Recently in Assisted suicide Category

Happy New Year! I returned to work today to see social care at the top of the news headlines.

Social care's great and good have written an open letter to the prime minister (in the Telegraph) urging that he and his fellow party leaders deliver on social care funding reform this year to put an end to indignity and isolation for older people, dependence for disabled people and the denial of life opportunities for carers.

It's great to see social care on the front pages and at the top of news bulletins, and you cannot fault the timing: this is, of course, the year in which the government publishes a White Paper setting out how it plans to reform social care, including its funding. Moreover, cross-party talks are due to start.

Before Christmas, we predicted that the government would not deliver on social care funding reform, specifically that it would not implement the proposals of the Dilnot commission to put a £35,000 cap on lifetime care costs for all because of the £1.7bn bill.

An optimist might argue that we made the wrong call, and that the festive period showed that both government and opposition were up for making social care funding reform work.

On this line, Labour has shown how much of a priority it puts on social care by putting out research over Christmas showing how much charges for home care and other community services had risen in the past couple of years (6% for home care). Releasing the research, shadow minister for care and older people Liz Kendall urged Cameron to engage in serious cross-party talks on reform. The positive narrative would also point to action from government in the shape of a £170m injection of cash into social care services for people discharged from hospital to manage winter pressures over the coming months.

This money - one-tenth of the cost of Dilnot - was found from Department of Health savings but meeting the full cost of Dilnot is a call that only the Treasury (and Number 10) can make. Moreover, whatever the pros and cons of the Dilnot package it doesn't, in itself, purport to solve all or most of the problems outlined in today's letter to Cameron.

This is because Dilnot is about expanding the existing publicly-funded social care system to cover self-funders (who would benefit from the cap); it is not about filling the funding gap in the existing system (put at £2bn to £4bn), which manifests itself in rising charges and eligibility criteria, squeezes on providers and inadequate quality.

This £4bn-6bn black hole (Dilnot plus funding gap) is not the whole story. As the government, councils and the sector know, the way social care operates needs fundamental reform  through better integration with health and housing, more personalisation (in the widest sense) and more intelligent commissioning. This should generate efficiencies that would reduce the Dilnot plus funding gap black hole from £4-6bn a year to something less than this.

However, I very much doubt that even the reduced figure would be something the Treasury would stomach, particularly in the current economic climate.

That is why I remain a pessimist - though I would be beyond delighted to be proved wrong.

Martin Green, chief executive of the English Community Care Association and government dementia champion, could face the sack if pro life campaigners get their way.

Over the weekend Green told the Telegraph he backed the legalisation of assisted suicide for adults with capacity, with appropriate safeguards. He argued it was a logical extension of the choice and control mantra of the health and social care sectors.

Now the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children has lashed out by calling for him to be fired from his government dementia advisor position.

Paul Tully, general secretary of SPUC, said: "Mr Green is clearly not interested in caring for some dementia sufferers. He seems to want them dead.

"Not only would legalising assisted suicide for the elderly create insecurity and a sense of worthlessness among older people, it would also provoke discrimination and prejudice among carers and care home staff. Imagine a government advisor on race relations saying that immigrants found it difficult to commit suicide and so should be helped to do so," he added.

I don't think it's likely he'll get the sack and here's why: Green was expressing a personal view. A view, which doesn't necessarily conflict with his role and ECCA or the DH and, in 2011, is fairly mainstream.

What the Telegraph article doesn't mention mention is that Green has previously suffered with cancer. So it's understandable that he should have a strong view (Green rarely has anything but strong views) on what should be allowed at the end of life as I imagine most people faced with such a diagnosis would find themselves giving it some thought.

Therefore, I suspect that he has given it a more detailed appraisal than most. Adding that to the debate, which is a heated one on both sides, can hardly be seen as irresponsible and whether you agree or disagree with him surely forthright reasoned voices are just those that you want advising the government on assisted suicide, dementia or any aspect of policy.

You might want to think twice if, like me, you had set a date in your iPlayer diary to catch-up on Terry Pratchett's Choosing to Die, broadcast last night on BBC2.

If you've got delicate sensibilities it may be a bit much.

"Shocking" is the verdict from the Herald, while "chilling" and "uncomfortable" are chosen words of The Independent.

However, "moving" is the verdict from the Telegraph this morning and the Metro reports tweeters hailing it as powerful.

This is one programme which demands to be seen, if only to establish where on that wide spectrum you sit.