Christian Medical Comment

Fantastic treatment breakthrough highlights utter scandal of British banking crisis

2012-02-05T08:39:00.000-08:00

Here is an amazing good news story I first read about on Aljazeera which has had wide coverage outside the UK but has been largely ignored by the BBC and most British newspapers.

I have previously highlighted on this blog that by focussing exclusively on HIV/AIDS, malaria and TB, Western governments and NGOs have neglected other easily treatable and curable diseases.

The neglected diseases, which include schistosomiasis, river blindness, ascariasis, elephantiasis and trachoma, affect more than 750 million people and kill at least 500,000 every year.

Treating all of these illnesses with a cocktail of four readily available drugs would cost less than 50 cents (28p) a person a year. Furthermore dealing with the forgotten diseases would reduce susceptibility to malaria and help to make socio-economic improvements for those in poverty, as well as save lives.

Reaching everyone in Africa who needed treating would cost $200 million a year, a mere fraction of the $15 billion a year being spent on malaria, HIV and TB.

But this week a fantastic breakthrough has been announced.

Thirteen major pharmaceutical companies, government groups and health charities will work together in a push to eliminate or control by 2020 ten tropical diseases that affect more than a billion people in poor countries.

The partners, including the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, call it the largest coordinated effort ever to combat neglected tropical diseases. The government groups and charities alone are committing just over $785 million in new funding.

The drug makers are donating billions of doses of their medicines over the rest of the decade, but did not attribute a value to them. The companies also will work together to speed up development of new treatments, and the partners will work on improving drug delivery and treatment programs, including prevention and education.

The project, announced Monday at the Royal College of Physicians in London, aims to meet the goals of the World Health Organization's roadmap for controlling the diseases by 2020.

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is the project’s biggest donor, with a five-year, $363 million donation to support research and operations. The U.K. Department for International Development is committing about $305 million, and the U.S. Agency for International Development is providing $89 million. That's on top of USAID’s $212 million investment since 2006. Other governments or charities are giving smaller amounts.

This is wonderful news indeed but in reading the main thing that struck me was the miniscule cost of this project alongside the scale of our British national debt.

I have previously also remarked that the cost of tackling non-communicable diseases (eg. heart disease, cancer, chronic respiratory disease and diabetes) worldwide each year in poor countries is less than 1% of what we spent bailing out British banks.

This cost, calculated at £7.2 billion, is more than ten times what has been pledged this week but less than 1% of what we will spend bailing out British banks (£850 billion). Much has been made of the £45 billion of taxpayers money used to bail out Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS). But this £850 billion total is almost 20 times that.

According to the National Audit Office the Government spent £117 billion buying shares in banks and lending directly to financial institutions.

The audit office also suggested that the bill could rise further, as the total of investments, guarantees, loans and insurance schemes established to support the banks meant that the taxpayer was liable for up to £850 billion - £40,000 for each family.

The £850 billion includes buying £76 billion of shares in Royal Bank of Scotland and the Lloyds Banking Group; indemnifying the Bank of England against losses incurred in providing more than £200 billion of liquidity support; guaranteeing up to £250 billion of wholesale borrowing by banks to strengthen liquidity; providing £40 billion of loans and other funding to Bradford & Bingley and the Financial Services Compensation Scheme; and insurance cover of over £280 billion for bank assets.

Given how little it costs in comparison to prevent, treat or eliminate disease imagine what impact we could have made had we chosen to invest our money in caring for the poor rather than in borrowing to live beyond our means!

Perhaps this is one reason why the former Archbishop of Canterbury, George Carey, recently said that Britain’s public debt, which last month topped £1 trillion, was the ‘greatest moral scandal’ facing the country.

God said of Sodom, ‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.’ (Ezekiel 16:49, 50)

If this was what he thought of Sodom, I wonder what he thinks of us.

Same sex marriage is a legal can of worms

2012-02-04T09:50:00.000-08:00

The Prime Minister intends to legalise same sex marriage and is launching a consultation in March to ask how.

But very little has so far been written about by what means it could actually be done.

Marriage is a virtually universal human institution practised by virtually all societies and cultures.

This definition of marriage has long been recognised in British law and was originally based on biblical teaching (Genesis 2:24).

Marriage was then formally defined in a famous court case late in the 19th century. Lord Penzance, in Hyde v Hyde in 1866, called it:

'… the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.'

So there are, in other words, four conditions for a marriage:

•it must be voluntary
•it must be for life, ie the parties’ intention at the time of the marriage
•the union must be heterosexual
•it must be monogamous

In addition, the parties must be of marriageable age.

The formalities of marriage are predominantly governed by the Marriage Act 1949, the Marriage Act 1983 and the Marriage (Registrar General's Licence) Act 1970.

By contrast the Civil Partnership Act 2004 (CPA 2004) defines civil partnership as a formal legal relationship between two people of the same sex. It gives same-sex couples virtually all of the rights and privileges of married couples.

The President of the Family Division has even described civil partnerships as conferring ‘the benefits of marriage in all but name’.

There are some differences in English law, between a marriage and a civil partnership, but these differences focus not on the rights they confer, but on the genders of the partners, the procedure and place where the partnership is formed, and the roles of consummation and adultery in making and breaking the relationship.

These differences are there because they are different types of relationship. It is not ‘one size fits all’. Currently same-sex couples cannot get married and opposite-sex couples cannot form civil partnerships.

So how might same sex marriage actually be legalized?

There are essentially three options.

1.Upgrade all civil partnerships to marriages
2.Open both marriage and civil partnerships to both gay and straight couples
3.Rename civil partnerships as same sex marriages

Option 1 would involve upgrading the Marriage Act and scrapping the Civil Partnership Act. It would also involve rewriting a lot of legislation (because of the number of other Acts of Parliament which refer either to marriage or civil partnership).

But it would also require some redefinition of marriage. At present a marriage can be declared void if it is not ‘consummated’. And if necessary, whether consummation has been achieved needs to be determined by medical examination. But how is a lesbian or gay marriage to be consummated? Interesting question!

In the same way adultery is grounds for divorce, but the legal definition of adultery is based on (how does one say this politely?) a certain kind of genital contact. So how exactly do lesbian or gay couples commit adultery? Or are the consummation and adultery definitions just to be dropped?

But the biggest problem with Option 1 is that many gay and lesbian couples might not want their relationships upgraded and may protest vehemently should civil partnerships be scrapped… which brings us to Option 2.

Option 2, that favoured by gay activist Peter Tatchell, is called the ‘Equal Love’ Option. This option is based on the assumption that ‘everyone should be equal before the law’ and would require opening up both civil partnership and marriage ‘to all couples, gay and heterosexual, without discrimination’. This would enable homosexual couples to stay in civil partnerships if they so chose or upgrade to marriage. Similarly heterosexual couples might opt for civil partnerships rather than marriage.

But, according to an assessment done for Stonewall by a former civil servant, the cost of implementing this option would be around £5 billion. The figure relates to a theoretical increase in straight couples taking up the opportunity of civil partnerships, with knock-on implications to their entitlement to pension and tax benefits.

One would have thought this is not something the government would be keen to contemplate at a time of economic recession in order to appease a small minority interest. Also it still leaves us with the definition problems described above around consummation and adultery.

Option 3 is the simplest of all administratively. It simply involves renaming civil partnerships as same sex marriages. So, essentially, the Marriage Act would be left as is, and a ‘find and replace’ done on the term ‘civil partnership’ in the Civil Partnership Act. Cheap and simple perhaps, but the problem is that it is simply a semantic trick that will not satisfy those who want ‘real equality’. Gay activists do not want ‘same sex marriage’, they want ‘marriage’.

So legalising same sex marriage is not as simple as one might think. Given that civil partnerships are already ‘marriage in all but name’, is it really worth the hassle and the huge political fight that will be necessary to achieve it?

Another reason I would have thought for leaving the whole thing well alone.

Deep divisions in church over same-sex marriage going into ‘Marriage Week’

2012-02-04T07:52:00.000-08:00

Next week, 7-14 February, is marriage week, when all around the country churches and community groups will encourage married couples to focus on actively nurturing their relationships.

More than two thirds of Britain’s families are headed by a married couple and statistics show that these twelve million couples are more likely to stay together because of, not in spite of, being married.

To launch Marriage Week 2012, Sir Paul Coleridge, Rabbi Mirvis and Professor Scott Stanley will speak at an event in the Houses of Parliament on 6 February.

The website tells us that Marriage Week ‘celebrates healthy marriages – the union of a man and a woman who make a permanent and exclusive commitment to each other, primarily though not exclusively, with the intent of procreation and the raising of children.’

It adds that ‘this social institution has been enshrined in the history of civilization providing vital inter-generational links and stability’.

And yet this event is taking place in the middle of moves, led by Prime Minister David Cameron, to redefine marriage altogether.

Next month the government will launch a consultation on legalising same-sex marriage. They will not be asking whether to do so, but how.

And yet introducing ‘same-sex marriage’ would confer almost no additional legal rights: same-sex couples have these already thanks to the Civil Partnership Act 2004. The President of the Family Division has even described civil partnerships as conferring ‘the benefits of marriage in all but name’.

When asked last month by Archbishop Peter Smith what additional rights marriage would give same sex couples that they did not have already under the Civil Partnership Act, Home Secretary Theresa May was not surprisingly unable to give an answer.

The first shots in the battle have already been fired.

Labour’s Jim Dobbin warned that David Cameron’s plans to rewrite the definition of marriage could be opposed by more than 100 MPs.

The Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu, said last month that marriage is still the bedrock of society which promotes love, care and forgiveness in relationships.

Last week, in an interview with the Daily Telegraph, he warned ministers not to ride roughshod over centuries of tradition by changing the definition of marriage and cautioned that such a move would face fierce opposition from bishops and parliamentarians.

He said: ‘I don’t think it is the role of the state to define what marriage is. It is set in tradition and history and you can’t just [change it] overnight, no matter how powerful you are.’

He has now been joined by the former Bishop of Rochester, the Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali, who has said: ‘Marriage is a special kind of relationship and should not be confused with other relationships which have their own integrity.’

They join 39 American church leaders who recently spoke out in support of marriage, warned of the dangers of attempts to redefine marriage and gave specific examples of religious freedoms that will be threatened if same sex marriage is legalised.

However, there is division in the Church of England over the issue in advance of the General Synod meeting, also next week.

The Bishop of Salisbury, the Rt Rev Nicholas Holtam, has now become the most senior cleric to say that same-sex couples should be allowed to wed. And over 100 clergy have written to the Times asking for the 'right' for civil partnerships to be held in Anglican churches.

Earlier, the Very Rev Jeffrey John, Dean of St Albans, said he would consider suing the Church over its decisions not to promote him to bishop. The 58-year-old, was required to give up his appointment as Bishop of Reading in 2003 due to his relationship with another priest and was blocked from the post Bishop of Southwark in 2010, a position Bishop Holtam was also considered for.

In January, the Telegraph reported that senior High Court judge, Sir Paul Coleridge, had launched a campaign to promote marriage and fight family breakdown. Sir Paul, 62, who has been married for almost 40 years, said that he was ‘unashamedly advocating marriage as the gold standard for couples where children are involved’.

Previously on this blog I presented evidence that marriage leads to better family relationships, less economic dependence, better physical health and longevity, improved mental health and emotional well-being and reduced crime and domestic violence.

The findings of the landmark 2006 report 'Breakdown Britain' were similar. Based on an extensive evidence-based analysis by the Centre for Social Justice it found that the breakdown of marriage and the family was the key driver of Britain's collapse, strongly correlated with the five 'pathways to poverty': family breakdown, educational failure, economic dependence, indebtedness, and addiction.

Not surprising then that a recent paper from the Jubilee Centre calculates the annual cost of relationship breakdown in Britain at around £100 billion, about twice as much as alcohol abuse, smoking and obesity combined.

Marriage is a virtually universal human institution because it was originally God’s idea. It was God who first said that it was not good for man to be alone and who created the unique complementarity of the marriage relationship for companionship, pleasure, procreation and the raising of children – one man, one woman, united for life (Genesis 2:24).

Marriage is also in this way illustrative of Christ's own self-giving abandonment to his bride the church (Ephesians 5:31, 32) and points to a greater richness of human relationships beyond the grave of which the very best on earth are but a pale shadow.(1 Corinthians 2:9, 10).

Marriage is practised by virtually all societies and cultures and this was God’s clear intention. Marriage is not just something for Christians but for all mankind. It was given as a creation ordinance in the second chapter of Genesis long before the calling of Abraham, the establishment of Israel or the birth of the church.

The very same biblical definition of marriage has been part of British law for centuries and was formally defined in a famous court case late in the 19th century. The classic legal definition of marriage dates back to that given by Lord Penzance in Hyde v Hyde in 1866:

'… the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.'

Some same sex couples may choose to live in civil partnerships, and under present law this is now legal (although I would argue not moral!). But no one has the right to redefine marriage for the rest of us.

Let's do everything possible to make sure they don’t.

Marriage is special and unique. Marriage is marriage – one man, one woman, for life. It is not for governments to redefine - but simply to recognise.

LGBT community and church at sixes and sevens over bisexuality

2012-02-03T14:55:00.000-08:00

This week 100 clergy sent a letter to the Times(£) giving their support for holding civil partnership ceremonies in Church of England churches.

The Rev Gillean Craig, Vicar of St Mary Abbots, Kensington, told The Times why he signed: ‘The homosexual women and men who are my friends and colleagues leave me in no doubt that their sexual orientation is given. It’s how they are, not a lifestyle choice.’

The belief that sexual orientation is biologically determined and fixed is increasingly common, but has been recently challenged by new research into the rise of bisexuality.

In a recent ‘comment’ piece in the Church Times, Andrew Goddard and Professor Glynn Harrison challenge this widely held perception.

‘The old belief is still common, especially in the Church, that people are either homosexual or heterosexual. “Gay” and “straight” are often spoken of as though they were distinct and enduring categories of human experience, present from birth and rooted in biological difference. Many still think that it is all simply to do with having been “born that way”. To this way of thinking, nurture, environment, culture, and human agency are supposed to have contributed little to the way in which sexual desires develop and integrate with personality.’

They argue, on the basis of two recently published reports (1,2), that the best and most recent evidence fundamentally challenges the commonly accepted framework. These studies confirm that there are a number of people who decline conventional categories of ‘gay’ or ‘straight’, and prefer instead to characterise themselves in terms such as ‘bisexual’ or ‘unlabelled’.

The UCLA review reports that, in the US, an estimated 3.5 per cent of adults label themselves as ‘lesbian’, ‘gay’, or ‘bisexual’. But, more importantly, within this figure, “bisexuals” are a slight majority overall — 1.8 per cent compared with 1.7 per cent who identify as gay or lesbian — and a clear majority among women.

The NHSR report says that 11 per cent of the Americans surveyed (aged 15-44) acknowledge some level of same sex attraction, and 8.8 per cent have engaged in sexual behaviours with someone of the same sex at some time in their lives.

This fluidity has been recognized by commentators from the LGBT community for some time. Former MP and journalist Matthew Parris wrote several years ago:

‘Sexuality is a supple as well as subtle thing, and can sometimes be influenced, even promoted; I think that in some people some drives can be discouraged and others encouraged; I think some people can choose’ (The Times, 5 August 2006).

And gay rights activist Peter Tatchell just last month courted controversy in a Huffington Post article, ‘Future Sex: Beyond Gay and Straight’, by affirming the fluidity of sexual attraction.

‘We already know, thanks to a host of sex surveys, that bisexuality is an fact of life and that even in narrow-minded, homophobic cultures, many people have a sexuality that is, to varying degrees, capable of both heterosexual and homosexual attraction.’

The American Psychiatric Association (APA) has stated, ‘some people believe that sexual orientation is innate and fixed; however, sexual orientation develops across a person's lifetime’. The APA also says that ‘for some the focus of sexual interest will shift at various points through the life span...’

And a report from the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health similarly states,‘For some people, sexual orientation is continuous and fixed throughout their lives. For others, sexual orientation may be fluid and change over time’

Cynthia Nixon is the latest in a line of ‘celebrities’ drawing our attention to the idea of ‘liquid’ sexualities.

Nixon, best known for the role of Miranda in ‘Sex and the City’, spent fifteen years in a committed relationship with a man, bearing him two children during that time. But for the past eight years, she has been in a relationship with a woman, to whom she is engaged.

In an interview with The New York Times Magazine, Nixon said, ‘I understand that for many people it’s not, but for me it’s a choice’.

In a recent commentary Linda Carbonell, spells out the implications of these developments for the gay rights movement:

‘For years now, gay rights activists have been making the case that gay is not a “lifestyle choice,” but a biological condition. They consider it essential to the movement for the biology to be accepted as the root cause of homosexuality. The thinking is simple – if being gay is not a choice, then discriminating against people who are gay is unconstitutional.’

But she goes on to say that the gay rights movement is ‘ so dug in to the idea that “lifestyle choice” threatens gay rights that they are attacking actress Cynthia Nixon for saying that for her, at least, it was a choice’.

As reported in ABC News, ‘Nixon’s comment upset some members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community, who took umbrage with the idea that they have control over their sexual preference.’

So much so it seems that they have attempted to get Nixon to restate her position:

In a statement published by the LGBT magazine The Advocate, Nixon is now quoted as saying:

‘While I don’t often use the word, the technically precise term for my orientation is bisexual. I believe bisexuality is not a choice, it is a fact. What I have ‘chosen’ is to be in a gay relationship. As I said in the Times and will say again here, I do, however, believe that most members of our community — as well as the majority of heterosexuals — cannot and do not choose the gender of the persons with whom they seek to have intimate relationships because, unlike me, they are only attracted to one sex.’

However, whatever Nixon may say, the cat has long been out of the bag. Whilst there are clearly some people who experience exclusively either same-sex or opposite-sex erotic attraction, there are also a significant minority whose sexual feelings are more fluid - and in both directions.

These fluid, flexible, competing sexual attractions pose ethical questions for everybody, including those of religious faith.

As Goddard and Harrison argue, ‘The concept of a spectrum of sexuality - something known for decades, but often ignored - reflects the complex reality of sexual attraction and behaviour, and calls into question simplistic analogies between sexual orientation and race.’

It also raises the question of how to provide pastoral support for those who recognize they have a bisexual orientation, yet wish to remain heterosexual and monogamous in practice.

Such people surely must have the right to seek pastoral and counselling support in managing their sexual desires in line with their chosen religious identity and values. And this will obviously involve learning to encourage and nurture heterosexual feelings whilst at the same time seeking not to act on homosexual feelings.

And if choosing not to act on homosexual feelings is acceptable in the case of people who are bisexual yet wish to remain monogamous, then why is it not equally acceptable for those who have exclusively homosexual feelings, to choose not to act on them and to seek help toward this end?

After all, not acting on heterosexual sexual impulses is part of life for single Christians who have never married, or are divorced or bereaved.

As affirmed in a new booklet published by CMF last year, ‘People with unwanted same sex attraction who seek to live in conformity with their beliefs should be free to receive appropriate and responsible practical care and counsel’.

References

1. The 2011 National Health Statistics Report (NHSR) is a nationally representative, multistage study that investigates a wide range of sexual attractions and behaviours (A. Chandra et al., Sexual Behaviour, Sexual Attraction, and Sexual Identity in the United States, US Department of Health and Human Services, 2011).

2. A review from the UCLA School of Law combines data from nine recent surveys (G. J. Gates, How Many People are Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender?, The Williams Institute, UCLA, 2011).

GMC Consultation on ‘Good Medical Practice’ closes next week – last chance to respond

2012-02-03T09:21:00.000-08:00

The General Medical Council is revising 'Good Medical Practice', its core guidance for doctors. The consultation on the new draft closes on Friday10 February and a new edition will be published later this year.

The guidance, which was last published in November 2006, is reviewed every five years. Anyone can respond and questionnaires are available on line.

The draft guidance runs to 22 pages, quotes 18 other GMC documents and includes 83 numbered paragraphs. These outline doctors' responsibilities under four main headings: 'Knowledge, skills and performance', 'Safety and quality', 'Communication, partnership and teamwork' and 'Maintaining trust'.

Doctors have a duty to be familiar with the guidance and to follow it (p3) and are warned that 'serious or persistent failure' to do so 'will put your registration at risk' (p5).

Most of the content is reproduced from the previous edition, although there is some rearrangement of material meaning that direct comparisons are not straight forward.

Christian doctors will be encouraged to see a cursory nod (p13) to the importance of 'spiritual, religious, social and cultural factors' in history taking but will be wary, in an environment of growing hostility to biblical faith and values, to potential booby traps around the old chestnuts of sharing faith and referring patients for unethical procedures like abortion.

Few will take issue with the requirement to 'treat patients fairly and with respect whatever their life choices and beliefs' (p49) but I wondered why 'advising patients on the effects of their life choices on their health' (p51) was presented as an option rather than a duty.

The now familiar prohibition on expressing personal beliefs (including political, religious and moral beliefs) to patients 'in ways that exploit their vulnerability or that are likely to cause them distress' is repeated but the real question will be how patient complaints are to be handled.

There is a duty not to 'unfairly discriminate against patients or colleagues by allowing your personal views to affect your professional relationships or the treatment you provide or arrange' (p60) along with a duty to report colleagues to employers and regulatory bodies if they are felt to be denying patients their rights (p22). There is also a duty to 'give patients the information they want….' (p31)

The paragraph on conscientious objection (52) attempts to strike a balance between the right for a doctor not to participate in procedures he or she believes to be immoral and the duty to inform patients of their right to see another doctor and to 'ensure that arrangements are made for another suitably qualified colleague to take over'.

I encourage all Christian doctors to study the wording of the guidance carefully and to respond by filling in the on-line questionnaire. Once set in stone it will be the standard we are all judged against.

Council of Europe states that ‘Euthanasia must always be prohibited’

2012-01-30T12:53:00.001-08:00

Last Wednesday, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe adopted a non-binding resolution concerning Advanced Directives, Living Wills, Power of Attorneys and Consent to Treatment under the title: Protecting human rights and dignity by taking into account previously expressed wishes of patients.

This resolution did not specifically concern the issue of euthanasia, nonetheless Article 5 of the resolution states:

‘Euthanasia, in the sense of the intentional killing by act or omission of a dependent human being for his or her alleged benefit, must always be prohibited.’

The resolution is comprised of a list of principles already elaborated in three documents previously adopted in the Council of Europe, including the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine (Oviedo Convention), which legally binds the majority of member States.

This statement follows a similar decision on January 20, 2011 by the European court of Human Rights which found that the state has no obligation to provide citizens with the means to commit suicide.

Even though this is a non-binding resolution, it does make it clear that euthanasia is an act that must always be prohibited.

Read the commentary about this resolution by the European Center for Law and Justice.

From Alex Schadenberg’s Blog

Christian GP in appeal against home office for unjust sacking

2012-01-29T13:38:00.000-08:00

The Daily Mail this weekend has run a long feature on Dr Hans-Christian Raabe, which is well worth reading.

Dr Raabe, a Christian GP from Manchester, was sacked by the Home Office from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) last February for failing to declare that he had co-authored a paper in 2005, while he was living in Canada, suggesting that there was an association between homosexuality and paedophilia.

The German-born doctor has since been granted permission for a judicial review against Home Secretary Theresa May, which is set to commence later this year.

Dr Raabe, who is being represented by leading human rights lawyer James Dingemans QC, hopes to win back his committee post and, in so doing, stand up for Christians, who he believes are becoming increasingly marginalised and excluded from public office.

The Home Secretary has come under pressure from a variety of sources to offer an apology to Dr Hans-Christian Raabe, but has so far declined.

The paper in question summarised scientific evidence, which was in the public domain, and it was one paragraph, mentioning homosexuality and paedophilia together, which apparently caused the Home Office ‘embarrassment’.

The offending paragraph states: ‘While the majority of homosexuals are not involved in paedophilia, it is of grave concern that there are a disproportionately greater number of homosexuals among paedophiles.’

However, the Home Office had also made essentially the same point in a document it published, which states (2nd para, page 14): ‘Twenty to 33 per cent of child sexual abuse is homosexual in nature and about 10 per cent mixed.’

As I have reported previously there are actually a significant number of articles in peer-reviewed journals supporting Dr Raabe’s view.

I also noted that a major review on the subject of paedophilia published in 2007 and available on line, which reviews all 554 papers published on Medline on pedophilia, also acknowledges that the jury is still out on the matter:

’The main evidence in favor of a relationship between pedophilia and homosexuality is the common cause of fraternal birth order and postnatal learning… It seems to be questionable logic to view these two conditions as completely unrelated.’

That Dr Raabe should be sacked from his role as a drugs advisor on the basis of his expressed opinions on an entirely unrelated issue (homosexuality) is itself at very least unfair.

But the fact that the data he quoted were actually derived from peer-reviewed scientific journal articles (including one quoted approvingly by the Home Office itself!), and on a matter where experts agree that there is a diversity of learned opinion, makes his dismissal both outrageous and inexcusable.

In a democratic and multicultural society people should be free to hold, express and act in accordance with their beliefs and convictions rather than being pushed out of public life.

Dr Raabe has been treated appallingly by the Home Office. I wish him all the very best in his appeal.

Sexual freedom and relationship breakdown cost Britain £100 billion annually

2012-01-29T11:19:00.000-08:00

The costs of sexual freedom and relationship breakdown to the taxpayer and wider economy total some £100 billion annually; about twice as much as alcohol abuse, smoking and obesity combined.

This is the astounding conclusion of the latest ‘Cambridge Paper’, ‘Free sex: Who pays? Moral hazard and sexual ethics’, by Jubilee Centre researcher Guy Brandon.

Rather than addressing fundamental moral issues around sexual freedom, Brandon employs a utilitarian approach and attempts to quantify its financial impact. He argues that sexual freedom ‘represents an enormous moral hazard and, as a result, unsustainable and unjust public expenditure’. Furthermore, these costs are imposed on society as a whole, rather than borne solely by the individuals most directly responsible.

He first surveys the ‘changing landscape of sexual freedom’. The average age of first intercourse has fallen from 21 in the 1950s to 16 now. The divorce rate has risen from 4.4 per 1,000 in 1970 to 11.1 people per 1,000 in 2010. Forty years ago 85 per cent of first unions were marriage but now 85 per cent are cohabitations. Sexually Transmitted Infections (STIs) in England rose 74 per cent between 1998 and 2009 and abortions increased from 54,819 in 1969 to 189,574 in 2010.

These trends are familiar to all of us with an interest in these issues but what financial burden do they bring?

Arguing on the basis of the link between sexual freedom and the breakdown of subsequent relationships Brandon attempts to quantify the total financial burden by estimating both direct and indirect costs.

STIs are estimated to cost the NHS – and therefore the taxpayer – more than £1 billion per year. There are also longer-term costs. HIV treatment is now estimated at around £0.5 billion a year in the UK. Teenage pregnancy costs the NHS £63 million per year, and a further £29 million for infertility and other complications arising from chlamydia alone. 96 per cent of abortions are paid for by the NHS, at a cost of £118 million.

Breakdown Britain claimed that family breakdown directly costs the taxpayer £24 billion per year but the Jubilee Centre’s own analysis has shown that the figure is almost twice as high, £42 billion. Much of this comes from payments of tax credits and lone parent benefits, housing benefits, and the health, crime and educational impact of relationship breakdown.

This sum – nearly £1,400 per year for every taxpayer – is equivalent to 6 per cent of public spending for 2011.

This represents one-third of the Health Care budget, or roughly the same as the entire Defence budget or the interest on the national debt.

But £42 billion is only the immediate cost to the taxpayer of relationship breakdown. There are even larger indirect costs to the economy from absenteeism, domestic violence and educational underachievement.

Brandon estimates the annual cost to the economy of lost working hours following divorce at £20 billion, which includes both straightforward absenteeism and presenteeism (when people attend work but are distracted and unproductive due to stress).

Domestic violence costs the taxpayer £4 billion per year, and a further £3.4 billion in lost economic output. The additional ‘human and emotional costs’ are £21 billion.

Finally, there are the unquantifiable future costs of educational underachievement, worklessness, addiction and mental health problems that Breakdown Britain identified as going hand-in-hand with relationship breakdown.

Children who grow up in dysfunctional households frequently do not have the same life chances as those with more stable backgrounds. Brandon estimates, on the basis of an Australian study, that this reduces GDP by £6 billion annually.

Although the personal financial impact of sexual freedom can be high, it is often comparatively limited and the costs fall instead on the taxpayer. The UK Treasury does not make the link between the vast costs of relationship breakdown and its drivers, David Cameron’s emphasis on the family notwithstanding. Public policy barely acknowledges the existence of the problem, let alone the scale.

Brandon does not give direct references for his estimates of the financial cost of smoking, obesity and alcohol.

However, a BBC investigation in 2007 estimated the annual cost of obesity to be £2 billion to the NHS and £7 billion to the UK economy.

A 2009 Oxford University study funded by the British Heart Foundation estimated that smoking cost the NHS £5 billion annually and another Oxford study the same year estimated the cost to the NHS of alcohol-related sickness to be £3 billion.

These estimates for tobacco and alcohol costs do not include the wider indirect costs that the Cambridge paper has considered for sexual freedom and relationship breakdown.

Brandon concludes that the moral hazard that arises from our society’s uncritical endorsement of sexual freedom results in massive public costs. He argues that there are three ways of containing such an unsustainable liability, and unpacks the third preferred approach in some detail.

The current ‘Big State’ approach factors in the costs of sexual freedom, thereby actually increasing moral hazard and pushing the financial implications of individuals’ choices – totalling many tens of billions of pounds – onto the taxpayer and wider economy.

Harsh legislation to reduce sexual freedom, similar to Sharia Law, is an even less attractive option.

The third solution, found in the biblical model, is to effect a cultural change and foster greater accountability for sexual choices, strengthening extended families by increasing rootedness and giving them joint financial interests.

In this the Christian sexual ethic of faithfulness and stability has not only spiritual justification but offers a pragmatic answer to a failing culture that generally views Christian standards as hopelessly out of date.

The paper will undoubtedly stimulate debate and arouse controversy and is well worth reading.

Holocaust Memorial Day – 27 January 2012

2012-01-27T14:42:00.000-08:00

Most when remembering the holocaust will think of six million Jews but apparently this was only the final chapter in the story. What ended in the 1940s in the gas chambers of Auschwitz, Belsen and Treblinka had much more humble beginnings in the 1930s in nursing homes, geriatric hospitals and psychiatric institutions all over Germany.

I have previously written about lessons we can learn from the grisly history of the Nazi doctors.

Dr Leo Alexander, a psychiatrist who worked for the Office of the Chief of Counsel for war Crimes at Nuremberg, described the process whereby doctors were instrumental in the euthanasia programme as follows:

'The beginnings at first were merely a subtle shift in emphasis in the basic attitude of the physicians. It started with the attitude, basic in the euthanasia movement that there is such a thing as a life not worthy to be lived. This attitude in its early stages concerned itself merely with the severely and chronically sick. Gradually the sphere of those to be included in this category was enlarged to encompass the socially unproductive, the ideologically unwanted, the racially unwanted and finally all non-Germans.'

With the advantage of hindsight we are understandably amazed that the German people and especially the German medical profession were fooled into accepting it. The judgement of the War Crimes Tribunal in 1949 as to how they were fooled was as follows.

'Had the profession taken a strong stand against the mass killing of sick Germans before the war, it is conceivable that the entire idea and technique of death factories for genocide would not have materialized...but far from opposing the Nazi state militantly, part of the medical profession co-operated consciously and even willingly, while the remainder acquiesced in silence. Therefore our regretful but inevitable judgement must be that the responsibility for the inhumane perpetrations of Dr Brandt (pictured above)...and others, rests in large measure upon the bulk of the medical profession; because the profession without vigorous protest, permitted itself to be ruled by such men.' (War Crimes Tribunal. 'Doctors of Infamy'. 1948)

Six million Jewish men, women and chlidren...'Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it'(George Santayana)

In June 1947 the British Medical Association published a statement on ‘War Crimes and Medicine’ which it later submitted to the General Assembly of the World Medical Association in September1947.

The statement included the following:

‘The evidence given in the trials of medical war criminals has shocked the medical profession of the world. These trials have shown that the doctors who were guilty of these crimes against humanity lacked both the moral and professional conscience that is to be expected of members of this honourable profession. They departed from the traditional medical ethic which maintains the value and sanctity of every individual human being.’ (emphasis mine)

The statement majors, as one might expect, on the atrocities carried out by German doctors during the Nazi holocaust, but returns again and again to general principles about respect for life:

‘The doctors who took part in these deeds did not become criminals in a moment. Their amoral methods were the result of training and conditioning to regard science as an instrument in the hands of the State to be applied in any way desired by its rulers. It is to be assumed that initially they did not realize that the ideas of those who held political power would lead to the denial of the fundamental values on which Medicine is based. Whatever the causes such crimes must never be allowed to recur. Research in medicine as well as its practice must never be separated from eternal moral values. Doctors must be quick to point out to their fellow members of society the likely consequences of policies that degrade or deny fundamental human rights.’ (emphasis mine)

But most interesting is teh document's conclusion:

‘Although there have been many changes in Medicine, the spirit of the Hippocratic Oath cannot change and can be reaffirmed by the profession. It enjoins…The duty of curing, the greatest crime being co-operation in the destruction of life by murder, suicide and abortion.’ (emphasis mine)

The BMA was once strongly opposed to abortion. But it has chosen to discard its own ethics. A vigorously pro-abortion position has now been wholeheartedly embraced and is ardently defended by its present leadership.

Seven million British unborn babies who would now be men, women and children...'Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it'.

The case of ‘Martin’ – grandstanding by lawyers and the BBC

2012-01-27T10:48:00.000-08:00

Lawyers for a stroke victim who wants help to end his ‘intolerable’ life can continue to act on his behalf without fear of prosecution or disciplinary action after a High Court ruling today.

They successfully urged two judges in London to grant them a declaration which will protect them and third parties, including doctors, during preparations for a ‘landmark’ judicial review action brought by a man in his 40s with ‘locked-in syndrome’.

Making the order, Lord Justice Toulson, sitting with Mr Justice Charles, described it as a ‘tragic’ and ‘exceptional’ case which raised ‘thorny legal and ethical issues’.

The claimant, who cannot be named but was referred to as Martin in court, suffered a ‘massive’ stroke three years ago at the age of 43, and describes his life as ‘undignified and intolerable’.

He is unable to move, is able to communicate only by moving his eyes, requires constant care, and is entirely dependent on others for every aspect of his life.

When his judicial review application is eventually aired at the High Court, Martin will challenge the Director of Public Prosecution’s policy on assisted suicide, which he argues is insufficiently clear and fails to have regard to someone in his position.

He is not requesting a change in the law but is asking that the DPP amend his current guidance so that professionals would not face criminal and/or disciplinary action if they helped him end his life.

Under the Suicide Act 1961 assisting or encouraging a suicide is a crime carrying a discretionary sentence of up to 14 years. But in each case the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) must decide whether there is enough evidence to bring a prosecution and whether it is in the public interest to do so.

The public interest test is decided on the basis of applying a number of criteria published following after a public consultation in February 2010.

Under one of these criteria the DPP is more likely to bring a prosecution if he believes that the assister is ‘acting in his or her capacity as a medical doctor, nurse, other healthcare professional, a professional carer (whether for payment or not), or as a person in authority...’

This clause has led medical insurance firms to urge doctors to exercise great caution when dealing with suicide cases and the matter is also the subject of a consultation about to be launched by the General Medical Council.

The Medical Defence Union’s advice to its members remains that ‘doctors approached by patients for advice about suicide should not engage in discussion which assists the patient to that end. Members who are faced with requests for help from patients, including for example the provision of medical reports, should contact us for advice.’

The Medical Protection Society (MPS) – which provides indemnity, legal and professional support to around half of all doctors in the UK – says that ‘doctors who have even the slightest suspicion that their patient may be planning an assisted suicide should proceed with extreme caution and not comply with requests for medical or travel reports’.

The judges today granted a declaration for the ‘broad purpose’ of ‘stating that the solicitors may obtain information from third parties and from appropriate experts for the purpose of placing material before the court and that third parties may co-operate in so doing without the people involved acting in any way unlawfully’.

Part of the order means that law firm Leigh Day & Co can communicate with Dignitas for information about its services and also take steps to ‘identify one or more people or bodies that might be willing to assist Martin’.

The judge said it ‘seems plain’ from the DPP's statement of policy that his wife would not be at risk of prosecution, should she assist him but she has made it clear that she ‘does not wish to play any part in hastening his death’. No other family member is willing to help him end his life.

Martin had ‘turned to solicitors to see whether there are lawful means by which he may achieve his wish’.

Lord Justice Toulson said the solicitors had made the application for the ‘protection’ of themselves and others they intend to approach, but ‘ultimately for the protection of Martin so he can obtain the advice and information he needs to have his application properly presented’.

The order they argue would provide ‘clarity’ for the solicitors and others.

It is hard to see why this case, which challenges the DPP’s policy about whether doctors and other professionals assisting with assisted suicide are likely to be prosecuted, should be getting such high profile news coverage.

It is currently at a very early stage and does not change the law in any way. All that has been granted in effect is permission to gather evidence to bring a case before the courts.

However, the fact that it has been seized upon and given such high prominence by the BBC, in what appears to be nothing other that a carefully calculated publicity stunt, speaks volumes about our national broadcaster’s ongoing commitment to cheerleading for assisted suicide and their blatant and consistent disregard for international media guidelines aimed at curbing suicide contagion.

Martin’s lawyers, Leigh Day & Co, also seem to be milking the case for all the publicity they can get. Quite why we needed all this hype and fuss just around gaining permission just to bring a case is rather odd – I suspect it is mainly just a bit grandstanding.

Update on assisted suicide and euthanasia from Care Not Killing

2012-01-27T08:36:00.000-08:00

Falconer Commission

Lord Falconer’s Commission on Assisted Dying reported on 5 January 2012 predictably recommending a change in the law to recommend assisted suicide (and not euthanasia) for mentally competent adults with less than twelve months to live. CNK played a prominent role in discrediting the Commission with 40 media interviews. CNK has also created four videos about the Commission here.

MPs debate Care for the Dying

David Burrowes MP headed up a Westminster Hall debate with a positive reflection of how we should care best for the elderly in our society. The debate highlighted the desire among the 20 MPs attending for the debate about end of life issues to be framed around the provision of excellent palliative care rather than any measure to introduce assisted suicide. Richard Ottaway MP will talk in March to MPs from the Commons Backbench Business Committee arguing for a change in the law.

Margo Macdonald to reintroduce new Bill

Margo Macdonald MSP has announced that she is going to try again to legalise assisted suicide in Scotland, just over a year after her last failed attempt. She has unveiled a new consultation on the issue and among her proposals is a suggestion that ‘licensed facilitators’ would need to be present when someone is at the point of ending their own life to ensure that lethal drugs are ‘taken correctly’.

Parliamentary Assembly of Council of Europe (PACE) adopts non-binding resolution

A vote on the resolution for ‘Protection of human rights and dignity by taking account of previously expressed wishes of patients’ was a clear statement against euthanasia by this European Political Institution of 47 member states. The resolution strongly states, ‘Euthanasia in the sense of intentional killing by act or omission of a dependent human being for his or her alleged benefit, must always be prohibited.’

Tony Nicklinson in court

Tony Nicklinson, a 57 year old man paralysed from the neck down, has begun a court battle to allow doctors to end his life, in an assault on the Murder Act 1965. Such a change would have far reaching implications by potentially removing legal protection from large numbers of sick and disabled people.

Euthanasia of woman with advanced dementia in Netherlands sounds warning to Britain

A 64 year old woman suffering from severe senile dementia has been euthanised in the Netherlands – even though she was no longer able to express her wish to die. The case shows that legalising assisted suicide or euthanasia in Britain would be a recipe for the abuse and exploitation of elderly, dying and disabled people.

Dignitas figures overhyped

An article in the Daily Telegraph attempted to make news of a slight rise in the number of Britons registered with the controversial Swiss suicide facility. These deaths, around 20 a year, represent a tiny fraction of the 500,000 natural deaths that occur in Britain annually.

A new milestone in irresponsible media reporting

In December an international media platform was given to a new case of assisted suicide involving a media personality who was dying of cancer. The story broke virtually every international guideline on media suicide portrayal and marked a new milestone in irresponsible media reporting.

‘Life’ sentences for murder are necessary to deter would be mercy killers

The Homicide Review Advisory Group advised in December a revision of sentences for murder under the murder act 1965. Further developments await.

Debate at Festival of the Dying

Dr Peter Saunders and Kevin Fitzpatrick OBE will be debating Debbie Purdy and Dr Philip Graham with Jon Snow at the Southbank Centre’s Festival for the Living on 28 January.

Further Articles

•Lessons from Stephen Hawking and Kathryn Higham about assisted suicide.
•Overview of assisted suicide in the United States
•GMC consultation due for guidance on dealing with complaints of assisted suicide
•Why legalising assisted suicide also inevitably legalises euthanasia

Peter Tatchell comes clean that homosexuality is neither biologically determined nor fixed

2012-01-26T15:30:00.000-08:00

Many people think that homosexuality is a biological characteristic like race or sex – biologically fixed and genetically determined.

They think this because this is the view that has been successfully propagated by the gay rights lobby for decades in order to provide a justification for arguing that ‘homophobia’ is a form of discrimination akin to racism or sexism.

This belief has also been behind moves to treat discrimination against 'practising' homosexuals as a human rights issue by pretending that homosexuals are a biological category like 'women' or 'asians' whose distinctive features are genetically determined rather than just a group who have simply made a certain life-style choice.

But in fact the strength and direction of erotic attraction, although relatively stable in some people, can be quite changeable in others – it is often not fixed at all.

Similarly identical twins often have different sexual orientations proving that, although sexual orientation may have some genetic influences, it is not genetically determined. There is, in other words, no such thing as the gay gene.

Sexual orientation is much more accurately thought of in the category of a conditioned (and often variable) preference than a determined biological condition.

Most researchers now accept that sexual orientation (the predominant direction of sexual attraction one feels) is the result of a complex interaction in which nature, nurture and choice all play a part. But whether one acts on those feelings by having same sex relations is actually a matter of personal choice (see my previous blog on the difference between same sex feelings, orientation, identity and behaviour).

The American Psychiatric Association (APA) has stated, ‘some people believe that sexual orientation is innate and fixed; however, sexual orientation develops across a person's lifetime’. The APA also says that ‘for some the focus of sexual interest will shift at various points through the life span...’

A report from the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health similarly states, ‘For some people, sexual orientation is continuous and fixed throughout their lives. For others, sexual orientation may be fluid and change over time’

And in a recent Huffington Post article, ‘Future Sex: Beyond Gay and Straight’, gay rights activist Peter Tatchell affirms the fluidity of sexual attraction.

First he affirms the reality of bisexuality:

‘We already know, thanks to a host of sex surveys, that bisexuality is an fact of life and that even in narrow-minded, homophobic cultures, many people have a sexuality that is, to varying degrees, capable of both heterosexual and homosexual attraction.’

Then he challenges the traditional view that gay and straight are distinct categories:

‘Research by Dr Alfred Kinsey in the USA during the 1940s was the first major statistical evidence that gay and straight are not watertight, irreconcilable and mutually exclusive sexual orientations. He found that human sexuality is, in fact, a continuum of desires and behaviours, ranging from exclusive heterosexuality to exclusive homosexuality. A substantial proportion of the population shares an amalgam of same-sex and opposite-sex feelings - even if they do not act on them.’

He then goes on to quote Kinsey’s (grossly inflated) assessments of the incidence of homosexuality whilst acknowledging that they ‘have since been criticised as out-of-date, exaggerated and unrepresentative’.

Tatchell also acknowledges that ‘evidence from sociology and anthropology (shows) that the incidence and form of heterosexuality and homosexuality is not fixed and universal, and that the two sexual orientations are not mutually exclusive. There is a good deal of fluidity and overlap.’

‘What's more,’ he adds, ‘although scientific evidence shows that human sexuality is significantly affected by biological predispositions - such as genes and hormones - other influences appear to be cultural, including social expectations, peer pressure and the availability and opportunity for sexual release. These influences channel erotic impulses in certain directions and not others.’

In fact he even goes so far as to suggest that some homosexual identities are formed as a result of people reacting to perceived prejudice in others:

‘Gay and lesbian identities are largely the product of homophobic prejudice and repression. They are a self-defence mechanism against homophobia. Faced with persecution for having same-sex relations, the right to have those relationships has to be defended - hence gay identity and the gay rights movement.’

Tatchell, despite these admissions, grossly inflates the true incidence of exclusive homosexuality.

The best evidence (1,2,3) actually suggests that only a very small percentage of men (1-2%) and women (0.5-1.5%) experience exclusive same-sex attraction throughout their life course. It appears that more men and women experience mixed patterns of sexual interest. This includes shifts of interest from one sex to another at various points in their lives or attractions to both sexes at the same time.

Tatchell is right though in saying that bisexuality appears to be more prevalent than exclusive gay/lesbian and if defined in terms of same sex behaviours in past year, may be as much as 5% in men and 11% in women aged 15-44 (4).

Sexual attractions are therefore best understood as lying on a spectrum rather than in terms of a simple dichotomous binary categorisation. Survey data suggest that mixed patterns of sexual desire, including attraction to both sexes at the same time, appear to be more common than exclusive same sex attraction, especially among women.

So what?

Well, like many, I am getting rather tired of the term ‘homophobic’ being used as an accusatory label to tar anyone who does not accept, approve and celebrate same-sex sexual relationships and believe that homosexual orientation is a biological characteristic like race or sex.

There are a large and growing number of people (I call them ‘homosceptics’) who neither hate nor fear ‘gay’ people but simply believe that sex outside a lifelong exclusive heterosexual marriage is morally wrong and the fact that we have certain feelings of sexual attraction does not mean that we should therefore act on them.

These people are also highly sceptical about the key presuppositions on which the gay rights movement has based its campaign, such as the beliefs that:

• Homosexuality is genetically determined
• Homosexual orientation is always fixed
• Sexual orientation is a biological characteristic like race, sex or skin colour
• Feelings of same sex attraction should be welcomed and acted upon
• Offering help to those who wish to resist or eradicate these feelings is always wrong

Tacthell’s arguments above, and the findings of recent research, confirm that these beliefs are actually more ‘ideology-driven’ than ‘evidence-based’.

But Tatchell, by suggesting that gay and straight are not distinct categories at all, has also pulled the rug out from under the feet of the gay rights’ movement.

Of course if you accept these ‘key presuppositions’ in spite of the evidence to the contrary you may well believe that people who don’t are ignorant, bigoted, prejudiced or even immoral. You might even feel that such people should not hold public office, publicly express their views or hold any job which involves having to condone, promote or facilitate same-sex intimacy. And you might feel justified in branding everyone who does not share your views as 'homophobic'.

But if you have any sort of intellectual integrity, then you should accept that you have adopted these beliefs in the face of, in fact in spite of, the evidence.

And if so you should stop using divisive labels, and accept rather that there are some people who believe with good cause that to treat homosexual orientation as a fixed biological characteristic like race or sex is to confer upon it a status that it does not and should not have.

References

1. Dickson, N, C Paul, and P Herbison. ‘Same-Sex Attraction in a Birth Cohort: Prevalence and Persistence in Early Adulthood’.Social Science & Medicine 56, No. 8 (2003): 1607-15.

2. Laumann, Edward O., John H. Gagnon, Robert T. Michael, and Stuart Michaels. The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994.

3. Savin-Williams, RC, and GL Ream. ‘Prevalence and Stability of Sexual Orientation Components During Adolescence and Young Adulthood’. Archives of Sexual Behavior 36 (2007): 385-94.

4. Last year, two important reports have been published in the United States. The 2011 National Health Statistics Report (NHSR) is a nationally representative, multi-stage study that investigates a wide range of sexual attractions and behaviours (A. Chandra et al., Sexual Behaviour, Sexual Attraction, and Sexual Identity in the United States, US Department of Health and Human Services, 2011). A review from the UCLA School of Law combines data from nine recent surveys (G. J. Gates, How Many People are Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender?, The Williams Institute, UCLA, 2011)

Diane Abbott throws hissy fit over abortion counseling

2012-01-26T06:31:00.000-08:00

A shadow health minister has resigned from a cross-party group of MPs which had been set up to lay the framework for a public consultation on how counselling should be provided for pregnant women.

Labour MP Diane Abbott, who was in the news earlier this month over allegations of racism following an outburst on twitter, has claimed that the government wants to make provision for groups other than abortion providers to offer counselling and that the committee is being used a 'front' for pro-lfe MPs.

But Tory MP Nadine Dorries, who is in favour of women receiving independent counselling, said Ms Abbott's comments were ‘nonsense’ and that Ms Abbott had ‘no clue’ about what had gone on at the group's meetings because she had only attended two out of three events, being late for one and sleeping through another.

The government will shortly launch a consultation on pregnancy counseling and has given indications of being open to the possibility that women might be given an offer of counseling independent of abortion 'providers'.

Health Minister Ann Milton, who was chairing the group, has said, 'It's disappointing when anyone walks away from constructive talks on such an important issue. Talks are continuing encompassing the wide range of views on abortion. I believe we have all been encouraged about how constructive they have been and how well the meetings are progressing.'

Abbott's resignation has thrown the pro-abortion lobby and abortion providers into overdrive and the MP, in an apparent attempt to manipulate the political process, has thrown her toys out of the pram and stormed off in a huff.

But in so doing all she has done is draw attention to her unwillingness to participate in democratic debate and fight her corner.

Ann Furedi, chief executive of the charity BPAS which receives millions of pounds of taxpayers money every year to perform abortions, has accused the health minister of 'blatantly' disregarding the abortion industry's advice.

Abortion providers, like BPAS and MSI, which carry out over 110,000 abortions a year, gained a stranglehold over abortion provision during the last government and now receive £75 million pounds annually from the NHS for providing this 'service'.

They have recently been granted permission to advertise on television so that they can grow their market share even further.

After having things their own way for so long it seems they are reluctant to relinquish any control of the abortion pathway to give women who opt for it any choice to explore alternatives to abortion through other counselling providers.

Monty Python, the Australian Open and same-sex marriage

2012-01-25T15:57:00.000-08:00

In Monty Python’s Life of Brian the members of ‘The People's Front of Judea’ are sitting in the amphitheatre (see video).

Stan (far left) has just announced that he wants to be a woman and is explaining why.

The dialogue runs as follows:

FRANCIS: Why are you always on about women, Stan?
STAN: ... I want to be one.
REG: ... What?
STAN: I want to be a woman… I want to have babies.
REG: You want to have babies?!?!?!
STAN: It's every man's right to have babies if he wants them.
REG: But you can't have babies.
STAN: Don't you oppress me.
REG: I'm not oppressing you, Stan -- you haven't got a womb. Where's the fetus going to gestate? You going to keep it in a box?
(STAN starts crying.)
JUDITH: Here! I've got an idea. Suppose you agree that he can't actually have babies, not having a womb, which is nobody's fault, not even the Romans', but that he can have the *right* to have babies.
FRANCIS: Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your right to have babies, brother. Sister, sorry.
REG: What's the point?
FRANCIS: What?
REG: What's the point of fighting for his right to have babies, when he can't have babies?
FRANCIS: It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression.
REG: It's symbolic of his struggle against reality.

Stan is seeking a right, having babies, which he cannot exercise, because he is not actually a woman. But he fails to recognise this reality and instead claims that he is being oppressed.

At the Australian Open, there was talk of a coordinated protest against former champion Margaret Court’s opposition to same sex marriage (she is now an evangelical Christian pastor), and a Facebook campaign to wave rainbow flags on court.

But in the end it was just the British player Laura Robson who showed her colours by wearing a rainbow coloured headband.

Robson seemed slightly befuddled by the ensuing international media coverage she received, but concluded: ‘I wore it because I believe in equal rights for everyone.’

Robson’s unspoken presupposition, which is shared by many, is that in a free society, equality demands that every activity should be open to everyone.

And yet Robson was herself participating in a tournament, the Australian open tennis tournament, that was clearly not open to everyone, and for which only very few people were able to qualify.

Many activities other than tennis tournaments are open to some people but not to others: attending university, visiting a foreign country, applying for a job, casting a vote, entering a private club, playing a round of golf or visiting Buckingham Palace.

Similarly virtually all rights are balanced with restrictions – not everyone is allowed to drink alcohol, drive a car, buy property, own a firearm or participate in a 100m women’s Olympic event. You must fulfil certain requirements.

We all accept these restrictions largely without question. Not everyone has a right to participate in these activities.

This raises the question as to why some gay rights activists, politicians and members of the public are seemingly unable to understand or accept that marriage, as a special kind of relationship, is available for some people but not for others.

Introducing ‘same-sex marriage’ would confer almost no additional legal rights: same-sex couples have these already thanks to the Civil Partnership Act 2004. The President of the Family Division has even described civil partnerships as conferring ‘the benefits of marriage in all but name’.

There are some differences in English law, between a marriage and a civil partnership, but these differences focus not on the rights they confer, but on the genders of the partners, the procedure and place where the partnership is formed, and the roles of consummation and adultery in making and breaking the relationship. These differences are there because they are different types of relationship. It is not 'one size fits all'.

But the leaders of Britain's major political parties, including prime minister David Cameron, seem not to grasp this and are wanting to lump civil partnerships and marriages together.

When asked this week by Archbishop Peter Smith what additional rights marriage would give same sex couples that they did not have already under the Civil Partnership Act, Home Secretary Theresa May was not surprisingly unable to give an answer.

And yet during their meeting Mrs May said that the Government intended to introduce same-sex marriage regardless and that the consultation was merely to help with the ‘nuts and bolts’ of the legislation.

But marriage – like any of the activities listed above – has never been open to everyone. In order to marry one must be legally ‘free to marry’, that is, aged 16 or over and single, widowed or divorced and there are also restrictions on who, you can marry. You cannot, for example, marry certain close relatives, marry more than one person or marry someone of the same sex.

This is because marriage is a human institution bound by legal contract – with a specific legal definition, ‘the voluntary union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others for life’ (Hyde vs Hyde;1866).

Calling something 'marriage' that is not marriage, in order to appease a vocal minority, does not make any sense.

It is not up to governments to redefine marriage – but simply to recognise it for what it is, and to accept that it is not open to everybody.

A same sex relationship, however committed or permanent, is not marriage and should not be called marriage. To fight to have a same sex relationship called marriage – when marriage is actually something quite different – is not unlike Stan fighting for his right to have babies when he is not actually a woman who is designed to have babies.

It is not a struggle against oppression but a struggle against reality.

Margo Macdonald dishes up the same confused euthanasia proposals again

2012-01-24T14:40:00.000-08:00

Margo Macdonald today announced that she is going to try again to legalise assisted suicide and/or euthanasia (it’s not clear which) in Scotland, just over a year after her last spectacular failure.

Ms MacDonald, Scotland’s only independent MSP, said in unveiling a new consultation on the issue, that she has ‘learned lessons’ from her previous attempt and is proposing a ‘clearer, more straightforward process’.

Among her new proposals is a suggestion that trained ‘licensed facilitators’ would need to be present when someone is at the point of ending their own life to ensure that lethal drugs are ‘taken correctly’.

But on who will actually qualify for assisted suicide under her bill she is less clear.

She told the BBC that it would be for those who are ‘suffering a terminal illness or condition, for whom life becomes intolerable’.

But then she told the Daily Record that it was for anyone who’s ‘life has been made intolerable by an irrecoverable illness’.

And the Scotsman quotes her as supporting assisted suicide when a patient’s life has ‘become intolerable to him or her as a result of their irreversible condition’.

So what is it Margo – ‘terminal illness’, ‘terminal condition’, ‘irrecoverable illness’ or ‘irreversible condition’?

And how are you defining ‘terminal’, ‘irrecoverable’ and ‘irreversible’?

Tetraplegia is usually irreversible but not terminal. Diabetes is ‘irrecoverable’ without treatment but not ‘irreversible’ with it. Leukemia is ‘terminal’ but not irrecoverable if managed properly. And literally hundreds of thousands of British people suffer from conditions like rheumatoid arthritis, Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis and chronic bronchitis which are ‘irrecoverable’ but partly reversible and not terminal.

We will have to wait and see Ms Macdonald’s specific proposals but thus far they are rather confused and do not sound much different from those in her last ‘End of Life Assistance (Scotland) Bill’ which the Scottish Parliament rejected overwhelmingly by 85 to 16 at its first stage debate in November 2010.

On that occasion 87% of all who made written submissions to the scrutinising committee were opposed to it and the committee overwhelmingly recommended that it be rejected. Scottish GPs later added their voices to those calling for it to be dumped.

MSPs rejected Ms Macdonald's last attempt to legalise physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia in Scotland recognizing that such a move would seriously endanger public safety. Instead they sent a ringing endorsement to making the very best palliative care widely available and accessible.

The key argument that decided the last vote and the similar votes in the House of Lords in 2006 and 2009 is a simple one: 'The right to die can so easily become the duty to die.'

Vulnerable people who are sick, elderly or disabled can so easily feel pressure, whether real or imagined, to end their lives so as not to be a burden on others.

Ms Macdonald’s new proposals sound very much like the old ones dished up again. I expect the Scottish parliament to give them short shrift.

Past blogs on Margo Macdonald’s last bill

The Committee scrutinizing Margo Macdonald's Bill have rejected it – now it is time for MSPs finally to bury it

Margo Macdonald MSP is seriously misleading the Scottish Parliament over the number of deaths her bill would allow

Overwhelming defeat for Margo Macdonald's End of Life Assistance (Scotland) Bill

Tony Nicklinson – there are limits to choice in a free society

2012-01-23T07:32:00.000-08:00

As reported in the Guardian, Telegraph and Huffington Post, Tony Nicklinson, a 57 year old man paralysed from the neck down after suffering a stroke that left him with locked-in syndrome, today began a high court battle to allow doctors to end his life.

Today’s hearing was a ‘pre-trial review’ and a Ministry of Justice lawyer argued that the case should be struck out on the grounds that it is a matter for parliament, rather than the courts, to decide.

I have blogged on this case in some detail previously so will not review the background again here.

But the key point to grasp is that Nicklinson, because he is not capable of killing himself even with assistance, is not seeking assisted suicide but euthanasia. So this is an assault on the Murder Act 1965 and not the Suicide Act 1961.

Nicklinson is pushing for an even greater change in the law than either the controversial Falconer Commission on ‘Assisted Dying’ or the lobby group Dignity in Dying (formerly the Voluntary Euthanasia Society). They claim to be campaigning for assisted suicide for people who are terminally ill – but euthanasia is one step further than assisted suicide and Nicklinson is not terminally ill.

Such a change would have far reaching implications by potentially removing legal protection from large numbers of sick and disabled people.

No one can help but be sympathetic to Tony Nicklinson but cases like his are extremely rare and hard cases make bad law. The overwhelming majority of people with severe disability - even with ‘locked-in syndrome’ - do not wish to die but rather want support to live.

The current law is clear and right and does not need fixing or further weakening. On the one hand the penalties it holds in reserve act as a powerful deterrent to exploitation and abuse by those who might have an interest, financial or otherwise, in the deaths of vulnerable people. On the other hand the law gives judges some discretion to temper justice with mercy when sentencing in hard cases. We should not be meddling with it.

Any further removal of legal protection by creating exceptions for bringing prosecutions would encourage unscrupulous people to take liberties and would place more vulnerable people – those who are elderly, disabled, sick or depressed – under pressure to end their lives so as not impose a burden on family, carers or society.

Even in a free democratic society there are limits to choice. Every law limits choice and stops some people doing what they might desperately wish to do but this is necessary in order to maintain protection for others.

Significance of Dignitas assisted suicide deaths greatly overhyped

2012-01-23T03:56:00.000-08:00

An article in the Daily Telegraph this morning attempts to make news of the fact that figures from Dignitas, the Swiss assisted suicide organisation, show a slight rise in the number of Britons registered.

893 members from this country had registered with the controversial facility by the end of last year,up 14 per cent on the figure for 2010. This means that more Britons belong to Dignitas than people from every other country except Germany.

In total, 182 people from this country have now ended their lives with the group’s help since it was set up in 1998, although the annual figure fell from 26 in 2010 to 22 last year.

No doubt this report will lead for further demands from the pro-euthanasia lobby for a change in the law.

But we need to keep it all in perspective.

These Dignitas deaths, around 20 per year, represent a tiny fraction, less than one in 25,000, of the 500,000 natural deaths that occur in Britain annually. They also need to be set alongside the 1,200 deaths we would see annually, based on House of Lords calculations, with an Oregon type law in Britain, or the 13,000 deaths we would see with a Dutch law.

They also represent an infinitesimal minority of the 70,000 people living with multiple sclerosis, the 120,000 living with Parkinson's disease or indeed the more than 150,000 who die from cancer each year.

There will always be a small group of desperate people taking desperate measures to push the boundaries of any law. This does not mean we should change the law. The present laws against assisted suicide and euthanasia in Britain provide a powerful deterrent against exploitation and abuse whilst giving discretion to judges and prosecutors to temper justice with mercy in hard cases. They are working well and do not need changing. The law is there to protect those who are vulnerable and not to give liberties to the determined.

The hugely disproportionate media coverage given to this small number of tragic cases, fuelled by the public policy machinery of the pro-euthanasia lobby with its celebrity advocates and aided and abetted by the BBC in its capacity as euthanasia cheerleader creates the false impression that droves of British people are participating in euthanasia tourism.

This is profoundly misleading but it is sadly also leading some vulnerable people to be caught up in the suicide contagion created leading to copycat suicides. If instead the BBC and other media outlets abided by international guidelines on media suicide portrayal and promoted good care there would fewer desperate people taking these desperate measures and more who could approach natural death with less fear and anxiety.

And better care and support is the bottom line. Anyone who has suffered personally, or seen a loved one suffer from a progessive neurological disease or cancer, will know what a challenge these illnesses can be. But our proper response should be to make the very best care and support much more widely affordable and accessible rather than resorting to selective reporting and scaremongering; assisted living, not 'assisted dying'.

Ministers reconsider independent abortion counselling

2012-01-22T09:25:00.000-08:00

When an amendment aimed at giving women with unplanned pregnancies access to independent counselling was lost by 118 votes to 368 last year, things looked grim.

But, as reported in the Daily Telegraph today, the Government is now pressing ahead with changes which could see women considering abortion given this right.

The original amendment, by MPs Nadine Dorries and Frank Field, was initially welcomed by the health secretary but support was withdrawn when pressure was placed on Prime Minister David Cameron after former Liberal Democrat MP Evan Harris approached the deputy PM Nick Clegg. The PM then backed down apparently to appease the powerful pro-abortion lobby.

That same lobby was also behind the recent capitulation giving permission to commercial abortion ‘providers’ like MSI and BPAS to increase their ‘market share’ by advertising abortion ‘services’ on television. This was despite these groups already accounting for 60% of the 200,000 abortions carried out in Britain each year. 93% of these 110,000 ‘private’ abortions are actually paid for by the British taxpayer along with all abortions performed in the NHS.

In England, the NHS spent £118 million on abortions in 2010, of which £75 million went to private clinics which had gained a virtual stranglehold on taxpayer-funded abortions under the last government.

But now the Department of Health (DoH) has drawn up plans to radically reform the assistance given to thousands of women with crisis pregnancies.

Among them is a proposal to place abortion providers under a legal obligation to offer women access to independent counselling, stripping them from providing any ‘in-house’ service.

According to the Telegraph the draft proposals will set out three options:

1. This would see abortion clinics, such as those run by the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS) and Marie Stopes International (MSI), barred from providing counselling, and under a legal duty to refer women seeking it to an independent service - as had been laid out in Mrs Dorries’ amendment.

2. A system of ‘voluntary registration’, meaning that any organisation offering counselling to women with a crisis pregnancy would have to meet minimum standards, and only use appropriately-trained counsellors.

3. Retaining the current system where commercial abortion ‘providers’ have a virtual monopoly on any counselling and women are given little option to consider the alternative options of adoption or keeping the baby.

Ministers are braced for fierce debate over the proposals, which are due to form a Department of Health consultation, likely to begin next month.

Pro-life campaigners believe the introduction of independent counselling to give women ‘breathing space’ could reduce the number of abortions by one third.
A spokesman for the DoH said: ‘Work is under way to develop proposals so women can access independent counselling but no decisions have yet been taken. It's crucial that women considering an abortion get the best advice and support available so they can make the right decision for them. We will consult on this publicly later this year.’

This news is a very positive development.

Back in 2008 CMF carried out a study of abortion rates in European countries and discovered that those with ‘right to know’ legislation (offer of counselling, advice, information about alternatives) had, on average, abortion rates that were 30% lower than those (like Britain) which didn’t.

The clear message is that many women, given proper advice and support, choose not to abort.

For many women the choice to abort is not a choice at all. It is rather the choice they make because they feel they have no choice. It is the un-choice; the choice made for fear that keeping the baby might leave them alone without support or help; deserted by partners; marginalised by friends; frowned upon those who see children not as a precious gift, but as an encumbrance.

In other words many women choose abortion, not for themselves, but because they feel a sense of duty to others, or because they fear what might happen to them if they do not choose abortion.

I cannot see how anyone in their right mind could deny women an opportunity to consider alternatives to abortion and will be following these encouraging developments with great interest.

Ultimately this is about giving women the real choice that they currently lack.

My 2012 New Year letter to Christian doctors and medical students

2012-01-22T08:23:00.000-08:00

The British films ‘Iron Lady’ this year and ‘The King’s Speech’ last year have been widely acclaimed and have sparked much discussion and reflection on Britain’s history. But I wonder if like me you were encouraged particularly by the two Christmas speeches over the holiday period - the Prime Minister’s speech and the Queen’s speech.

David Cameron paid tribute to Christianity’s influence on Britain’s literature, art, language, culture, music and law to mark the 400th anniversary of the King James Bible but the Queen went even deeper, focusing on the reconciliation and forgiveness that comes through Jesus Christ.

As Christian doctors and medical students in 2012 we face many on-going challenges as we seek to walk in the footsteps of Jesus Christ the Great Physician and fulfil his call to preach the Gospel and heal the sick.

Political and economic chaos, increasing hostility to Christian faith and values and growing healthcare needs both here and abroad in the face of shrinking budgets and constant reorganisation of the health service impact all of us both professionally and personally. The need to stand together and to ‘stir up one another to love and good works’ have never been greater.

CMF exists to provide you with the connections, opportunities, resources, training and support you need to help you better fulfil your own personal calling as part of Jesus’ Great commission. Let me tell you just about a few of the resources, events and new developments for 2012.

On 13 January, at St Paul’s Cathedral in London, Christian leaders gathered for a special memorial service for the Rev Dr John Stott to celebrate and give thanks for his astounding legacy to the church. John Stott’s classic talks on ‘Serving Christ in Medicine’ are available through CMF. Also just published is ‘Foundations’ our new comprehensive survival guide for junior doctors packed full of articles, testimonies and questions covering just about every issue at the interface of Christianity and medicine, and ‘Unwanted Same Sex Attraction’, sent to you with your Christmas mailing, deals sensitively and biblically with issues of pastoral and counselling support in a challenging area for the church. All these resources and more are available via the CMF website.

Please pray and please come to one of our two key national conferences this year on 10-12 February when around 400 will attend the National Students’ Conference at Swanwick with John Lennox speaking on the theme of ‘Joseph Chief of Staff’. Also at Swanwick on 27-29 April is the CMF National Doctors’ Conference. This year’s theme is ‘Heroes of Faith’ with Bible readings by Pablo Martinez, Spanish psychiatrist and popular international speaker. Much more details and booking information are available on the CMF website. Please do pray for these events.

CMF’s big new project this year will involve upgrading our website to help provide you with better personalised access to connections, opportunities, resources, training and support that is appropriate for you. Every CMF member will have a personalised page with secure access that will help you to connect with other Christian medics in your locality, workplace, church network and speciality and will enable us to give you information and support that is specifically tailored to your needs. Watch this space.

Please keep praying for CMF’s influence in public policy through parliament, media and the institutions. We rejoice that CMF, through Care Not Killing, was able to marshal a very effective campaign aimed at discrediting Lord Falconer’s Commission on Assisted Dying which reported in the first week of January. The issue will not go away but the opposition to any change in the law in both parliament and in the medical profession remains strong. This year we face fresh challenges too. Please pray for us as we work through both parliament and the media to promote independent counselling for women with unplanned pregnancies, to oppose the legalisation of presumed consent for organ donation in Wales and to resist attempts to change the legal definition of marriage from one man one woman for life. We will keep you informed of all the latest developments.

Finally do remember CMF in your support for good Christian causes. Like most Christian charities we are struggling to maintain income in these difficult economic times and our Christmas Appeal for students has fallen about £50,000 short of its target. So if you were intending to give but have not yet done so it is not too late.

May I wish you all God’s wisdom, blessing and enabling as you seek to serve Christ through medicine this year.

The video with this address is available on you tube.

More hype about ‘three-parent embryos’ – but huge ethical and safety issues

2012-01-21T08:54:00.000-08:00

Two consultations have been launched this week into what has been called the ‘three parent embryo’ technique for eradicating diseases caused by genetic mutations in the mitochondria of cells.

Both the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) and the Nuffield Council on Bioethics will be carrying out enquiries into whether it would be appropriate and ethical to use the new technique in developing new ‘therapies’ to prevent the birth or conception of children with mitochondrial disease.

The HFEA has been specifically commissioned to do so by the Secretary of State for Health together with the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills.

At the same time scientists in Newcastle conducting basic research on the procedures have received £5.8 million, largely from the Welcome Institute, to determine the safety of the technique.

There has been a huge amount of media coverage on this over the last few days but for a quick overview of the science and ethical issues Nick Collins and Tom Chivers in the Telegraph are a good start. There is more helpful technical detail on the Nature News Blog and in Nature.

The ‘three-parent IVF’ technique developed at Newcastle University (on which I have previously commented) can be carried out in two different ways.

The first technique involves creating a fertilised egg in a laboratory, then removing its nucleus and placing it into another egg (from a third person) from which the nucleus has been removed (see picture above). This is called ‘pronuclear transfer’ and has already been used in Newcastle to create human embryos, some of which grew to the blastocyst stage (the stage when they would normally implant in the wall of the nucleus) before being destroyed.

In the second technique - Maternal spindle transfer (MST) - the nucleus of the mother’s egg is removed and placed into an enucleated egg from a woman donor before this new composite egg is fertilised. MST, where fertilisation takes place after rather than before nuclear transfer, was used in 2009 to produce two rhesus macaques (named Mito and Tracker) which were born healthy and developed normally.

Regardless of which of the two techniques is used, the resulting embryo has nuclear DNA from a man and a woman and cytoplasmic DNA (in the mitochondria) from a second woman - so effectively three genetic parents, although the contribution from the second woman is very small indeed (just 37 of 23,000 genes).

Researchers claim the technique could help prevent mothers passing on a rare inherited condition called mitochondrial disease to their children. Mitochondrial disease is unusual in that it is transmitted through DNA in the mitochondria (cell 'batteries') in the cell cytoplasm rather than through DNA in the cell nucleus.

Getting the regulatory changes necessary to allow using the technique to be used in patients now no longer involves parliament but only approval from the Health minister.

There are about 50 different known mitochondrial diseases which are passed on in genes coded by mitochondrial (as opposed to nuclear) DNA. They range hugely both in severity and clinical features. For most there is presently no cure and little other than supportive treatment.

We need to be clear in the first instance that this new ‘treatment’, even it were eventually to be shown to work (and there is considerable doubt about that), will do nothing for the thousands of people already suffering from mitochondrial disease or for those who will be born with it in the future.

It is primarily about trying to prevent people with MCD being born - or at least helping a very small number of mothers who carry the gene to have children who are unaffected.

And we need to remind ourselves that there are already some solutions available for those couples who find themselves in the tragic position of carrying genes for mitochondrial disease – including adoption and egg donation (although I have serious ethical reservations about the latter).

Tom Chivers sees little in the way of problems with the new technique but I have three big questions:

1.Will it work? I am very skeptical!
2.Is it ethical? No, there are huge ethical issues!
3.Is the debate being handled responsibly? No, there are huge vested interests involved!

I have a great sense of déjà vu here. There is always in this country huge media hype about supposed breakthroughs in biotechnology and the IVF industry – especially the Newcastle group - is very skilled in arousing media interest.

But we have been here before with human reproductive cloning (the Korean debacle), so-called therapeutic cloning for embryonic stem cell research (which has thus far failed to deliver) and animal hybrids (now a farcical footnote in history).

We saw the false dawn most clearly with animal human hybrids where the biotechnology industry, scientists, patient interest groups and science journalists on the UK nationals duped both the public and parliament into legalising and licensing animal human hybrid research to produce stem cells.

The Newcastle unit is a world leader in promising much and delivering little – but given the short attention span of the media and the gullibility of the public few people seem to realise, remember or care.

I have questions about the safety and ethics of both techniques are as follows:

Safety questions

1. What will be the effect on the embryos of the small amount of abnormal cytoplasm containing defective mitochondria that is still being transferred?

2. Will any of these embryos survive beyond blastocyst stage? (cloned human embryos and animal-human hybrids produced by similar ‘nuclear replacement’ technology haven’t)

3. If they do survive will the nucleus from one embryo function properly with the cytoplasm of another?

4. Will the progeny be normal or be suffering from defects that are in fact worse than mitochondrial disease itself? (we know that cloning by nuclear replacement is possible in frogs, difficult in mammals, hugely problematic in non-human primates and currently not possible in humans)

Of course none of these safety questions will be able to be answered without research on hundreds if not thousands of human embryos, all of which will be destroyed in the process, which brings us to the ethical questions.

Ethics questions

1. What about the hundreds of human embryos that have already been destroyed in this research and the many more that will be destroyed now? Does the hunt for ‘therapies’ that might prevent a small number of disabled children (with mitochondrial disease) being born justify the destruction of hundreds if not thousands of embryonic human lives?

2. What will be the psychological effect on any progeny of the fact that their DNA is derived from three separate ‘parents’? What issues of identity confusion will arise in any children with effectively three biological parents?

3. Should we be able to choose effectively not to allow the disabled children, who would have been otherwise born by natural means, to be born? Why should parental preference for a ‘normal child’ take precedence over an (equally valuable) disabled child? Cristina Odone argues that we should be concentrating on finding treatments for disabling conditions, not preventing those who suffer from them from being born or conceived.

4. Where will this selection end? Some mitochondrial diseases are much less serious than others. Once we have judged some disabled babies not worthy of being conceived, where do we draw the line, and who should draw it?

5. What are the financial and ideological vested interests in this work? The Newcastle scientists have a huge financial and research-based vested interests and getting the regulatory changes and research grants to continue and extend their work is dependent on them being able to sell their case to funders, the public and decision-makers. Hence their desire for attention-grabbing media headlines and press releases and heart grabbing (but highly extreme and unusual) human interest stories that are often selective about what facts they present.

What is currently happening in Newcastle may be legal in Britain – but it is illegal in almost every other Western country for good public safety and ethical reasons. Britain is regarded by many as a rogue state in all this.

So I’m not letting myself be carried away by the hype and spin. And I’m not holding my breath about the promises of therapies.

And as for ethics, one embryo destroyed in research or one disabled person excluded from being born so as not to burden others means for me that we have already crossed a crucial moral rubicon.

TV advertising for abortion is unnecessary, discriminatory and an abuse of taxpayers’ money

2012-01-21T05:36:00.000-08:00

Private clinics that undertake abortions for profit will be allowed to advertise their services on television and radio for the first time, watchdogs ruled yesterday.

Until now, only not-for-profit organisations have been permitted to use television and radio to advertise advice on unplanned pregnancies, although none have so far been able to afford the huge costs involved in doing so.

But now under the new rules, announced yesterday by the Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP) and the Broadcast Committee of Advertising Practice (BCAP), commercial enterprises will be allowed to enter the market. This means that Britain will be promoting abortion adverts at the very same time that Russia is restricting them.

The new regulations will take effect on 30 April.

There are more than 35 private hospitals in England which currently offer abortion ‘services’, but the overwhelming majority are carried out by Marie Stopes International (MSI) and British Pregnancy Advice Service (BPAS). These are the two organisations that will mainly benefit from the new rules.

Both MSI an BPAS already employ aggressive marketing tactics to promote their services. Furthermore much of their income, presumably including that which will now be spent on advertising, comes from tax revenues.

In 2010 the NHS funded 93% of all abortions carried out by the ‘private sector’ - 111,775 of the total number 196,109 carried out in England and Wales that year (see DOH report, p13). This stranglehold on abortion funding was achieved under the last government. The NHS spent £8 million of taxpayers money funding private abortions in 1991 but by 2010 this had risen to £75 milion.

BPAS and MSI are strongly driven by financial motivations and see success in increasing the number of abortions that they perform. Both organisations (which have a combined income of about £150 million per year, much of it from tax revenues) employ Business Development experts to promote abortion and increase revenues. They have business plan objectives and targets to increase the number of abortions that they perform.

The great tragedy of this business-like approach is that women who are referred to BPAS or MSI for an NHS abortion are effectively denied access to any other source of independent counselling. These organisations depend on their income from providing and selling abortion and are not the appropriate place to provide pre-abortion counselling to vulnerable women who need support. They also receive no remuneration for promoting the alternative pathways of adoption or keeping the baby so there is little incentive to do so.

Therefore, given that about 98% of abortions are actually illegal under the provisions of the Abortion Act 1967, we now effectively have a situation whereby the government will be using tax revenues to fund commercial abortion providers to advertise largely illegal abortions.

Now there’s an interesting new direction for David Cameron’s ‘responsible capitalism’!

Even more ironic then that the two bodies, responsible for Britain’s advertising codes, have said that ‘it had become impossible to justify not allowing companies to advertise because the services they offer are legal’. As if they have the expertise to make a judgement.

Due to the previous rules, only one advert concerning abortions, by MSI, has ever been aired on UK screens. The advert, in 2010, attracted more than 4,500 complaints.

I was asked to comment by the Daily Mail last night and said that, ‘having an abortion is a deeply traumatic experience that can lead to further medical and psychological complications. A 30-second advert is not the place to discuss and promote this medical procedure.’

But this highlights only one reason why we should be concerned about this new development. Television and radio advertising for abortion ‘services’ is unnecessary, discriminatory and will inevitably give the wrong message’.

It is unnecessary as information on abortion is already readily available, and any woman who wants an abortion can find this information easily.

It is discriminatory as only the big, government-funded abortion providers like BPAS and MSI will be able to afford TV advertising. Not-for-profit crisis pregnancy counselling centres will be excluded because, unlike BPAS they do not receive huge tranches of tax-payers money.

And it will give the wrong message because raising the profile of abortion services will inevitably communicate the message that unwanted pregnancy is not such a big problem, because there is a safety net readily available.

In view of all this it is simply breathtaking that the Department for Culture Media and Sport and the Department of Health failed to respond to the public consultation on this issue in summer 2011 (CMF's own lengthy submission to the consultation is on the CMF website along with a commentary from Philippa Taylor)

Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt is now understood to be ‘very unhappy’ about the move, but claims that he cannot override the ruling from the independent advertising regulator the Advertising Standards Authority.

This seems rather odd given that, in answer to a parliamentary question in 2010, his deputy claimed that there were ‘powers under the Communications Act to direct Ofcom on the descriptions of advertisements that should not be included in programme services’.

He also said that 608 pieces of electronic correspondence received about television advertisements for post-conception advice services (603 from the public and 5 from MPs), all but one (ie. 607) opposed the advert.

Given the huge public opposition to this move and the concerns outlined above, the Culture Secretary should have the courage of his convictions and use the powers at his disposal to counter this move. But will he? I am not holding my breath.

My interview on adverts on BBC Radio Humberside

Mark Driscoll’s interview with Christianity magazine

2012-01-14T23:10:00.000-08:00

Mark Driscoll is an American pastor and author and the founder and preaching pastor of Mars Hill Church in Seattle, Washington. He also co-founded the Acts 29 Network.

The Mars Hill website describes him as ‘one of the world’s most-downloaded and quoted pastors’. He was also named one of the ‘25 Most Influential Pastors of the Past 25 Years’ by Preaching magazine.

Driscoll's casual, but direct approach style of sermons has resonated in the Pacific Northwest, a region considered the least churched in the nation, according to the North American Religion Atlas.

Mark recently did an interview for Premier Radio with Justin Brierley which is published in the February edition of Christianity magazine.

The interview has caused some controversy relating to Driscoll’s criticisms of young British preachers and ‘effeminate’ church culture.

An excerpt from the interview is available on the Premier website (listen from about 34m30s-42m40s)

Driscoll has claimed that he was quoted out of context, calling the interview ‘the most disrespectful, adversarial, and subjective’ he has ever done. He has qualified his comments further in ‘A blog post for the Brits’ on his own website

Justin Brierley has responded in turn to these comments and Ruth Dickinson, editor of Christianity magazine, has defended the interview saying ‘Justin’s interview with Mark Driscoll was robust and fair, and I utterly reject the claim that it was adversarial, disrespectful or subjective’.

Adrian Warnock has helpfully commented as follows:

1.The interview covers much more than just the segment that has sparked controversy, and there are helpful sections on Driscoll’s recent book (the first twenty minutes or so), the growth of Mars Hill Church, and a number of doctrinal questions. These two men come from different worlds, and it is perhaps not surprising that the meeting of those worlds results in interesting radio. I am sure that both men, although different in their approaches, came to the interview with good intentions.

2.It is vital that we hear the main point that Driscoll is making, that British preachers should be more bold. It is never nice when people make generalizations, but Driscoll is right that we in the UK have too many apologetic preachers. Driscoll is angry at times largely because he has been gripped by the cause of Christ. I sometimes think we would loose more than we would gain if Driscoll was to become more measured in what he says.

3.It is good to hear the whole context of something before passing judgement. So for example later in the interview Driscoll is very kind about British Christians, and in particular Newfrontiers (around 40 mins in). But then I suppose “Driscoll says British Christian group is doing a great job” doesn’t make such a good headline, does it?

4.My conclusion is that both men involved are a gift to the Church, and as I have often said before, you do not have to agree on everything someone believes or says to benefit from listening to them.As Driscoll himself put it, 'I go too far sometimes, almost every other pastor I know doesn’t go far enough.'

You can download the MP3 here or visit the Unbelievable? website to listen to this entire interview.

Faith leaders say marriage and religious freedom are intricately linked

2012-01-14T13:12:00.000-08:00

The Archbishop of York and a prominent high court judge have recently spoken out very strongly in support of marriage – as the voluntary union of one man and one woman for life.

In an open letter released this week, religious leaders in the United States have also affirmed the importance of marriage for society;

The letter, titled ‘Marriage and Religious Freedom: Fundamental Goods That Stand or Fall Together’ and signed by thirty nine prominent leaders of church networks throughout the country, begins as follows:

The promotion and protection of marriage - the union of one man and one woman as husband and wife - is a matter of the common good and serves the wellbeing of the couple, of children, of civil society and all people. The meaning and value of marriage precedes and transcends any particular society, government, or religious community. It is a universal good and the foundational institution of all societies. It is bound up with the nature of the human person as male and female, and with the essential task of bearing and nurturing children.

The leaders then go on to warn of the dangers of attempts to redefine marriage:

As religious leaders across a wide variety of faith communities, we join together to affirm that marriage in its true definition must be protected for its own sake and for the good of society. We also recognize the grave consequences of altering this definition. One of these consequences—the interference with the religious freedom of those who continue to affirm the true definition of ‘marriage’—warrants special attention within our faith communities and throughout society as a whole. For this reason, we come together with one voice in this letter.

Finally they give specific examples of religious freedoms that will be threatened if same sex marriage is legalised:

•Religious adoption services that place children exclusively with married couples would be required by law to place children with persons of the same sex who are civilly ‘married’.
•Religious marriage counselors would be denied their professional accreditation for refusing to provide counseling in support of same-sex ‘married’ relationships.
•Religious employers who provide special health benefits to married employees would be required by law to extend those benefits to same-sex ‘spouses’.
•Religious employers would also face lawsuits for taking any adverse employment action—no matter how modest—against an employee for the public act of obtaining a civil ‘marriage’ with a member of the same sex.

Britain is coming under increasing pressure to legalise same-sex marriage. A consultation on same-sex marriage closed in Scotland in December 2011 and a new consultation is being launched in February in Westminster to consider legalisation in England and Wales.

The legalisation of same sex marriage has the backing of leaders of all three main parties – David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband.

I have recently highlighted how this is all part of a carefully orchestrated international campaign to change the legal definition of marriage which is being heavily funded by US and European governments.

One prominent commentator has said that this new funding priority by the Obama administration puts US foreign policy on a collision course with religious freedom’.

Some people may choose to live in civil partnerships, and under present law this is now legal (although not moral). But no one has the right to redefine marriage for the rest of us.

Let's do everything possible to make sure they don’t.

Marriage is special and unique. Marriage is marriage – one man, one woman, for life. It is not for governments to define - but simply to recognize and protect.

This protection is intricately linked to religious freedom.

Let’s pray that faith leaders speak out as boldly in the UK about these important issues as their counterparts have in the US.

Legalisation of same-sex marriage – an orchestrated international campaign funded by national governments

2012-01-14T12:08:00.000-08:00

According to recent reports the US government and European Commission (the executive body of the European Union) are funding attempts to legalise same sex marriage worldwide.

Britain is coming under increasing pressure to legalise same-sex marriage. A consultation on same-sex marriage closed in Scotland in December 2011 and a new consultation is being launched in February in Westminster to consider legalisation in England and Wales.

The legalization of same sex marriage has the backing of leaders of all three main parties – David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband.

But these moves in Britain are actually part of an international campaign.

Since 2001 ten countries have legalized same sex marriage: Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa, and Sweden. As of 2012, proposals exist to introduce same-sex marriage in at least ten other countries.

Many more (including Britain) have legalized ‘civil unions’ (or civil partnerships) which give same sex couples essentially all the rights and privileges of married couples.

In addition six US states have legalized same sex marriage since 2004 (Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont), although, as of June 2011, 12 states prohibit it via statute and 29 via the state's constitution.

This dramatic shift over the last ten years has occurred as the result of a carefully orchestrated and heavily funded international campaign.

But many will be surprised at how much of this money comes from national governments.

As part of a worldwide campaign to promote global acceptance of homosexuality, the Obama administration has just established a $3 million ‘Global Equality Fund’ to fund homosexual political ‘advocacy’ around the world at taxpayers’ expense.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton trumpeted the formation of the group in a speech she delivered in Geneva in December.

The Global Equality Fund is only one small part of an ambitious agenda to recast all U.S. foreign policy to support the LGBT cause around the world. Also in December, Barack Obama issued a presidential memorandum instructing foreign embassies to ‘expand efforts to combat discrimination, homophobia, and intolerance on the basis of LGBT status or conduct’ in their host countries.

According to another report last month, national governments are also funding similar moves in Europe.

European human rights lawyer J.C. von Krempach has taken a close look at the funding stream of the International Gay and Lesbian Association – Europe (ILGA) and concluded that most of their money comes indirectly from national governments.

ILGA is an advocacy group promoting homosexual rights for whom the legalization of same sex marriage is a key campaign objective (See map on the ILGA Europe website).

Writing in the foreign policy blog Turtle Bay and Beyond, von Krempach found a vast majority of ILGA’s funds come from just two governmental entities, the European Commission and the Dutch government.

Von Krempach discovered (from information on the IGLA website) that in the year just ended, the European Commission, an intergovernmental entity, provided fully 68% of ILGA’s budget. The Dutch government provided an additional €50,000 bringing ILGA’s governmental funding up to 71%. The rest of ILGA’s funding comes from left-wing donors George Soros, Sigrid Rausing, and one anonymous donor.

Von Krempach also points out the anomaly of the European Commission being the largest sole funding source for a group set up to lobby the European Commission and the European Parliament. He says this is basically the European Institutions lobbying itself.

In light of this new information, it is expected the UN NGO Committee, which previously blocked ILGA’s accreditation, will take up the issue once more. Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) accredited to the United Nations must show actual people or non-profits, such as foundations, fund them. The UN holds that if their money comes mostly from governments that would make them governmental entities.

To what degree does the UK government contribute indirectly to this state of affairs?

The European Union’s 2011 budget shows that out of a total income of €126.5 bn , €12.9 bn, or just over 10%, comes from the UK. 75% of the total budget comes from the 27 member countries’ governments.

Far be it from me to suggest any restriction on the freedom of gay rights activists to campaign democratically for same sex marriage legislation wherever they might choose.

But shouldn’t they be using their own money to do it – rather than being given funds derived from national governments’ tax receipts?

Is this the best cricket catch ever?

2012-01-12T14:42:00.000-08:00

New Zealand teenager Bevan Small, whose wonder catch has catapulted him to global celebrity, has played down the feat saying his focus is on making the first eleven of his provincial cricket team.

The video clip of Small's acrobatic catch for Central Stags against the Northern Knights in New Zealand’s 2020 competition has been replayed on television and websites around the world.

In England, The Guardian newspaper said the catch was ‘perhaps the greatest in the history of cricket’ while the US-based Huffington Post said it could ‘be the most amazing (and for many, only) cricket catch you'll ever see’.

What do you think?

Marriage – let’s be clear on the biblical and legal definitions – and fight to retain them

2012-01-12T14:07:00.000-08:00

The Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu, is quoted in the Telegraph today as saying that marriage is still the bedrock of society which promotes love, care and forgiveness in relationships.

Last week, the same paper reported that a senior High Court judge, Sir Paul Coleridge, had launched a campaign to promote marriage and fight family breakdown. Sir Paul, 62, who has been married for almost 40 years, said that he was ‘unashamedly advocating marriage as the gold standard for couples where children are involved’.

Previously on this blog I presented evidence that marriage leads to better family relationships, less economic dependence, better physical health and longevity, improved mental health and emotional well-being and reduced crime and domestic violence.

The findings of the landmark 2006 report 'Breakdown Britain' were similar. Based on an extensive evidence-based analysis by the Centre for Social Justice it found that the breakdown of marriage and the family was the key driver of Britain's collapse, strongly correlated with the five 'pathways to poverty': family breakdown, educational failure, economic dependence, indebtedness, and addiction.

Marriage is a virtually universal human institution because it was originally God’s idea. It was God who first said that it was not good for man to be alone and who created the unique complementarity of the marriage relationship for companionship, pleasure, procreation and the raising of children – one man, one woman, united for life (Genesis 2:24).

Marriage is also in this way illustrative of Christ's own self-giving abandonment to his bride the church (Ephesians 5:31, 32) and points to a greater richness of human relationships beyond the grave of which the very best on earth are but a pale shadow.(1 Corinthians 2:9, 10).

Marriage is practised by virtually all societies and cultures and this was God’s clear intention. Marriage is not just something for Christians but for all mankind. It was given as a creation ordinance in the second chapter of Genesis long before the calling of Abraham, the establishment of Israel or the birth of the church.

The very same biblical definition of marriage has been part of British law for centuries and was formally defined in a famous court case late in the 19th century.

The classic legal definition of marriage dates back to that given by Lord Penzance in Hyde v Hyde in 1866:

'… the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.'

So there are four conditions for a marriage:

•the marriage must be voluntary
•the marriage must be for life, ie the parties' intention at the time of the marriage
•the union must be heterosexual
•it must be monogamous

In addition, the parties must be of marriageable age.

The formalities of marriage are predominantly governed by the Marriage Act 1949, the Marriage Act 1983 and the Marriage (Registrar General's Licence) Act 1970.

By contrast the Civil Partnership Act 2004 (CPA 2004) defines civil partnership as a formal legal relationship between two people of the same sex formed when they register as civil partners of each other. It gives same-sex couples virtually all of the rights and privileges of married couples.

Currently same-sex couples cannot get married and opposite-sex couples cannot form civil partnerships.

There are moves currently in both Scotland and Westminster to change the legal definition of marriage to include partners of the same sex.

The Scottish Government Same-Sex Marriage Consultation closed on Friday 9 December. A similar Westminster consultation on same-sex ‘marriage’ will be launched in February. Prime Minister David Cameron, Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg and opposition leader Ed Miliband have already voiced their support for legalisation.

Sentamu and Coleridge have given a strong lead in standing up for the uniqueness of marriage. It is now time for other Christian leaders to follow suit.

Some people may choose to live in civil partnerships, and under present law this is now legal (although not moral). But no one has the right to redefine marriage for the rest of us.

Let do everything possible to make sure they don’t. Marriage is special and unique. Marriage is marriage – one man, one woman, for life. It is not for governments to define - but simply to recognise.

Lessons from Stephen Hawking and Kathryn Higham about assisted suicide

2012-01-08T11:56:00.000-08:00

Congratulations to Stephen Hawking (pictured), internationally renowned Cambridge physicist, who turned 70 this week.

Hawking is probably the world’s most famous sufferer of motor neurone disease (MND) and apart from his contributions to science has also taught us two very important things relevant to the euthanasia debate.

First is the unreliability of doctors’ prognostic forecasts. When first diagnosed as a Cambridge PhD student in 1963 Hawking was told that he had at most a life expectancy of two to three years and would not finish his PhD.

However, like the Lockerbie bomber Abdel Al-Megrahi and Great Train robber Ronnie Biggs, who were both released from prison in August 2009 allegedly with only months to live but are still with us over two years later, Hawking shows how often doctors are wrong about life expectancies.

This underlines how foolish Lord Falconer’s recommendation that people with ‘less than twelve months to live’ should qualify for assisted suicide really is.

Second, Hawking demonstrates how severe disability does not stop a life having meaning and purpose. So often we are confronted by high profile cases in the media of people who argue that their lives no longer have any dignity because of some serious disability, progressive or otherwise.

There are 70,000 people in Britain with multiple sclerosis (MS) and 5,000 with MND. 1,000 die from the latter each year, three each day, but we only ever hear from that very small number of those (countable on the the fingers of one hand!) who are campaigining for the legalistion of assisted suicide. But they speak only for themselves - not for the huge silent majority.

The general public can thereby gain the mistaken impression that most people with disabilities like multiple sclerosis or motor neurone disease feel this way and this fuels uninformed calls for changing the law from the ‘worried well’.

In fact the overwhelming majority of people with progressive disabling illnesses do not want ‘assisted dying’ but ‘assisted living’ – help and support to live as well as they can given their circumstances in the days of natural life that they have left.

Sadly the media, and especially the BBC, do not usually grant much airtime or column inches to the majority, one reason why I try to highlight inspiring stories, like that of Matt Hampson, on this blog.

I was therefore pleasantly surprised and encouraged to read on the BBC website last week the testimony of MS patient Kathryn Higham, movingly titled 'Every breath is precious' which I have reproduced below.

It underlines the fact that the desire to end one’s life is far more about the person than about the underlying disability or disease. Not surprisingly, she did not welcome the findings of Lord Falconer’s ‘commission’:

Kathryn Higham gets angry when she hears claims that assisted suicide is the only way to achieve a ‘dignified’ death.

"My aunt had motor neurone disease and handled it with dignity and when her end came it was not with horror or pain but with peace," said the 43-year-old mother of one from Bolton.

Mrs Higham, who has multiple sclerosis, said she was incensed by a new report from The Commission on Assisted Dying, the body set up by campaigners for legalised assisted suicide.

When she was diagnosed with MS in 1999 she feared she would die from the condition.

"I was so relieved when I found out it was not a terminal condition, I realised my life was precious," she said. "You shouldn't be ending your life, every breath is precious."

She added that she was very angry when she heard other people with MS, such as campaigner Debbie Purdy from Bradford, call assisted suicide laws.

"There is no need for anyone to die an agonising, undignified death these days, you do not die of MS, you die of infections caused by your reduced immune system."

Mrs Higham, who works in administration within the NHS, said: "Before I was diagnosed with MS I used to have a very negative view of this type of illness but since I was diagnosed I found I have a very positive view."

She added that people with serious illnesses who campaign for assisted suicide create the wrong impression of everyone with that condition.

"For example it makes it look as if everyone with MS wants to die," she said.
"You never hear of the people with terminal illnesses who die a peaceful, dignified death."

She added: "Having a positive attitude is 50% of the battle. My husband is completely behind me, he doesn't believe in assisted suicide either and also shares my positivity."

‘Selective reduction’ – a euphemism for deliberately killing one or more babies in an IVF pregnancy

2012-01-08T10:50:00.000-08:00

Last week’s Life Site News ran a story titled ‘Five best and worst biotechnology developments of 2011 from a pro-life perspective’ which is well worth a read in its own right.

The third worst development it mentions is that of ‘selective reduction’:

'This year we were introduced to the ugly practice of selective reduction, a euphemistic term that describes the killing of one fetus in a multiple pregnancy. Selective reduction is becoming more commonplace because fertility treatments like IVF are creating more and more multiples and doctors are advising patients to “reduce” their quadruplets, triplets and even twins down to two or even one baby. In 2011 the world discovered the truth that abortion is the "safety net" for IVF.'

Selective reduction has actually been common practice for some time but it was brought to international attention in 2011 by an article in the New York Times titled ‘The Two-Minus-One Pregnancy’ which catalogued the rise of the procedure in the US.

An Australian story later in 2011, highlighted on this blog, described a situation where doctors had ‘mistakenly’ killed a ‘normal’ twin instead of the disabled one they had intended to eliminate. The ‘unwanted’ disabled twin was also later aborted.

The Telegraph ran a front page story over New Year about the increasing use of ‘selective reduction’ in the UK on which I was asked to comment. This was later picked up by the Daily Mail and Press Association but not, interestingly, by the BBC. PA summarized it as follows:

Dozens of unborn babies were aborted in 2010 by British women expecting multiple births but who wanted fewer children. Department of Health statistics found that more than 100 babies were terminated by women expecting twins, triplets or quintuplets.

The statistics, released under the freedom of information law, revealed that in 2010, 85 women aborted at least one foetus while going on to give birth to another baby. This compares to 59 women in 2006. Of the 85 women undergoing selective reductions last year, 51 were reducing a pregnancy from twins to a single baby, up from 30 four years before.

The data showed that there were 20 abortions to reduce triplets to twins and nine procedures to take a pregnancy from triplets to a single child. Three mothers reduced four foetuses to two, and two mothers reduced five babies to two.

The Department of Health said 78% of the selective reductions performed in 2010 were because there was ‘a substantial risk that if a child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped’ (ie. ground E abortions) but Professor Richard Fleming, the scientific director of the Glasgow Centre for Reproductive Medicine, is reported as saying: ‘I would be surprised if multiple pregnancy through fertility treatment was not a significant component to the increase in selective reductions. One of the components within that is the health of the mother and health of the offspring as well - both are compromised by multiple pregnancy. The more complicated multiple pregnancies lie almost exclusively in the IVF domain.’

According to the HFEA website (see here and here):

‘On average, one in five IVF pregnancies are a multiple pregnancy compared to one in 80 for women who conceive naturally. With approximately 11,000 IVF babies being born each year this contributes significantly and disproportionately to the national multiple birth rate and presents a significant public health concern…. In 2004 the HFEA policy was revised so that now a maximum of two embryos can be transferred to women under the age of 40, with no exceptions, and a maximum of three can be transferred in women aged 40 and over. Since 2004 only 4 in every 100 treatment cycles (4%) performed involved three embryos being transferred.’

Transfer rates in IVF are higher in some other countries:

I was quoted in the Telegraph article as follows:

‘There is no doubt that the rising use of IVF has contributed to a rise in multiple pregnancies. If prospective parents are not willing to have twins then they should not be implanting more than one embryo at a time. Parental preference should never take precedence over the right to life of the unborn child.’

But the full quote I gave them was a little longer and also brought in other medical and psychological issues that the Telegraph decided not to include. here are some of the words they left out:

'...there is very little evidence to suggest that parents choosing IVF will be any more successful in having a successful pregnancy implanting two embryos at once rather than one at a time... Furthermore some families who electively abort one of their children go on to experience a lot of grief. At every milestone for the child they decided to keep, there is this ghost in the room, this feeling that there should have been two or more of them. There is an urgent need to educate couples about these matters’.

I was interested to see further support for the idea of transplanting only one embryo at a time in a BBC article this week on the survival of frozen embryos titled ‘IVF: Frozen embryo babies heavier and healthier’

'Infertility Network UK chief executive Clare Lewis-Jones said the new study supported the move to transferring only one embryo at a time. This cuts down the multiple pregnancy rate - which is higher in IVF than natural conception - with health benefits for mother and baby. She said: "These initial findings, if proved accurate following further research, will give the medical profession more evidence to encourage patients to accept single embryo transfer, which reduces the risks of multiple births to both mother and babies. Single embryo transfer gives the best possible outcome - a healthy singleton baby - with the chance of further frozen embryo transfers in the future."'

I am not advocating IVF, multiple embryo collection, or freezing embryos. But if more than one embryo is being collected in an IVF cycle then, for more reasons than one, it seems best to follow a policy of one embryo being transferred at a time.

This will be mean better survival prospects for the baby and, more importantly, no selective reduction.

Five Quick Videos on the Falconer Commission on ‘Assisted Dying’ – What is it all about?

2012-01-06T10:47:00.000-08:00

5 January 2012 marked the launch of the findings of the Commission on Assisted Dying, proposed by Dignity in Dying, funded by Sir Terry Pratchett and chaired by Lord Falconer (pictured).

The Commission has called for a change in the law in England and Wales, to allow assisted suicide for adults who are terminally ill and mentally competent but CMF, as part of the Care Not Killing alliance, believes that the current law does not need changing.

I have blogged a lot about this enquiry over the last year or so and especially in the last few days.

Over the last two days I have done 25 broadcast interviews on it including BBC, Sky and international TV networks.

The issues are complex and I know it can be difficult for people to get the big picture so in the five short You Tube videos below I have tried to summarise the main issues in the form of five key questions.

I hope they provide a helpful overview for anyone with an interest in the issue but without too much time to spare.

1. Was the Falconer Commission sufficiently balanced? (1m54s)

2. Do the Falconer recommendations contain sufficient safeguards? (2m10s)

3. Why has Parliament refused to change the law so far? (1m02s)

4. What happens now that the Falconer Commission has reported? (1m41s)

5. Why should Christian doctors be concerned about this issue? (2m52s)

Falconer report on euthanasia 'biased and flawed', says Care Not Killing

2012-01-04T16:29:00.000-08:00

Here is the press release from the Care Not Killing Alliance (representing over 40 organisations) on the Falconer Commission Report.

Falconer report on euthanasia 'biased and flawed', says Care Not Killing

This investigation was unnecessary, biased and lacking in transparency and its report is seriously flawed. It is being spun as a comprehensive, objective and independent review into this complicated issue. It is anything but.

This private commission was sponsored by Dignity in Dying, formerly the Voluntary Euthanasia Society, and financed by one of their patrons, with panel members being handpicked by Lord Falconer, a leading advocate of changing the law.

Nine of its eleven members were known backers of assisted suicide with a strong ideological vested interest in this as the outcome. Those with a differing view including representatives from the major disability rights organisations and doctors groups were not invited to join the Commission. The overt bias in the structure of the commission is why over 40 organisations including the British Medical Association and many individuals boycotted the inquiry.

Its terms of reference were drafted to ensure that the final report backed a change in the law and ruled out maintaining the status quo. In the commission’s own words they were to, ‘investigate the circumstances under which it should be possible for people to be assisted to die; recommend what system, if any, should exist to allow people to be, assisted to die; identify who should be entitled to be assisted to die and recommend what changes in the law, if any, should be introduced’.

What the commission is proposing is a less safe version of the highly controversial Oregon law, which sees the terminally ill offered drugs to kill themselves, but not expensive life saving and life extending drugs. It’s so-called ‘proposed safeguards’ are paper-thin and have already been rejected three times in the last six years by British Parliaments. These recommendations if implemented will place vulnerable people under increased pressure to end their lives so as not to be a burden on others. This pressure can be especially intense at a time of economic recession when families and the health service are already feeling the pinch. The so-called right to die can so easily become the duty to die..

The current law exists to protect those who are sick, elderly, depressed, or disabled from feeling obliged to end their lives. It requires every case to be reviewed by the police and the DPP to determine whether a prosecution is appropriate. The present law protects those who have no voice against exploitation and coercion, acts as a powerful deterrent to would-be abusers and gives discretion to judges to temper justice with mercy in hard cases.

The current law does not need changing.

Lord Falconer’s commission – help in reading what lies between the lines in their press release

2012-01-04T15:27:00.000-08:00

Lord Falconer’s Commission on Assisted Dying is reporting today.

I have reproduced below their press release which needs to be taken with a large helping of salt.

I have added my own comments marked in italics in order to help people read ‘between the lines’

Expert panel proposes framework to underpin any future change in law on assisted dying for terminally ill people

The Commission on Assisted Dying will today (Thursday) publish a 400 page report into the safeguards that would need to be in place for a safe assisted dying law to operate in England and Wales. The expert panel Chaired by Lord Falconer QC includes members of the House of Lords and House of Commons, a former president of the General Medical Council, a former Police Commissioner, a leading consultant in disability equality, an Anglican priest and medical, mental health, palliative care and social care specialists.
>> The Falconer commission was sponsored by Dignity in Dying, formerly the Voluntary Euthanasia Society, and financed by Terry Pratchett one of their patrons, with panel members being handpicked by Lord Falconer, a leading advocate of changing the law. Nine of its eleven members were known backers of assisted suicide with a strong ideological vested interest in this as the outcome. Asking this group for guidance on assisted suicide laws is like asking Philip Morris and British American Tobacco to advise on smoking legislation!

Over the last twelve months the Commission has held extensive public evidence hearings and consultations, conducted international research visits and commissioned expert briefing papers to produce the most comprehensive study to date of how a change in the law on assisted dying might affect English and Welsh citizens.
>> 46 high profile individuals and 40 organisations invited by Falconer to give evidence to his commission opted not to do so on the grounds that it was unnecessary, biased and lacking in transparency. With so many people pulling out Falconer was able only to hold six monthly oral evidence sessions and ran out of witnesses half way through the year. He then asked Dignity in Dying to email all their supporters to provide ‘evidence’ by filling out simple questionnaires. These responses made up the bulk of the 1,200 responses the commission claims to have received. Falconer also fails to tell us that in 2005 a balanced House of Lords Select Committee carried out an official parliamentary Inquiry into assisted suicide. This covered some 246 Hansard columns and two volumes of 744 pages and 116 pages respectively, 15 oral sessions, 48 groups or individuals giving evidence, with 88 witnesses giving written evidence; 2,460 questions were asked and the committee received 14,000 letters. Falconer’s enquiry, in comparison, was not only unbalanced but miniscule.

The Commission finds that the choice of assisted dying could safely be offered to people who are suffering at the end of life and likely to die within twelve months, provided that they satisfy the eligibility criteria. People who might not have the mental capacity to make such a choice, who might be clinically depressed or experiencing pressure from friends or relatives, would be protected by a comprehensive set of safeguards.
>> Well no surprises here. These are the conclusions that Dignity in Dying has paid for and campaigned for. Cash for conclusions!

The Commission also finds that the provision of high quality end of life care must be a priority for Government, independent of the issue of assisted dying. It recommends that in parallel with any change in the law, the Government should also take action to tackle inequalities in end of life care and ensure that good quality end of life care is available to every person approaching the end of their life.
>> Well would hope so. We all want this. Wouldn’t it have been wonderful if some of the time and money wasted on this commission might have been spent on achieving such ends.

Under the proposed framework, a dying person who met the legal criteria would be able to ask their doctor to prescribe them a dose of medication that would end their life. The person would need to be able to take the medication themselves, as a clear expression of the voluntariness of their choice. Appropriate practical support to take the medication should be provided if it is required by a terminally ill person with physical impairments but this could not take the form of another person administering the medication on their behalf (euthanasia). The Commission does not propose that any form of euthanasia might be allowed if the law were to be changed.
>> OK so they are recommending the law be changed to decriminalise assisted suicide (where people are helped to kill themselves) but not euthanasia (where people have their lives ended by someone else). But they use the word ‘medication’ when what they really mean is ‘lethal drugs’. And to say that ‘no form of euthanasia is proposed’ is splitting hairs because assisted suicide is a form of euthanasia. It is euthanasia one step back. The intention and result are the same. In fact the difference can be as little as one centimetre – if you put the lethal drugs in the patients hand that is assisted suicide; on the tongue and that’s euthanasia. And in about one in six cases assisted suicide doesn’t work (see original NEJM paper by Groenewoud)leaving the euthanasiast to wade in with a lethal injection.

The Commission recommends that if Parliament were to decide to adopt assisted dying legislation in the future, this should include the following eligibility criteria:
1.The person concerned is aged 18 or over and has a diagnosis of terminal illness
>> There is a huge difference between being terminally ill and having a terminal illness. Many live for years with terminal illnesses.

2.The person is making a voluntary choice that is an expression of his or her own wishes and is not unduly influenced by others
>> So what does unduly mean? And how is a doctor who does not know the patient or the relatives supposed to be able to make this assessment?

3.The person has the mental capacity to make a voluntary and informed choice, and the person’s decision-making is not significantly impaired as a result of mental health problems such as depression
>> What do we mean by significantly impaired and how is this to be assessed?

The Commission recommends that any future legislation should also include the following safeguards to ensure that potentially vulnerable people were protected:
1. A decision-making model involving the assessment, advice, support and independent judgements of two independent doctors, with support from other health and social care professionals where necessary.
2.A safeguard to ensure the person has been fully informed of all other treatment and end of life care options that are available and still wishes to proceed;
3.Safeguards to ensure that the eligibility criteria are met
4.Safeguards to ensure that the person has a settled intention to die
5.Safeguards to ensure the safe storage and transportation of lethal medication
6.Safeguards to ensure the person has a reliable and supported assisted death
7.Safeguards to ensure that assisted deaths are reported correctly
8.Monitoring and regulatory oversight by a national monitoring commission with powers to investigate suspected non-compliance.
>> This is a system very similar to the abortion act 1967 which was initially intended to apply only in extreme cases but has resulted in over seven million cases of abortion (prenatal involuntary euthanasia) since it was instituted – now about 200,000 per year. It is not difficult to find a small number of doctors who will willingly tick boxes and even perjure themselves in the process. After the event the key witness is dead and cannot give evidence about whether or not procedures were followed or just alleged to have been followed. Otherwise these safeguards were all (with the possible exception of no 5) included in the Joffe Bill which was rejected by 148-100 in 2006 by the House of Lords on the grounds of public safety. Peers considered its so-called safeguards were paper thin. The commission is proposing a less safe version of the highly controversial Oregon law, which sees the terminally ill offered drugs to kill themselves, but not expensive life saving and life extending drugs. Except that the Oregon Law uses a six month life expectancy for terminal illness, not twelve months like Falconer. In practice both limits are equally problematic as it is very difficult for any doctor to predict life expectancy accurately apart from in the last hours or days of life. These recommendations if implemented will place vulnerable people under increased pressure to end their lives so as not to be a burden on others. This pressure can be especially intensely felt at a time of economic recession when families and the health service are already feeling the pinch.

The Commission stresses that the issue of assisted dying cannot be viewed in isolation from the need for adequate health and social care, and emphasises the urgent need to improve discussions with patients about the care they wish to receive at the end of life. The Commission recommends that if assisted dying were to be legalised in the future, we would need to make improvements in end of life care in parallel, to ensure that all people dying in the UK could expect to receive an adequate level of care, regardless of where they lived. The Commission puts forward a series of core principles that frame and run throughout their recommendations on assisted dying. These are:
• Open discussion about death and dying
>> Well we have that already – we have been talking about it continually for the last five years as we are subjected to wave after wave of campaigning form the pro-euthanasia lobby.

• Each person should be entitled to core rights in end of life care
>> Well of course unless we mean the right to be killed or to have someone help you kill yourself which is not a right recognised by any religion or historic ethical or legal code or declaration.

• Good quality end of life care should be available in all settings
>> Well that goes without saying but what is Falconer doing to achieve it?

• An end to all forms of discrimination in end of life care, whether these are based on geographical location, physical condition, ethnicity or wealth
>> Great although not yet achieved since the foundation of the world in any country and legalising assisted suicide will provide a cheap alternative - £1,000 a week for care or £5 for a glass of barbiturates?

• More choice in how people die and clear and accessible information
>> Well we all know what that means…

• Effective support and protection for more vulnerable people
>> So why are we changing the law to remove legal protection from vulnerable people?

Notes to editors:

…Evidence brought before the Commission on Assisted Dying has led the Commission to conclude that the current policy outlined by the Director of Public Prosecutions in February 2010 is unsustainable for the following reasons:
• The current law concentration of too much power in the hands of the DPP
>> Agreed. He does seem to lack the courage to prosecute people. We need to be encouraging him to do his job more effectively!

• The absence of a robust scheme of safeguards
>> We would not need safeguards with a blanket prohibition on assisted suicide as at present. The number of cases is very small – 20-25 per year – but we would have 1200 a year with an Oregon law and 13,000 with a Dutch law according to the 2005 House of Lords report

• The absence of a factor based on suffering or a medical condition
>> The problem is that many people without terminal medical conditions claim to be suffering (at least mentally). If we legalise it only for those who are terminally ill we will very soon see claims of discrimination by others and Equality Law will be brought into play to extend the boundaries

• The lack of clarity for health and social care professionals
>> The law and the DPP guidelines are actually very clear. If you are a doctor don’t assist with suicide or you may well be prosecuted

• The reliance of amateur assistance
>> OK so let’s have professional assistance? Why not just enforce the existing law.

• The discrimination against people who not have the capacity to end their own life
>> A strange sort of discrimination indeed!

• The impact of friends and family being treated as ‘suspects’.
>> How else are the police supposed to find out if the law has been broken other than by investigating each case?

The Commission on Assisted Dying is made up of (I have added other relevant facts which are linked elsewhere on this blog)

Lord Charles Falconer (Chair) Barrister and Senior Counsel based in Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher’s London office. Former Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice in the Blair government.
>> Long time supporter of assisted suicide who tried to legalise it via an amendment to the Coroners and Justice Bill in 2009. Defeated by 194-151!

Professor Sam Ahmedzai Professor of Palliative Medicine and head of the Academic Unit of Supportive Care at the School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, University of Sheffield.
>> Unlike 95% of palliative medicine physicians a supporter of assisted suicide explaining his presence on the committee

Lord Ian Blair of Boughton Cross Bench Peer and former Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police.
>> Strong supporter of the legalisation of assisted suicide

Sir Graeme Catto President of the College of Medicine and former President of the General Medical Council.
>> And supporter of Healthcare Professionals for Assisted Dying – set up under the auspices of DID

Dr Carole Dacombe Medical Director, St Peter’s Hospice.
>> Unlike 95% of palliative medicine physicians a supporter of assisted suicide explaining her presence on the committee

Dr Stephen Duckworth Founder and former Chief Executive of Disability Matters Limited and board member of the Olympic Delivery Authority.
>> Another black sheep. Unlike the five major disability rights groups in the UK (NCIL, SCOPE, UKDPC, RADAR, NDY) he actually supports assisted suicide legislation and was chosen for this purpose. His organisation Disability Matters Limited stopped trading last year

Penny Mordaunt MP Conservative Member of Parliament for Portsmouth North.
>> Chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Choice at the end of life – the political wing of Dignity in Dying, which provides its secretariat.

Baroness Elaine Murphy of Aldgate Crossbench life peer, Secretary to the All Party Parliamentary Group on Mental Health and a vice-president of the Alzheimer’s Society.
>> Long-time supporter of assisted suicide who has voted to decriminalise it in the past

Dame Denise Platt DBE Member of the Committee on Standards in Public Life.
>> Prior views not known but has clearly ‘come around’

The Reverend Canon Dr James Woodward Anglican priest and Canon of St George’s Chapel, Windsor.
>> The 'token vicar' who is grought on to legitimise the enquiry but who does not actually support the Commission’s conclusions

Baroness Barbara Young of Old Scone Life Peer in the House of Lords and Chancellor of Cranfield University.
>> Long-time supporter of assisted suicide who has voted to decriminalise it in the past

Individuals and Organisations who refused to give evidence to Falconer Commission

2012-01-04T10:41:00.000-08:00

The Falconer Commission on 'Assisted Dying', which publishes its report today, has been accused (quite rightly) of being unnecessary, biased and lacking transparency.

It was sponsored by Dignity in Dying, formerly the Voluntary Euthanasia Society, and financed by Terry Pratchett one of their patrons, with panel members being handpicked by Lord Falconer (pictured), a leading advocate of changing the law.

Nine of its eleven members were known backers of assisted suicide with a strong ideological vested interest in this as the outcome.

Asking this group for guidance on assisted suicide laws is like asking Philip Morris and British American Tobacco to advise on smoking legislation!

Here is the (long) list of 46 individuals and 40 organisations who were invited to give evidence to the commission but refused to do so.

Individuals

Dr Idris Baker, Consultant and Lead Clinician in Palliative Medicine,
Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Local Health Board

Dr Christopher Baxter, Medical Director, North London Hospice

Professor Nigel Biggar, Regius Professor of Moral and Pastoral Theology,
University of Oxford

Dr Krishnakant Buch, GP, Lower Broughton Health Centre, Salford

Baroness Jane Campbell, crossbench life peer and Chair, All Party
Parliamentary Disability Group

Rt Revd and Rt Hon Richard Chartres, Bishop of London

Dr Mark Clayton, GP, Bideford Medical Centre, Devon

Lord Nigel Crisp, crossbench life peer, House of Lords

Dr Andrew Davies, Consultant in Palliative Medicine, Royal Surrey County
Hospital

Alison Davis, National Coordinator, No Less Human

Dr Jennifer Dixon, Director, Nuffield Trust

Professor Phil Fennell, Professor of Law in Cardiff Law School, University of Wales

Dr David Feuer, Consultant in Palliative Medicine, St Bartholomew’s
Hospital, London

Frank Field MP

Baroness Ilora Finlay, Professor of Palliative Medicine, Cardiff University
School of Medicine

Dr Rob George, Consultant in Palliative Care, Guy’s and Thomas’ Foundation Trust

Baroness Brenda Hale, Justice of the Supreme Court

Chris Ham, Chief Executive, The King’s Fund

Lord Khalid Hameed, crossbench life peer

Professor Rt Rev Lord Harries, crossbench life peer and Gresham Professor of
Divinity

Diane Haywood, Macmillan Lead Nurse, Specialist Palliative Care, Barts and
the London NHS Trust

Professor Irene Higginson, Professor of Palliative Care and Policy, King’s
College London

Dr Andrew Hoy, Consultant in Palliative Medicine, Princess Alice Hospice,
Surrey

Tessa Ing, Head of End of Life Care, Department of Health

Dr Jeremy Johnson, Medical Director, Severn Hospice, Shrewsbury

Professor Allan Kellehear, Director for the Centre for Death & Society

Professor Sir Ian Kennedy, Emeritus Professor of Health Law, Ethics and
Policy, University College London

Professor John Keown, Professor in Christian Ethics, Georgetown University

Lord James Mackay of Clashfern, Chairman of the Select Committee on the
Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill

Dr Wendy Makin, Christie Hospice, Manchester

Barbara Monroe, Chief Executive, St Christopher’s Hospice

Rt Revd James Newcome, Bishop of Carlisle

Dr Gareth Owen, Honorary Consultant, South London and Maudsley NHS
Foundation Trust

Rt Rev George Pitcher, Curate, St Bride’s Church, Fleet Street

Rt Rev Dr Lee Rayfield, Bishop of Swindon

Lord Jonathan Sacks, Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of
the Commonwealth

Dr Peter Saunders, CEO, Christian Medical Fellowship

Professor Julian Savulescu, Uehiro Chair in Practical Ethics, University of
Oxford

Peter Southern, Affiliated Social Worker, Barts Cancer Centre Palliative Care
Team, Barts and The London NHS Trust

Dr Patrick Stone, Macmillan Reader in Palliative Medicine, St Georges,
University of London

Judge Philip Sycamore, Department of Law, Lancaster University

Aswini Weererante, Barrister, Doughty Street Chambers

Michael Wenham, author of My Donkey Body

Dr Paul Whelan, Consultant in Psychiatry of Old Age, North Westminster
Community Mental Health Team

Dr Andrew Wilcock, Clinical Reader, Faculty of Medicine & Health Sciences,
University of Nottingham

The Most Revd and Rt Hon Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury

Organizations

Academy of Medical Royal Colleges
Age UK
Alert
Alzheimer’s UK
Association for Palliative Medicine
Association of British Neurologists
Association of Directors of Adult Social Services
Association of Hospice and Palliative Care Chaplains
BMA Ethics Committee
British Institute of Human Rights
British Medical Association
British Psychological Society
Care Not Killing Alliance (representing over 40 organisations)
Carers UK
Disability Alliance
Disability Awareness in Action
Dying Matters Coalition
Equalities and Human Rights Commission
Huntingdon Disease Association
Living and Dying Well
Macmillan Cancer Support
Marie Curie Palliative Care Institute
Marie Curie Cancer Care
Mind
Motor Neurone Disease Association
Multiple Sclerosis Trust
Muslim Council of Great Britain
National Council for Palliative Care
National Pensioner’s Convention
Parkinson’s Disease Society
Patients Association
Progressive Supranuclear Palsy Association
Royal College of Anaesthetists
Royal College of Nursing
Royal College of Physicians
Royal College of Psychiatrists
Royal Society of Medicine
Sue Ryder Care
The Stroke Association

What Falconer does not say about assisted suicide is even more worrying than what he does say

2012-01-03T10:32:00.001-08:00

On New Year’s day, Lord Falconer (pictured) wrote an opinion piece for the Daily Telegraph with the specious title ‘A duty of care to our last days on Earth’. It was subtitled ‘Do Britain’s laws on assisted dying work, and if not, what should replace them?’

The piece was an advertorial for the much trumpeted (by the cheerleading BBC) publication of his ‘Commission on Assisted Dying’ final report this Thursday which he tells us will provide a ‘possible way forward, which addresses the need for safeguards’ for the legalisation of assisted suicide in Britain.

I have summarised his main points here along with my comments (but this is a long post so if you are short of time skip to the summary):

1. Our task was to assess whether the current law and policy towards assisting terminally ill or seriously disabled people to commit suicide works. And, if we think it does not, to consider if there is a workable alternative. We hope the report will both stimulate debate and guide policy-makers when making future decisions.

Falconer makes it sound as though someone in government was officially commissioning him to carry out this report. In fact he is a well-known advocate of assisted suicide and attempted unsuccessfully to legalise it in 2009 in an amendment to the Coroners and Justice Bill. His commission is actually a campaign strategy – suggested by Dignity in Dying (formerly the Voluntary Euthanasia Society) and part-financed by one of their patrons, celebrity novelist Terry Pratchett. Furthermore, nine of his twelve hand-picked commission members had previously expressed support for the legalisation of assisted suicide.

2. We heard ‘evidence from more than 40 witnesses and (considered) submissions from 1,200 individuals and institutions’.

What Falconer doesn’t tell is that over 40 organisations, including the British Medical Association,refused to give evidence to his enquiry on the basis that it was unnecessary, biased and lacking in transparency. He also fails to tell us that in 2005 a balanced House of Lords Select Committee carried out an official parliamentary Inquiry into assisted suicide. This covered some 246 Hansard columns and two volumes of 744 pages and 116 pages respectively, 15 oral sessions, 48 groups or individuals giving evidence, with 88 witnesses giving written evidence; 2,460 questions were asked and the committee received 14,000 letters. Falconer’s enquiry, in comparison, was not only unbalanced but miniscule.

3. We heard from disabled people who felt that the law on assisted suicide discriminated against them. While a non-disabled person might end their life without assistance (suicide has been legal since 1961), a person whose impairment makes this impossible is forced to choose between obeying the law (and therefore being denied an autonomous decision to end their life) or putting a friend, loved one or employee at risk of prosecution for assisting them. Tony Nicklinson, who was paralysed from the neck down by a stroke, expressed this sentiment when he described his life with locked-in syndrome.

What Falconer doesn’t tell us is that the same Tony Nicklinson is currently bringing a court case that has been described by his lawyers as a full frontal assault on the Murder Act 1965 (and not the Suicide Act 1961). Falconer, in answer to (my) repeated questions at the commission’s launch in 2010, eventually said that ‘assisted dying’ included only ‘assisted suicide’ and not euthanasia. But for Nicklinson to end his life it would require the legalisation of euthanasia (where someone actively ends his life) rather than assisted suicide (where someone helps him to kill himself) precisely because he could not kill himself even with assistance. This suggests that Falconer aims go beyond the legalisation of assisted suicide to include euthanasia as well.

4. No matter how much end-of-life care may improve, there is always likely to be a small cohort who will want to end their own lives rather than face a period of reduced function and independence in their final illness.

There have always been a very small number of desperate determined people who, whether they receive palliative care or not, wish to end their lives. Most of them are not even disabled or terminally ill. What Falconer does not tell us is that hard cases make bad law and that part of living in a democratic society involves accepting that there are certain ‘freedoms’ we cannot exercise because of the detrimental adverse effects a change in the law might have on others. The law, with its blanket prohibition on assisted suicide, is as it is to protect vulnerable people from exploitation and abuse by those who might have an interest, financial or otherwise, in their deaths.

5. As it stands, the system outlaws an action (assisted suicide) and yet frequently allows it to take place unpunished without employing any safeguards to protect and support people at a vulnerable stage in their lives. Between 2008 and 2010, 76 Britons ended their lives at the Dignitas clinic in Switzerland, in alien surroundings and often far away from their loved ones.

Falconer has highlighted the fact that a very small number (20-25) of British people go to Switzerland each year to end their lives at the Dignitas facility and that very few if any are prosecuted. What he neglects to tell us is that the House of Lords Committee reported that a Dutch-type law (allowing both euthanasia and assisted suicide) or an Oregon-type law (allowing assisted suicide only) in Britain would lead to 13,000 or 800 British deaths annually, a massive increase in these numbers. There may be abuses of the law, as there are for any law, but the current law which carries a blanket prohibition against assisted suicide acts as a very strong deterrent.

6. Commissioners visited the (Swiss) clinic and spoke to the people who ran it. They did not like much of what they saw. (So) should the UK adopt the model used in Holland, which allows a doctor to judge whether someone is ‘suffering unbearably’? People with psychiatric illness, the disabled and the terminally ill all might be considered eligible for an assisted death in that country. It also allows for young people aged 12-17 to request an assisted death, as long as the parents give their consent. Would that be acceptable to us in Britain? We doubt it. And would we want a system that required the ingestion of around 90 capsules of medication in a short period of time, often without the supervision or support of a doctor, as is the case in Oregon? We doubt that Britain would be happy to introduce such an approach.

Falconer cleverly rejects the Swiss, Dutch and Oregon models, despite the fact that Dignity in Dying have been campaigning for an Oregon-type law in Britain for several years. This makes him look cautious and is an attempt to disguise his full agenda. He does not however tell us what kind of law he would find acceptable apart from hinting at unnamed ‘safeguards’. But it is precisely the concern that safeguards will not work in restraining abuse that has led British Parliaments three times in the last five years to reject any legalisation of assisted suicide.

7. We also heard from Debbie Purdy, who has multiple sclerosis, who told us of her fear of ‘not taking the right quantity or quality of drugs and ending up in a worse situation than I would be in anyway’.

This is a similar argument to that used to legalise abortion (The CEO of DID Sarah Wootton comes with a wealth of campaigning previously for the liberalistion of Britain's abortion laws). If we do not legalise assisted suicide so that people can do it ‘safely’ they will do it ‘unsafely’. Debbie Purdy is a well-known pro-euthanasia campaigner with a chronic progressive disability whose life expectancy probably runs to decades. She has also said that she has no current intention of ending her life. It is interesting that Falconer should single her out as a case justifying a change in the law. It suggests that he wishes to extend assisted suicide and/or euthanasia to those who are not terminally ill. This would again take him beyond Dignity in Dying’s stated agenda. There is more than a hint here of incremental extension.

Summary

Falconer’s commission was ‘suggested’ by Dignity in Dying (the former Voluntary Euthanasia Society) and financed by one of their patrons. DID backs the legalisation of assisted suicide for mentally competent adults who are terminally ill and ‘suffering unbearably’. However their main arguments ('autonomy' and 'compassion') are equally used by those, like Nitschke and Irwin, with ostensibly more far-reaching agendas to justify the legalisation of both euthanasia and assisted suicide for those who are neither terminally ill, nor adults, nor mentally competent. This raises questions about their real agenda.

DID also backs an Oregon-type law, one which legalises assisted suicide but not euthanasia. Falconer, in contrast, tells us that his committee has concluded that the laws of Switzerland, Netherlands or Oregon would not be acceptable in Britain, yet judging by the examples he is using to argue his case his agenda seems more far-reaching than that of DID – extending to those who are chronically disabled (like Debbie Purdy) and those who would need euthanasia as opposed to assisted suicide (like Tony Nicklinson).

There are profound logical inconsistencies in what Falconer has said. Whether he will be clear and specific on Thursday about what he is actually advocating remains to be seen. But it would seem that he cannot have it both ways. He cannot have a law with more safeguards than that of the profoundly flawed law in Oregon and include people like Purdy and Nicklinson within its remit. And he cannot have a law with fewer safeguards than Oregon’s without putting the lives of thousands of vulnerable people at risk.

Falconer cannot hide behind hard cases, emotional arguments and imprecise terminology. He has to be specific about what ‘safeguards’ he is proposing and if his proposals are to have any traction at all they must be much better than those which have been repeatedly rejected by British Parliaments.

He also needs to define terms like 'assisted dying' and 'terminally ill' precisely so that we can understand what he is actually talking about.

His current bluster, vagueness and lack of precision make him look like a man with something to hide - a case of 'argument weak, shout louder'.

Judging by his record to date Falconer has set himself a very difficult task indeed.

Charles Falconer’s bent jury – why we should not be surprised by their ‘conclusions’

2012-01-02T14:34:00.000-08:00

Charles Falconer’s ‘Commission on Assisted Dying’ is due to report on Thursday 5 January 2012, over a year after it first launched in November 2010, but its recommendations have already being leaked (ie. pre-announced) this week and we can expect more drip-drip as the week goes on.

The commission was originally ‘suggested’ by the pressure group Dignity in Dying (formerly the Voluntary Euthanasia Society) and has been part-funded by Terry Pratchett, one of their patrons.

Nine of the twelve members, handpicked by Falconer, are already known to favour a change in the law, including all four parliamentarians and all four doctors.

The commission is expected to make conclusions in line with Dignity in Dying’s campaign objectives – that is, that there is place for ‘a bill making provision for mentally competent, terminally ill adults who are suffering unbearably, to have "assisted dying" (this term will be I predict left conveniently undefined) with robust up-front safeguards’.

A Royal Society committee in Canada, similarly constituted, has recently made similar recommendations for the legalization of assisted suicide and euthanasia.

So who is on this ‘grand jury’ and what do we know about them? Who are ‘the twelve’?

All four Parliamentarians on the commission have either made their pro-assisted dying views public or voted for legalisation in the Houses of Parliament.

Lord Falconer himself, who chaired the commission, has campaigned long and hard on this issue and attempted to legalise assisted suicide via an amendment to the Coroners and Justice Bill in 2009.

Baroness Elaine Murphy of Aldgate and Baroness Young of Old Scone share Falconer’s views – Young supporting Falconer’s amendment on 7 July 2009 and Murphy voting for Lord Joffe’s Assisted Dying Bill on 12 May 2006.

Penny Mordaunt MP has not had an opportunity to vote on the issue but has made her own support for legalisation very clear and has, since joining the commission, taken on the chairmanship of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Choice at the End of Life, effectively the political wing of Dignity in Dying, which acts as its secretariat.

While all the major disability rights organisations in the UK (RADAR, UKDPC, NCIL, SCOPE, Not Dead Yet) oppose a change in the law Stephen Duckworth, Chief Executive of ‘Disability Matters Limited’, is one of those rare disabled people actually to back legalisation. 'Disability Matters' sounds grandiose but it is in reality just a private business which according to Companies House ceased trading in 2010! Judging by the current inaccessibility of its website, it may not be doing all that much at present other than attempting to lend credibility to the commission. Duckworth happens to be disabled (hence his usefulness to Falconer) but he seems not to represent anyone but himself. Hardly surprising then that he is included on this panel.

Whilst 95% of Palliative Medicine Specialists are opposed to a change in the law Lord Falconer has managed again to find two who buck that trend in Professor Sam Ahmedzai, Professor of Palliative Medicine in Sheffield, and Dr Carole Dacombe, Medical Director, St Peter’s Hospice.

In 2010 I was involved in a two hour dialogue in Oxford (over dinner) with Lord Ian Blair of Boughton, former Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, and I can assure you that he too firmly supports a change in the law and has confirmed this only this week.

Sir Graeme Catto, former President of the General Medical Council, has spoken in support of a new organisation seeking to promote the legalisation of ‘assisted dying’, Health Professionals for Change (now rebranded ‘Health Professionals for Assisted Dying’)

So who does that leave? Just three whose views we do not already know: Dame Denise Platt, Member of the Committee on Standards in Public Life; Celia Grandison-Markey (according to the website she has now been removed), Management Consultant for Health and Social Care in the public sector; and the Revd Canon Dr James Woodward, Anglican Priest and Canon of St George’s Chapel, Windsor.

So is this an independent committee? I think not! No wonder that the British Medical Association has refused to give evidence to it along with over forty other organizations.

Lord Falconer, of course, is perfectly free to set up an ad hoc committee to take evidence and make recommendations to Parliament. It is a free country and he has every right to try and influence public policy.

But it is a trifle disingenuous of him to pretend that a group with such clearly settled prior convictions, might bring any impartiality or objectivity to bear on these important issues.

The last 280 films I have watched

2011-12-21T12:10:00.000-08:00

Christmas holidays are almost upon us so here are the last 280 films I have watched since July 2000 – or at least those I remembered to write down.

Many were watched on long plane journeys, some in the cinema and others at home with the family.

Taste for films is very personal and although I enjoyed most of those listed I have marked with an asterisk (*) those I would particularly recommend and have given my top ten a double asterisk (**)

Some in the list below I would definitely not recommend!

If you have any suggestions about films you would recommend that are not in this list, or comments about those that are, then please make them below.

1. Erin Brockovich*
2. The Hurricane*
3. The next best thing
4. Return to me
5. Mission to Mars
6. The Truman Show*
7. Wrongfully accused
8. Sixth sense
9. The Mummy
10. The Fugitive
11. Price of Glory*
12. Where the Money is
13. The Skulls
14. The whole nine yards
15. The last musketeer
16. Lightning Jack
17. Fried Green tomatoes*
18. Casper
19. Independence Day
20. Escape form Alcatraz
21. Octopussy
22. Titanic
23. Mousehunt
24. 101 Dalmatians
25. A bridge too far
26. Chicken Run
27. Dave
28. Platoon
29. Deep Impact
30. High Fidelity
31. Mrs Doubtfire
32. The Man in the Iron Mask
33. The Miracle Maker
34. Dances with Wolves
35. Air Force I
36. Vertical Limit
37. Space Cowboys
38. Wild Wild West
39. Jerry McGuire*
40. Patch Adams
41. Out of Sight
42. The Bravados
43. Extreme Measures*
44. Raw Deal
45. Galaxy Quest
46. Gattacca*
47. The Battle of the Coral Sea
48. Ground Hog Day*
49. Last Orders*
50. Rush Hour
51. Matilda
52. Lord of the Rings*
53. Regarding Henry
54. Shrek
55. Antz
56. Flubber
57. Enemy of the State
58. Lord of the Rings (2nd time)*
59. Rush Hour 2
60. Entrapment
61. I am Sam
62. What’s the matter with Jimmy Grimble
63. The Count of Monte Cristo*
64. Behind Enemy Lines
65. Lost in Space
66. Lilo and Stitch
67. Force 10 from Navarone
68. Miss Congeniality
69. Pearl Harbour
70. Spies Like Us
71. Naked Gun 2 ½
72. What women want
73. Beverly Hills Cop 3
74. The Mummy (2nd time)
75. Minority Report*
76. The Mummy Returns
77. Lord of the Rings 2 (Two Towers)*
78. Cats and Dogs
79. The Bourne Identity*
80. The Third Wheel
81. The Mission*
82. A Fish called Wanda
83. Gattacca (2nd time)*
84. Lord of the Rings (Two towers) (2nd time)*
85. Brassed Off**
86. Gloomy Sunday*
87. The Full Monty*
88. The Four Feathers
89. Mr Holland’s Opus*
90. Goodbye Mr Chips
91. XXX
92. One Hour Photo
93. Jurassic Park 3
94. Blues Brothers*
95. Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone
96. Bend it like Beckham*
97. Captain Corelli’s Mandolin*
98. Swordfish
99. Lord of the Rings (Two towers) (3rd time)*
100. Dietrich Bonhoeffer*
101. Jumanji*
102. Johnny English
103. The Sound of Music*
104. Naked Gun 33 1/3
105. The Thin Red Line
106. Catch me if you can
107. Showtime
108. East is East*
109. Lord of the Rings 3 (Return of the King)*
110. Love Actually
111. Sum of all Fears
112. Finding Nemo
113. My Left Foot*
114. The Widow Maker
115. Reach for the Sky
116. The Road to Perdition*
117. Angela’s Ashes*
118. Shrek III
119. Suzi Gold
120. The Day after tomorrow
121. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
122. Laws of Attraction
123. Flatliners
124. The Passion*
125. Million Dollar Baby
126. As good as it gets*
127. The Island
128. Outbreak
129. Star Wars III*
130. Troy
131. The Lion, the Witch and the wardrobe*
132. King Kong*
133. The Last Samurai
134. Snow Walker
135. Motorcycle Diaries*
136. Amelie
137. Millions*
138. Amazing Grace*
139. War of the Worlds
140. Waking Ned
141. Lost in Translation
142. Saving Private Ryan*
143. I love my wife
144. Tsotsi**
145. Pleasantville**
146. Alien
147. Sixteen Blocks
148. Firewall
149. The River King
150. Perfect strangers
151. Something New
152. Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid*
153. Fastest Indian*
154. Fracture
155. Keeping Mum
156. In my Father’s den
157. Last King of Scotland*
158. Rain
159. The Quiet Earth
160. Eagle vs Shark*
161. Casablanca**
162. The Untouchables*
163. The Usual Suspects*
164. The 11th Hour
165. Stardust
166. Forest Gump**
167. Conversations with my gardener*
168. The Conversation
169. Terms of Endearment
170. The Bourne Ultimatum*
171. The Choir
172. Four (Vivaldi)*
173. The Band’s Visit*
174. The Wizard of Oz
175. The Bank Job
176. The Happening
177. Caramel
178. Iron Man
179. Prince Caspian*
180. The 1st Ladies Detective Agency
181. Atonement
182. Pan’s Labyrinth*
183. The Insider
184. Blades of Glory
185. Predator
186. The 39 Steps*
187. In the Line of Fire
188. The Diving Bell and the Butterfly**
189. Citizen Kane*
190. Slumdog Millionaire*
191. Lions for Lambs
192. The Reader
193. Defiance*
194. Last Chance Harvey
195. Billy Elliott*
196. Doubt*
197. The Black Balloon
198. Gran Torino**
199. Taken
200. Seven Pounds
201. A river runs through it*
202. Juno*
203. Avatar
204. District 9*
205. Sin Nombre*
206. Inglorious Basterds
207. A Perfect Getaway
208. Whiteout
209. Priceless
210. 21
211. The Lives of Others*
212. It’s a wonderful life**
213. Valkyrie
214. I love you, man
215. In Bruges
216. The Blind Side*
217. Invictus
218. The Hurt Locker
219. The Raffle*
220. Napoleon Dynamite*
221. Inception*
222. Up**
223. Hotshots
224. She’s out of your league
225. A few good men
226. The untouchables (2nd time)*
227. Toy Story 3
228. The History Boys
229. Nativity Series (4)*
230. Apocalypse Now*
231. Rain Man*
232. Alaska
233. The Usual Suspects (2nd time)*
234. Hot Fuzz
235. Star Wars 5*
236. Time Bandits*
237. Star Wars 6*
238. Sophie Scholl**
239. Seven Pounds (2nd time)
240. Beautiful Mind*
241. Green Mile*
242. Shawn of the Dead
243. Sound of Music (2nd time)*
244. Slumdog Millionaire (2nd time)*
245. The Italian Job (Original)*
246. Hotel Rwanda*
247. Mary Poppins*
248. Defiance (2nd time)*
249. Cool Hand Luke**
250. Terminator Salvation
251. Shadowlands*
252. My Sister’s Keeper
253. The Book of Eli*
254. The Social Network*
255. Wall Street*
256. The American
257. Patriot Games
258. The King’s Speech*
259. Crash
260. 127 Hours
261. The Town
262. Tuxedo
263. Blind Side (2nd time)*
264. Flawless
265. You’re my hero
266. Greenzone
267. Lorenzo’s Oil*
268. Goethe*
269. Knight and Day
270. The Sunset Limited*
271. Never Let me Go*
272. Unknown
273. The Adjustment Bureau
274. Casablanca (2nd time)
275. Battle Los Angeles
276. Bonnie and Clyde*
277. Deliverance
278. Who’s afraid of Virginia Woolf?
279. Twilight
280. Africa United
281. Black Sheep
282. Gladiator*
283. Braveheart*
284. Shawshank Redemption**
285. Schindler's List**
285. Days of Glory
286. The Kite Runner*
287. Shutter Island
288. Prince Caspian
289. Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull

David Cameron has professed Christianity but fails Luther’s test of confession

2011-12-18T14:29:00.000-08:00

David Cameron’s comments last Friday about Christian values have generated a huge amount of media coverage but what did he actually say?

Those who rely solely on the BBC, or media reports based on press releases from AFP or UKPA will miss much of his message.

The full speech, which was given to mark the end of the 400th anniversary year for the King James Bible, is available on the Downing Street website and a highlighted version (for those with less time) has been posted by Cranmer on his blog.

The Prime Minister confessed to being only a ‘vaguely practising Church of England Christian’ who was ‘full of doubts and, like many, constantly grappling with the difficult questions when it comes to some of the big theological issues’.

His stated aim in the speech was to present his personal conviction that ‘The King James Bible is as relevant today as at any point in its 400 year history’ and that ‘none of us should be frightened of recognising this’.

He gave three reasons for this conviction:

First, the King James Bible has bequeathed a body of language that permeates every aspect of our culture and heritage… from everyday phrases to our greatest works of literature, music and art. We live and breathe the language of the King James Bible, sometimes without even realising it.

Second, just as our language and culture is steeped in the Bible, so too is our politics. From human rights and equality to our constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy… from the role of the church in the first forms of welfare provision, to the many modern day faith-led social action projects…

Third, we are a Christian country. And we should not be afraid to say so… and the Bible has helped to give Britain a set of values and morals which make Britain what it is today.

He then set out to elaborate on these three points.

In support of the first he gave a long list of ways in which the Bible had influenced literature, music and art – in which Shakespeare, Tennyson, Bach, Handel and Michelangelo were amongst the highlights.

Expounding the second he argued that the Judeo-Christian roots of the Bible provided ‘the foundations for protest and for the evolution of our freedom and democracy’, placed the 'first limits on Royal Power’ and that ‘the knowledge that God created man in his own image was… a game changer for the cause of human dignity and equality’.

But it was the third section on Christian values that was probably the most interesting. Here Cameron argued that ‘the Bible has helped to shape the values which define our country’. He quoted Margaret Thatcher who once said, ‘we are a nation whose ideals are founded on the Bible’ and then gave a list of Christian values including ‘responsibility, hard work, charity, compassion, humility, self-sacrifice, love…pride in working for the common good and honouring the social obligations we have to one another, to our families and our communities…’

This provided the framework for an analysis of the cause of problems as diverse as the financial crash, the London riots and the expenses scandal which he claimed were evidence of the ‘absence of any real accountability, or moral code’. He concluded that ‘one thing is clear: moral neutrality or passive tolerance just isn’t going to cut it anymore’.

The Prime Minister was later critical (with some justification) of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s selective defence of (some) Christian values and warned that the Church of England must keep to an ‘agenda that speaks to the whole country’.

But what interested me most about the speech was what Cameron didn’t say – the Christian values that he himself left out.

Four key omissions stood out to me.

First there was no mention of the importance of respecting the right of Christians to live according to Christian conscience. This was particularly ironic coming a few days after the government had been heavily criticized by former Archbishop of Canterbury George Carey over its decision not to back four British Christians who have taken their cases to the European Court of Human Rights.

Second, there was no mention of the sanctity of life, consistent with Cameron’s poor voting record on abortion and his caving in under Liberal Democrat pressure at the time of the vote on independent counseling for those with unplanned pregnancies.

Third, there was no mention of sexual purity or the biblical model for marriage as ‘one man, one woman, for life’. This also would have been impossible given Cameron’s own backing for same-sex marriage and his general posturing over homosexuality.

And finally and most crucially, there was no reference to the foundation on which all Christian values are based, Jesus Christ’s divinity, incarnation, death and resurrection, the need for repentance and faith and his imminent return in judgement.

Melanie McDonagh recently made this final point in her Spectator piece ‘Cameron's missing the point: Christian values require Christianity’:

‘Mr Cameron's remarks about Christian values fail to get to the heart of the contemporary moral malaise. Look, Christian values flow from Christianity. Without those beliefs in the God who became man, and who died for sinners and rose from the dead, and forgave sins, the moral values don't count for much. It's because of who and what Christ was that we take to heart what he said about loving our enemies, turning the other cheek. Values aren't something free-floating; they come from what we believe. So when Mr Cameron says we should return to Christian values, he misses the point. What we need – with all respect to other faiths – is a return to Christianity.’

The Prime Minister has been bold in defending the King James Bible as a powerful cultural, political and moral influence but he appears to have shrunk back from proclaiming Christian truth precisely at those points where it is currently under attack – in part from his own government.

I am reminded of Martin Luther’s words:

‘It is to confess we are called, not merely to profess. If I profess, with the loudest voice and the clearest exposition, every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christianity. Where the battle rages the loyalty of the soldier is proved; and to be steady on all the battle-field besides is mere flight and disgrace to him if he flinches at that one point.’

The Prime Minister has certainly ‘professed’ Christianity. But his flinching at these most crucial points makes it, by Luther’s reckoning, not a true confession of Christ but rather ‘mere flight and disgrace’.

BBC uses distortion, hype, exaggeration and selective reporting to promote gay rights agenda

2011-12-18T12:33:00.000-08:00

With the consultation about legalizing same-sex marriage already underway in Scotland and with the Westminster consultation about to start, the BBC is ratcheting up its support for the gay rights agenda with more distortion, hype, exaggeration and selective reporting.

The latest example of this is the coverage given to a new study recently published by the American Journal of Public Health on the alleged health benefits of same-sex marriage.

Aware of the tendency of the BBC to give an international platform to anything, however obscure, which might further its liberal agenda I decided to investigate further.

Under the provocative headline ‘Gay marriage “improves health”’ the BBC reports:

‘Legalising same-sex marriage may create a healthier environment for gay men, say US researchers. The number of visits by gay men to health clinics dropped significantly after same-sex unions were allowed in the state Massachusetts. This was regardless of whether the men were in a stable relationship, reported the American Journal of Public Health.’

These words are all most people will ever read as they are the only ones that will appear on CEEFAX.

However, on turning to the BBC webpage, we also see highlighted in large letters, a quote highlighted in a large font drop-in that originates from the Terence Higgins Trust, an organization which campaigns for gay rights:

‘It's no surprise that people who are treated as second class citizens tend to have low self esteem, which in turn makes them more likely to take risks. Whether this is drugs, alcohol abuse, or unsafe sex, treating gay men unequally has lasting repercussions for their health.’

There is no balancing quote from anyone else and this quote from a lobbying group is given equal authority to the study by the BBC although there is no evidence whatsoever given to support it.

So what about the article itself? What does it really say?

Now normally when journalists quote an article from a peer-reviewed medical journal it is customary to give the title of the article and a link to the original source.

But the unnamed BBC journalist who wrote this article has neglected to do so. Why?
The answer is not difficult to deduce. He/she hasn't actually read it!

The link at the bottom of the BBC piece to the American Journal of Public Health leads not to the article itself but rather to the home page of the journal. But I could not find the article in question in either the December or January journal contents lists. Nor was it available through PubMed where all published journal articles are listed.

However, the BBC does give a link to a Yahoo News article, which contains all the facts the BBC journalist has quoted and was clearly his primary source.

Now let me just spell that out.

This unnamed BBC journalist has written a report about an article which he has never seen, nor even read in abstract. In fact he has simply copied it from another secondary news source – Yahoo!

It took me less than a minute to find the original article in question on the American Journal of Public Health website. He (or she) had clearly made no effort even to look.

As it turns out the article is in a section titled ‘First Look’ with over 50 other articles that have been accepted for publication but not yet published in the paper edition of the journal. Its full title is ‘Effect of Same-Sex Marriage Laws on Health Care Use and Expenditures in Sexual Minority Men: A Quasi-Natural Experiment’

Only the abstract is accessible without subscription and reads as follows:

Objectives. We sought to determine whether health care use and expenditures among gay and bisexual men were reduced following the enactment of same-sex marriage laws in Massachusetts in 2003.

Methods. We used quasi-experimental, prospective data from 1211 sexual minority male patients in a community-based health center in Massachusetts.

Results. In the 12 months after the legalization of same-sex marriage, sexual minority men had a statistically significant decrease in medical care visits (mean = 5.00 vs mean = 4.67; P = .05; Cohen's d = 0.17), mental health care visits (mean = 24.72 vs mean = 22.20; P = .03; Cohen's d = 0.35), and mental health care costs (mean = $2442.28 vs mean = $2137.38; P = .01; Cohen's d = 0.41), compared with the 12 months before the law change. These effects were not modified by partnership status, indicating that the health effect of same-sex marriage laws was similar for partnered and nonpartnered men.

Conclusions. Policies that confer protections to same-sex couples may be effective in reducing health care use and costs among sexual minority men. (Am J Public Health. Published online ahead of print December 15, 2011: e1-e7. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2011.300382)

So this is an article which looks at one year’s data from one US state and evaluates just three healthcare measures (medical care visits, mental health care visits and mental health care costs) which it finds are marginally decreased over the twelve month period after the law change.

This is as much as one can say without reviewing the full article but the abstract does nonetheless raise some very interesting questions.

Why, when the paper was published in 2011, were only the data for 2003 and 2004 reviewed? Was this decrease a one-off or part of a continuing trend? One rather suspects the former.

Was this one year trend mirrored in other states that had legalized same-sex marriage? How were potential confounding variables controlled for? (ie Was the observed effect apparent or real?)

Why were mental care health costs included but not medical care health costs? Why were these particular three measures of health chosen and not objective measures of specific diagnosed illnesses? Were other health indices measured?

These are just a few questions that would immediately spring to mind to anyone wanting to know what conclusions about the health effects of legalising same-sex marriage could reasonably be drawn.

The cautious conclusion in the abstract, ‘Policies that confer protections to same-sex couples may be effective in reducing health care use and costs among sexual minority men’ actually justifies neither the confident BBC headline ‘Gay marriage”improves health”’ nor the highly emotive Terence Higgins quote.

Rather the article itself appears to have been cherry-picked simply because its tentative conclusions provided some fodder for the campaign which could be sexed up into misleading headlines.

And I’m betting that gay rights activists, and sympathetic MPs, will be trotting out these headlines when the parliamentary debate comes along.

I have documented previously on this blog the way the BBC advances other social and political agendas by selectively reporting stories about euthanasia, abortion and stem cells.

This is apparently yet another area where we need to read far beyond the headlines and drop-ins to learn the real truth.

But sadly public policy is often built on such distortion, hype, exaggeration and selective reporting.

Pro-abortion lobby admit that most abortions in Britain are illegal

2011-12-18T09:00:00.000-08:00

Last week the Academy of Royal Colleges presented a report which, as a result of the strong spin in an accompanying press release, was widely reported as ‘proving’ that abortion was no worse for mental health than childbirth for women with unwanted pregnancies.

These strong conclusions, as I have already argued, were based on weak data from just four studies. Furthermore the author of the strongest of the four studies, David Fergusson, has already disputed the conclusions.

That particular debate will no doubt rage on and on.

But the most interesting conclusion to follow from last week’s report is that 98% of abortions are actually illegal. When I made this claim last week on Radio Four the presenter John Humphries gasped and almost jumped off his chair. But no one has since seriously or publicly disputed it.

Almost all abortions in Britain are indeed carried out on the grounds that the continuance of the pregnancy constitutes a greater risk to the mental health of the mother than abortion does, something that the author of the report, Professor Tim Kendall, explicitly confirmed in our Today Programme debate on 8 December. And yet there is no evidence that continuing a pregnancy ever poses a greater mental health risk than abortion.

This means that when two doctors sign forms saying that ‘in good faith’ they believe that having an abortion will lead to better mental health outcomes they are committing a form of perjury under section five of the Perjury Act 1911. And when a third doctor performs the abortion on the strength of that certificate he is actually carrying out an ‘unlawful killing’ under the terms of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.

It has been interesting to see the pro-abortion lobby reacting to this new challenge.

Jeremy Laurance, in the Independent, a strongly pro-abortion journalist, wrote last week:

‘Reassuring as that finding may be for the 200,000 women who have abortions in the UK each year, it does raise a tricky question. To obtain an abortion women must to find two doctors who will authorise it. By far the commonest ground, cited in nine out of 10 abortions, is that to proceed with the pregnancy would put the mental health of the woman at risk. This study appears to put that ground in jeopardy.’

Yes exactly Jeremy. Except that the figure I think you will find if you look at section 2.8 of the 2010 abortion statistics is 98% and not ‘nine out of ten’.

Laurance goes on to report reaction to this disturbing fact:

‘Abortion organisations were split in response to the finding, with half still insisting a termination did permanent damage to women's souls, with the other, cannier, half hoping the finding was true so that they could challenge the legality of the procedure.’

Again this is interesting spin. Note that he doesn’t name any pro-abortion organizations specifically and I have been unable thus far to find any quotes from them in the public domain. As there are only really two main pro-abortion organisations, BPAS and MSI, it raises the interesting question of which said what to Laurance on the phone. But regardless, Laurance should have called the ‘cannier’ half the more ‘honest’ half because the finding itself is not in doubt.

Laurance goes on to report that:

‘The authors of the study reject this challenge, insisting the findings could indicate doctors are successfully identifying women at risk from the pregnancy, and referring them for abortion to obviate it.’

Now that I find fascinating because, again, they have not said this publicly. And do they really expect us to believe that this is the case for each of the 185,000 abortions carried out every year?

But now we see the real agenda exposed in Laurance’s conclusion:

‘It is clear already that this world-beating review, despite its size, will not settle the debate. But it is surely time now, in the wake of its findings, to abandon the pretence of "grounds" for abortion and acknowledge, once and for all, that it is a woman's right to choose.’

In other words if 98% of abortions are illegal then let’s change the law to make them legal!

Deborah Orr, writing this week in the Guardian, is more honest than Laurance about the true implications of the report.

‘But pro-abortion groups have something to learn from this research as well, and to campaign for. In Britain an abortion can only be given if two doctors authorise it. In the absence of any other medical reason, they tend to agree that it would be bad for the mental health of a woman if the pregnancy continued.

Mostly, people know that this is poppycock, something that three people have to conspire to say in order to tick the boxes that earn the right to have a medical procedure that is requested, perfectly sanely, because they don't feel that they are in a position to have a child. It is ridiculous, infantilising, that women must play the "it'll drive me to despair" card in order to obtain a sensible intervention. It is appalling, too, that medical professionals are obliged to play along. The only really important opinion about the suitability of an abortion is that of the pregnant woman. The excuse of dire effects on her mental health has always been an insulting and craven figleaf. It has to go.’

So she admits that for most abortions in Britain to be carried out three doctors have to, knowingly and wilfully, break the law. So she concludes’ ‘Let’s change the law’.

What we actually have here, by the liberal press’s own admission is a culture of ‘unlawful killing’ and ‘perjury’ to which the police, the judiciary, the crown prosecution service and parliament are turning a blind eye. Furthermore it is leading to 185,000 deaths a year and has resulted in over 7 million deaths altogether since the Abortion Act was passed in 1967.

This bears striking similarities to MPs’ expenses’ scandal where everyone was breaking the rules but no one was doing anything about it because so many were involved.

In that case it needed the Daily Telegraph to take up the cause for the perpetrators to be brought to justice. Money wrongly obtained was repaid and some MPs went to prison.

In the case of abortion, of course, the lives of those seven million British lives taken by abortion can not be brought back. But justice can still be done and still be seen to be done.

But in order for that to happen the police, the crown prosecution service and the courts will have to begin doing the job they are actually paid to do, which is to uphold the law.

I wonder if any British newspaper is as concerned about seven million unlawful deaths as the Daily Telegraph was about a few hundred thousand pounds of taxpayers’ money.

Sham euthanasia report from Canada should make us more wary about Charlie Falconer’s ‘commission on assisted dying’

2011-12-17T14:20:00.001-08:00

Charlie Falconer’s sham ‘Commission on Assisted Dying’ is due to report on 5 January 2012, over a year after it first launched in November 2009.

The private commission was set up by Falconer because Dignity in Dying (previously the Voluntary Euthanasia Society) had failed three times since 2006 in legalizing assisted suicide in Britain and was losing credibility.

The House of Lords were so sick of debating the issue that they refused to set up a Royal Commission or any other official parliamentary committee to revisit it.

Therefore children’s novelist Terry Pratchett, a Patron of DID, agreed to pay for a private commission headed up by Lord Falconer, a known pro-euthanasia advocate who had attempted to decriminalize assisted suicide through an amendment in the House of Lords in 2009 in order to provide new impetus for the campaign.

Included in the panel of twelve ‘independent’ people assembled for the commission were no less than nine known to support the legalization of assisted suicide and/or euthanasia.

Given these circumstances it was not surprising that over 40 organisations refused to give evidence to the commission, and that it ran out of ‘witnesses’ half way through last year after DID had encouraged its members to send in their own ‘evidence’.

The panel was due to report in November this year but the report was put off until the New Year, apparently to avoid the eurozone financial meltdown news storm in the hope of attracting more publicity. It is also thought that a 2012 date was needed, to prevent the report immediately losing its relevance and in the hope that journalists with short memories would have forgotten what had previously been written about it.

DID are expected to launch more assaults on Britain’s Suicide Act and Murder Act in the New Year and for this reason we have seen a recent escalation of high profile cases demanding a change in the law.

Following the publication of the report we expect either another bill in the House of Lords (sponsored by one of the members of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Choice at the End of Life – the parliamentary wing of the pro-euthanasia lobby) or, if one of their supportive MPs comes high enough in the Easter ballot, a similar bill in the House of Commons.

Falconer’s commission is expected to make recommendations in line with DID’s incremental legalization strategy. That is, he is expected to conclude that there is a case for ‘assisted (suicide) for mentally competent terminally ill adults who are suffering unbearably, but with robust up-front safeguards’.

In the meantime we should take warning from a similar recent report recently produced in Canada as part of a similar pro-euthanasia campaign.

The Royal Society of Canada’s Expert Panel Report on End-of-Life Decision Making sounds impressive and on first appearances it is – 117 pages of carefully documented ‘evidence’ and ‘recommendations’.

But this is only on first appearances. Its conclusion last month that assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia should be ‘legally permitted’ should alert our antennae and it is perhaps no surprise to find that the ‘expert panel’ which put it together consisted of five members, four of whom are known to be adamant euthanasia advocates.

An October press release from the RSC had said that the report was ‘designed to be balanced, thorough, independent, free from conflict of interest, and based on a deep knowledge of all of the published research that is pertinent to the questions that have been posed.’

But as commentator Wesley Smith has pointed out, ‘expert commissions’ to advise on contentious issues of public policy are usually political tools designed to come to a predetermined conclusion in order to pave the way for a desired policy changes.’ He adds, ‘the bias [in the report] isn’t even subtle’.

Queen’s Philosophy professor Udo Schuklenk, who headed the panel, is a well-known pro-euthanasia philosopher. In an essay explaining why he is an atheist, Schuklenk argued that ‘our end-of-life decision-making’ is interfered by ‘religions’ that ‘stand as one in their rejection of many dying patients’ requests to end their lives in dignity’.

Also on the panel was Sheila McClean, who argued in favor of legalizing assisted suicide in her book ‘The Case for Assisted Suicide’, Jocelyn Downie, author of ‘Dying Justice’, a book urging the decriminalization of both euthanasia and assisted suicide, and Johannes J. M. van Delden, a Dutch euthanasia researcher.

In its report the RSC speaks of human dignity as a ‘value whose meaning is obscure’ and adds that the ‘concept of dignity cannot provide a sound basis for either supporting or rejecting a permissive regime with respect to voluntary euthanasia or assisted suicide’.

The RSC report argues that legalizing euthanasia and/or assisted suicide does not ‘result in vulnerable persons being subject to abuse or a slippery slope from voluntary to non-voluntary euthanasia. The evidence does not support claims that decriminalization will have a corrosive effect on access to or the development of palliative care.’

Consistent with its use as a campaigning tool the report was published just a day after the commencement of a case in British Columbia in which B.C. Civil Liberties Association and Gloria Taylor, a 63-year-old woman suffering from ALS, are challenging Canada’s laws against assisted suicide.

Margaret Somerville, founding director of the Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law at McGill University, has attacked the report as follows:

‘The arguments against the legalization of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are almost completely absent. Moreover, issues are considered almost entirely at the individual level. There is no in-depth discussion of the impact of legalizing euthanasia at the institutional level (in particular, the impact on health-care institutions and professions, and on the law) or at the societal level (in particular, on important shared values, such as respect for life). In fact, the value of respect for life is not discussed - an extraordinary omission.
The reporting on practices in jurisdictions that allow euthanasia and assisted suicide is seriously deficient, and selective. The report's coverage of abuses, problems or controversies is minimal.

For example, the report indicates that there has been one case of the use of euthanasia on disabled babies in the Netherlands. This is probably correct in the short time since the criteria for allowing such euthanasia was formally accepted by the Dutch Society for Pediatrics in 2005. But an article in the New England Journal of Medicine documents 22 cases of babies with spina bifida being euthanized in the Netherlands prior to that; this is not mentioned in the report. Likewise, a survey of Belgian physicians who had carried out euthanasia that found that 32 per cent of those physicians had euthanized patients without their request or consent, is never mentioned.’

‘The report emphasizes the burden and health-care costs of an aging population, and gives the impression that euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide will help to resolve this "problem." The authors note that euthanizing people "in advanced stages of dementia" will be an issue to be addressed in the future, and they don't reject the possibility that this might be acceptable.’

Falconer is not expected to go as far in his recommendations as the Canadian Royal Society Panel.

But he will use similar arguments and his more modest ‘recommendations’ will be in keeping with a clever incremental strategy. If Britain can be made to accept the general principle that assisted suicide or euthanasia should be legalized for some the boundaries can later be extended using equality and human rights legislation.

I said earlier this year that Falconer’s commission was unnecessary, biased and lacking in transparency.

My position has not changed. I do not expect to be surprised by its conclusions.

The blessings of marriage

2011-12-15T06:57:00.000-08:00

(My editorial from Triple Helix winter 2011 out this week)

Marriage leads to better family relationships, less economic dependence, better physical health and longevity, improved mental health and emotional well-being and reduced crime and domestic violence.

These are the (unsurprising) main conclusions of a new report (1) on the benefits of marriage from the Institute of American values.

Based on a survey of over 250 peer-reviewed journal articles on marriage and family life from around the world, a team of 18 leading American family scholars chaired by Professor Wilcox of the University of Virginia has drawn 30 conclusions about the positive benefits associated with marriage under five headings. Each of the conclusions is substantiated in the report and 20 pages of supporting references can be downloaded from Institute of American Values' website.

Amongst these conclusions are:

•Marriage, and a normative commitment to marriage, foster high-quality relationships between adults, as well as between parents and children.
•Children who live with their own two married parents enjoy better physical health, on average, than do children in other family forms.
•Marriage is associated with reduced rates of alcohol and substance abuse for both adults and teens.
•Marriage is associated with better health and lower rates of injury, illness, and disability for both men and women.
•Children whose parents divorce have higher rates of psychological distress and mental illness.
•Married women appear to have a lower risk of experiencing domestic violence than do cohabiting or dating women.

The findings of the landmark 2006 report 'Breakdown Britain' (2) were similar. Based on an extensive evidence-based analysis by the Centre for Social Justice (3) it found that the breakdown of marriage and the family was the key driver of Britain's collapse. The percentage of children born outside marriage went from 8% in 1970 to 41% in 2003 to 46% in 2009 (4); lone parent families have increased by 40,000 per year since 1980.

Many of the mental and physical health problems that daily fill our GP surgeries, hospital wards and outpatient departments are symptoms of this. The main drivers, the five 'pathways to poverty', are all correlated with the collapse of marriage: family breakdown, educational failure, economic dependence, indebtedness, and addiction.

Furthermore the five 'pathways' are all interrelated. Children from a broken home are twice as likely to have behavioural problems, perform worse at school, become sexually active at a younger age, suffer depression, and turn to drugs, smoking and heavy drinking. A parent who has a serious drug problem or is addicted to alcohol can exhibit destructive behaviour patterns which can destroy the quality of life for the other parent and for children, leading in turn to family breakdown.

Solutions must be multi-layered. We need sound legislation to strengthen and protect the vulnerable, a welfare system that helps those in genuine need and encourages independence, active corporate philanthropy and flourishing voluntary organisations. All levels of society including government, the corporate and charitable sectors, communities, and families have a role to play in reversing the decline. But government, charities and business are increasing failing to deliver in Britain's increasingly indebted and fragmented society.

That is because the breakdown of Britain and its five 'drivers' are themselves symptoms of a more general spiritual malaise – a loss of Christian faith and values leading to a breakdown of marriage and family. The church has a huge role to play; not just in what it does directly to support families in the community, but through the actions of individual Christians in positions of influence in health, education, local councils and government.

But more than this the church has at this time an amazing opportunity to model marriage and family to a society where alternative models have failed.

Marriage is a virtually universal human institution because it was originally God's idea. It was God who first said that it was not good for man to be alone and who created the unique complementarity of the marriage relationship for companionship, pleasure, procreation and the raising of children – one man, one woman, united for life (5) – illustrative of Christ's own self-giving abandonment to his bride the church (6) and pointing to a greater richness of human relationships beyond the grave of which the very best on earth are but a pale shadow. (7)

Let's celebrate, demonstrate, promote and protect marriage as the vehicle of blessing that it is for husbands, wives, children, parents, extended family, community and ultimately the world.

References

1. Why Marriage Matters: Thirty conclusions from the social sciences, Institute for American Values and National Marriage Project, 2011.
2. Breakdown Britain. Social Justice Policy Group. December 2006
3. www.centreforsocialjustice.org.uk
4. 'Proportion of births outside marriage 'has risen to highest ever level'. Daily Telegraph 2011; 24 September.
5. Genesis 2:24
6. Ephesians 5:31, 32
7. 1 Corinthians 2:9, 10

Judge rules in favour of life in M case – A review

2011-12-15T06:32:00.000-08:00

(My review from Triple Helix winter 2011 out this week)

On 28 September the Court of Protection ruled in favour of life in the case of M, a 53 year old woman who suffered severe brain damage as a result of viral encephalitis in 2003.

M's sister and partner wanted artificial nutrition and hydration (ANH) given via a gastrostomy tube to be stopped with the explicit intention of ending her life. But the PCT caring for M and the Official Solicitor opposed them.

Since the 1993 Tony Bland decision, 43 patients with permanent vegetative state (PVS) have died following court rulings to remove ANH but M was the first case with minimally conscious state (MCS), the next step up from PVS, to come before the courts.

In his judgment (1) Justice Baker found that M had some awareness of herself and her environment, and some understanding of language. She occasionally spoke, appeared to be able to appreciate some things that were said to her, and responded to music. She regularly experienced pain, but this was not constant or extreme, and her condition was stable. The prospect of any significant improvement in the level of consciousness was remote. In reaching these findings he found, not surprisingly, that the carers who had daily contact with M had the greatest insight into her condition. It was their observations that squared most accurately with the more objective results from the 'Sensory Modality Assessment and Rehabilitation Technique' (SMART) and 'Wessex Head Injury Matrix' (WHIM) assessment tools.

The judge applied principles established by previous cases and affirmed by the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). ANH can only be removed if it is in the best interests of the patient (2) and the burden of establishing this rests on those who want it withdrawn. (3) In determining best interests a balance sheet approach is used, (4) but the assessment is holistic, including not just medical considerations, but also the patient's wishes, feelings, beliefs and values.

M had not given any indication before her injury about how she might like to be treated should she lose capacity. This meant that the deciding legal principle was the right to life. Justice Baker concluded: 'the principle of the right to life is simply stated but of the most profound importance. It needs no further elucidation. It carries very great weight in any balancing exercise.'

The decision was not surprising. The key problem enshrined in the MCA remains – it already allows legally binding advance refusals of ANH placing some vulnerable patients at risk – but this case has not taken us further down the slippery slope.

References

1. W v M and S and A NHS Primary Care Trust [2011] EWHC 2443 (Fam)
2. Airedale NHS Trust v Bland [1993] AC 789
3. R (Burke) v GMC [2005] QB 424
4. Re A (Male Sterilisation) [2000] 1 FLR 549

Four amazing YouTube videos celebrating the birth of Jesus

2011-12-12T14:38:00.000-08:00

Here are four great YouTube videos on the Christmas story well worth watching and sharing with friends.

One was doing the rounds last year but I have just had my attention drawn to the other three by two of my sons who are much better up on these things than me.

All four are innovative ways of celebrating the divinity – maybe to spice up carol services!

Enjoy as we celebrate our wonderful Saviour’s birth.

First up is ‘Christmas in a nutshell’ (2 minutes). We’ve all given some poor gifts at Christmas but God gave us something no one could’ve imagined.

Next is ‘The Digital story of nativity’ (3 minutes) - a ‘social media-fest’ of the birth retold using twitter, facebook, gmail and youtube, all to the sound of jingle bells. Very clever!

Third, ‘Bethlehemian Rhapsody’ (5 minutes) – an amazing Christmas parody on Queen’s biggest hit. Enjoy!

And finally - one the best tenor renditions of ‘O Holy Night’ (6 minutes) you will ever hear from David Phelps. The song starts 1m20s into the video but the story at the beginning is not bad either – don’t be put off by the Tennessee accents.

A special thank you to those who produced these four 'labours of love' - whoever spent their time putting them together has done us a great service.

Pass it on!

Why 98% of abortions in Britain are now illegal and what it means for doctors

2011-12-10T15:31:00.000-08:00

In this blog I explain why I believe 98% of abortions in Britain are now illegal and why doctors who authorise or perform them are committing a criminal offence. This is a long post so if you would like to read my conclusions first then skip to the summary at the end.

Yesterday I took part in a debate on Radio Four’s ‘Today programme’ with Professor Tim Kendall, one of the authors of a new report on induced abortion and mental health, which was published this week by the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges (AMRC).

The rather grandiose full title of the report is ‘INDUCED ABORTION AND MENTAL HEALTH: A systematic review of the mental health outcomes of induced abortion, including their prevalence and associated factors'.

I have reviewed the report both on this blog and in more detail on the CMF website. The overall conclusion (that abortion poses no greater risk to mental health than childbirth for those with unwanted pregnancies) we feel was more strongly stated than the relatively weak evidence base justified.

But my concern here is to unpack my claim on the programme, also reported on the BBC website, that 98% of all abortions in Britain are now technically illegal and what that means for doctors.

Professor Kendall confirmed on the programme, in answer to a question from presenter John Humphrys, that childbirth does not constitute a greater risk to mental health than abortion, and that therefore abortion does not improve mental health outcomes for women with unplanned pregnancies.

I then pointed out that 98% of the 200,000 abortions carried out each year in Britain are being carried out specifically on grounds of protecting women’s mental health. This brought a gasp from Humphrys and an initial denial from Professor Kendall. He then, after being pressed by Humphrys, claimed falsely that the figure was only 95% (it is actually 98% - see below).

I insisted that the figure was 98% and then argued that doctors who authorise abortions in order to protect a woman’s mental health are doing it on the basis of a false belief not supported by the medical evidence.

I then asked why, over 1,000 times every day, British doctors signed legal documents authorising abortions on mental health grounds when in fact there were no mental health grounds for abortion (over 500 abortions are performed each day and each requires two doctors’ signatures to authorise it).

The opening sentence of the executive summary of the AMRC report actually misrepresents the law and perhaps explains the Professor's apparent confusion. It says that ‘the majority of abortions carried out in the UK are done so on the grounds that continuing with the pregnancy would risk physical or psychological harm to the woman or child’.

This is not strictly true (and I wonder actually if the meaning has been deliberately distorted in the report).

Section 1 (1) (a) of the Abortion Act 1967 actually reads as follows:

Subject to the provisions of this section, a person shall not be guilty of an offence under the law relating to abortion when a pregnancy is terminated by a registered medical practitioner if two registered medical practitioners are of the opinion, formed in good faith

(a)that the pregnancy has not exceeded its twenty-fourth week and that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or any existing children of her family…

The key words here are that ‘the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman….’

On abortion authorisation certificates the risk of injury to the pregnant woman and the risk of injury to existing children are split into two parts called C and D as follows:

c) that the pregnancy has not exceeded its 24th week and the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman (Section 1(1)(a))

d) that the pregnancy has not exceeded its 24th week and the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of any existing child(ren) of the family of the pregnant woman (Section 1(1)(a))

The physical and mental health indications in section C are also separately recorded.

So how many abortions are done under each of these clauses? For the answer to this question we need to consult the 2010 Annual Abortion Statistics on the Department of Health website.

Section 2.8 reads as follows:

2.8 In 2010, the vast majority (98%; 185,291) of abortions were undertaken under ground C and a further 1% under ground D (1,635). A similar proportion were carried out under ground E (1%; 2,290). Grounds A and B together accounted for less than a quarter of one per cent of abortions (358). The proportion of ground C abortions has risen steadily, with a corresponding reduction in ground D cases. (See Table 3a.ii.) The vast majority (99.96%) of ground C only terminations were reported as being performed because of a risk to the woman’s mental health. Abortions are rarely performed under grounds F or G.

So in summary 98% of all abortions are performed on the grounds that ‘that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the mental health of the pregnant woman’.

And yet this week’s review tells us that there is no evidence that the continuance of a pregnancy ever involves risk to the mental health of the mother that is ‘greater than if the pregnancy were terminated’.

This raises an interesting question. Are those doctors who authorise abortions on these mental health grounds aware of these facts or not? In other words, when they sign these forms, are they just ignorant of the facts or are they being deliberately disingenuous?

Let’s give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that up until this point every doctor in Britain signing an abortion authorisation form did so ‘in good faith’, genuinely believing that normal pregnancy and childbirth constituted a greater risk to mental health than abortion.

Now, however they will not be able to do so ‘in good faith’ because the true facts are known and have been made public in a major report endorsed by the AMRC and the Department of Health.

If they continue to authorise abortions on mental health grounds from now on they will then be knowingly making false statements on legal documents when previously (giving them the full benefit of any doubt) they were doing so unknowingly.

Is this serious? Well yes because abortions which are carried out outside the bounds of the Abortion Act 1967 are still illegal, as section 5(2) of the Act makes very clear:

‘For the purposes of the law relating to abortion, anything done with intent to procure a woman’s miscarriage (or, in the case of a woman carrying more than one foetus, her miscarriage of any foetus) is unlawfully done unless authorised by section 1 of this Act’

Section 6 of the Abortion Act states that:

‘“the law relating to abortion” means sections 58 and 59 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861, and any rule of law relating to the procurement of abortion’

Many people do not understand that abortion is still a crime in Britain if the exemptions in the Abortion Act do not apply, and as I have argued above they do not currently apply in 98% of cases.

So what do sections 58 and 59 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 say?

58 Administering drugs or using instruments to procure abortion.
Every woman, being with child, who, with intent to procure her own miscarriage, shall unlawfully administer to herself any poison or other noxious thing, or shall unlawfully use any instrument or other means whatsoever with the like intent, and whosoever, with intent to procure the miscarriage of any woman, whether she be or be not with child, shall unlawfully administer to her or cause to be taken by her any poison or other noxious thing, or shall unlawfully use any instrument or other means whatsoever with the like intent, shall be guilty of felony, and being convicted thereof shall be liable . . . to be kept in penal servitude for life . . ..

59 Procuring drugs, &c. to cause abortion.
Whosoever shall unlawfully supply or procure any poison or other noxious thing, or any instrument or thing whatsoever, knowing that the same is intended to be unlawfully used or employed with intent to procure the miscarriage of any woman, whether she be or be not with child, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and being convicted thereof shall be liable . . .to be kept in penal servitude . . ..

In other words anyone convicted of carrying out an illegal abortion could face life imprisonment.

But what about those doctors who knowingly make false statements on abortion authorisation forms? For that we need to turn to the Perjury Act 1911 Section 5 which reads as follows:

5 False statutory declarations and other false statements without oath

If any person knowingly and wilfully makes (otherwise than on oath) a statement false in a material particular, and the statement is made—
(a)in a statutory declaration; or
(b)in a… certificate, declaration… or other document which he is authorised or required to make, attest, or verify, by any public general Act of Parliament for the time being in force… he shall be guilty of a misdemeanour and shall be liable on conviction thereof on indictment to imprisonment… for any term not exceeding two years, or to a fine or to both such imprisonment and fine.

In other words, making false statements on an abortion authorisation certificate is a form of perjury.

Summary

So where does this leave doctors? Let me sum it up:

1.There is no evidence that continuing with an unwanted pregnancy poses any greater risk to a pregnant woman’s mental health than an abortion does and yet 98% of abortions are authorised on these grounds

2.The doctors who are authorising these abortions are not therefore doing so ‘in good faith’

3.These abortions are therefore unlawful under the Abortion Act 1967 and Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and those doctors who are carrying them out are committing a criminal offence

4.Those doctors who are authorising them are knowingly and wilfully making false statements on legal documents and are thereby committing an offence under the Perjury Act 1911

5.These offences under the Abortion Act and Perjury Act both carry custodial sentences

Abortion Review confirms that 98% of all abortions in Britain are technically illegal

2011-12-08T11:06:00.000-08:00

The most comprehensive review to date into the link between abortion and mental health problems has confirmed that women who have an unwanted pregnancy are at an increased risk of experiencing mental health problems after an abortion (See Guardian and BBC)

More significantly it reveals that 98% of all abortions carried out in Britain are technically illegal.

This new Review by the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges (AMRC) shows that abortion does not improve mental health outcomes for women with unplanned pregnancies, despite 98% of the 200,000 abortions being carried out in this country each year on mental health grounds.

This means that doctors who authorise abortions in order to protect a woman’s mental health are doing it on the basis of a false belief not supported by the medical evidence. In other words the vast majority of abortions in this country are technically illegal.

Otherwise the report confirms earlier conclusions that negative attitudes towards abortion, pressure from a partner to have an abortion and negative reactions to the abortion including grief or doubt, may have a negative impact on mental health after abortion.

Controversially it also claims that the risk of mental health problems after abortion is not any greater than the risk after birth but that both life events are nevertheless associated with an increase in mental health problems.

However the strength of evidence for the claim that abortion poses no greater risk to mental health than childbirth is weak as the report itself admits: 'The evidence for this section of the review was generally rated as poor or very poor…These factors limit the interpretation of the results.' This main conclusion of the report is what most media coverage has picked up, even though it is based on only four studies (Cougle, Steinberg, Fergusson, Gilchrist), two of which were judged as 'fair' and the author of the only one judged 'very good' (Fergusson) has a new paper in press which he claims shows a link between abortion and mental health problems in unwanted pregnancies which is not there for unwanted pregnancies carried to term.

He summarises this as follows:

'The implications of this analysis are inescapable: despite the claims made in previous reviews about the absence of association between abortion and mental health, when data are pooled across studies there is consistent evidence suggesting that women having abortions are at modestly increased risks of mental health problems when compared with women coming to term with unplanned/unwanted pregnancies... While it remains possible that these findings reflect methodological problems of sample selection, residual confounding and investigator bias these considerations do not justify the strong conclusion that there is no evidence to support the view that abortion has adverse mental health consequences. It is our view that the scientifically appropriate and cautious assessment is that: there is currently suggestive evidence indicating that abortion is associated with modest increases in risks of common mental disorders. However to confirm this conclusion requires further and better research which addresses issue of measurement , confounding and investigator bias. A detailed paper describing these findings is currently under review.'

There are some strong messages to take home for those offering counselling and support to women with unplanned pregnancies.

First, women with unplanned pregnancies need to know that abortion will not reduce their risks of mental health problems relative to giving birth.

Second, those who have a past history of mental health problems, who believe that abortion is wrong, who are being put under pressure by their partners or who are experiencing other stressful life events, are at risk of increased rates of post-abortion mental health problems.

The first response to an unplanned pregnancy should therefore not be abortion but, as the review rightly recommends, proper support and care for women.

The government should make the provision of fully independent counselling for all women with an unplanned pregnancy a key priority, in order that they can have access to support and counselling that is not linked to abortion provision.

End notes

In 2010, the vast majority (98%; 185,291) of abortions were undertaken under ground C c) that the pregnancy has not exceeded its 24th week and the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman (Section 1(1)(a))

A new milestone in irresponsible media reporting of suicide

2011-12-08T00:06:00.000-08:00

I was phoned last Monday by Sky News to be told that they were planning to give an international media platform to a new case of assisted suicide involving a media personality who was dying of cancer. The story has broken today.

This carefully orchestrated move by a former BBC producer, in collaboration with the pro-euthanasia lobby, breaks virtually every international guideline on media suicide portrayal and marks a new milestone in irresponsible media reporting. Sadly however, it is entirely consistent with our national broadcaster’s self-appointed status as a cheerleader for assisted suicide.

The extensive coverage and attention this story is generating will unwittingly fuel suicide contagion and plays into the hands of pro-euthanasia campaigners to whip up public and media support for a new assault on the Suicide Act ahead of the publication of the controversial Falconer Commission report in the New Year.

The very last thing we need at a time of economic recession, shrinking health budgets and failures in the care system is a media celebrity presenting suicide as a solution for terminal cancer. Next year over 150,000 Britons will die of cancer. Many of them are vulnerable and all deserve the very best care, not media scaremongering about the dying process.

British parliamentarians have repeatedly considered and debated these issues and have three times in the last five years rejected the legalisation of assisted suicide on grounds of public safety. They have rightly recognized that any change in the law would simply place more pressure on vulnerable people – those who are disabled, elderly, sick or depressed - to end their lives so as not to be a burden on carers, relatives or the state. Such a move would also be a green light to would-be abusers who have a financial or emotional interest in their deaths.

Our priority at this time should instead be to resist any further weakening of the law and to make the very best palliative care, in which Britain is a world leader, more widely accessible and available so that patients can die as comfortably as possible at home or in hospital without fear.

Please support the current definition of marriage in Scotland

2011-12-07T02:31:00.000-08:00

The Scottish Government Same-Sex Marriage Consultation closes on Friday 9 December.

CMF is backing Scotland for Marriage in its campaign to retain the current legal definition of marriage which has served Scotland well for centuries. Scotland for Marriage is opposed to redefining marriage in Scotland and is calling for a referendum on this issue.

Respondents do not have to be Scottish to have a say in the Scottish government’s public consultation on extending marriage rights to same-sex couples.

To support this campaign please add your responses to the six multiple-choice questions in the online consultation at Scotland for Marriage. It is very straightforward to do.

If you live in Scotland please also consider signing the petition.

CMF agrees with the Scotland for Marriage statement that marriage is the union of one man to one woman, for life, to the exclusion of all others and is the best environment for raising children. We note that same-sex couples already have full legal rights available through civil partnerships.

A similar Westminster consultation on same-sex ‘marriage’ will begin in February. Prime Minister David Cameron has already voiced his support for legalisation.

My reply to BMJ article on the Secular Medical Forum

2011-12-06T12:30:00.000-08:00

Last week the British Medical Journal gave a platform to the Secular Medical Forum to attack Christianity and promote abortion, physician assisted suicide and embryonic stem cell research.

The 900 word one page article, titled ‘Secularism needs a distinctive medical voice’, which appeared in the BMJ’s ‘personal view’ column, claimed to be ‘not commissioned; not externally peer reviewed’.

It was, however, essentially an advertorial for the author Colin Brewer’s organisation.

I have critiqued the article on this blog, but also posted a rapid response on the BMJ website which I have reproduced here:

The Christian contribution to medicine is considerable

In his full page advertorial for the ‘Secular Medical Fellowship’, Colin Brewer gives an inaccurate and highly selective overview of the relationship between faith and medicine and neglects to mention that Christian doctors motivated by Jesus Christ’s teaching and example have been profoundly influential in shaping healthcare's history.

Many of medicine's pioneers were men and women of faith: Pare, Pasteur, Lister, Paget, Barnado, Jenner, Simpson, Sydenham, Osler, Skudder, Livingstone and many more.

Christians remain active in all fields of medicine today but particularly in AIDS care and education, drug rehabilitation, child health, palliative care, relief of poverty and in service to the developing world. In a recent survey, to which over 1,000 members of Christian Medical Fellowship (CMF) responded, 230 respondents had served long term in 48 countries around the world, 74% with a mission or church organization, and 459 had made short term visits (<6 months) to 98 countries, most commonly to train and teach (1).

Although respecting the authority of the Bible, CMF’s 4,000 doctor and 1,000 medical student members are not ‘text worshippers’ but rather, like 2.3 billion other of the world’s inhabitants, worship God, the creator and sustainer of the universe, who we believe revealed himself in the historical person of Jesus Christ.

Christ's dynamic entry into first century Palestine was marked by miraculous healing of many illnesses for which even today there are no known treatments. But along with his compassion to restore health he brought a message of healing of broken relationships - between human beings, between human beings and the planet and most crucially between human beings and God.

In his historical account of those events, Luke, probably the first ever Christian physician, tells us that Jesus sent his followers out 'to preach the kingdom of God and to heal the sick' (Luke 9:2). He is still sending them out today - to attend to the spiritual and physical needs of a suffering world.

BMJ readers who are interested in a more accurate and informative account of the Christian contribution to medicine are welcome to peruse the footnoted articles (2,3,4) on the CMF website, most of which were published in the Millennium edition of our journal Triple Helix (5).

1. Survey of CMF Graduate Members about International Work in Resource-poor Settings
2. May P. Jesus - the Pivot of History and Medical Care
3. Parry E. Luke - the Physician's Gospel
4. Beal-Preston R. The Christian Contribution to Medicine
5. Triple Helix Millennium Edition

BPAS plan to sell morning-after pill to teenagers online this Christmas will lead to more sexually transmitted disease and no less unplanned pregnancy

2011-12-06T04:55:00.000-08:00

A British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS) campaign, launched today, encourages women to stockpile emergency contraceptive pills over the Christmas period.

According to the Daily Telegraph a poster for the scheme, featuring the word ‘sex’ in fairy lights, asks: ‘Getting “turned on” this Christmas?’ And a dedicated website for the service is titled, rather bawdily, santacomes.org.

Women wanting to obtain the morning after pill, Levonelle One Step, will have to register their details on the website. They will then be phoned by a nurse for a 15-minute consultation intended to weed out young teenagers and assess suitability before being posted the pills.

However, BPAS has admitted that under-age girls will almost certainly obtain pills through the scheme by lying to them. Some children ‘will not be completely honest about their age’, a spokesman said. Under-16s would usually need a prescription to prevent a possible pregnancy in this way.

Andrew Lansley, the Health Secretary, said last night that he would prefer the pills to be issued after a face-to-face consultation but stopped short of saying he would intervene.

Not suprisingly critics have reacted sharply.

Michaela Aston, spokesman for the pro-life charity, Life, said the new service made getting the pills as easy as ordering a pizza. She said: ‘There are absolutely no guarantees that under-age girls won’t be given this pill, as there are no checks on their age carried out by BPAS.’

Norman Wells, director of the Family Education Trust, said: ‘When the morning after pill was first approved for use in the UK, assurances were given that it would be used only in exceptional circumstances and would remain a prescription-only drug under the control of doctors. Not only is it now being marketed as a “just-in-case” drug and supplied free of charge, but BPAS’s telephone service will inevitably lead to underage girls lying about their age in order to access it.’

Josephine Quintavalle, founder of the Pro-life Alliance, said: ‘BPAS won’t have any idea about what is really going on with the caller. She could be having underage sex. She could sell it to a friend.’

The risk of underage girls accessing the morning after pill is of course a key objection to the scheme.

But there is a more fundamental reason why this scheme is dangerous: Morning-after pills don’t actually cut teen pregnancy rates and actually increase the incidence of sexually transmitted infections.

Research findings demonstrating this earlier this year (published in the Journal of Health Economics (full text) just last December and reported in the Daily Telegraph in January) were the final nails in the coffin of the Labour government’s teenage pregnancy strategy, dreamt up by the now defunct Teenage Pregnancy Independent Advisory Group (TPIAG) which was set up in 2000 to advise the government on how to cut teenage pregnancy.

Part of its strategy was to make morning-after pills free over the counter to teenagers.

The research, by professors Sourafel Girma and David Paton of Nottingham University, compared areas of England where the scheme was introduced with others that declined to provide the morning-after pill free from chemists.

The academics found that rates of pregnancy among girls under 16 remained the same, but that rates of sexually transmitted infections increased by 12%.

Britain has the highest rate of teenage pregnancy in Western Europe. In 2008, the latest year for which figures are available, more than 7,500 girls in England and Wales became pregnant. Nearly two thirds of these pregnancies ended in abortion.

Rates of sexually transmitted diseases are also rising. In 2009 there were 12,000 more cases than the previous year, when 470,701 cases were reported. The number of infections in 16-to 19 year-olds seen at genito-urinary medicine clinics rose from 46,856 in 2003 to 58,133 in 2007.

International research has consistently failed to find any evidence that emergency birth control schemes achieve a reduction in teenage conception and abortion rates. But now we have evidence showing that not only are such schemes failing to do any good, but they may in fact be doing harm.

The phenomenon whereby applying a prevention measure results in an increase in the very thing it is trying to prevent is known as ‘risk compensation’.

The term has been applied to the fact that the wearing of seatbelts does not decrease the level of some forms of road traffic injuries since drivers are thereby encouraged to drive more recklessly.

In the same way it has been argued that making condoms readily available actually increases rather than decreases rates of pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections because condoms encourage teenagers to take more sexual risks in the false belief that they will not suffer harm.

Whilst condoms offer some protection against sexually transmitted infections the morning-after pill offers none.

They are the very last thing we need to foist on vulnerable drunken teenagers during the festive season and will simply encourage them to take more risks by giving them a false sense of security.

This latest BPAS strategy is underpinned by the dangerous assumption that there is no right or wrong in teenage sexual activity - just choice. This assumption has led to a values-free framework in which the rate of unplanned pregnancies and sexually transmitted disease amongst teenagers is the highest in Europe.

Its prime effect, apart from further inflating BPAS’s already inflated coffers with more taxpayers money, will be to lead to more reckless behaviour, more sexually transmitted disease and no decrease in unplanned pregnancy and abortion.

The best way to counter the epidemic of unplanned pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease is to promote real behaviour change through such programmes as Love for Life (Northern Ireland), Love2last (Sheffield), Challenge Team, Romance Academy or Lovewise (Newcastle). These are just the sorts of initiative that the government should be encouraging and their message of abstinence and caution is the one they should be giving.

This latest BPAS move is sadly yet another unfortunate, ill-conceived opportunistic knee-jerk response to Britain’s spiraling epidemic of unplanned pregnancy, abortion and sexually transmitted disease amongst teenagers and will only make matters worse. It is most unfortunate that the government is actually funding it through them.

Instead of pursuing these tired flawed ‘ambulance at the bottom of the cliff’ policies we should be focusing on evidence-based strategies aimed at bringing about real behaviour change.

'Life' sentences for murder are necessary to deter would-be mercy killers

2011-12-06T04:07:00.000-08:00

A group of legal ‘experts’ has claimed today that mandatory life sentences for murder in England and Wales and the system for setting minimum terms are unjust and outdated.

The Homicide Review Advisory Group, made up of judges, academics and former QCs, says the system does not allow for sentences to match individual crimes.

The mandatory life sentence replaced the death penalty in 1965. But in practice this means that people convicted of murder receive a mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years with judges using a starting point of 25 years, 30 years or life for more serious cases. Life almost always does not actually mean life.

Judges can increase or reduce sentences from these starting points on the basis of the facts of the case in order to make the punishment more appropriately fit the crime but 15 years remains the minimum.

Rules of sentencing are described in more detail on the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) website.

Campaigners, including pro-euthanasia groups, have been pushing for the minimum sentence to come down from 15 years for what they see as less serious crimes such as mercy killing and this is primarily what this latest move is all about.

They are claiming the support of research last year which claims the public may support reforming the penalty for murder to make life imprisonment the maximum sentence rather than mandatory. They plan to publish a new report later this week.

However there is a huge amount of opposition to such a move amongst the constabulary, the public and the government itself.

Peter Neyroud, a former chief constable, has said that the public did not want killers treated with more leniency and a Ministry of Justice spokesman has said it had no plans to abolish the mandatory life sentence for murder adding that ‘The most serious crimes deserve the most serious sentences.’

In my view successive governments since 1965 have been right to resist any further watering down of sentences for murder.

The current mandatory ‘life’ sentence provides a powerful disincentive to the exploitation and abuse of vulnerable people.

Any relaxation of the law in cases of mercy killing would weaken legal protection for vulnerable people and would provide an extra incentive for those with an interest in their deaths to push the limits.

There is already a lot of leniency and flexibility built into the current system with discretion given to prosecutors about what charges to bring (murder, manslaughter, assisted suicide etc), to judges in instructing juries and deciding sentences, to juries in deciding what verdict to bring and through the appeal court system. There are also a wide range of defences and aggravating and mitigating circumstances that judges can take into account in deciding in any individual case.

It is right that justice is tempered with mercy in hard cases but justice must be upheld and be seen to be upheld if those most vulnerable are to be properly protected.

It was the motivation of mercy that led to the abolition of capital punishment for murder in 1965 in order to replace it with a much more lenient sentence of 15 years for the majority of cases. It was similarly mercy that has led to a system meaning for most that life does not actually mean life.

A minimum of 15 years may seem likes stiff penalty but it is necessary to deter would-be abusers. Upholding strong sentences for mercy killing will mean that vulnerable people – those who are disabled, dependent, elderly or frail – can sleep more easily in their beds knowing that whose who might have an interest in their deaths will think twice in weighing up any decision to end their lives.

Let’s resist any attempt to water the law down any more than it is already. Let’s not start chipping away at the 15 year minimum to establish a series of lesser degrees of murder for mercy killers and others. That would send all the wrong signals and simply provide more encouragement to would-be abusers. It would also further trivialise mercy killing in the public mind.

A fair and just society punishes the guilty, with mercy in hard cases, and protects the innocent. It does not excuse the guilty and remove protection from the vulnerable. When we start to see those who take others lives as victims – even when they act under duress or because they have been carrying a burden - we can find ourselves on a very slippery slope indeed.

Taking the life of another human being through murder is a very serious crime and it should carry a stiff penalty.

Let’s leave the law as it is.

BMJ gives platform to Secular Medical Forum to attack Christianity and promote abortion, physician assisted suicide and embryonic stem cell research

2011-12-05T11:56:00.000-08:00

On 30 November the British Medical Journal published an article by Colin Brewer, ‘a director of the Secular Medical Forum’ , titled ‘Secularism needs a distinctive medical voice’.

The 900 word one page article, which appeared in the BMJ’s ‘personal view’ column, and claimed to be ‘not commissioned; not externally peer reviewed’, is essentially an advertorial for Brewer's organisation.

It depicts atheist doctors as a historically persecuted minority and claims that they are ‘still vilified by religious leaders’ who ‘typically suppress dissent’ and ‘forbid fundamental criticism of their sacred texts’.

He adds that ‘most Europeans now have relaxed views on both faith and their texts’ and ‘are often indistinguishable in their daily behaviour from frank unbelievers’. This, according to Brewer, ‘displeases the minority of enthusiasts who take their ideologies seriously and want us to live and die as they believe their texts dictate’.

He claims that ‘few matters of current medicoethical concern are mentioned in sacred texts, and then often obscurely or contradictorily’.

The Bible apparently ‘does not condemn suicide’ but nevertheless, ‘there are well organised religious campaigns against legalising assisted dying’. Objection to abortion is similarly misguided as the view that life begins at fertilisation dates to 1869 when the Vatican ‘moved the goalposts’. Other ‘religious practices’ involving ‘childhood transfusions and genital mutilation’ are now categorised as ‘child abuse’.

We are told that ‘text worshippers are inherently unwilling to re-examine old dogmas’ and that the ‘separation of church and state is more important than ever’.

All this is preparation for an appeal to doctors to join the ‘Secular Medical Forum’ (SMF) which represents people who ‘unlike text worshippers… are poorly organised, do not gather weekly, and have no priests to encourage us personally to badger our MPs and BMA representatives about proposed legislation’.

Instead the SMF ‘exists to give a voice to the many secular health professionals’ and its members ‘have varying views on the great ethical issues’.

I was interested therefore to examine the SMF website see if these claims about ‘varying views on the great ethical issues’ actually rang true.

The following ‘views’ of the forum are pasted verbatim from its website:

1. ‘The Secular Medical Forum strongly supports the right of women to have legal and safe abortions’;

2. ‘The Secular Medical Forum (SMF) believes that legislation for Physician assisted suicide, with adequate safeguards, for terminally ill, competent adults should be introduced in the UK as soon as possible’;

3. ‘The Secular Medical Forum fully supports embryonic stem cell research - and also the creation of hybrid embryos’;

4. ‘The SMF considers that people with strong objections to offering normal medical care and activities should responsibly choose to work in a speciality which does not bring their personal views into conflict with patient care’;

5. ‘The SMF thinks it imperative that patients are made aware of relevant personal views (of doctors) at the earliest opportunity … and would like for there to be a register of these people, centrally kept by the appropriate professional bodies to which they belong, which can be open to the public.’

On its ‘resources’ page it lists some submissions it has made to various official bodies and gives links to the British Humanist Association, National Secular Society and Lawyers' Secular Society along with others to ‘pro-choice’ and pro-euthanasia organisations including Abortion Rights, Brook Advisory Centres, Marie Stopes International, Education for Choice, Dignity in Dying and Friends At The End (FATE).

The website gives very little information about SMF’s membership or office holders, and no address or contact details apart from a contact email for a Dr Anthony Lempert, an anti-circumcision campaigner who received the 2010 ‘academic’ prize at the Erotic Awards, an annual British event that ‘honours achievement in erotica worldwide’.

We are told that the SMF was established in December 2006 ‘following informal discussions at the AGM of the National Secular Society’ and that it ‘drafted statements on a variety of subjects (ranging from physician-assisted suicide to HIV/AIDS, and from abortion to stem-cell research) during January and February 2007’.

The SMF website does not tell us that its first coordinator, ‘Michael Irwin, a retired GP and a former Medical Director of the United Nations’, was also previously head of the Voluntary Euthanasia Society (now 'Dignity in Dying') and is currently leader of the controversial pro-euthanasia group ‘Society for Old Age Rational Suicide’, nor that he was struck off the medical register by the General Medical Council in 2005 for trying to help a friend kill himself. Irwin admitted obtaining sleeping pills to help his friend die and a GMC panel found him guilty of serious professional misconduct.

And neither the website nor the BMJ article tell us that Colin Brewer himself was also struck off the medical register in 2006 after being found guilty of serious professional misconduct by the GMC following allegations of inappropriate drug prescribing for patients with addictions.

From all appearances the SMF is a small pressure group led by doctors with extreme views who are considered no longer fit to practice, which has been set up to promote abortion, assisted suicide and embryonic stem cell research. I would think that most atheist doctors would not choose to be associated with it.

How interesting that the BMJ editors have taken it upon themselves to give it an international platform.

Why legalizing same-sex marriage will weaken marriage as a social institution

2011-12-05T07:10:00.001-08:00

With the launch of the ‘Scotland for marriage’ campaign this last week and the news that the Church of England will not be allowing civil partnerships to take place in Anglican churches without General Synod approval the temperature is beginning to rise on the same-sex marriage debate in the UK.

Later this week on 9 December the Scottish consultation on the matter closes and a Westminster consultation is apparently beginning in February. Prime Minister David Cameron has already voiced his support for legalistion.

Last weekend the Guardian newspaper, which has perhaps predictably positioned itself as a same-sex marriage advocate, has tried to anticipate what some of the arguments in the debate will be.

Much of the discussion will no doubt centre around the evidence about the link between legalizing same-sex marriage and the decline of marriage as traditionally understood.

A friend has just drawn my attention to an article by David Blankenhorn titled ‘Defining Marriage Down is no way to save it’.

Blankenhorn is president of the New York-based Institute for American Values and the author of ‘The Future of Marriage’.

He asks the question, ‘Does permitting same-sex marriage weaken marriage as a social institution or does it have little or no effect on marriage overall?

He points out that scholars and commentators have different views and that a straight causal relationship is difficult to prove.

However he goes on to argue that there is much to be gained from ‘giving up the search for causation and studying some recurring patterns in the data’ and demonstrates that ‘certain clusters of beliefs about and attitudes toward marriage consistently correlate with certain institutional arrangements’.

These correlations crop up in a large number of countries and recur in data drawn from different surveys of opinion.

‘Take the International Social Survey Programme (ISSP), a collaborative effort of universities in over 40 countries. It interviewed about 50,000 adults in 35 countries in 2002. What is useful for our purposes is that respondents were asked whether they agreed or disagreed with six statements that directly relate to marriage as an institution’:

1. Married people are generally happier than unmarried people.
2. People who want children ought to get married.
3. One parent can bring up a child as well as two parents together.
4. It is all right for a couple to live together without intending to get married.
5. Divorce is usually the best solution when a couple can't seem to work out their marriage problems.
6. The main purpose of marriage these days is to have children.

Let's stipulate that for statements one, two, and six, an "agree" answer indicates support for traditional marriage as an authoritative institution. Similarly, for statements three, four, and five, let's stipulate that agreement indicates a lack of support, or less support, for traditional marriage.

Then divide the countries surveyed into four categories: those that permit same-sex marriage; those that permit same-sex civil unions (but not same-sex marriage); those in which some regions permit same-sex marriage; and those that do not legally recognize same-sex unions.

The correlations are strong. Support for marriage is by far the weakest in countries with same-sex marriage. The countries with marriage-like civil unions show significantly more support for marriage. The two countries with only regional recognition of gay marriage (Australia and the United States) do better still on these support-for-marriage measurements, and those without either gay marriage or marriage-like civil unions do best of all.

In some instances, the differences are quite large. For example, people in nations with gay marriage are less than half as likely as people in nations without gay unions to say that married people are happier. Perhaps most important, they are significantly less likely to say that people who want children ought to get married (38 percent vs. 60 percent). They are also significantly more likely to say that cohabiting without intending to marry is all right (83 percent vs. 50 percent), and are somewhat more likely to say that divorce is usually the best solution to marital problems. Respondents in the countries with gay marriage are significantly more likely than those in Australia and the United States to say that divorce is usually the best solution…

So what of it? Granted that these correlations may or may not reflect causation, what exactly can be said about the fact that certain values and attitudes and legal arrangements tend to cluster?

Here's an analogy. Find some teenagers who smoke, and you can confidently predict that they are more likely to drink than their nonsmoking peers. Why? Because teen smoking and drinking tend to hang together. What's more, teens who engage in either of these activities are also more likely than nonsmokers or nondrinkers to engage in other risky behaviors, such as skipping school, getting insufficient sleep, and forming friendships with peers who get into trouble.

Because these behaviors correlate and tend to reinforce one another, it is virtually impossible for the researcher to pull out any one from the cluster and determine that it alone is causing or is likely to cause some personal or (even harder to measure) social result. All that can be said for sure is that these things go together…

It's the same with marriage. Certain trends in values and attitudes tend to cluster with each other and with certain trends in behavior. A rise in unwed childbearing goes hand in hand with a weakening of the belief that people who want to have children should get married. High divorce rates are encountered where the belief in marital permanence is low. More one-parent homes are found where the belief that children need both a father and a mother is weaker. A rise in nonmarital cohabitation is linked at least partly to the belief that marriage as an institution is outmoded. The legal endorsement of gay marriage occurs where the belief prevails that marriage itself should be redefined as a private personal relationship. And all of these marriage-weakening attitudes and behaviors are linked. Around the world, the surveys show, these things go together…

Inevitably, the pattern discernible in the statistics is borne out in the statements of the activists. Many of those who most vigorously champion same-sex marriage say that they do so precisely in the hope of dethroning once and for all the traditional "conjugal institution."’

He quotes similar evidence from related studies and then goes on to quote a number of same-sex marriage advocates to support his argument.

It’s well worth a read.

My favourite poem from my favourite poet

2011-12-03T14:39:00.000-08:00

The Windhover - To Christ our Lord
(Gerard Manley Hopkins)

I caught this morning morning’s minion, king-
dom of daylight’s dauphin, dapple-dawn-drawn Falcon, in his riding
Of the rolling level underneath him steady air, and striding
High there, how he rung upon the rein of a wimpling wing
In his ecstasy! then off, off forth on swing,
As a skate’s heel sweeps smooth on a bow-bend: the hurl and gliding
Rebuffed the big wind. My heart in hiding
Stirred for a bird,—the achieve of; the mastery of the thing!

Brute beauty and valour and act, oh, air, pride, plume, here
Buckle! AND the fire that breaks from thee then, a billion
Times told lovelier, more dangerous, O my chevalier!

No wonder of it: shéer plód makes plough down sillion
Shine, and blue-bleak embers, ah my dear,
Fall, gall themselves, and gash gold-vermillion.

Beware of the 'Living Will Bill' - the shape of things to come?

2011-12-02T08:23:00.000-08:00

Beware of the living will bill

The relatives (after reflection)
Requested a lethal injection
'Her mind's like a sieve, she's no reason to live...
(And the will is awaiting inspection)'

They claimed that once while of sound mind
She'd quite voluntarily signed
A medics' committee, if prompted by pity
Could authorise acts of this kind

You think that this never could be?
Well wake up and listen to me
It's happ'ning already, with pace that is steady
A short way across the North Sea

And here, I am told, that of late
They're having some earnest debate
With raising of thumbs, the physician becomes
The most dangerous man in the state

Beware of the 'Living Will Bill'
(Euphemisms get subtler still)
'Allowing to die' is a mischievous lie
It's a licence for doctors to kill

Tony Nicklinson deserves sympathy but hard cases make bad law

2011-11-30T15:15:00.000-08:00

A severely disabled man from Wiltshire is to ask the High Court to allow a doctor to end his life.

Tony Nicklinson, 57, is paralysed from the neck down after suffering a stroke in 2005.

He cannot speak or move anything except his head and eyes and communicates through nodding his head at letters on a perspex board or by using a computer which responds to eye movements.

The Melksham man, who has been married for 25 years and has two daughters, sums up his life as 'dull, miserable, demeaning, undignified and intolerable'.

His lawyers want a doctor actively ending his life to have a ‘common law defence of necessity’ against any possible murder charge.

A spokesman for law firm Bindmans, which represents him, confirmed he had issued proceedings in the High Court asking for declarations that it is lawful for a doctor to terminate his life, with his consent and with him making the decision with full mental capacity.

Earlier this year Nicklinson’s legal team asked the Director of Public Prosecutions to clarify the law on so-called mercy killing but the DPP made it clear there was no flexibility on the law and anyone who deliberately took someone's life would be charged with murder.

They are therefore trying this new route.

In English law, the defence of necessity recognises that there may be situations of such overwhelming urgency that a person must be allowed to respond by breaking the law. There have been very few cases in which this defence has succeeded. However, the Crown Prosecution Service tends to choose not to prosecute those cases where it believes potential defendants have acted reasonably in all the circumstances.

This defence was used in the early trial of Regina v. Dudley & Stephens (1884) 14 QBD 273 DC, where four shipwrecked sailors were cast adrift in a small boat without provisions. To save themselves, the three strongest decided to eat the fourth, the 17 year-old cabin boy. The court ruled that cannibalising the boy was not urgently necessary. Even though the cabin boy would almost certainly have died of natural causes, the sailors killed the boy intentionally and were guilty of murder. There was some degree of necessity arising from the threat of starvation but, at any moment, a ship could have sailed over the horizon to save them as, indeed, the three were rescued. Since they could never be sure that the killing was actually necessary from one minute to the next, the defence was denied. Cannibalism itself is not an offence so long as the death occurs naturally.

Dudley and Stephens were convicted of murder and sentenced to be hanged, however their sentence was later reduced to just six months in prison. The fourth man, Brooks, was not tried, as he had not participated in the murder. The principles from this case form the basis of the defence of necessity not being available for murder.

In order for the defence of necessity to hold sway there must be an urgent and immediate threat to life which creates a situation in which the defendant reasonably believes that a proportionate response to that threat is to break the law.

It is difficult to see how this defence might help Nicklinson who is severely disabled, has a reasonable life expectancy and is not facing any imminent emergency.

However, it is thought that Nicklinson’s lawyers are likely to base their arguments on comments about necessity in the 2001 conjoined twins case where the court ruled that the life of a seriously disabled baby (Mary) could be sacrificed in order that her sister (Jodie) could survive. (A (Children) (Conjoined Twins: Medical Treatment) (No. 1) [2001] Fam 147).

In that case the Court of Appeal said that the doctrine of necessity was more elastic than it had been represented as being in the cabin boy case above.

The Human Rights Act also adds a new dimension.

Nicklinson has Article 8 rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (respect for his private life and family) which must be respected. His lawyers will no doubt argue that these rights cannot be respected unless he dies, and accordingly that the law of necessity needs to give a defence to a doctor who, in the act of respecting his rights, kills him.

However Article 8 also states that the right to respect for private life and family must in a democratic society be balanced with considerations of public safety, the prevention of crime, the protection of health and morals, and the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

The Murder Act is there in part to protect vulnerable people from exploitation and abuse by those who might have an interest, financial or otherwise, in their deaths. Any further removal of legal protection by creating exceptions for bringing prosecutions would encourage unscrupulous people to take liberties and would place more vulnerable people – those who are elderly, disabled, sick or depressed – under pressure to end their lives so as not impose a burden on family, carers or society.

We also need to realise that cases like Nicklinson’s are extremely rare and that hard cases make bad law. The overwhelming majority of people with severe disability – even with ‘locked-in syndrome’ – do not wish to die but rather want support to live. I have previously highlighted inspiring stories on this blog of people who with good support have been able to get to a position where they can see meaning and purpose in lives even in the face of substantial suffering. It is assisted living most want, not assisted dying.

We all accept that there are limits to choice. Even in a free democratic society there are boundaries to our autonomy. We are not entitled to exercise ‘freedoms’ that will endanger the reasonable freedoms of others. That is why we have laws. Every law limits choice and stops some people doing what they might desperately wish to do. This is in order to maintain protection for others.

The current law is clear and right and does not need fixing or further weakening. On the one hand the penalties it holds in reserve act as a powerful deterrent to exploitation and abuse. On the other hand it gives judges some discretion to temper justice with mercy when sentencing in hard cases. We should not be meddling with it.

It was therefore refreshing to see a spokesperson for the British Medical Association saying yesterday: ‘The BMA is opposed to assisted suicide and to doctors taking a role in any form of assisted dying. We support the current law and are not seeking any change in UK legislation on this issue.’

Oregon Governor orders that some state-sanctioned killing must stop

2011-11-28T14:27:00.000-08:00

Earlier this week, in an emotional declaration (£), the Governor of the US state of Oregon, John Kitzhaber, said he would refuse to sanction any further executions.

Today he was strongly criticised (£) by a condemned man who called him a ‘coward’.

Gary Haugen (pictured), a double murderer, wants to be executed to protest at weaknesses in the justice system. He told The Statesman Journal that Kitzhaber had acted on his personal beliefs instead of carrying out the will of Oregon voters who reinstated the death penalty in 1984.

‘I feel he’s a paper cowboy,’ Haugen said. ‘He couldn’t pull the trigger.’

Haugen, 49, was sentenced to death for stabbing a fellow prisoner in 2007 while serving a life sentence for killing a former girlfriend’s mother 30 years ago. He was to have been executed on 6 December until Mr Kitzhaber intervened.

Haugen says he is considering legal action to fight the reprieve which lasts until the governor leaves office.

Interestingly, Oregon is one of only two states in the US which have legalised assisted suicide, also in response to a referendum.

But the Governor isn’t showing any signs of repealing that law.

John Smeaton today draws attention to a letter from Charles J. Bentz, a physician practising medicine in Oregon, published by Times Colonist, an on-line Canadian journal.

In brief, Dr Bentz’s patient, being treated for cancer, became depressed. Dr Bentz’s letter concludes: ‘In most jurisdictions, suicidal ideation is interpreted as a cry for help. In Oregon, the only help my patient got was a lethal prescription intended to kill him. Don't make Oregon’s mistake.’

So Oregon is left in the curious position of endorsing ‘state-sanctioned killing on request’ in some circumstances (ie. for vulnerable sick people) but opposing it for others (ie. for those guilty of murder)

Wouldn’t it be better just to stop all state-sanctioned killing?

MDU warns that doctors who provide medical reports for patients seeking assisted suicide abroad could be prosecuted

2011-11-28T13:58:00.000-08:00

The Medical Defence Union (MDU) in its latest advice to doctors (MDU Journal, Volume 27 issue 2 November 2011, Page 24) has published a case study to emphasise the point that doctors who supply medical records to patients who are intending to commit suicide could well be prosecuted.

In February 2010 the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) published his ‘Policy for Prosecutors in Respect of Cases of Encouraging or Assisting Suicide’

This lists 16 criteria which make prosecution more likely in any case of assisted suicide. One of these (14) is that ‘the suspect was acting in his or her capacity as a medical doctor, nurse, other healthcare professional, a professional carer [whether for payment or not], or as a person in authority, such as a prison officer, and the victim was in his or her care’

Encouraging or assisting a suicide is a crime carrying a discretionary custodial sentence of up to 14 years. The MDU’s case study reproduced below is largely accurate in its conclusions except that it misquotes the Suicide Act 1961, which was actually amended in 2010 by section 59 the Coroners and Justice Act 2009.

The error is understandable given that the government hasn’t yet got around to amending the legislation on its own website even though the law was passed over two years ago!

In short, the words ‘aid, abet, procure or counsel’ have been updated to ‘encourage or assist’. The change was aimed at preventing the internet promotion of suicide.

Under the current law a person commits an offence ‘if (he/she) does an act capable of encouraging or assisting the suicide or attempted suicide of another person, and the act was intended to encourage or assist suicide or an attempt at suicide’.

Regardless of the unintentional error the MDU’s advice is very clear and should leave doctors in no doubt about any attempt to assist suicide even by simply providing documentation to a patient.

Here is the case study (which is not as far as I can see available on the internet)

The Scene

A consultant in palliative care received a request for medical records from a patient with multiple sclerosis. The patient had previously expressed her wish to arrange an assisted suicide and had approached her GP for a medical report and insertion of a cannula. The GP had refused to comply with her request. This consultant was in no doubt as to the patient’s motivation for requesting her records and rang the MDU advice line to find out what the repercussions might be if he complied and the patient later committed suicide.

The advice

The MDU adviser confirmed the consultant’s belief that if he knowingly assists a patient in committing suicide, he would be committing a criminal offence.

A doctor could face a criminal investigation if alleged to have assisted a patient with the act, even if the assistance is in the form of advice to the patient. Even if criminal proceedings do not follow, the GMC may still decide to investigate the doctor’s fitness to practise. The member was therefore advised not to engage in discussion about this matter with the patient.

Section 2(1) of the Suicide Act 1961 states: ‘A person who aids, abets, counsels or procures the suicide of another, or an attempt by another to commit suicide, shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term on exceeding 14 years.’

Although the Director of Public Prosecutions has decided in the past that it would not be in the public interest to prosecute those who have assisted, for example, patients travelling to Switzerland to commit suicide, the decisions have been case-specific and do not change the legal position for doctors caring for a patient.

It should also be noted that while healthcare professionals must follow an advance decision if it is valid and applies to the particular circumstances when a competent patient wishes to refuse treatment, this is not the same thing as taking active steps to kill a patient. Although the Mental Capacity Act 2005 provides for patients to make a written statement requesting certain treatment of expressing a preference, such statements will certainly not legally require doctors to take active steps to bring about a patient’s death and indeed Section 62 of the Act specifically states that nothing in the Act is to be taken to affect the law relating to murder, manslaughter or assisted suicide.

Assisted Suicide in the United States – overview of present position

2011-11-28T06:10:00.001-08:00

Margaret Dore, a US attorney, has just published an excellent overview of the current status of assisted suicide laws in the United States on her blog ‘Choice is an Illusion’. I have reproduced the article below, but without the weblinks which are available on Dore’s site.

There are two states where physician-assisted suicide is legal: Oregon and Washington. In these states, statutes give criminal and civil immunity to doctors and others who participate in a qualified patient's suicide. Oregon's act was enacted via a ballot initiative in 1997. Washington's act was enacted via a ballot initiative in 2008 and went into effect in 2009. Washington's act is modeled on Oregon's act.

In Oregon and Washington, assisted-suicide laws apply to ‘terminal’ patients, defined in terms of having less than six months to live. Such persons are not necessarily dying. Consider, for example, Jeanette Hall, alive 11 years after her terminal diagnosis. More recent proposals to legalize assisted suicide have included people who are clearly not dying.

In Montana, Baxter v. State gives doctors who assist a patient's suicide a potential defense to prosecution for homicide. Baxter does not legalize assisted suicide by giving doctors or anyone else immunity from criminal and civil liability although proponents argue that this is the case. This year, a bill to reverse Baxter's potential defense was defeated. In Montana, the leading group against assisted suicide is Montanans Against Assisted Suicide & For Living with Dignity.

This year, Idaho enacted a statute strengthening its law against assisted suicide. This was after proponents falsely claimed that assisted suicide was already legal.

This year, bills to legalize physician-assisted suicide were defeated in Montana, Hawaii and New Hampshire. In Vermont, identical legalization bills were introduced in the House and Senate, but not put on for vote before the legislative session ended.

In Hawaii, where a bill to legalize assisted suicide was defeated this year as well as in prior years, proponents claim that assisted suicide is legal.

In Connecticut, a lawsuit to legalize physician-assisted suicide was dismissed in 2010.

In Massachusetts, there is a pending ballot initiative to enact an Oregon/Washington style act that applies to ‘terminal’ patients defined as having less than six months to live.

In the US, no assisted suicide/euthanasia law has ever made it through the scrutiny of a legislature despite more than 100 attempts.

Hospital kills ‘wrong’ twin in selective abortion – both babies now dead

2011-11-24T06:05:00.000-08:00

Children with special needs can be a great challenge to care for but a tragic story from Australia this week demonstrates that the search for the perfect child can have devastating consequences.

Steven Ertelt in Melbourne relates the story on Life Site News (see also BBC)

A hospital in Australia is making news for having killed the ‘wrong’ twin in a selective abortion. The mother of the two babies had wanted to abort the baby who doctors said had little chance to live. But now, both babies are dead.

The Herald Sun newspaper reports that the unnamed woman from Victoria had already named her unborn children when doctors told her one of the unborn babies had a congenital heart defect that would require years of operations, assuming the baby survived long enough to have them.

The mother decided to have an abortion, terminating the life of one of her unborn children and allowing the other baby to live.

The newspaper indicates an ultrasound technician checked on the healthy baby before the abortion and determined that the child was in a separate amniotic sac from its sibling. However, the abortion, which took place last Tuesday afternoon, went awry and the wrong baby was injected with drugs meant to end his or her life.

After the mother was informed of the error, doctors did an emergency Cesarean section and the sick unborn baby was 'terminated' in a three-hour operation, the newspaper indicates.

A friend of the mother told the newspaper she is having a difficult time following the error.

“She went to the hospital with two babies and now she has none. And she had the heartache of giving birth to her sick baby. She’s traumatized,’ she said. ‘The hospital said it had followed correct procedure, but how could this happen? The ultrasound clinician said she checked three times before the termination because she didn’t want to make a mistake.’

The newspaper indicates the family is considering legal action.

Ertelt goes on to relate the stories of other similar cases around the world.

The story graphically illustrates the grim reality of the ‘search and destroy’ approach to unborn babies with special needs. Such procedures are now very common although very few involve twins.

It is interesting that the killing of an ‘unwanted’ child with special needs in the womb is regarded as ‘normal’ whilst the killing of a ‘wanted’ normal child is seen as a tragedy and worthy of international news coverage.

And yet if the ‘abnormal’ baby had actually been born, doctors would presumably have done everything possible to provide what treatment or care they could. After all the twins were at 32 weeks gestation, 8 weeks past the accepted threshold of viability. Instead however they ensured that it was not born alive by 'terminating it'.

Of course if the second ‘normal’ child had also been ‘unwanted’ then the story would not have warranted a mention. Abortion of ‘unwanted’ ‘normal’ babies takes place over 40 million times every year around the world.

The British Abortion Act 1967 currently allows abortion up until birth where there is a ‘substantial risk’ or a ‘serious handicap’ – so-called ground E - but this is currently interpreted very liberally indeed.

As I blogged previously, recently revealed statistics showed that between 2002 and 2010 there were 17,983 abortions in this category. The overwhelming majority of these were for conditions compatible with life outside the womb and 1,189 babies were aborted after 24 weeks, the accepted age of viability.

The 17,983 included 26 for babies with cleft lips or palates and another 27 with ‘congenital malformations of the ear, eye, face or neck’, which can include problems such as having glaucoma or being born with an ear missing.

Over the period 2002-2010 there were altogether 3,968 Down’s syndrome babies aborted and now 95% of all babies found to have Down’s syndrome before birth have their lives ended in this way.

Our society’s increasing obsession with celebrity status, physical perfection and high intelligence fuels the view that the lives of people with disabilities or genetic diseases are somehow less worth living.

By contrast the Christian view is that the life of every human individual, regardless of its intelligence, beauty, state of health or degree of disability is infinitely precious. A just and caring society is one where the strong make sacrifices for the weak, or in the words of the Apostle Paul, ‘bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ’ (Galatians 6:2).

This story is a stark warning to recognise and resist the eugenic mindset. Our priorities should be to develop treatments and supportive measures for those with genetic disease; not to search them out and destroy them before birth.

Tragically, if this woman had not sought to intervene both her babies would probably still be alive, one needing further treatment and one not.

David Brainerd – Reflections on the life and ministry of this great inspirer of missionaries

2011-11-19T07:03:00.000-08:00

On a run this morning I listened again to John Piper’s excellent biography on the life of David Brainerd, widely known as the missionary to the American Indians.

I love Piper’s missionary biographies and listen to them again and again always picking up something new.

In this one Piper particularly recommends Jonathan Edward’s ‘Life of Dave Brainerd’ which he says has never been out of print, but the only copies I could find on the web were several hundred dollars each so I will have to give that a miss. The biography though is an inspiration in itself and well worth the listen (or read).

Piper begins as follows:

‘David Brainerd was born on April 20, 1718 in Haddam, Connecticut. That year John Wesley and Jonathan Edwards turned 14. Benjamin Franklin turned 12 and George Whitefield 3. The Great Awakening was just over the horizon and Brainerd would live through both waves of it in the mid thirties and early forties, then die of tuberculosis in Jonathan Edwards' house at the age of 29 on October 9, 1747.’

He then outlines how he was present at Yale University at the beginning of the Great Awakening when Whitefield visited. Later he was thrown out of the university for his part in it, but God turned this disappointment into 'His appointment'.

‘Brainerd preached to the Indians at the Forks of the Delaware for one year. But on June 19, 1745 he made his first preaching tour to the Indians at Crossweeksung, New Jersey. This was the place where God moved in amazing power and brought awakening and blessing to the Indians. Within a year there were 130 persons in his growing assembly of believers.’

He then sums up the impact he has had upon other great missionaries who followed:

‘It was a short life: twenty-nine years, five months and nineteen days. Only eight of those years as a believer, and only four of those as a missionary. Why has Brainerd's life made the impact that it has? One obvious reason is that Jonathan Edwards took the Diaries and published them as a Life of Brainerd in 1749. But why has this book never been out of print?

Why did John Wesley say, "Let every preacher read carefully over the 'Life of Brainerd'"? Why was it written of Henry Martyn that "perusing the life of David Brainerd, his soul was filled with a holy emulation of that extraordinary man; and after deep consideration and fervent prayer, he was at length fixed in a resolution to imitate his example"? Why did William Carey regard Edwards' Life of Brainerd as a sacred text? Why did Robert Morrison and Robert McCheyne of Scotland and John Mills of America and Frederick Schwartz of Germany and David Livingston of England and Andrew Murray of South Africa and Jim Elliot of modern America look upon Brainerd with a kind of awe and draw power from him the way they and countless others did?

Gideon Hawley, another missionary protégé of Jonathan Edwards spoke for hundreds when he wrote about his struggles as a missionary in 1753, “I need, greatly need something more than human to support me. I read my Bible and Mr. Brainerd’s Life, the only books I brought with me, and from them have a little support.”’

Piper speculates as to why Brainerd’s life had such an impact and asks specifically why reading about Brainerd has encouraged him to press on in the ministry and to strive for holiness and divine power and fruitfulness in his life.

He concludes that Brainerd’s life ‘is a vivid, powerful testimony to the truth that God can and does use weak, sick, discouraged, beat-down, lonely, struggling saints, who cry to him day and night, to accomplish amazing things for his glory’.

He then outlines the struggles Brainerd faced as follows, expanding on each in turn:

1. Brainerd struggled with almost constant sickness.
2. Brainerd struggled with relentlessly recurring depression.
3. Brainerd struggled with loneliness.
4. Brainerd struggled with immense external hardships.
5. Brainerd struggled with a bleak outlook on nature.
6. Brainerd struggled to love the Indians.
7. Brainerd struggled to stay true to his calling.

Piper concludes as follows:

‘I think the reason Brainerd's life has such powerful effects on people is that in spite of all his struggles he never gave up his faith or his ministry. He was consumed with a passion to finish his race and honor his Master and spread the kingdom and advance in personal holiness. It was this unswerving allegiance to the cause of Christ that makes the bleakness of his life glow with glory so that we can understand Henry Martyn when he wrote, as a student in Cambridge in 1802, “I long to be like him!”

Brainerd called his passion for more holiness and more usefulness a kind of “pleasing pain.” “When I really enjoy God, I feel my desires of him the more insatiable, and my thirstings after holiness the more unquenchable; ... Oh, for holiness! Oh, for more of God in my soul! Oh, this pleasing pain! It makes my soul press after God ... Oh, that I might not loiter on my heavenly journey!”’

‘Care Not Killing’ - Update on end of life issues

2011-11-17T10:30:00.000-08:00

The Care Not Killing Alliance (CNK), representing over 40 organisations which promote palliative care and oppose euthanasia, has just published its November 2011 update on end of life issues.

I have reproduced the highlights below.

Falconer Commission

The Falconer Commission on ‘Assisted Dying’ is due to report in late November. The Commission has been suggested by Dignity in Dying (Formerly the Voluntary Euthanasia Society), paid for by one of its patrons and stacked full of euthanasia sympathisers by Lord Falconer's own admission. It is expected to recommend the legalisation of assisted suicide within ‘strict safeguards’ for those who are terminally ill.

CNK has written why the law should not be changed on either physician-assisted suicide (PAS) or voluntary euthanasia and about the background and bias of the Falconer Commission. At the commission’s launch on 30 November 2010 it was revealed that nine of the twelve commissioners were well-known names in the pro-legalisation lobby. The BMA has passed a five part motion undermining the commission’s credibility.

Philip Nitschke’s visit to Britain

CNK wrote to the Home Secretary, Theresa May, asking her to exercise her powers to prevent Philip Nitschke entering the UK. Nitschke is running a series of seminars instructing people how to commit suicide. He is on public record as supporting suicide for depressed people and teenagers.

Addressing suicide contagion

CNK recently responded to the Department of Health suicide consultation. Our submission argued that the new suicide prevention strategy for England should further consider the phenomenon of media-induced suicide contagion.

Royal College of Nursing guidance on assisted suicide requests from patients

The RCN guidance gave practical advice about how to address the topic sensitively, within the law and supporting the patient. The guidance addresses the different legal issues and was surprisingly good.

Students change minds in debate about ‘right to die’

CNK debated at University College London against the vice chair of Dignity in Dying. CNK Campaign Director Dr Peter Saunders explained that a change in the law was unnecessary and dangerous and that the present law works well in deterring exploitation whilst giving discretion to prosecutors in hard cases. By the end of the debate, initial strong support for the ‘right to die’ was heavily reduced to less than half of those present.

Times launches ‘Silver manifesto’ for elderly people

The Times (£) has launched a fifty point plan (£) to improve the lives of elderly people. Some of the suggestions were to run care homes like homes not hospitals, give older people a role in schools and make text on menus bigger.

Doctors provide analysis of Palliative care article

Dr John Wiles, CNK Chair and retired NHS Consultant in Palliative Medicine, challenged an article in the BMJ by Clare Dyer that asserted that the legalisation of assisted dying does not harm palliative care. Dr Wiles argued that the recent article from the European Association for Palliative Care did not reach that conclusion.

New evidence that Patients in ‘Permanent Vegetative State’ may be consciously aware

The Lancet has reported that a method of communicating with brain damaged patients in a permanent vegetative state has been discovered by scientists in the UK and Belgium. Out of sixteen patients diagnosed in the vegetative state, three could repeatedly and reliably respond to two distinct commands.

Keep Breathing: A novel by Adam Grace

A new novel about campaigning and euthanasia has been written by Adam Grace. The powerful and imaginative story is about Howard Mitchell, a pensioner who leads a national campaign against a government keen to introduce stringent euthanasia law.