Euthanasia Whistleblower

By Paul De Marco

‘Evil will indeed flourish when good men remain silent, and yet sometimes all that it takes to bring dark practices to light is for a single man to speak out.’ This book tells the story of John Anderson, an unassuming and decent living 85 year old retired school teacher who lives outside London. Depressed by years of living in a toxic social environment and under a government whose policies are openly hostile to the elderly, he finally decides to die by euthanasia. Euthanasia clinics claim to offer the sick and elderly a dignified death, free from pain at a time and place of their choosing. But John discovers that beneath the calm and rosy veneer of the clinics there lies a living hell, which he is determined to expose. The scenario portrayed here is surely just a page in mankind’s history book away from reality!

• Language: English
• Publisher: Lulu.com
• Release date: Aug 1, 2018
• ISBN: 9780244404338

Book preview

Euthanasia Whistleblower

Euthanasia Whistleblower

Paul De Marco

Copyright 2018

Paul De Marco

The characters and events in this book are fictional and any similarity to actual people, living or dead, or to any organisation is entirely coincidental.

Reproduction in any manner, of the text in this document in whole or in part, in English or in any other language, or otherwise, without the written permission of the author is prohibited.

ISBN : 978-0-244-40433-8

The Whistle Blower:

Evil will indeed flourish

when good men remain silent

and yet sometimes all that it takes

to bring dark practices to light

is for a single man to speak out.

A hostile world for the elderly

John Anderson lay awake in his bed, restless and anxious, waiting for the English winter sun to filter through his curtains one last time. How many sunrises have I seen over the last 85 years? he thought, but this was to be the final one. It seemed utterly surreal. He sighed heavily as dozens of thoughts streamed through his mind – thoughts of his youth, of his marriage and of his family and friends over the years.

These memory flashbacks were supposedly what happened at that brief interlude between life and death and yet it was somehow happening to him now and for good reason too. This was the day he was scheduled to visit his local V.A.R.C. or Voluntary Assisted Release Clinic, where a doctor would administer a drug which would painlessly end his existence in this world.

His wife Janice had died of breast cancer back in 2016 and that in itself now seemed strange, as this was a disease that people rarely died from any longer. John was in pretty good health despite his age and so there was no medical rationale for him deciding to die by euthanasia. Rather it was because he was suffering from depression, after years of living alone in a hostile social environment and with precious few friends.

These government run clinics had sprung up in every major town in Britain and their construction over the last 11 years had been one of the nation’s great infrastructure projects that had created thousands of jobs. But it still depressed John, that the nation he had always loved and admired, had led the developed world in this innovation.

When the assisted dying programme was introduced in October 2029, politicians had claimed that it would help to slash the massive over spend in the Health Service and that it would also reduce the chronic shortage of affordable housing. There had indeed been significant improvements in both these areas for several years after the introduction of assisted dying, but ultimately the government returned to form and spent well beyond its means.

It was now December 2040 and the ruling Democratic Alliance Party was in its third term in office, although the popularity of this left of centre government was on the wane.

The UK population had increased to 76 million by 2029 and about 17% of all citizens were over the age of 65. These demographics, combined with a weak economy, had placed enormous strain on state funded healthcare provision and there was an annual and worsening black hole in the Health Service finances year on year.

By then, efficiency savings measures had deeply affected the quality of care that the Health Service could provide and the waiting times for non life-threatening operations such as hip and knee replacements and cataract laser surgery, had doubled in the last ten years. By 2029, it was widely accepted that the service was unsustainable without radical reform, if it was to continue to be free at the point of use.

Unemployment was also at an extremely high level, especially for those out of education and under the age of thirty. The housing crisis had been exacerbated by the high levels of net migration over this period and house prices had risen dramatically, with the government and mortgage lenders doing little to prevent the mother of all housing booms. The government was after all raking in considerable revenue through stamp duty on these house purchases.

There had eventually been a sharp correction in property prices, which coincided with the highest mortgage interest rates the nation had seen in a generation, at over 6%. There were now over 2 million homeowners with negative equity and yet the property prices remained so inflated, that even people earning relatively high salaries still could not afford the deposit for their own homes.

The government’s harsh austerity programme had ultimately failed to improve any of these problem areas, but it had succeeded in angering large swathes of the disenfranchised electorate. The country was on the cusp of a perfect storm!

A serious riot erupted in June 2029 when the police intervened to prevent three separate protest groups from converging on Parliament Square. One group had begun gathering mid morning near Lambeth Palace, another assembled in St James Park and a third protest had started outside the Tate Britain art museum.

The demonstrations were technically illegal as neither the Greater London Authority nor the Metropolitan Police had been notified of them in advance, but as the three protests initially seemed benign and as they appeared to be static demonstrations, the police had only maintained a small presence at each.

What the police were unaware of was that these protests had been carefully coordinated in order to catch them off guard and just before noon the organisers suddenly sent out a barrage of text messages instructing the demonstrators to head towards Parliament Square.

The group near Lambeth Palace quickly headed down Lambeth Road and over Westminster Bridge, while the protestors in St James Park made their way down Birdcage Walk. The police soon realised that they’d been outwitted when the third group of demonstrators outside the Tate began walking down Millbank towards Parliament Square.

Police reserve units were quickly mobilised in an attempt to contain the growing crowds, which were becoming more militant as they approached the square. Police lines formed, but were soon being over stretched as they were outnumbered by about five to one. A tense stand-off ensued and the nervous officers holding the line could sense that it wouldn’t take much for the incendiary atmosphere to explode.

The spark came in the form of Kenny McDonald, an angry and outspoken shop steward who’d recently been made redundant and who was aggressive even on the best of days. Kenny was immensely popular with the militant faction of the anti-capitalism and anti-austerity brigade and he was one of the key organisers of the protests that day.

He was at the forefront of the mob confronting the police, with his face just inches away from a young policeman who’d only recently joined the force. McDonald was yelling abuse at him at the top of his voice and in a moment of sheer madness and loss of self control, head butted the young officer in the face.

The policemen on either side of the downed officer grabbed Kenny, but as they attempted to restrain him, he fell backwards and hit the back of his head on the pavement, which knocked him unconscious. This was all it took for the crowd to burst forward and the fighting that ensued made it impossible to get medical help for McDonald, who was still lying motionless on the ground.

Within fifteen minutes, dozens of police vans converged on the square and the riot police lost no time in getting stuck in to the fracas. The hundreds of demonstrators then ran off in several directions, vandalising dozens of cars and smashing shop windows as they went.

Kenny McDonald was rushed to hospital, but attempts to resuscitate him failed as he’d suffered a massive brain haemorrhage and he was pronounced dead later that afternoon.

When news of his death reached the social media, it sparked a wave of violence in several parts of London, but the anarchy soon spread to other cities as well. The rioting was finally quelled after six days, when the army was brought in to assist the police in regaining control.

The looting and arson attacks had left their mark on communities throughout the country and there was now a tangible feeling of unease and suspicion. This was especially true at night, where gangs of young people without hope and with nothing to do, could still be seen menacingly wandering the streets.

The elderly had been the target of choice in the media for some years and they were routinely criticised for not making a greater contribution to British society. The newspapers pushed the narrative that they’d enjoyed the golden years of high investment returns; free university education, low unemployment and rocketing house prices.

There was increasing public support for an annual tax to be levied on those who owned their own homes, based on the value of their properties. The trouble was that although most retired people owned their own homes and the values of these had risen greatly over the years, they were no longer in employment and so they were typically asset rich but cash poor.

But the tabloids constantly ran articles showing how the younger generation had experienced years of economic stagnation and high unemployment through no fault of their own. A high proportion of young people now faced a future without hope, despite being better educated than any generation in history, both in the UK and on the continent.

John Anderson had finally retired as a mathematics teacher at the age of 72 back in 2027 and he would regularly take issue with people who told him that his generation had it easy and that they should be giving more back to society. He would argue that it was all just nonsense and remind people that he had to work hard like everybody else to scrape a deposit together and that it had taken him ten years, during which time he’d been forced to rent dingy little flats.

John would also mention that it had been necessary for him to take on a second job for a few years, because his rent had been half of his take home pay. Finally he would bring up the subject of interest rates, reminding people that he had lived through periods when the interest rate on a mortgage was as high as 15%.

He felt that the problems experienced by the country resulted from the mismanagement of the economy by consecutive governments and that they had little to do with his generation. But John’s views, although shared with virtually everyone of his vintage, were treated with contempt by the young.

When John had been sixty years of age, there’d been free off-peak travel for the elderly in London and they’d received a winter fuel payment, but these benefits had long since been withdrawn.

John remembered the days when buses all displayed a sign which read, ‘Please give up your seat for the elderly.’ After a few years of these being covered in graffiti or defaced by young people, they had all been removed and it was very rare indeed to see anyone offering an old person their seat. Quite the opposite in fact, as generally the elderly would be bumped out of the path of young people trying to get on a bus or train.

The Democratic Alliance party had very narrowly won the last general election and was deeply unpopular with the electorate in large swathes of the country. Cabinet Ministers now spent much of their time in crisis mode and were permanently debating how to resolve the vast array of problems gripping the nation.

However, there was cross party consensus that something radical had to be done to stimulate the economy and to create jobs, to reduce the massive budget deficit and to tackle the chronic shortage of affordable homes.

The Health Service had by far the biggest problem and so the newly appointed Health Minister, Stan Mears, was tasked with analysing the finances and coming up with a workable cost reduction strategy. Mears was the son of a taxi driver and had been raised in a poor inner London council housing estate, where his anger at the privileged in society had become deeply entrenched in his psyche.

On completion of his report, Mears presented his findings to the House just before the weekly Prime Ministers Question time. He explained that part of his team’s research had focused on analysing the cost to the Health Service of people aged 65 and over.

It showed that two fifths of the entire budget was spent on treating the over 65’s and that two thirds of all admissions to hospital were for those in this age category. He also pointed out that emergency re-admissions to hospital were far higher in the over 75’s than in any other age group.

Mears then went on to highlight the problem of those aged 85 and over, which he said had cost the service on average, £7,900 per person per annum back in 2016. He said that the cost in 2029 had risen to a staggering £15,800 for people in this age bracket.

He went on to say that 1 in 4 hospital beds were occupied by people with Dementia and that a very large proportion of the social care budget was used in the care of patients in this age group.

Mears paused for a few seconds and then said that unless a radical solution was found, then there would continue to be enormous pressure on the Health Service. He argued that there were probably tens of thousands of elderly people living with various debilitating conditions, who would probably choose to end their lives, if this was within the law.

Mears said that he had no doubt that a high proportion of people who were suffering with Dementia, who were sitting out their days in abject misery and boredom, would probably also choose to pass away peacefully if they could.

Mears then made the suggestion that the issue of Assisted Dying, which would allow people to die with dignity and at a time of their choosing, should be revisited and brought before the House. He said that it made no sense whatsoever for British citizens to have to travel abroad in order to visit clinics that would perform this service, when it could routinely be offered here.

He went on to say that there would also be a benefit to the greater society if euthanasia was legalised, in that the Health Service would then have funds freed up to reduce waiting times for operations and to improve outcomes for the difficult to treat cancers and heart disease.

He said that another benefit would be that it would help to ease the housing crisis, which was one of the factors that had caused so much resentment amongst hard working families and which had been the touch paper for the riots. Mears argued that in many cases the elderly were living alone in their homes and that on their deaths their families would be in a position to put these properties on the market.

His views were immediately challenged by Craig Chandler, the Shadow Secretary of State for Health, who lambasted Mears for his comments.

Chandler said, "I cannot understand how Stan Mears can stand before this House and link the acute failings in his department with the plight of our elderly citizens. Might I remind Mr Mears that our elderly built this nation during the productive period of their lives and that they paid taxes throughout.

I agree that they deserve dignity, but not in euthanasia, because there is surely no dignity in that! What they deserve is a Health Service fit for purpose, a Health Service which treats them with respect and compassion. Nothing less!

MP’s from both sides of the House erupted in an angry confrontation that resulted in the Speaker shouting repeatedly, Order! Order! Order, I say!

A few weeks later, Mears brought the Assisted Dying Bill before the House and the first reading, which was purely a formality without any debate, was then made. It was later published as a House of Commons paper for the main principles of the bill to be debated and Mears confidently presented the case before a packed House of Commons, outlining its key proposals.

He recommended that Assisted Dying be legalised under very stringent conditions and with a raft of safeguards in place. Anyone suffering from a terminal condition who had been diagnosed with having six months or less to live, could apply for Assisted Dying, but this would have to be approved by an independent Health Service GP, in addition to the doctor who had been treating the patient.

His Bill further proposed that anyone suffering from Dementia in Stage 6 onwards of the condition could be permitted Assisted Dying, if this was the will of the immediate family. This would only be sanctioned in cases where a family member had Lasting Power of Attorney over the financial affairs and the health and welfare of the patient.

Another controversial recommendation was that anyone over the age of eighty five, who was of sound mind but who was suffering from a chronic condition that rendered them with a poor quality of life, would also be eligible. Finally the bill proposed that assisted dying would only be permitted in Health Service run clinics and undertaken by Health Service registered doctors.

When Mears finished his introduction to the bill, Craig Chandler took no time in getting to his feet to voice his opposition to the proposed legislation.

He cleared his throat and said, "As Stan Mears has repeatedly made clear, the key driver of his Assisted Dying Bill is the pressure on finances within the Health Service and the need to free up hospital beds. But the Health Minister is presenting the Bill as though it’s all about offering patients a dignified death, whereas in reality this is a smokescreen for the real motivation for the Bill, which is all about money!

"If we look back a hundred years in history, we see a very similar picture in Germany, where the Nazi Party began promoting the idea of euthanising mentally ill patients, those with physical disabilities and also babies born with congenital defects.

The motivation for them doing this was initially to free up hospital beds and to reduce costs after a prolonged economic depression. They even had leaflets, posters and short films made in an effort to get public support for the introduction of euthanasia.

Craig stopped speaking for a few seconds as he held up a large poster that had been widely circulated in Nazi Germany in 1938. It depicted a mentally ill patient dressed in black, who was seated, with a doctor in a white lab coat standing behind him, with his hand resting on one of the patient’s shoulders. The caption in bold writing read ‘60000 Mark.’

The rest of the wording was too small for the House to read and so Craig continued by saying, "The poster reads, ‘60000 Mark is what this person suffering from a hereditary