The expansion of an infanticide law to cover children aged 1 to 12 went into operation in the Netherlands on Thursday Feb 1st.
The Government announced in April last year that the “Late Termination of Pregnancy and Termination of Life Regulations for Newborns (LZA/LP)” would be “amended and expanded to include termination of life in children aged 1-12 years”.
A press release said the change would apply to terminally ill children with unbearable suffering, and would involve “about 5 to 10 children every year”.
The regulation previously allowed the euthanising of infants aged 0 to 12 months.
Dutch Health Minister Ernst Kuipers opted for a regulatory change instead of a new law as, he said, there aren’t enough examples to arrive at a standard for legislation.
The Netherland’s already allows for the euthanasia of children over the age of 12, so this latest change makes euthanasia a possibility at every stage of life.
A Danish ethics agency has warned an Oireachtas Committee against legalising assisted suicide.
The Danish National Council on Ethics roundly rejected a legislative proposal in Denmark last year by a vote of voting 16 to 1.
Speaking to the Oireachtas committee on Tuesday, Prof. Merete Nordentoft said the council came to their decision having reviewed the models of assisted dying in Oregon and the Netherlands.
Their review had found that in Holland, which allows euthanasia and has no requirement for terminal illness, “the number of people who die through assisted dying is 10 times greater than in Oregon, which only allows assisted suicide and requires a terminal illness”.
She said the Council decided “an institutionalisation of assisted dying therefore risks threatening the principle that we have the same claim to respect and dignity, regardless of how much we suffer and how high the quality of life is assessed to be.
“If we offer assisted dying, it says, directly or indirectly, that some lives are not worth living.”
“We argue that assisted dying risks causing unacceptable changes to basic norms for society and healthcare,” she told the Oireachtas Committee.
Aontú has decided to oppose the upcoming government referendums on the work of mothers and on the family.
Leader Peadar Tóibín TD said the party broadly accepted that some of the current wording of the constitution is “archaic”, and they would have supported a change, but not the current proposals.
“The Government’s amendments are exceptionally poorly written. The language in these amendments is unclear, confused and offers no material help or rights to families or carers”, he said.
“The Constitution is our fundamental legal document. It contains the core rights of citizens and defines the roles and responsibilities of the State. It is not the location for empty virtue signalling from the government in an election year”.
A Tory MP has called for surrogacy to be outlawed and compared the practice to taking a puppy prematurely from its mother.
In a series of outspoken comments, Miriam Cates, MP for Penistone and Stocksbridge, branded surrogacy ‘just ethically not acceptable’, declaring: ‘You don’t have a right to become a parent.’
‘You can’t take a puppy off its mother in this country before it’s weaned. You’re not allowed to,’ she added.
The 41-year-old – a devout Christian described as a ‘darling’ of the Tory party – is the co-chairman of the New Conservatives, an influential group of backbenchers.
Speaking to The House magazine, Mrs Cates also described the Government’s introduction of no-fault divorce in 2022 as ‘the wrong decision’ and warned that IVF fertility treatment ‘cannot solve’ the UK’s falling birth rate.
There is a lack of evidence for many of the claims made on behalf of universal childcare, according to an in-depth review of the academic literature in both the UK and elsewhere.
Commissioned by the Civitas think-tank, researcher Maria Lyons found that of 40 studies examined for the report, “not a single one was able to demonstrate a clear and lasting benefit for children under 3 of attending childcare rather than being cared for by their own parents”.
The claim that universal childcare from a young age gives every child “the best start in life” is, the author concludes, “simply not backed up by evidence”.
What benefit is shown is mostly in children from the most deprived backgrounds. But, as Lyons points out, though this is typically presented as a positive for social mobility, it also means that “the policy has failed to benefit the majority of participating children”. Universal childcare is also not the most effective way to help disadvantaged children, whose parents are less likely to use subsidised childcare, and who might instead benefit more from targeted intervention.
The Minister for Equality has said he would have an “open mind” about creating a welfare payment for stay-at-home parents, if a referendum to change the reference to mothers in the constitution were passed.
However, there is currently no impediment that would require a change to the constitution.
Amid concerns that the new amendment on care would be legally meaningless, Roderic O’Gorman was not able to promise that the government’s wording would give carers the right to take the state to court for concrete socioeconomic supports.
Asked if he would support a new social welfare payment for stay-at-home parents, the minister said: “I’d certainly examine with an open mind any supports we can give to parents who are in the home. I would definitely look at that with an open mind. I think we need to do more there.”
At the moment, only married stay-at-home parents are entitled to a home carers credit – which is paid on their earning partner’s salary.
Green Party leader Eamon Ryan says that it will be up to the courts to define what is meant by “durable relationships” should the upcoming family referendum be passed.
The amendment would explicitly grant familial rights to people involved in such relationships without stating what qualifies as durable or to how many people may be involved.
Speaking to reporters on Monday, he said he would be advocating a ‘yes’ vote in the family referendum so as to “recognise a whole range of different families”.
Asked by Gript media how far the proposed amendment would “loosen” the definition of a family, he said: “I don’t think its right for us to start being exactly, in a constitution, saying ‘this family is in, this family is out’, I think it is appropriate that there is some legal judgement applied to that in each individual case”.
People of religious faith appear to have experienced lower levels of unhappiness and stress than secular people during the UK’s Covid-19 lockdowns in 2020 and 2021, according to a new University of Cambridge study.
The findings follow recently published Cambridge-led research suggesting that worsening mental health after experiencing Covid infection was also somewhat ameliorated by religious belief.
The researchers argue that – taken together – these studies show that religion may act as a bulwark against increased distress and reduced wellbeing during times of crisis, such as a global public health emergency.
“Selection biases make the wellbeing effects of religion difficult to study,” said Prof Shaun Larcom from Cambridge’s Department of Land Economy, and co-author of the latest study. “People may become religious due to family backgrounds, innate traits, or to cope with new or existing struggles.”
The Canadian government has announced it is seeking a pause on extending euthanasia to those suffering solely from severe mental illnesses because the system would not be able to cope with the numbers who might come forward.
Health Minister Mark Holland said Canada’s health system is still “not ready” for the euthanasia expansion. Over 13,000 Canadians died by euthanasia in 2022, up from 1,000 in 2016.
Conservative MP Michael Cooper called on the government to pause the expansion indefinitely. He pointed to testimony from psychiatrists who told a committee examining the subject that it would be difficult — if not impossible — for medical professionals to decide whether a mental illness is beyond treatment.
Politicians across the political spectrum believe there is a good chance that the proposed Constitutional changes relating to the family will be rejected by voters on March 8th, according to a leading political analyst.
Columnist and former political editor Stephen Collins, said the lack of enthusiasm for the proposals across Government and Opposition benches is noteworthy given that the two amendments have the support of virtually the entire Dáil.
“The reluctance of many Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil TDs stems from the belief that the changes are unnecessary, and potentially politically dangerous, while the lack of enthusiasm on the Opposition side reflects a view that the amendments do not go far enough,” he wrote.
“With such halfhearted support, there is a very real chance that the amendments, which originated in proposals from the Citizens’ Assembly and were approved almost unanimously by the Dáil, will be rejected by the voters who bother to turn up on March 8th”.
