In the UK, a new report commissioned by Marie Curie has been hailed as the most comprehensive analysis of public spending costs at the end of life for over a decade. The report estimates that at least £22 billion of public funds were spent on people in the last year of life in the UK in 2022.
“This amounts to almost £34,000 per person who died. Over half of this expenditure was on health care (almost £12 billion), 22% on social care (almost £5 billion) and 25% on social security (£5.5 billion),” authors outline.
The report points to the cost of hospital care as being the biggest portion of spending, noting:
“Of the money spent on health care, 81% of public funds spent on health care for people in their last year of life was spent in hospital, and 56% was spent on emergency hospital care. Put another way, £4 in every £5 was spent in hospital, including £2.80 on emergency hospital care. Strikingly just 11% of health expenditure for people in the last year of life is spent on primary and community care.”
The report comes barely a few months after the UK Parliament passed an Assisted Dying Bill to allow people to end their lives legally, despite huge qualms about the safety of the Bill. The release of a report on the cost of caring for people in their final months of life, splashed across the pages of UK papers this week, must force the question: Is the unspoken truth that euthanasia is considered by some to be a cost-saving measure?
Indeed, polite British politicians, for fear of offending people, have largely ignored the straightforward, blunt truth in this debate that assisted suicide will simply save the NHS money aside from anything else. In Canada in 2017, not long after assisted dying was legalised, the health care savings from assisted suicide were published, causing many in the country to worry that the whole thing was a money-saving exercise from the outset.
A number of studies pointing to the economic aspect of euthanasia have also conveniently flown under the radar. One study, authored by a Scottish ethicist and health economist, pointed to the cost-effectiveness of bringing in such a law, and how it could benefit a cash-strapped NHS. But I think it’s relevant, particularly as the UK begins evidence sessions on assisted dying, and in light of efforts to change the law here, which will undoubtedly restart again soon.
Dr David Shaw, co-author of the report said that the potential savings for allowing assisted suicide had become “the elephant in the room,”
“We are simply arguing that the economic costs of denying assisted dying should not be ignored; they should not be the key driver of any legal change, but it would be irresponsible not to consider them,” Shaw said.
At a time when the National Health Service is scrambling to save money – entering into an agreement last year to try and save between £60 and £100 million annually – doesn’t euthanasia just maybe look like value for money to some policymakers?
The same is true in Ireland, with the HSE’s Service Plan pledging to tackle run-away spending. A one-third cut in agency hours, valued at €250 million, was outlined in a plan last year, while HSE-run nursing homes are also currently among the areas facing cuts in health spending.
Indeed, some politicians are under no illusions about the potential to scrape back taxpayer money. Dianne Abbott, in December, raised concerns about the possibility that GPs would find it cheaper to promote assisted suicide. The Labour MP argued that what terminally ill people ‘really’ need is access to hospice care and proper end-of-life care.
“We’re moving to a situation where it will be cheaper for a GP to get a very ill person to sign on the dotted line for assisted suicide than to find them a place in a hospice,” she told the BBC.
Meanwhile, Pat McFadden, the chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster, indicated that people may have to pay to fund an assisted dying system. It logically follows that if that is the case, money will have to be taken from other places – like palliative care services and hospices – to facilitate this.
When it comes to proposals to adopt euthanasia, it’s always a good idea to follow the money trail. A disturbing report published in the Telegraph before Christmas referred to alleged plans by the UK government to offer cash incentives to the relatives of elderly people who opt to be euthanised.
“Terminally ill pensioners could end their lives earlier to spare loved ones six-figure bills under assisted dying legislation, experts have warned,” the Telegraph reported.
The report also noted that under current rules, pensions “are passed on free of income tax if the person dies before 75 years old.” Sounds more and more like money-motivated, State-sponsored killing.
The process surrounding the current Bill hurtling through the Westminster Parliament has been described as “rushed” and “secretive,” and every PR effort has been deployed to make State-sponsored suicide look seductive. When we’ve reached the point where death looks pretty appealing, is that really a choice?
63-year-old actor Martin Clunes said it best in an interview a couple of weeks ago.
“Now we’ve got this assisted dying Bill where, I’ve got to say, they’re just slagging off palliative care. Let’s save money by having everybody just f— off and die. And at your own expense. Oh, and by the way, you can’t pass your farm on.”
Introducing assisted suicide has always been a cost-saving, not a pain saving measure. To think these proposals are about compassion is entirely naive.
In Ireland, where our demographic future looks bleak, the headlong rush towards euthanasia makes perfect sense, and should be viewed in the context of the national purse strings. The population of people older than 66 is set to almost double in the next three decades. The Fiscal Advisory Council is worried that our rapidly ageing population is the biggest challenge the State now faces. To add to the growing sense of panic, those in retirement are expected to live longer, which means the government will look at pushing the pension age back.
“This transformation of the population is rapid by international standards,” the report warns, adding that it will put pressure on the state to provide more healthcare, long-term care and pension payments.
It’s not overly complicated – less working aged people means a shrinking economy, smaller tax revenues, and a bigger debt ratio. What makes more sense, in that light, for our politicians than killing people off with euthanasia?
It looks increasingly like the only working economic solution to our demographic woes over time. It’s about time people faced up to the reality that this is the cheapest healthcare package our government can roll out for people when they are older. What’s a better way to cook the demographic books than actuarial euthanasia?
Those backing government efforts to introduce euthanasia should realise it’s been chillingly glamourised for a reason – the uncomfortable truth is that keeping taxpayers alive is more expensive than killing us off with a lethal injection.