Is the Government Trying to Save the NHS By Killing Us Off?
Balancing the Books by Toasting the Terminally Ill
Right, I’m worried. And not in the usual “oh no, my loaf is on fire again” sort of way. I mean properly, pants-wettingly worried. Because, according to some deeply unsettling documents the government casually dropped just before a Bank Holiday… when everyone’s too drunk, barbecuing, or stuck on the M5… they’ve worked out that legalising assisted dying could save the NHS £10 million. In year one. And nearly £60 million over a decade.
Now, I’ve got nothing against sensible debate on this issue. If someone is genuinely suffering, and they want out, who am I to say no? But the moment a spreadsheet comes out, with the words “unutilised healthcare” on it… which is a hell of a way to say “we won’t need the chemo, Dave’s dead”, I get a bit twitchy. Especially when it sounds like someone in a Whitehall suit is getting excited about balancing the books by… well, thinning out the population.
Allegedly, the government’s own maths reckons 4,500 people a year might opt for assisted dying after ten years. That’s 12 people a day. Twelve! You’d need a queueing system and more spreadsheets.
Let’s not dress this up in soft lighting and Enya music. This isn’t about peaceful meadows and a final crusty farewell with family. This is the Treasury looking at end-of-life care and seeing it like a stale sourdough on a Tuesday morning—past its sell-by, hard as a brick, and not worth the butter. It’s the same logic you’d use to bin a loaf because it’s gone a bit green around the edges: “not economically viable to toast.”
Imagine it, some bloke in a Whitehall office, looking at a terminal cancer patient the same way you’d eye up a burnt brioche: “Well, that’s a bit of a waste… unless we don’t spend the money on trying to fix it.”
We’re talking about real people here, not under-proofed loaves. Human beings with six months to live, whose main concern should be pain relief and dignity, not whether they’re costing the state too much in jam and care home fees.
And speaking of under-proofed loaves, do you know what the same document says we’ll save in pensions and benefits? Millions. Nearly £20 million a year after a decade. They’ve even done the sums on how much we won’t need to spend on care homes. If this weren’t about real human beings, people with cancer, motor neurone disease, or other hideous illnesses, you’d almost admire the cold-hearted precision.
Right then, let’s just roll the dough back a bit.
If the government really is neutral, like it claims… cool, calm, arms folded and staring thoughtfully at a proofing basket… why did it sneak this document out on the Friday before a Bank Holiday? That’s the political equivalent of hiding a soggy-bottomed tart behind the bin just as Paul Hollywood walks into the tent. If this was such a noble, compassionate, world-class bit of policymaking, why wasn’t it served on a silver tray with icing sugar and fanfare?
“Ladies and gentlemen, step right up! Feast your eyes on our latest half-baked masterpiece! Slashing NHS waiting lists! Melting down the pension bill! Saving millions in care costs… all by gently encouraging a few thousand people to exit stage left before the yeast fully rises!”
Instead, they’ve gone and shoved it in the oven, hoping no one notices it’s leaking custard until it’s too late. Because when governments start using words like “unutilised healthcare” and “efficiency savings,” it’s never long before someone innocent gets scorched.
Because here’s the fear. Once we put a price tag on people at the end of life, where does it stop? Will some poor sod with stage 4 cancer be told, “Look mate, it’s palliative or assisted dying, but the second option saves us £38,000 over the next six months, so… you know, have a think”?
And don’t get me started on the so-called “safeguards.” When the Bill was first floated, judges were going to oversee every case. That felt reassuring. Like having a referee at a rugby match. But now? They’ve dropped the judges and replaced them with… social workers and psychiatrists. No offence, but I’ve met social workers. Some of them struggle to manage child custody cases, never mind the ethical quagmire of ending someone’s life.
Even some MPs are starting to go pale. Just 28 of them need to switch sides and the Bill could be dead in the water. Good. Because if we’re going to have this conversation… and it’s a conversation worth having… we need honesty, proper scrutiny, and fewer bloody spreadsheets.
Because here’s what’s not on that government balance sheet… the emotional cost to families, the risk of vulnerable people feeling like a burden, and the very real danger that, somewhere down the line, the state starts nudging people toward the Exit door.
Yes people deserve choices. But this? This feels less like compassion and more like cost-cutting with a hypodermic needle.
So yes, I’m worried. And I think you should be too.
Have you ever known the government to be efficient with money… unless someone dies?
###
Chris Geiger, Author of The Cancer Survivors Club.
Daily Dose of Disbelief!
Bsky: @chrisgeiger.com
Bsky: @thecancersurvivorsclub.com
Bsky: @dailydoseofdisbelief.com
----