When the foundations are being destroyed – Christian reflections on Broken Britain

'When the foundations are being destroyed what can the righteous do?’[i]

We live in times when the very foundations of our civilisation are being destroyed: the NHS with its burgeoning needs and shrinking budgets, mounting national debt, political and economic uncertainty following ‘Brexit’, the threat of Islamic fundamentalism, creeping atheism and secular humanism.

The mountains of our culture, those institutions which shape its trajectory: our parliaments, courts, universities, medical institutions and the worlds of art, media and entertainment, seem increasingly to be run by people who do not share our Christian beliefs and values.

Daily in our GP surgeries and hospitals we see the fruit of a society which has turned its back on God: family breakdown, educational failure, economic dependence, indebtedness and drug and alcohol addiction. Marriage and the family are threatened by same-sex unions, ‘gender fluidity’, internet pornography, gene editing, abortion and euthanasia.

Broken families, broken communities, broken institutions, a broken country. 

The Psalmist, seeing the foundations being destroyed, is taunted by his accusers: ‘Flee like a bird to your mountain. For look, the wicked bend their bows; they set their arrows against the strings to shoot from the shadows at the upright in heart.’[ii]

But instead of succumbing to the very real threats about him and withdrawing to safety he declares: ‘In the Lord I take refuge…. The Lord is in his holy temple; the Lord is on his heavenly throne.’[iii]

He takes himself in hand and remembers that he serves the ruler of the universe, the judge before whom every knee shall one day bow, who ’is righteous’, ‘loves justice’ and ‘observes everyone on earth’. He reminds himself that ‘the upright’, those who he has justified by faith, will one day ‘see his face’.[iv]

Jesus who announced the coming of his Kingdom in the Nazareth synagogue as coming with preaching, healing, deliverance and justice[v] later commissioned his disciples with the words, ‘as the Father has sent me, I am sending you.’[vi] But he also promised them his power, presence and the gift of prayer. ‘Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest….  For my yoke is easy and my burden is light’.[vii] ‘Ask the Lord of the harvest, therefore, to send out workers into his harvest field.’[viii] ‘You will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses’.[ix]  ‘Surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age’.[x]

We are not called to escapism, retreating to our Christian ghettos. Nor are we called to assimilation, merely blending in with the world around us.

Instead we are called, like Babylon’s exiles, both to moral distinctiveness – ‘shining like stars’[xi] - and to courageous and compassionate engagement with society – ‘seeking the peace and prosperity of the city’.[xii] We are to be ‘in the world’ but ‘not of the world’.[xiii]

The social reformer William Wilberforce, whom God used to end the British slave trade in the early 19^th century, spoke of his Christian calling in this way: ‘God almighty set before me two great objects, the suppression of the slave trade and the reformation of morals and manners.’

But in reforming ‘moral and manners’ he was not advocating a mere fleshly legalism. He understood that it was the ‘peculiar doctrines’ of Christianity (salvation by grace through faith in Christ’s death and resurrection) which led to ‘true affections’ (a changed heart), then to personal transformation’ (an obedient life) and ultimately ‘political reformation’ (a renewed society).[xiv]  

UK Prime Minister David Cameron resigned after the Brexit vote on 24 June without ever fulfilling his dream of a ‘big society’. And yet, since he first came to power in 2010, we have ironically seen an explosion of Christian social initiatives in Britain – food banks, debt counselling, street pastors, drug and alcohol rehabilitation, parenting classes, crisis pregnancy counselling. Churches are touching the heart of our broken society’s need.

But what if churches were to think even bigger like Wilberforce and his fellow Christian professionals from the ‘Clapham Sect’: Christian GP surgeries and hospitals, socially responsible businesses, legal advice and advocacy, schools and universities, serving in the political corridors of power? 

Might we, by God’s grace, take Britain back? That is our challenge.  

‘If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.’[xv]

---

[i] Psalm 11:3

[ii] Psalm 11:2

[iii] Psalm 11:1,4

[iv] Psalm 11:4-7

[v] Luke 4:18,19

[vi] John 20:21

[vii] Matthew 11:28-30

[viii] Matthew 9:38

[ix] Acts 1:8

[x] Matthew 28:20

[xi] Philippians 2:15

[xii] Jeremiah 29:7

[xiii] John 17:14,15

[xiv] Piper J. Peculiar Doctrines, Public Morals, and the Political Welfare: Reflections on the Life and Labour of William Wilberforce, 2002 

[xv] 2 Chronicles 7:14

What would a hung parliament really mean for the UK’s constitutional future?

With only four days left to go, who is likely to be governing us after the UK general election on 7 May, and what are the implications for the UK’s constitutional future?

There are 650 seats in the British parliament but only 194 marginal seats (those that would require less that a 5% swing to change hands). 

The current standing is Conservative (302), Labour (256), Lib Dem (56), DUP (9), SNP (6), Sinn Fein (5), Independent (5), Plaid Cymru (3), SDLP (3), UKIP (2), Green (1) Alliance (1), Respect (1).

Given that one Conservative MP (currently John Bercow) must serve as speaker, and that Sinn Fein do not take up their seats in the House of Commons, any party or coalition needs 323 seats to govern.

Nate Silver, the pollster who correctly predicted the last two US presidential elections has forecast the following 2015 election result on the basis of the latest opinion polls, historical elections results and census data:

Conservative (278), Labour (271), SNP (50), Lib Dem (28), DUP (9), Sinn Fein (5), Plaid Cymru (4), SDLP (2), UKIP (1), Green (1), UUP (1).

What is most striking here is how different the make-up might be if the UK used a system of proportional representation. The latest opinion polls have Conservatives (34%), Labour (33%), UKIP (14%), Lib Dem (8%), Green (5%).

So whilst UKIP has 14% of popular support, almost twice that of the Lib Dems, they are predicted to win only one seat against the Lib Dem’s 28. 'Is that really fair?', some might ask.

But, that aside, the most notable changes between 2010 and now, apart from the rise of Labour and the fall of the Conservatives, are the dramatic rise of the SNP, the latter mainly at the expense of Labour (see interactive map of constituencies) and the equally dramatic fall of the Lib Dems.

Clearly, if this result is repeated on Election Day, no one party will be able to form a majority government. But also, if the SNP does not go into coalition, then no party will be able to form a majority coalition government either.

A right of centre coalition of Conservative, Lib Dem, DUP and UKIP would have only 316 seats, 7 short of that needed. 

But a left of centre coalition of Labour, Lib Dem, Plaid Cymru, SDLP and Green would have only 306, a shortfall of 17.

But Plaid Cymru, DUP and UKIP have already signalled they will not be entering coalition and the Lib Dems are suggesting that they will drive a much harder bargain than last time. This makes the possibility of a majority coalition even more remote. 

This would mean that it would only be possible for either the Conservatives or Labour to pass the Queen’s speech on 27 May with the support of the SNP.

But the SNP has already ruled out a coalition (or any other arrangement) with the Tories, and Labour has ruled out a coalition or a ‘confidence and supply’ arrangement (ie. support in vote of confidence and for budget) with the SNP.

So, the only possibility of Labour continuing in government would be by some kind of vote by vote agreement with the SNP. This would leave Labour at the mercy of the SNP over specific policies like defence (especially Trident which the SNP wants to scrap), the economy and the constitution.

The SNP is strongly opposed to austerity and would push Labour to tax, borrow and spend much more than it would otherwise. It would undoubtedly also push for an early second referendum on Scottish independence.

So it appears that we may have a serious constitutional crisis.

Charles Moore suggested two weeks ago that the Scottish National Party (SNP) is seeking to engineer a reverse take-over of the Labour Party. In reality, they are intent on staging the Scots’ first attempt to capture their bigger neighbour since Bonnie Prince Charlie led his Jacobite army as far as Derby in 1745. 

So what will Cameron do with this result?

He remains Prime Minister until he stands down, just as Gordon Brown did in 2010 when he stayed put for five days with far fewer seats than the Tories.

Mr Cameron could challenge the Commons to vote him down (in a vote of no confidence) when it next meets on 27 May or go to the Queen and tender his resignation (which would be curtains for him personally).

This would leave Ed Miliband trying to form a government which he will only be able to do with the support of the SNP. But a minority government does not need a formal pact to sustain it in office, just the votes, and Nicola Sturgeon has all but guaranteed them to Labour.

The Telegraph’s Phillip Johnston has argued that if neither Mr Cameron nor Mr Miliband were able to put together a viable government, a second election would normally follow; but the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act 2011 complicates matters.

‘It provides for a dissolution of Parliament only when there is a specific vote of no confidence in the government or if two thirds of all MPs vote for an election. This makes the prospect of another early general election less likely. In any case, the parties may have little appetite for one given the expense and the prospect of losing support in a fresh contest.

Without a dissolution we would have a legislature but no government, a bit like Belgium, where the prime minister resigned in April 2010 and no new parliamentary majority could be established for almost two years. The country was run by a former prime minister brought out of retirement and a caretaker administration.’

As Johnston concludes, ‘One thing is clear: a minority Labour government, with fewer seats than the Tories, running the country while in thrall to a nationalist party that has only 2 or 3 per cent of the total UK vote, would test our constitutional structures to breaking point, and maybe beyond. More than that, it could test our creaking, centuries-old Union to destruction.’

One thing is abundantly clear. The UK’s days as a two party state where one party has an absolute majority are over. In the 1950s 97% of people voted Tory or Labour. Now barely 67% do.

This is a new era of coalition and shared power. But coalitions in a multi-party democracy can only rule effectively when they have an overall majority. And that may not happen without a shift to some form of proportional representation – like that or Italy, Israel or Greece.

Perhaps that is the direction in which we are inexorably drifting; either that, or Scottish independence, or both.

How should Christian doctors vote?

On 7 May the UK goes to the polls for the general election. Whoever assumes power as a result will have a profound influence in shaping public policy in matters which affect us, our families, churches, patients and colleagues.

Some claim that politics and religion should not mix but God is intimately involved in politics.

He is sovereign over the rise and fall of nations (Isaiah 40:15-14; Daniel 2:21, 4:17, 5:21). He both establishes governing authorities, and holds them ultimately accountable (Romans 13:1).

As Christians we should both pray for our political leaders (1 Timothy 2:1-3) and be subject to them (Romans 13:1; Titus 3:1). But God has also given us a part to play in who actually exercises civil authority. Each of us, before God and in good conscience, must make our own decisions about voting; but we have a duty before God to ensure that we exercise our votes wisely, thoughtfully and in an informed way.

For some the key question will be about who they would prefer as prime minister for the next five years. But for others it will be a matter of which specific issues they care about most and how the various parties and candidates stand on these.

Whether we choose to vote for, or against, a particular party or candidate, or on a specific issue, there are lots of resources to help us reach our decision.

The Economist/IPSOS Mori Issues Index ranks political issues in order of importance as seen by the British public. In September 2014 Race Relations/Immigration was top with 39% followed by the Economy (30%) and the NHS (25%). The next seven were defence (23%), unemployment (21%), education (16%), housing (15%), crime (14%), poverty (13%) and inflation (11%).   

The BBC’s ‘Manifesto Watch’ helpfully outlines where the seven main parties stand on each of these ten top issues.

With the economy and the NHS ranking two and three respectively, it is also worth remembering how the two are closely interrelated.

Most of us are employed by the NHS and almost all of us, along with our patients, rely on it for our healthcare.

In June 2014 the NHS was declared the best healthcare system in the world by an international panel of experts who rated its care superior to countries which spend far more on health.  The Commonwealth Fund, a highly respected Washington-based foundation, examined an array of evidence about performance in eleven countries, including detailed data from patients, doctors and the World Health Organisation.

In the Commonwealth Fund study the UK came first out of the eleven countries in eight of the eleven measures of care the authors looked at. It got top place on measures including providing effective care, safe care, co-ordinated care and patient-centred care. The fund also rated the NHS as the best for giving access to care and for efficient use of resources.

The 30 page report titled ‘Mirror, Mirror on the Wall’, concluded, ‘The United Kingdom ranks first overall, scoring highest on quality, access and efficiency’.

But financial pressures are now squeezing the ability of the NHS to deliver.

The Nuffield Trust has shown that because of population growth, ageing and cost increases, by 2020-21 the NHS will require some £30bn (25%) more than it is getting now just to maintain services at their present level.

But whilst real average NHS spending has increased by at least 3% per year since 1951, this has fallen to 0.75% per year since 2010.

The major driver of this fall has been the UK’s national debt which is now at its highest peace-time level.

When the coalition government took office in 2010 our total government debt was £811bn. But by December 2014 it had reached £1,483.3 billion (80.9% of GDP), an over 80% rise in just five years, with much more to come.

This rise is the result of accumulating annual deficits. Although the gap between annual government income and expenditure is gradually falling the total debt is actually rising.

This national debt matters. It must be serviced with regular interest payments, diverting money from front-line public services.

Even at rock-bottom interest rates, the Government will spend almost half as much on debt interest in 2014/2015 as it will spend on the NHS (£52bn cf £113bn).

As the national debt escalates, courtesy of £100bn-plus annual deficits, and as interest rates inevitably rise, we may yet end up spending more on government debt service than on health.

This situation clearly cannot continue and a key question must be what kind of government is best placed to put our balance of payments in order. Debt is a moral issue with serious consequences for families, communities and countries. 

We also face other moral threats in the health service, not least the legalisation of assisted suicide. On this and other issues of conscience we will want to know where our own MP stands. Recent parliamentary votes on same-sex marriage, sex-selective abortion and three parent embryos, for example, have been deeply disturbing.

The Public Whip website tells you exactly how your own MP has voted on a range of crucial issues and the Christian Institute and CARE have also compiled very valuable online databases on past voting records.

Let’s make use of all this valuable information in making an informed vote that really counts this May. 

But let’s also pray for the future of our country, and health service. 

How to ask your MP to support a referendum on same sex marriage

Anne Main (also see here) (pictured) is my local MP. She has an excellent voting record on social issues (you can find out your own MP’s voting record here).

She voted against the redefinition of marriage in February and I have just asked her to co-sign an amendment (New Clause 9) to David Cameron’s same-sex marriage bill calling for a referendum on the issue.

My local Tory candidate for the local elections, Salih Gaygusuz, did not bother replying when I asked him his view on the issue, so I gave my vote to the UKIP candidate Philip Singleton who opposed the measure instead.

I have told my MP this and also that I will (reluctantly) vote for UKIP again in 2015 if the Tory Party continues to drift in its current direction.  

If you wish to write to your own local MP urging them to co-sign new clause 9 (which will increase its chance of being debated) you can do so very easily via the write to them website.

The more MPs who co-sign an amendment the more chance it has of being debated.

My letter to Anne is below.

My letter to Anne Main MP

Dear Anne,

As you will know MPs vote soon on amendments to the government's Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill.   

I am writing to urge you to co-sign the proposed amendment 'New Clause 9' to the bill which calls for a referendum on the issue.

It is not the government's job to redefine marriage and there is no mandate for this bill.

It didn't feature in any major party's manifesto and there is no public consensus for redefining marriage - many people are opposed to it.

Furthermore the government's consultation ignored half a million responses opposing the redefinition of marriage.

I'm deeply concerned about the bill and what it more widely represents - that the Tory Party leadership is no longer listening to social conservatives.

As a result for the first time I voted for UKIP in this week's local elections. 

Despite my longstanding personal support for you I will do so again, with considerable regret, in the next general election in 2015 if the Conservative party continues to drift in this direction.

Yours sincerely,

Peter

Why cross-cultural communication can be so difficult

Have you ever wondered why cross-cultural communication can be so difficult?

Recently a world-wide survey was conducted by the UN.

The only question asked was:

“Would you please give your honest opinion about solutions to the food shortage in the rest of the world?"

The survey was a failure because:



•In South America they didn't know what "please" meant.
•In Eastern Europe they didn't know what "honest" meant.
•In China they didn't know what "opinion" meant.
•In the Middle East they didn't know what "solution" meant.
•In Africa they didn't know what "food" meant.
•In Western Europe they didn't know what "shortage" meant.
•In the US they didn't know what "the rest of the world" meant.
•In Australia, they hung up, because they couldn't understand the Indian accent.

Major split in LibCon Coalition over assisted suicide

The Liberal Democrat conference has voted today to back the legalisation of ‘medically assisted dying’, a euphemism for assisted suicide and euthanasia.

The complex motion included an explanatory note which applauded the Dutch legal model, which a House of Lords enquiry in 2005 predicted would lead to 13,000 euthanasia deaths annually in Britain.

The result was not unsurprising given the Liberal Democrats long support for decriminalising euthanasia but demonstrates a wide gap between the two main coalition partners on this important issue.

Both party leaders, David Cameron and Nick Clegg, are opposed to the legalisation of assisted suicide, but a poll published last week by Communicate Research demonstrated graphically just how deep the gulf is between MPs in the two parties on this issue.

Here are the answers given to specific questions:

1.Would you support or oppose legalising assisted suicide for adults who are mentally competent and have less than twelve months to live?

Support (Con 28% LD 50%) Oppose (Con 67% Lib Dem 39%)

2.It would be impossible to put in place sufficiently robust legal and medical safeguards to protect the vulnerable from a law permitting assisted suicide even within strictly defined legal guidelines.

Agree (Con 60% LD 39%) Disagree (Con 29% Lib Dem 42%)

3.Legalising assisted suicide would make suicide more socially acceptable and would lead to an increase in the overall suicide rate

Agree (Con 56% LD 33%) Disagree (Con 26% Lib Dem 51%)

4.Legalising assisted suicide is a key priority at the present time

Agree (Con 14% LD 30%) Disagree (Con 80% Lib Dem 60%)

5.Legalising assisted suicide in the current economic climate would increase the risk that vulnerable people might opt for suicide so as not to be a financial burden upon loved ones

Agree (Con 60% LD 44%) Disagree (Con 27% Lib Dem 30%)

6.If doctors are allowed to prescribe lethal drugs to patients on request, vulnerable people could feel under pressure to opt for suicide

Agree (Con 78% LD 44%) Disagree (Con 19% Lib Dem 40%)

There have been three parliamentary votes on legalising assisted suicide and/or euthanasia in Britain since 2006. On each occasion a change in the law was strongly rejected over concerns about public safety and the degree to which vulnerable disabled or elderly people might feel pressure to end their lives.

Lord Joffe’s ‘Assisted Dying’ bill in 2006 was rejected in the House of Lords by 148-100. Similarly an amendment by Lord Falconer to the Coroners and Justice Bill in 2009, which would have decriminalised some assisted suicides, was defeated by 194-141 and a bill which would have legalised assisted suicide and euthanasia in Scotland in 2010 was overwhelmingly rejected by 85-16.

New bills by Margo Macdonald and Lord Falconer will be debated in the Holyrood Parliament and House of Lords respectively in the New Year.

It has been said that the first duty of government is to protect its citizens. But the above results indicate that the Liberal Democrats, more than the Conservatives, place individual liberty above protecting the rights of vulnerable people.

It is a perhaps therefore a good thing that they are losing ground in the opinion polls.

How British society marginalises Christian health professionals

Earlier this year Christians in Parliament, an official All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG), chaired by Gary Streeter MP, launched an inquiry called ‘Clearing the Ground’, which was tasked with considering the question: ‘Are Christians marginalised in the UK?’

The inquiry was facilitated by the Evangelical Alliance and the report was published in February 2012. (You can read the executive summary here)

The inquiry’s main conclusion was that ‘Christians in the UK face problems in living out their faith and these problems have been mostly caused and exacerbated by social, cultural and legal changes over the past decade.’

I gave both written and oral evidence to the inquiry and part of my oral evidence is quoted in the report. Unfortunately my written evidence was not acknowledged or included, I suspect due to an administrative error but it is available on the CMF website.

I have pasted below the answers I gave to two key questions in the report.

What key issues face Christians in public life today?

With the rise of the secular humanism and, in particular, the new atheism, there is in British society generally a loss of historically held belief in the existence of a transcendent communicating God incarnate in Jesus Christ, in biblical authority and in biblical ethics, which is combined with an active agenda to impose an alternative secular world view through our laws, institutions and media. This is leading to an erosion of laws that were based on a biblical worldview and to some loss of Christian freedoms.

For Christian doctors the major impact has been felt in the areas of sharing Christian faith (evangelism), expressing beliefs about Christian doctrine or ethics or manifesting Christian behaviour especially in the areas of prayer and/or sexual and life ethics.

Conflicts arise when Christians are:

1. Prevented from sharing, expressing or manifesting their beliefs
2. Required to perform tasks or conform in ways which go against their beliefs
3. Excluded from consultation or decision-making or advisory roles because of their beliefs.
4. Prevented from meeting on public or institutional premises for worship/prayer/teaching/events.

These are the key issues in public life not because they are more important than other areas of Christian faith and practice but because they are the specific areas where recent laws, or regulations/guidelines based on those laws, have impacted.

The main laws implicated are:

1. Employment Equality regulations on religion and belief and sexual orientation (2003)
2. Equality Acts 2006 and 2010
3. Section 5 of the Public Order Act (less applicable to Christian doctors)
4. The Abortion Act 1967 and Mental Capacity Act 2005 also have some influence through interpretation by official bodies about the scope and application of their provision for conscientious objection.

Guidelines based on these laws by the Department of Health, NHS trusts and professional bodies like the GMC and BMA also have an impact on how legal policy is interpreted and implemented. Examples of such guidelines include:

1. Religion or belief: a practical guide for the NHS (Department of Health, January 2009)
2. Sexual orientation: a practical guide for the NHS (Department of Health, February 2009)
3. Personal beliefs and medical practice - guidance for doctors (GMC, March 2008)
4. The law and ethics of abortion (BMA, November 2007)
5. Treatment and care towards the end of life: good practice in decision making (GMC, July 2010)

Which specific aspects of law, or its interpretation, do you consider unfair?

1. The Employment Equality regulations on religion and belief and sexual orientation (2003) and the Equality Acts 2006 and 2010
A. The requirement for Christian organisations with a Christian ethos to employ people who either do not hold to Christian faith
B. The definition of harassment is too broad and too open for misinterpretation or perverse action: ‘unwanted conduct which takes place with the purpose or effect of violating the dignity of a person and of creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading or humiliating environment.’

2. The Department of Health practical guides on ‘religion and belief’ and ‘sexual orientation’ over-interpret the law with respect to evangelism and expression of Christian belief about sexuality and have created an environment where normal Christian behaviour is inappropriately open to censure or discipline. These documents were not made open to full consultation or review when implemented but are being used by NHS employers. Both these documents should be reviewed and opened to consultation.Examples of problematic clauses are given below.

3. The implementation of the Abortion Act 1967 and Mental Capacity Act 2005 conscientious objection clauses needs to be kept under regular review to ensure that Christians are not being unlawfully discriminated against.

Examples of problematic clauses in Department of Health documents which can be used to discriminate against Christians:

Members of some religions... are expected to preach and to try to convert other people. In a workplace environment this can cause many problems, as non-religious people and those from other religions or beliefs could feel harassed and intimidated by this behaviour… To avoid misunderstandings and complaints on this issue, it should be made clear to everyone from the first day of training and/or employment, and regularly restated, that such behaviour, notwithstanding religious beliefs, could be construed as harassment under the disciplinary and grievance procedures.(Department of Health, Religion and Belief)

Any NHS employer faced with an employee who by virtue of religion or belief refuses to work with or treat a lesbian, gay or bisexual person, or who makes homophobic comments or preaches against being lesbian, gay or bisexual, should refer to its anti-discrimination and bullying and harassment policies and procedures, which should already be in place… If the conduct has the purpose or effect of violating a person’s dignity, or creating an intimidating environment, and it is reasonable for the complainant to take offence, then it is harassment. (People) should not be subjected to discrimination or harassment on any grounds whatsoever. It should be made clear that such behaviour is unlawful and could result in legal proceedings being brought. (Department of Health, Sexual Orientation)

Health Minister misleads public over fetal pain

The inimitable Cranmer has drawn attention to a letter from Health Minister Ann Milton which uncritically parrots the findings of a recent RCOG report claiming that foetuses cannot feel pain before 24 weeks, are unconscious in the womb and do not require pain relief when undergoing surgical procedures.

This is apparently the official line that the Department of Health now takes on this controversial issue and I suspect it partly explains the fact that prominent members of the Conservative front bench (Lansley, Osborne etc) do not support a lowering of the upper limit for abortion below 22 weeks.

I have previously highlighted on this blog a recent editorial in a leading medical journal (Ward Platt M. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed (2011)) which has called the RCOG report ‘an emperor with no clothes’.

Martin Ward Platt, of the Newcastle Neonatal Service, who actually supports the current abortion law, argues that the RCOG report is a political rather than a scientific document which aims to shore up the pre-existing position of the RCOG rather than taking a dispassionate view of the scientific evidence.

He argues, contrary to the RCOG, that over the last 20 or more years, researchers have accumulated good observational, experimental and pathophysiological reasons to consider that babies at gestations below 24 weeks do feel pain, that they benefit from analgesia, and that pain experiences in early life cast neurophysiological and behavioural shadows far down childhood (see my last report for more details).

It is most disturbing that a health minister has taken such a strong position on an issue bearing strongly on public policy, which is at best highly contestable and at worst lacking any evidence base.

I have previously argued that so few doctors are willing to perform abortions on babies above 20 weeks precisely because they are not willing to kill and then dismember what, for all intents and purposes, is quite obviously a baby.

I have also previously highlighted the cases of Jacob McMahon and Charlie Allen, who both survived after being born at 23 weeks gestation.

Ann Milton in her role as health minister should not be expressing such certainty about such important issues when the evidence does not justify it. That is seriously to mislead the public.

Perhaps she has just been wrongly advised and is simply not aware that the view she is expounding has been very severely criticised in the medical literature. If so we should not question her integrity.

But even so, she does now have some very serious explaining to do.

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

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’.

NB. Since writing this blog I have come across an article by Carl Wieland who argues that the Luther quote above has been misattributed and is based on another source. It's well worth a read. He says that Luther did not use the battle analogy but did say that if people were publicly open about every other aspect of their Christian faith, but chose not to admit their belief on some single point of doctrine (for fear of what might happen to them if their conviction on that one point became known) they were effectively denying Christ, period.

Why is the Home Secretary allowing Philip Nitschke back into Britain?

The front page of last Wednesday’s Metro carried the story of an army veteran and his wife who committed suicide after becoming destitute (see ‘Driven to kill themselves by utter poverty’)

Mark and Helen Mullins are thought to have killed themselves at their rundown home after being reduced to despair as they struggled to live off just £57.50 a week. The couple had suffered a series of health and benefit setbacks and had had their 12-year-old daughter taken into care.

This tragic story is an extreme example of how some vulnerable families are feeling the economic pressure as the recession bites and living costs and unemployment rise.

Such people can be pushed by circumstances to take desperate measures and this sad case should heighten calls for more support and better protection for people living on the edge.

It is perhaps bitterly ironic therefore that Philip Nitschke (pictured) is entering Britain again this week to run a series of seminars instructing people how to commit suicide.

Nitshcke is an extremist and self-publicist who is on public record as supporting suicide for people including (in his own words) ‘the depressed, the elderly bereaved, the troubled teen’.

Between 12 and 21 November he will run a series of seminars in London, Eastbourne, Edinburgh and York in which he will give ‘practical information for end of life decision-making’.

I personally believe that these actions run contrary to the Suicide Act 1961 which prohibits the ‘encouraging or assisting’ of suicide.

I therefore wrote to Home Secretary Theresa May on 25 October asking her to exercise her powers to exclude Dr Nitschke on grounds of public policy and because his presence in the United Kingdom threatens a fundamental interest (namely the maintenance of the ‘rule of law’ and the maintenance of a law abiding community).

I urged her to take immediate action and, if no Exclusion Order was made, to provide me with full details surrounding the reason for the decision.

I have had no reply from the Home Secretary’s Office and to my knowledge no attempt has been made to detain Nitschke who is due to arrive this week.

The Home Secretary is, as we know, currently under pressure defending a decision to relax immigration controls. Nitschke’s arrival could well add to those difficulties.

With the growing elderly population, failure of the care system and worsening economic situation a growing number of frail, disabled, ill and depressed people in Britain, like the Mullins, will be feeling under even greater pressure to end their lives, either for fear that they will not cope, or so as to be less of a burden to relatives.

They deserve better protection from suicide predators like Nitschke than they are currently getting.

Let’s hope that no vulnerable person is ‘helped’ over the edge by attending one of his seminars or as a result of the inevitable media hype that will accompany his visit.

Over half of British Christians would not back Tories if they push for same-sex marriage

Earlier this week I argued that Prime Minister David Cameron’s promotion of the gay rights agenda was based on a false presupposition – that homosexuality is biologically determined.

This was in the wake of government plans to allow same-sex civil partnership ceremonies to take place in churches.

Today I learnt from Stuart James about a new poll which shows that the Conservative Party risks losing Christian votes if it goes ahead with legalizing same-sex marriage.

In February the government expressed its intention to begin a consultation to allow both religious same-sex ceremonies and civil marriage for same-sex couples.

In September, at the Party’s recent conference in Manchester, David Cameron announced his intention to introduce same-sex civil marriage by the next general election.

The survey, published on 4 November, was undertaken on behalf of Premier Christian Media Trust among the ComRes CPanel of UK churchgoing Christians aged 18 and over.
544 were interviewed online between 25 and 31 October 2011. Results are available on line.

‘British Religion in Numbers’ reports it as follows:

Asked how they viewed the Conservative proposal to legalise same-sex marriages, only 11% of Christians supported it, while 83% were opposed (three-quarters of them strongly).

Hostility was particularly concentrated among the over-65s (90%), compared with 26% support in the 18-34 cohort. Denominationally, Independents, Pentecostals and Roman Catholics were most critical.

Overwhelmingly, these churchgoers foresaw negative consequences in the event of the law being changed in respect of same-sex marriage:

•85% were concerned that the value of marriage would be further undermined
•78% that it would be harder to argue against ‘other novel types of relationship’ such as polygamy
•88% that schools would be required to teach the equal validity of same-sex and heterosexual relationships
•93% that clergy would have to conduct same-sex marriages against their consciences

Absolutely nobody claimed that Cameron’s commitment to legalizing same-sex marriages would make them more likely to vote Conservative. 37% said that it would make no difference to their political behaviour.

But 57% were clear that they would be less disposed to back the Tories in future, this being especially true of Pentecostals (69%) and Roman Catholics (75%).

I have outlined previously how it appears no longer acceptable in David Cameron’s Britain to express the view that homosexual acts are in any way unnatural or immoral. But in fact the orthodox Christian position, upheld by the Bible itself, is that they are both.

The Prime Minister does not hold these views and in fact sacked a Conservative Party candidate just before last year’s national election for expressing them, although they are held by a significant proportion of the population.

It has been suggested that David Cameron is supporting same-sex marriage and promoting the gay rights agenda because he believes that the Gay rights lobby in this country is stronger than the Christian lobby.

I guess the jury is still out on that one.

But regardless, whether he holds his personal beliefs out of political expedience or personal conviction, it appears that they may soon be seriously tested.

Dorries and Field are not pro-life but their abortion amendments are a small step in the right direction

If you type ‘abortion’ into google news these days you will find that most of the reports thrown up are from the US; and most involve new legislation aimed at curbing abortion rates.

A whole host of bills are being introduced in different states aimed at whittling away the abortion law: bills requiring the offer of ultrasound; bills lowering upper gestational limits; bills aimed at protecting babies who might feel pain; bills providing an offer of counselling and bills attempting to cut federal funding to abortion providers.

And some of them are showing real signs of success.

Why should this be taking place under Democrat government with the most abortion-friendly president in US history? Has the US suddenly had a pro-life conversion? Not at all!

Most Americans do not hold a strong pro-life position, but at the same time they are not rabidly pro-choice either. They just feel that 1.5 million abortions a year is too many. The rate needs to come down.

Similar things are beginning to happen in the UK.

Most people are not asking for a repeal of the abortion law but there is a growing disquiet about the fact that we see 200,000 abortions a year and that the total since the 1967 Abortion Act was passed is now over 7 million.

And public opinion especially on late abortion has changed.

Babies on our front pages doing flips on high resolution ultrasound; new evidence that babies at a younger gestation than previously thought possible can feel pain; more babies at 24 weeks surviving in neonatal units; stories of babies surviving after botched abortions; babies with minor congenital abnormalities being aborted beyond 24 weeks – these things change hearts and minds.

Back in 2008 a serious attempt to lower the 24 week limit was defeated by a very slim margin and now we have a parliament where the vote may well go the other way.

It is no wonder that the pro-abortion lobby, which has had things its own way for so long, is getting the jitters.

The abortion amendments to the Health and Social Care Bill, proposed by MPs Nadine Dorries and Frank Field, have provoked an extraordinary reaction.

On one hand we have the pro-abortion lobby launching personal attacks on the MPs involved and trying to link them with what they see as radical elements of the pro-life lobby in an attempt to discredit them by association.

Then we hear them implying that the Dorries/Field amendments will force compulsory counselling on women when a simple examination of the wording reveals that they will do nothing of the sort.

I suspect these reactions are indicative of a feeling that they are losing their grip. If afraid revert to ad hominem attack and misrepresentation.

With their right to know campaign, these two MPs are attempting to ensure two things.

First they want women with unplanned pregnancies to have access to information and counselling that is not provided by the abortion industry. At present most women contemplating abortion go directly via abortion providers like Marie Stopes International (MSI) and BPAS. The MPs argue that these groups have a financial vested interest in providing abortion for which they receive over 60 million pounds of taxpayers’ money annually. This does not give women a fair deal.

Second they want the responsibility for producing abortion guidelines to be taken away from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) and given to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). They claim that the RCOG guidelines misrepresent the scientific evidence on the health consequences of abortion and that some RCOG members have financial and ideological vested interests in abortion provision.

These are both reasonable moves that will make sense to most people. These amendments are essentially pro-women.

On the other had though the pro-life movement have real reservations. Field and Dorries are not pro-life.

Dorries ran foul of the pro-life movement some years ago when she proposed a ten minute rule bill that attempted to introduce better counselling for crisis pregnancies on the one hand whilst creating a fast-track to abortion, for those who wanted it, on the other. As a result she attracted the wrath of both sides and prominent pro-life members of parliament joined forces with pro-choice members against her.

Whilst having voted for a lowering of the upper limit to twelve weeks in 2008 (and being one of only 60 or so MPs who did so), she does not oppose very early abortion, and whilst backing a lowering of the upper limit for able-bodied babies, she does not back a similar lowering for babies who are disabled. These positions lose her considerable support from pro-life lobby groups.

Her recent support for abstinence-based sex education is refreshing. But her move, again with Frank Field, to back provision of the morning-after pill over the counter without prescription in England as well as Wales has, in my view quite rightly, generated a lot of criticism.

Unlike Dorries and Field, my own position is strongly pro-life – I am opposed to abortion per se at any gestation and for any reason because it takes an innocent human life. But there are some things Dorries and Field stand for which I support.

I would support a tightening of the law aimed at reducing abortion – provided that such a move does not loosen the law elsewhere. I’m not interested in trading off reductions in upper limits for more abortion at lower gestations. In my view the 1990 HFE Act, where a lowering of the upper limit from 28 to 24 weeks achieved at the cost of allowing abortion up to birth for disabled babies, was a tragic outcome

But I will support moves that will save some babies, as long as other babies, presently safe, are not sacrificed as a result.

Back in 2008 we 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, because 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 that is why the protests of the pro-abortion lobby sound so hollow in this debate. Their strident objections to a reasonable suggestion are undermining their credibility.

They have lost touch with the public mood on this matter. They are looking and sounding more and more like extremists and Dorries and Field are sounding more like the sensible middle ground.

So are Dorries and Field pro-life? Most definitely not! But they have sensed the public mood for change and they are, with these amendments, taking a small step in the right direction.

Pro-choice critics of the Dorries/Field amendments on abortion counselling are misrepresenting the medical facts

There has been considerable media interest in the fact that two MPs (Nadine Dorries and Frank Field) have tabled abortion amendments to the Health and Social Care Bill (See Sunday Express, Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph).

These two MPs are attempting to ensure two things.

First they want women with unplanned pregnancies to have access to information and counselling that is not provided by the abortion industry. At present most women contemplating abortion go directly via abortion providers like Marie Stopes International (MSI) and BPAS. The MPs argue that these groups have a financial vested interest in providing abortion for which they receive over 60 million pounds of taxpayers’ money annually. This does not give women a fair deal.

Second they want the responsibility for producing abortion guidelines to be taken away from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) and given to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). They claim that the RCOG guidelines misrepresent the scientific evidence on the health consequences of abortion and that some RCOG members have financial and ideological vested interests in abortion provision.

Not surprisingly this move has generated a strong reaction from abortion providers and pro-choice commentators.

BPAS Ann Furedi, chief executive of BPAS, has said:

‘This amendment is a misguided attempt to solve a problem that does not exist. If abortion providers have a vested interest, it is to be as sure as possible that women are making the choice that is right for them. The RCOG is clearly the body best suited to produce guidance on what information is appropriate. We find it bizarre that anyone should think that this expert, clinical role should be removed from them.’

Ann Furedi (pictured) does not give any reasons to support her claim that the RCOG is the best body to provide guidance and fails to mention that this body’s abortion guidance has been widely criticised for misrepresenting research data.

This is precisely the problem that Dorries and Field are attempting to address. She also does not tell us that 11 of the 18 people on the RCOG panel producing the guidance benefit financially from abortion provision nor that both BPAS and MSI are represented on the panel. Nor does she mention that there are no psychiatrists on the panel despite the fact that it purports to speak authoritatively on the link between abortion and mental health.

The RCOG, which published the latest draft of its guidance in January without a proper consultation period, has now withdrawn it in order to await a report from the Royal College of Psychiatrists. I have previously already written to David Cameron with my concerns about the lack of transparency, bias and undue haste surrounding their consultation.

The comments of Telegraph 'Strategic Events Editor' Tom Chivers (pictured) are also a revealing example of the way that scientific evidence is cherry-picked by pro-choice commentators in order to justify their view that abortion has few if any consequences for women’s health.

In a blog titled ‘Abortion and the 'Right to Know' – or, why we should link to our sources’ Chivers criticizes Dorries and Field for not quoting primary sources to support their claim that women having abortions are 30% more likely to experience mental health problems.

He correctly identifies the primary source (after help via friends on Twitter) as an article by Fergusson et al originally published in the British Journal of Psychiatry in 2008 but then goes on, ironically, to make misleading statements about the scientific evidence.

Chivers claims that the Fergusson study is ‘now rather out of date’ and that ‘The BJPsych itself has revisited the topic, with a 2009 systematic review’. Both these statements are simply untrue.

If you follow the link in Chivers’ blog you will see that it does not refer to a BJPsych review at all, but rather to a letter written to the journal by two non-psychiatrists with close links to the pro-choice movement, Sam Rowlands and Kate Guthrie.

The Royal College of Psychiatrists has itself acknowledged in a 2008 statement that there are in fact studies which show a link between abortion and mental health problems and is currently carrying out a review of the literature that has not yet been published.

The review that Rowlands and Guthrie refer to is not from the editors of the BJPsych at all (or the Royal College) but is actually one by the American Psychological Association which has been widely criticised as I have previously outlined on this blog.

Why is all this so important? For two reasons.

First most abortions in Britain (about 98%) are carried out on mental health grounds when in fact there is no clear evidence in the literature to show that being denied abortion has mental health consequences. The jury is still out on this question as the RCPsych acknowledges. This makes the vast majority of abortions in Britain technically illegal.

Second, there is growing evidence that abortion actually poses a risk to mental health. The significance of Fergusson’s research is that it was a particularly robust 30 year longitudinal study which had carefully corrected for confounding variables. What makes it doubly interesting is that Fergusson himself comes from a pro-choice perspective so arguably had a vested interest in his research not showing any link between abortion and mental health problems.

Fergusson and his co-authors are simply asking that people be honest about the scientific facts. I will leave the final comments to them.

‘It is our collective view that the most important implications of our findings relate to the current legal justification for abortion in the UK, New Zealand and a number of other jurisdictions in which abortion is authorised principally on medical grounds. In all of these jurisdictions, the great majority of abortions are authorised on mental health grounds. Our findings strongly challenge the use of mental health criteria as a routine justification for abortion. Our results suggest that the mental health risks of having an abortion may be greater and are certainly no less than the risks of coming to term with an unwanted pregnancy. Further, as far as we can tell, there is no evidence that suggests that the mental health risks of abortion are less than those of continuing with an unwanted pregnancy. To establish this would require a series of replicated studies showing that the mental health outcomes of those having an abortion are better than those of an equivalent series of women coming to term with an unwanted pregnancy. No such evidence exists…What emerges most clearly from the accumulated body of evidence on abortion and mental health is: (a) the primary reasons that most women seek abortion are personal, social and economic rather than relating to mental health concerns; and (b) there is no body of evidence that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that the provision of abortion mitigates the mental health risks of abortion.’