the Hospice where Mrs Pretty died had described her death as “peaceful and painless”.

In addition, the Motor Neurone Disease Association issued a statement also describing her death as “peaceful and painless” – adding that pain was “not an issue” with the vast majority of MND patients.

When pro-life groups protested to the BBC, we were assured by the producers of “Any Questions” that they had no intention of promoting euthanasia; they had every intention of inviting an officer of equal standing from one of the pro-life groups.

Five years later… we are all still waiting.

February 15th, 2010 saw yet another propaganda assault. On the ‘Inside Out Programme’ on East Midlands, BBC producer, Ray Gosling (see left), “confessed” to smothering, some years before, a gay lover with AIDS. “… [A]fter an exhaustive police investigation into the claim, it turned out to be pure fantasy, but not until after the BBC publicity machinery had blown it up into a massive international news story just prior to the Director of Public Prosecutions reporting on his assisted suicide prosecution criteria.”

In comparison with the five major pro-euthanasia programmes within the last three years, the BBC has made not even one giving the alternative view of end of life treatment. MPs have persistently complained about the BBC bias on any number of issues, particularly those relating to human life and the traditional family. A number of Early Day Motions have referred to specific euthanasia programmes. On one occasion, Greg Dyke, the former BBC Chairman, had the nerve to make bland statements regarding the entire BBC network and calling on us to justify our claims.  This could only have been achieved by monitoring every single programme on every BBC network!  However, the fact remains that if there were a multitude of pro-life programmes amazingly few people from the pro-life network were ever called to speak on them.

The Terry Pratchett programme was obviously planned to coincide with, and promote the publication of, the Report from the so-called Commission on Assisted Dying which Mr Pratchett helped to set up and fund.  The “Commission” which has striven to appear as though it were some kind of official body has already been thoroughly discredited. It is chaired by Lord Falconer who failed in his attempt to get a Bill legalising assisted suicide through the House of Lords.  Quite obviously he is fixedly in favour of the legalisation of assisted death – like every other member of the “Commission”. Yet, despite the known bias, they have striven to present their considerations as “unbiased”. In this they have been unsuccessful, I am thankful to say.

Nonetheless, we can be confident that the BBC euthanasia lobby will do all it can to promote their findings as the work of a learned body rather than the witless twitterings of members and supporters of Dignity in Dying (as I have said previously, formerly the Voluntary Euthanasia Society) of which Mr Pratchett is one of its most redoubtable Patrons.

However, it is not too late to complain to the BBC. You can call them to complain on 03700 100 222.  But, be warned:  it

is a recording service and you are given very little time to give your name, address and message of protest. You can also

write to BBC Complaints, PO Box 1922, Glasgow G2 3WT. You can also go to https://bbc.co.uk/complaints/forms/

In addition, you can write to the new Chairman of the Board of BBC Governors, the Rt Hon Lord Patten of Barnes (see right). He is very straightforward, and I am confident that he will consider the issues fairly. His address is:

Rt Hon Lord Patten of Barnes, Chairman, BBC Trust, Room 14, London Broadcasting House, Portland Place, W1A 1AA.

If nothing else, please make it clear that five programmes in three years blatantly promoting assisted suicide to nought against – is just not on… especially from a publicly funded network which is supposed to be neutral. And that excludes all the other programmes we have listed.