New amendment seeks to give women right to crisis pregnancy counselling independent of the abortion industry

I was interested to see that MPs Frank Field (Labour) (pictured) and Nadine Dorries (Conservative) intend to put down an amendment on abortion counselling to the Health and Social Care Bill.

The amendment will require new GP consortia to make provision for independent advice and counselling for women presenting at the GP’s surgery with a crisis pregnancy; transferring the requirement away from the remote abortion provider to the local GP. Dorries makes her case on Conservative Home.

What is particularly striking about this amendment is that neither Field nor Dorries are known as being ‘prolife’ – their major concern is about women’s health.

Britain’s abortion laws leave vulnerable women without the most basic support and help when facing a crisis pregnancy.

In practice, women have little access to any counselling independent of the abortion industry and that which is provided is carried out according to the College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists guidelines, which have been widely criticised in the national press (see Daily Telegraph and Daily Mail) for underplaying the physical and psychological consequences of abortion.

I have previously posted an open letter to David Cameron about them on this blog. (The Prime Minister’s staff have incidentally sent me a short three sentence reply on his behalf thanking me for my letter but not answering any of my questions – so no surprises there)

Those GPs, like Tamie Downes, who attempt to help women facing crisis pregnancies find themselves being maliciously reported to the GMC and ‘outed’ in national newspapers, simply for daring to provide a much-needed service.

Furthermore, whilst over 90% of abortions are funded by the NHS, there is no financial provision for counselling, meaning that private abortion providers in particular have a vested financial interest in women deciding to go ahead with the procedure.

This means that women with unplanned pregnancies who are seeking advice and support presently receive little or no counselling at all. Many feel rail-roaded into the decision. Face to face post abortion counselling is only provided if the woman returns to the abortion clinic and very often, it isn’t available.

Many women who have abortions do not experience adverse consequences, however, many do. The link between abortion and subsequent pre-term delivery, with all its complications and huge associated costs, is now well established.

Also, a landmark paper published in the British Journal of Psychiatry in 2008 has shown that pregnant women who abort are 30% more likely to develop mental health problems than those who do not.

The Royal College of Psychiatrists now acknowledges research that shows a link between abortion and mental illness, has revised its guidance on the matter and is currently carrying out a major review of the literature.

The quest to make abortion quick and accessible has meant that many women enter the process confused, without proper information, unaware of any physical or mental health consequences.

This amendment, if passed, will give them the opportunity of a properly informed choice. I hope that it enjoys wide support from both sides of the House.

David Cameron, by his comments about homosexuality, demonstrates that he does not understand what true tolerance actually is

The number of cases involving Christians falling foul of the prevailing orthodoxy on homosexuality is growing steadily.

I commented recently on that of Dr Hans-Christian Raabe, a Manchester GP, who was sacked by the Home Office from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) simply for quoting an article published in a peer-reviewed journal supporting a link between homosexuality and paedophilia.

Then there is Lesley Pilkington, a counsellor, who is facing disciplinary proceedings by the British Association for Counseling and Psychotherapy for trying to assist a man who had approached her asking for help dealing with unwanted feelings of same-sex attraction. He turned out to be a gay undercover journalist who was seeking to expose her, as she discovered when the story appeared in a national newspaper.

Most recently we have the case of Eunice and Owen Johns, who were effectively prevented by a judge from becoming foster parents after telling a social worker they would not tell a child that homosexuality was acceptable.

Some commentators, who ironically are well known for supporting the gay rights agenda, are saying that these judgements and disciplinary actions have gone too far.

Former Liberal Democrat MP Evan Harris has said that he felt Dr Raabe’s sacking was discriminatory.

Gay historian David Starkey said on BBC’s Question Time on 3 March that penalising Christians for their beliefs about homosexual behaviour is ‘intolerant, oppressive and tyrannical’.

Commenting specifically on the cases of Christian foster carers and B&B owners who have suffered under unjust equality policies, Starkey added, ‘It seems to me that what we are doing is producing a tyrannous new morality that is every bit as oppressive as the old.’

He warned that this new morality was intolerant, oppressive and ‘intrusive into family life’ and claimed that ‘we are producing a new tyranny’.

Against this background, Prime Minister David Cameron’s comments, when questioned in Derby yesterday about the Johns’ case, appeared quite bizarre.

Asked if he thought Christian views were incompatible with an acceptance of homosexuality he said: ‘I think Christians should be tolerant and welcoming and broad minded.’

Pointing out that he also went to church, he added: ‘This matter was decided by a court in the appropriate way and I think we should rest with the judgement that was made.’

Taken at face value, the Prime Minister seems to believe that expressing the view that homosexual acts are immoral is now unacceptable, even for Christians.

This view is consistent with his sacking of Tory candidate Philip Lardner last year for stating on his website that he believed homosexual acts were ‘not normal behaviour’, a view held by a significant section of the British population.

Tory MP Chris Grayling’s comments about Christians offering ‘bed and breakfast’ being justified in denying double beds to gay couples staying in their homes almost certainly cost him a cabinet post.

Theresa May managed to hold on as Equality Minister after the election, despite over 75,000 people joining a Facebook group asking for her to be sacked on the basis of her past ‘homophobic’ voting record, but only because she said her views on homosexuality had now changed.

It seems that it is no longer acceptable in the Tory party 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. (I discuss the matter of 'homophobia' elsewhere)

The fact that at least one of these incidents predated the formation of the coalition government suggests that David Cameron is personally committed to his views, and does not hold them simply in order to appease the Liberal Democrats.

But he is advocating a very strange form of tolerance.

Voltaire, the French philosopher, satirist, the embodiment of the 18th-century Enlightenment, is remembered as a crusader against tyranny and bigotry.

His teaching on tolerance is summed up by the quote, ‘I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it.’

David Cameron uses the word ‘tolerance’ but seems not to believe in the same sort of tolerance as Voltaire. When the Prime Minister says that Christians should be tolerant, he means that they should not express beliefs with which people like himself disagree.

By contrast, Voltaire sought to defend the right of his opponents to express views he strongly disagreed with, and saw this freedom as a bulwark against tyranny and bigotry.

David Cameron also seems to want to encourage Christians to teach that homosexual acts are not immoral.

Here he finds himself disagreeing not with Voltaire but with Jesus Christ himself. In speaking to the church of Thyatira in Revelation 2:18-29, Jesus, after commending them for their ‘deeds, love and faith, service and perseverance’ goes on to say: ‘Nevertheless, I have this against you: You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophet. By her teaching she misleads my servants into sexual immorality…’.

It seems that this 'Thyatiran' approach is exactly what David Cameron is advocating. But it is not a form of tolerance of which Jesus Christ himself approved.

Christian teaching is very clear that all sex outside the context of marriage (a lifelong, covenant relationship between a man and a woman) is morally wrong.

There are of course many sins other than sexual sins. But Christians should be free to believe and teach what the Bible itself teaches, without being castigated by a 'churchgoing' Prime Minister for doing so.

David Cameron, by his comments yesterday about homosexuality, demonstrates that he does not understand what true tolerance actually is.

Open letter to David Cameron about lack of transparency, bias and undue haste of RCOG abortion consultation

Dear David,

I am writing to express serious concern about the lack of transparency and undue haste surrounding the process by which the RCOG guideline ‘The care of women requesting induced abortion’ is currently being revised.

This RCOG guideline, which provides the basis for the ‘evidence-based counselling’ of women with crisis pregnancies was first published in 2000. An updated version followed in 2004 and that guideline served until this latest revision which took place during 2010.

This latest revision was prompted mainly by a recommendation of the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee which in 2007 had considered Scientific Developments relating to the Abortion Act 1967.

The latest revision (see draft) has been undertaken by a ‘multi-professional group’ which claims to be ‘supported by the Department of Health’. The group, as before, consists of representatives from the RCOG, the RCOG’s Faculty of Sexual and Reproductive Health (FSRH), the Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP),and the abortion industry (namely the two largest abortion providers BPAS and Marie Stopes International).

The issues covered in the guideline are deeply controversial, are frequently in the news and have been the subject of recent debate in both Houses when the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill was under consideration in 2008.

The draft guideline as it stands draws a number of conclusions about fetal awareness, conscientious objection and long-term health risks of abortion (especially with respect to pre-term birth, mental illness and breast cancer) which I believe are inaccurate or over-simplified and are open to serious challenge on the basis of clinical and other evidence.

It also appears from p8 of the draft guideline that the RCOG may be intending to use it to put pressure on the government to liberalise the abortion law by regulation as opposed to by statute with respect to ‘home abortion’. This was made doubly clear by statements made by the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS) following their court defeat over ‘home abortion’ on Monday and is the tenor of a recent article by Zoe Williams in the Guardian.

It is therefore imperative that we get this right and do not rush it.

I have four main concerns about the process of consultation:

1.The lack of time available for consultation

According to the RCOG the draft guideline was posted on the RCOG website on 21 January. The deadline for responses is tomorrow18 February, leaving just 20 working days for stakeholders to make submissions. Following an intervention from your government after a parliamentary question by Nadine Dorries MP the RCOG have now agreed to accept submissions up until 25 February.

My understanding, based on enquiries amongst fellow MPs, leaders of stakeholder organisations, members and fellows of the Royal College and writers and researchers whose work is referred to in the document itself, is that very few people apart from those with a close connection to the abortion industry were aware of the consultation or the current peer review process.

Most now have very little opportunity to make a meaningful response by the deadline. In order to challenge the conclusions of the guideline before they are set in stone stakeholders require more time.

The Government Code of Practice on Consultation gives seven criteria that should be reproduced in consultation documents.

The first four of these do not appear to have been followed in this case. Specifically:

1. Formal consultation should take place at a stage when there is scope to influence the policy outcome.
2. Consultations should normally last for at least 12 weeks with consideration given to longer timescales where feasible and sensible.
3. Consultation documents should be clear about the consultation process, what is being proposed, the scope to influence and the expected costs and benefits of the proposals.
4. Consultation exercises should be designed to be accessible to, and clearly targeted at, those people the exercise is intended to reach.

2.Lack of transparency in the consultation process

This consultation appears to have been conducted in a way that gives stakeholders and peer reviewers little or no opportunity to influence the outcome in any meaningful way and I note that BPAS, one of the groups represented in the drafting group is already quoting the guidelines in the national press in a way that implies they have been finalised.

It seems also that the peer review process has been largely conducted as an ‘inside job’ with those on the committee contacting colleagues who most likely share similar views and would support their conclusions.

I note from the draft document (p12) that members of the drafting group itself, along with the DH and RCOG, suggested peer reviewers to consult and that the draft was also posted on the RCOG website and comments invited from ‘any member or fellow’.

The RCOG has been asked the following questions but so far no answers have been forthcoming:

1.Which individuals and organisations were formally notified about the consultation and when and how were they notified?
2.Which individuals were suggested by the DH and RCOG as perr reviewers and how and when were they notified?
3.How and when were fellows and members of the RCOG notified about the consultation other than by the document being placed on the College website?

3.Failure to consult with the Royal College of Psychiatrists

The Royal College of Psychiatrists in their Position statement on women's mental health in relation to induced abortion (14 March 2008) has indicated that there are significant mental health consequences of abortion for some women and is currently carrying out a major review of the literature which I believe is due to be completed this Spring. The guideline pre-empts this.

The RCPSych have also called for other colleges and professional bodies to incorporate this evidence into any guidelines for women considering abortion. This appears to be ignored by the RCOG guideline which fails to mention much of the recent evidence in this area, makes no reference to the RCPsych review or position paper and places an overreliance on a highly criticised review from the American Psychological Association.

4. Unbalance of the committee

The committee which has put the guideline together seems to be considerably unbalanced containing a significant number of people who might be said to have ideological and financial interests in abortion.

Of the 18 members I understand that eleven are identifiable as ‘pro-choice’ – most notably the representatives from Marie Stopes International and BPAS - two are members of the Department of Health, four are difficult to categorise, and one is a celebrity media doctor. A significant number of them receive payment for their involvement in abortion provision. There is notably no one with qualifications in mental health and no one from any group working to restrict abortion.

Committee members are as follows:

Professor Anna Glasier FRCOG (Chair), University of Edinburgh, RCOG nominee
Ms Toni Belfield, RCOG Consumers‟ Forum representative
Dr Sharon Cameron MRCOG, University of Edinburgh, RCOG nominee
Ms Joanne Fletcher, Royal College of Nursing nominee
Dr Katharine A Guthrie FRCOG, Faculty of Sexual and Reproductive Health Care nominee
Dr Sarah Jarvis, Royal College of General Practitioners nominee
Dr Patricia Lohr, British Pregnancy Advisory Service nominee
Ms Fiona Loveless, Marie Stopes International nominee
Dr Tahir Mahmood FRCOG, ex Vice President Standards
Dr Susan Mann, University College London, RCOG nominee
Dr R Kristina A Naidoo MRCOG, St Mary‟s Hospital, Manchester, RCOG nominee
Mr Kamal N Ojha MRCOG, St George‟s Hospital, London, RCOG nominee
Dr Kate Paterson, St Mary‟s Hospital, London, RCOG nominee
Dr Alison Richardson, Torbay Hospital, Torquay, RCOG nominee
Ms Jackie Routledge, North Lancashire PCT
Professor Allan Templeton FRCOG, University of Aberdeen, RCOG nominee
Ms Claudette Thompson, Department of Health
Ms Lisa Westall, Department of Health

Conclusions

These issues of process – a rushed consultation, lack of transparency, lack of wide consultation and unbalanced committee are very serious indeed and potentially a matter of huge potential embarrassment to the government at a time when we are trying to restore faith in official and parliamentary processes.

I would urge you as Prime Minister to request that:

1.The consultation period is lengthened to twelve weeks in accordance with the Government Code of Practice.
2.All RCOG College members and stakeholder individuals and organisations to be formally notified and invited to respond.
3.A full review of the committee membership be carried out focussing on their ideological and financial vested interests in abortion and in particular how much money each earns from abortion provision and that this information be made public.
4.An explanation be given as to why the Royal College of Psychiatrists has not been consulted in this review process nor their position even documented.
5.An explanation be given as to why no members of any groups ideologically opposed to abortion are represented on the committee or formally consulted.
6.An enquiry be carried out about the role of the main abortion providers and recipients of taxpayers money in this process (BPAS and MSI)
7.A full explanation be required form the RCOG with answers to the three questions posed under my second point above.

I would reiterate that I am most concerned about the lack of transparency in this consultation process and urge you to take steps to ensure that this clinical guideline undergoes proper peer review and that all stakeholders have an opportunity to contribute to the consultation.

I look forward to hearing from you at your very earliest convenience.

Yours sincerely

Peter Saunders

Home Secretary Theresa May under pressure to apologise to Dr Hans-Christian Raabe after embarrassing disclosure

The Home Secretary Theresa May (pictured) is coming under pressure from a variety of sources to offer an apology to Dr Hans-Christian Raabe.

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

As I reported in my last blog there are actually a significant number of articles in peer-reviewed journals supporting Dr Raabe’s view and one of these papers was even cited approvingly in a Home Office document in 1998.

In other words Dr Raabe was sacked from the ACMD by the Home Office for expressing a view that the Home Office has itself expressed.

In yesterday’s Mail on Sunday columnist Peter Hitchens launched an attack on the Home Office, citing the sacking as an example of ‘a militant and highly intolerant political correctness’ that is being expressed ‘from Downing Street downwards’.

He asked Home Office Minister James Brokenshire, the MP directly responsible for the sacking, why ‘being controversial’ was a sackable offence and exposed the hypocrisy of the dismissal in the starkest terms.

‘Who said these words? ‘Approximately 20 to 33 per cent of child sexual abuse is homosexual in nature.’ I will tell you. It was the Home Office, on Page 14 of Sex Offending Against Children: Understanding The Risk, published by the Policing and Reducing Crime Unit in 1998. I have a copy.

For saying roughly the same thing, Dr Hans-Christian Raabe has just been sacked – by the Home Office – from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD). That’s right. He has been sacked from a body to do with drugs, for having unfashionable views about sex, views that the Home Office has itself espoused.

Hitchens also accused the government of caving in under pressure:

…a campaign to remove Dr Raabe, boosted by anonymous misty threats of resignations from the ACMD, roared rapidly into action. And… preferring political correctness to an honest, decent doctor worth dozens of any of them, this Government swiftly bowed to that campaign.

I note that the two people originally bringing Dr Raabe’s views to light – BBC Home Affairs Editor Mark Easton and former Liberal Democrat MP Evan Harris – have both now also criticised the Home Office for the sacking - in spite of playing a major role in fuelling the witch-hunt which led to it (for an account of the latter see Vlad's blog).

Dr Harris said: ‘No adviser should be dismissed purely for holding and expressing entirely lawful views on another subject, no matter how objectionable.’

And last week Mr Easton said: ‘You cannot simply sack somebody appointed to a government advisory body because he/she has strong religious views that are irrelevant to the job in hand. That would seem to be discriminatory.’

According to the Independent on Sunday Dr Raabe has said that he is considering taking legal action against the Home Office unless he receives an apology.

Adding to the furore, anti-drugs campaigners have called on the Home Secretary, Theresa May, to apologise for ‘an unjustifiable personal and professional attack by her ministry’.

David Raynes, from the National Drug Prevention Alliance, described Dr Raabe’s sacking as ‘a vicious and personal witch hunt orchestrated by pro-drugs campaigners’ and said ‘there remains a cabal of people on the committee who are sympathetic to the legalisation of all drugs. It can ill afford to lose people who act as a balance against this view’.

I previously expressed concern about the way four Conservative candidates were treated by the party leadership during the 2010 general election for expressing or holding views on homosexuality which, although shared by a significant number of British people, were, to a greater or lesser extent, out of harmony with current Conservative Party policy.

This latest incident gives further credence to the concern that those in public office are only now tolerated if they tow the line on this controversial issue – regardless of their personal convictions, religious beliefs or interpretation of the available scientific evidence – even if the views they hold have been previously endorsed by the Home Office itself.

This debate will not go away. I see that Melanie Phillips today in a piece on the government proposal to allow gay couples to marry in churches, makes further reference to Dr Raabe's case and highlights growing concerns about the present goverment pushing its new equalities agenda.

She concludes that 'the so-called "culture war" now raging between those determined to destroy Western moral codes and those struggling to defend them is simply the most urgent domestic issue we face' and identifies the impetus for these developments as coming from the Prime Minister himself.

Pinch yourself — a Conservative Prime Minister effectively endorsing the idea that upholding Biblical morality and the bedrock values of Western civilisation is bigotry. He may be a Conservative, but he is no conservative. True conservatives seek to conserve what is most precious in a society and defend it against those who would destroy it.

David Cameron needs the Christian churches to help him realise his vision of a 'big society' where citizens take on welfare roles the governmnet is no longer able or willing to finance. But at the same time he risks shooting himself in the foot by backing the extreme agenda of a strident minority within the gay rights movement.

He is of course entitled to own personal convictions. But he must not allow these convictions to become politicised to the extent that he ends up marginalising and demonising those who hold different views.

There are many people in Britain who take the traditional view that the only context for sex is a lifelong committed relationship bewteen a man and a woman - marriage. They also believe that the new orthodoxy backed by David Cameron and others is more 'ideology-driven' than 'evidence-based'.

These people are not 'homophobic' - they neither fear nor dislike those who choose a homosexual lifestyle. They simply do not share the extreme LGBT lobby's world-view or presuppositions. If you like, they are homosceptic.

In a democratic and multicultural society such people should be free to hold, express and act in accordance with their beliefs and convictions rather than being pushed out of public life. And David Cameron, in pursing his 'muscular liberalism', should attempt to embrace them rather than exclude them.

In sacking Dr Raabe, the Home Office has demonstrated intolerance, cowardice, ignorance and an unwillingness to investigate complaints properly.

A Christian GP has been sacked as a government drugs adviser after it emerged he wrote a study linking homosexuality to paedophilia.

Dr Hans-Christian Raabe, of Manchester, was appointed to the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) less than a month ago.

The Home Office confirmed that Dr Raabe (pictured), who was appointed to the ACMD by James Brokenshire, drugs minister, had been dismissed and would not continue with the unpaid, three-year post. Recruitment for a new adviser will apparently begin shortly.

Sources said he had been sacked after not ‘disclosing’ a paper he had written, which had linked homosexuality to child sex offences, during interviews for the role.

The campaign to remove Dr Raabe gained considerable momentum after former Liberal Democrat MP Evan Harris blogged about his past publications, BBC home editor Mark Easton highlighted the case and the British Medical Journal ran an article titled ‘New appointment of evangelical Christian to advisory body sparks controversy’. The latter has provoked some interesting responses.

When journalist Melanie Philips wrote in his defence she was allegedly subjected to death threats.

Hans-Christian Raabe has said his dismissal came as a result of his views ‘completely unrelated to drug policy’ and has added: ‘I have been discriminated against because of my opinions and beliefs, which are in keeping with the teaching of the major churches.’

Others, however, have claimed that he was dismissed not for his religious views but for making claims that are at odds with the scientific evidence.

Bridget Phillipson, a Labour member of the Commons Home Affairs Select Committee, said it was an ‘absolute outrage’ the government had appointed ‘someone with such horrific opinions to this senior role’.

It seems that the specific comments for which Dr Raabe is being criticized appeared in a paper titled ‘Gay Marriage And Homosexuality: Some Medical Comments’ which he co-authored in February 2005.

It contains the statement: ‘Any attempts to legalise gay marriage should be aware of the link between homosexuality and paedophilia. While the majority of homosexuals are not involved in paedophilia, it is of grave concern that there is a disproportionately greater number of homosexuals among paedophiles and an overlap between the gay movement and the movement to make paedophilia acceptable.’

What I find particularly bizarre about this whole incident is that people with apparently no knowledge at all of the subject under debate, let alone expert knowledge, feel qualified to express strong opinions about Dr Raabe’s character and scientific expertise.

I do not pretend to be an expert in this area myself - far from it - but a brief search of the medical literature will confirm that there certainly have been papers published in peer-reviewed scientific journals which report an association between homosexuality and paedophilia and which also consider that this is an issue worthy of investigation and not off-limits to scientific enquiry.

The papers Dr Raabe quotes were written by Freund, who, though careful to point out that his first study should not be interpreted as indicating that gay men are more likely to be paedophiles, none the less concludes: 'homosexual development notably does not result in androphilia but in homosexual paedophilia' (1) Freund's data in a second paper also show that a) around 80% of the victims of paedophilia are boys molested by adult males and b) although most gay men are not paedophiles, 35% of paedophiles are homosexual whilst only 2% of adult men overall are homosexual.(2,3)

Even more interesting is a study by Bradford et al. Rather ironically an official Home Office document published in 1998 (5) quotes this (2nd para, p14) approvingly as follows: 'Bradford et al. (1988) suggested reasonably that approximately 20 to 33% of child sexual abuse is homosexual in nature and about 10% mixed.'

So let's get this right. The Home Office has sacked Dr Raabe for saying what a Home Office document says.

Given that official figures released last year showed only one per cent of the population is homosexual, it is not surprising that supporters of Dr Raabe say same-sex child abuse is significantly over-represented.

So was Dr Raabe sacked for disclosing an inconvenient truth that was totally irrelevant to his appointment? The answer appears to be yes. His concerns were not directed at the majority of the homosexual population but a small, highly dangerous and criminal portion of them.

I have not read any of these studies, and am therefore not in a position to comment on their scientific rigour. I simply want to make the point that such studies most certainly do exist.

These findings are as one might expect disputed by other authors – and the matter is understandably a contentious one – but I notice 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.’(6)

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 bowing to political pressure on this matter the Home Office has demonstrated intolerance, ignorance, cowardice and an unwillingness to investigate complaints properly.

1.Freund K, Watson RI. The proportions of heterosexual and homosexual paedophiles among sex offenders against children. J Sex Mar Ther 1992;18:34-43

2.Freund K et al. Paedophilia and heterosexuality vs homosexuality. J Sex Mar Ther 1984;10:193-200

3.Blanchard R et al. Fraternal birth order and sexual orientation in pedophiles. Archives of Sexual Behavior 2000; 29: 463-78

4. Bradford JMW, Bloomberg D, and Bourget D. (1988)The heterogeneity/homogeneity of pedophilia. Psychiatric Journal of the University of Ottawa 1988; 13: 217-226.

5. Grubin D. Sex offending against children: Understanding the risk. Police Research Series. Paper 99. Home Office, 1998.

6.Hughes JR. Review of Medical Reports on Pedophilia. Clinical Pediatrics 2007; 46(8)

Former Lord Chancellor misrepresents law on assisted suicide in national newspaper

Yesterday the Care Not Killing Alliance wrote to Lord Falconer, the former Lord Chancellor (pictured), saying that we were declining his invitation to give evidence to his new Commission on Assisted Dying on the grounds that the commission was unnecessary, unbalanced and seriously lacking in transparency.

Foremost amongst these concerns was the fact that the vast majority of the members of Lord Falconer’s commission were well-known figures in the pro-legalisation lobby.

Amongst the eleven people initially invited to give evidence to the commission I understand that at least four others, apart from me (including Telegraph columnist George Pitcher), have also now declined.

Yesterday Lord Falconer launched his commission via the Times newspaper, with an article and video, and in so doing made some rather astonishing statements about the law as it currently stands.

Under the Suicide Act 1961, encouraging or assisting a suicide is a criminal offence carrying a custodial sentence of up to 14 years. But the law gives the Director of Public Prosecutions some discretion in deciding whether or not to prosecute in any given case. He must be satisfied both that there is enough evidence to bring a prosecution and also that it is in the public interest to do so.

The DPP was required by the Law Lords, in their judgement on the Debbie Purdy case, to publish his ‘public interest’ criteria and did so, after a public consultation, in February 2010.

These criteria are freely available on the Crown Prosecution Service Website. There are 16 criteria making prosecution more likely and 6 criteria making prosecution less likely.

They come into play only after it has been established that there is enough evidence to bring a prosecution.

In his video on the Times website (you will need a subscription to listen) Lord Falconer summarised the Director of Public Prosecutions’ policy on assisted suicide as follows (from 0.36-1.03):

‘The Director of Public Prosecutions, who is the chief prosecutor in this country, has laid out guidelines setting out when he will prosecute and when he will not prosecute. In summary, he won’t prosecute if somebody’s terminally ill or suffering from a severe disability which is incurable, if in sound mind they’ve decided they want to kill themselves and the person who helps them is doing it from the very best motives.’

In the article accompanying the video he describes it slightly differently:

‘The DPP’s guidelines specify that where someone is terminally ill or suffering from a serious and irreversible disability, then if the decision to commit suicide is made freely by him or her, and the assister is driven by good, loving motives, he will not normally prosecute. Eligibility is restricted only to those who are over 18, who have a settled intention to die and who are aided by someone who is motivated by compassion and not a healthcare professional.’

Lord Falconer’s oral and written statements above quite seriously misrepresent the DPP’s guidelines in two important respects.

First, he says in the video that the DPP’s criteria indicate ‘when he will prosecute and when he will not prosecute’. They actually do nothing of the sort as the DPP was at great pains to point out. The presence, or absence, of the various factors simply makes it more or less likely that a prosecution will be brought. Not only that, but each case must be decided on its own facts. For the DPP to make a rule of any of the factors would be ‘fettering his discretion’, which is unlawful.

Second, and more seriously, Lord Falconer includes ‘terminal illness or serious disability’ in the victim as factors making prosecution less likely. This is simply not true. The physical condition of the victim is irrelevant. In fact these criteria were removed from an earlier draft of the guidance as it was felt that they discriminated against sick and disabled people by removing legal protection from them.

Why might Lord Falconer, a former Lord Chancellor (a member of the Cabinet responsible for the efficient functioning and independence of the courts), misrepresent the law in this matter?

The first possibility is that he is simply not familiar with the DPP's prosecution criteria. If so, that would be rather astonishing, as surely an understanding of the intricacies of the law in this area, one would think, would be essential if one was to chair a commission examining that law. That would be, at very least, rather embarrassing.

The second possibility is that he is familiar with the criteria, but for some reason is deliberately misrepresenting them. That, of course, would be much more serious.

The Commission’s first evidence session took place today. We are told that ‘the meeting explored the current medical and legal landscape shaping people’s experiences of dying in the UK today’.

Amongst the witnesses, interestingly, was the DPP Keir Starmer.

We are told that full transcripts and a recording of the evidence will be published on the commission’s website as soon as they are available. It will be interesting to see whether the DPP was able, in giving his own evidence, to correct the former Lord Chancellor’s apparent misunderstanding of the very law that is the subject of his enquiry.

Margo Macdonald’s criticisms of the Care Not Killing Alliance are without foundation

In the two hour debate that immediately preceded the overwhelming 85-16 defeat of her End of Life assistance (Scotland) Bill in the Holyrood Parliament last Wednesday, Margo Macdonald MSP spent almost her entire opening and closing speeches launching a scathing attack on the Care Not Killing Alliance (CNK).

In statements that were widely reported by the media, she condemned CNK’s campaign as ‘cheap and unworthy’, its literature as ‘tacky’ and said that she wanted to get her ‘retaliation’ in first’.

Care Not Killing is actually a broad alliance of over 40 organisations including human rights groups, faith groups, professional groups, disabled peoples organisations. It was founded in 2006 to oppose Lord Joffe’s Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill’ which was defeated in the House of Lords on 12 May that year.

CNK’s two aims are to promote good palliative care and to oppose any weakening of the law to allow assisted suicide or euthanasia. Operating as a cobelligerent coalition it has been extremely effective.

CNK has been engaged at every stage in the debate surrounding Margo Macdonald’s Bill. It produced a detailed briefing paper and written submission for the committee scrutinising the bill and was invited also to give oral evidence. Later it coordinated a campaign encouraging ordinary Scots to write to their MSPs and send postcards outlining objections to the bill.

In this way CNK placed an active part along with many other individuals and organisations in the democratic process that ultimately led to the bill’s heavy defeat.

But we need to remember that CNK’s submission was just one of 601 written submissions sent to the committee and that 86% of all submissions opposed the bill with only 6% in favour. We also need to remember that five out of the six MSPs on the committee recommended that the bill be rejected at the first stage debate.

We need to give MSPs the credit they deserve. They decided to reject the bill after an exhaustive democratic process during which both sides were given ample opportunity to present their arguments and after an objective, dispassionate review of the issues.

Margo Macdonald’s bill was rejected because it was judged by MSPs overwhelmingly to constitute a real danger to vulnerable people.

CNK outlines the failings of the bill on its website and I would recommend this concise analysis to anyone wanting to see quickly what its deficiencies are:

I leave the final words to Gordon Macdonald, CNK Scotland’s Policy Officer, who has formally responded to Margo Macdonald’s criticisms in a letter to the Herald.

You report Margo MacDonald’s condemnation of Care Not Killing (CNK) for our campaign against her Bill. In particular she seems to object to our response cards, which enabled people to express their opposition to her proposals.

We did not misrepresent the proposals in her Bill. Indeed, many of our criticisms of the Bill were shared by the parliamentary committee that considered the matter. Euthanasia and assisted suicide are highly charged and emotive issues. It is no surprise our campaign should provoke such a vehement reaction.

Ms MacDonald cannot dismiss the 21,000 people who responded to her Bill, using material provided by CNK, to indicate their opposition to her proposals. Of the 601 written responses to the parliamentary committee, some 86% were opposed to her Bill.

Ms MacDonald quotes opinion polls when they support her Bill, but cries foul when those who are opposed to her Bill express their opinion in substantial numbers. This is democratic politics in action and Ms MacDonald has to accept there is also a substantial and considered public and political opposition to her proposals.

The vast majority of MSPs considered her proposals and concluded that they should not be supported.

The vast majority of the members of Lord Falconer’s new commission on assisted dying are well-known names in the pro-legalisation lobby

Today I went by invitation to the launch of Lord Falconer’s Commission on ‘Assisted Dying’ at the London headquarters of think-tank Demos.

He confirmed that the commission has been set up with funding provided by Bernard Lewis and celebrity novelist Terry Pratchett (pictured), a Patron of Dignity in Dying and advocate of legalizing assisted suicide for people with dementia. He also confirmed that Dignity in Dying itself (formerly the Voluntary Euthanasia Society) had made the arrangements for its formation.

He insisted however that his inquiry into assisted dying in the UK would be ‘an objective, dispassionate and authoritative analysis of the issues’.

The aims of the commission are to consider ‘what system, if any, should exist to allow people to be helped to die and whether changes in the law should be introduced’. He confirmed at the meeting, in answer to a question, that the commission would deal only with assisted suicide and not with euthanasia.

In an attempt to answer critics (including me) who have raised concerns over the commission's transparency, independence and objectivity, he said: ‘We will evaluate all the evidence we hear on a fair basis, judge us at the end by the quality of our report.’

Today we learnt the names of all twelve members of the commission. It was no surprise to learn that the majority (nine) are known already by those who work in this field to support a change in the law to allow assisted suicide. Most have actively worked towards this end in the past. None of the remaining three are known to oppose it.

I asked the Demos Director about how the members of the commission were selected and she confirmed that they had been effectively handpicked by Lord Falconer himself. She didn't go as far as saying they had been interviewed by DID CEO Sarah Wootton and Terry Pratchett himself (and I didn't ask), but that might be a good line of questioning for journalists.

Falconer has included people who are prominent in their respective professions and have impressive sounding titles that bring a degree of gravitas to the proceedings but he has kept very quiet about their personal views. This will effectively fool most casual observers and media people not that familiar with the broader cast in this whole debate.

He has, for the same reason, avoided using any of DID's official patrons, seemingly in order to create the impression that this is a group of 'independent' people not linked with DID (when in fact most of them are), or who at very least, in the main, share Falconer's own views.

So who are the twelve members of this grand jury?

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 will chair 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 recently made her own support for legalisation very clear.

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 - and judging by the current accessibility of its website, may not be doing that much at present. 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.

Earlier this year 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.

Sir Graeme Catto, former President of the General Medical Council, recently spoke in support of the new organisation seeking to promote the legalisation of ‘assisted dying’, Health Professionals for Change.

So who does that leave? Just three whose views we (or at least I) do not already know but may be able to guess: Dame Denise Platt, Member of the Committee on Standards in Public Life; Celia Grandison-Markey, 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.

Any information of any of these would incidentally be most welcome.

So is this an independent committee? I think not! In fact I am astounded that Demos, which is to act as secretariat, providing administrative and research support, has agreed to work with such an unbalanced group.

But I suspect that like most of the British Public, Demos was simply not aware of where these illustrious people’s personal convictions lay.

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.

Further disclosures about Lord Falconer’s Commission on Assisted Dying raise more questions about transparency and independence

The Commission on 'Assisted Dying', due to be launched on Tuesday 30 November, has attracted some more attention in the press today and we are given additional information about the identities of some of the members of Lord Falconer’s ‘independent’ panel.

The Observer has today run a piece with the intriguing title ‘Assisted Suicide Law to be reviewed by Lords’. This creates the misleading impression that this commission is somehow part of the parliamentary process when it is nothing of the sort.

Instead, as we have already learnt, it is a privately organised enquiry which was the idea of campaign group ‘Dignity in Dying’ (formerly the Voluntary Euthanasia Society) and is being funded by celebrity novelist Terry Pratchett (who like Baroness Warnock backs legalising assisted suicide for people with Alzheimer’s disease).

It is true that the Commission intends to publish a report in October 2011 which it hopes will be discussed in Parliament but we need to be clear that the pro-euthanasia lobby has decided to take this ‘independent’ route because their attempts to legalise assisted suicide through the standard parliamentary processes have failed by large margins at the last two attempts (148-100 and 194-141 in the House of Lords in 2006 and 2009 respectively).

So what do we know thus far of those involved?

As noted previously, Lord Falconer, who attempted to amend the Coroners and Justice Bill in 2009 to decriminalise taking 'loved ones' to Zurich so that they could end their lives at Ludwig Minelli’s suicide facility, will chair the commission.

Another member of this 12-person ‘independent’ team is revealed today to be Penny Mordaunt MP (pictured), who ten days ago laid her cards on the table as a supporter of so-called ‘assisted dying’.

Further members include Baroness Barbara Young, the former chair of the government's health watchdog, Canon James Woodward of St George's Chapel, Windsor and Stephen Duckworth, who has campaigned on disability issues.

Baroness Young of Old Scone supported Lord Falconer’s move to decriminalise assisting with suicide in 2009 and also spoke in support of Lord Joffe's Bill in 2006. So the two ‘Lords’ on the panel who are to review the law are both already committed to legalisation.

Stephen Duckworth also supports 'assisted dying' according to a statement on the DID website and seems to have no link with any of the main disability rights organisations who oppose any change in the law such as RADAR, Not Dead Yet, UKDPC, NCIL or SCOPE.

We wait with interest to see who the other seven members are but it will be even more interesting to learn how they were selected. Were they nominated or appointed and if so by whom? Did they apply to be included and if so how did they learn about the commission’s existence and what was the selection process? Was there an interview? If so who was on the panel and how ‘independent’ were they?

I do hope that on Tuesday, when the commission is launched there will be full transparency on these questions along with full disclosure about the commission’s funding and any possible financial and ideological vested interests of those selected.

I was interested to read today in the Observer that Lord Falconer felt his 2009 amendment failed because it didn’t contain enough safeguards against abuse. It would be interesting to hear from him more specifically about which safeguards he felt were inadequate and why.

Lord Joffe’s ‘Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill’ also failed on grounds of inadequate safeguards and serious questions have been raised about whether the key safeguards currently being campaigned by Dignity in Dying are adequate (ie. ‘mentally competent’, ‘terminally ill’, ‘persistent well-informed voluntary request’, ‘suffering unbearably’). In fact whereas Joffe used a definition of 'six months to live' for 'terminally ill', Sarah Wootton, the Chief Executive of Dignity Dying, extends this to twelve months.

Baroness Young's comment on Joffe's Bill in 2006, when she supported it in her speech, is most enlightening in this context. She said, 'The Bill is a very carefully crafted set of proposals. I very much admire the thoughtful way in which the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, has conducted the drafting and his commitment to amend it to best meet the widest possible range of views. It contains multiple safeguards against misuse. It deserves our and, indeed, the Government's support.'

I note that Health Professionals for Change spokesperson Ray Tallis was heavily defeated in a debate on assisted suicide this last week in Liverpool by Lord Alton who simply outlined the deficiencies in so-called safeguards mentioned to date.

I see also that Baroness Finlay, Professor of Palliative Medicine in Cardiff, has now joined John Pring and George Pitcher in expressing misgivings about the independent nature of the commission. She says, ‘I have been told by someone close to this that they are not looking at whether (to legalise ‘assisted dying) but how. It can't be independent?’

I wonder who the ‘someone close to this’ was and what else they said. There are lots of interesting leads here for enquiring journalists to chase.

It’s going to be a fascinating week.

Christine MCafferty hoist on her own petard – full text of amended resolution on right to conscientious objection in lawful medical care

I recently blogged on the Council of Europe’s 7 October decision to throw out a resolution (see original wording) seeking to force health professionals across Europe to be involved in abortion.

As a result of the humiliating defeat of pro-abortion activists the resolution actually passed was ironically one of strongest defences of conscientious objection in European history.

Whilst Council of Europe resolutions are not legally binding, they nonetheless can be used to exert strong influence on national laws and have a bearing on rulings of the European Court of Human Rights. Had the original resolution been passed it would have led to pressure being placed on the 47 member European countries to change their laws in this area.

Instead, former Labour MP Christine McCafferty (pictured) and those who supported her were ‘hoist on (their) own petard’

The full text of the amended resolution reads as follows:

The right to conscientious objection in lawful medical care

Resolution 1763 (2010) [1]

1.No person, hospital or institution shall be coerced, held liable or discriminated against in any manner because of a refusal to perform, accommodate, assist or submit to an abortion, the performance of a human miscarriage, or euthanasia or any act which could cause the death of a human foetus or embryo, for any reason.

2.The Parliamentary Assembly emphasises the need to affirm the right of conscientious objection together with the responsibility of the state to ensure that patients are able to access lawful medical care in a timely manner. The Assembly is concerned that the unregulated use of conscientious objection may disproportionately affect women, notably those having low incomes or living in rural areas.

3.In the vast majority of Council of Europe member states, the practice of conscientious objection is adequately regulated. There is a comprehensive and clear legal and policy framework governing the practice of conscientious objection by healthcare providers ensuring that the interests and rights of individuals seeking legal medical services are respected, protected and fulfilled.

4.In view of member states' obligation to ensure access to lawful medical care and to protect the right to health, as well as the obligation to ensure respect for the right of freedom of thought, conscience and religion of healthcare providers, the Assembly invites Council of Europe member states to develop comprehensive and clear regulations that define and regulate conscientious objection with regard to health and medical services, which:

4.1.guarantee the right to conscientious objection in relation to participation in the procedure in question;

4.2.ensure that patients are informed of any objection in a timely manner and referred to another healthcare provider;
4.3.ensure that patients receive appropriate treatment, in particular in cases of emergency.

[1] Assembly debate on 7 October 2010 (35th Sitting) (see Doc. 12347, report of the Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee, rapporteur: Mrs McCafferty, and Doc. 12389, opinion of the Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men, rapporteur: Mrs Circene). Text adopted by the Assembly on 7 October 2010 (35th Sitting).

Dog bloggers, MPs expenses, abandoned wheelchairs and an Old Testament prophet

The Cambridgeshire police recently failed to respond to a 999 call about a teenager who was being beaten up with a baseball bat – allegedly because they were short-staffed. But they could still afford to maintain a German Shepherd puppy called Lukas who writes a blog.

Judge Sean Enright said the police response ‘smacked of indifference’. And Matthew Elliott, chief executive of the Taxpayers’ Alliance, commented that: ‘Policing isn’t about PR and fancy websites. It’s about keeping people safe and reassuring the public that crime is being dealt with firmly and strongly.’

Prime Minister Gordon Brown, commenting on the four MPs today charged with theft over parliamentary expenses said he was ‘very angry about what has happened…These are very serious criminal allegations. All criminal allegations have got to be investigated. It’s a matter now for the courts.’

Two views on policing and the courts with which I concur: police are there to ensure public safety and reassure the public that crime is being dealt with firmly and strongly; and the courts are there to investigate all serious criminal investigations.

And yet when it comes to the serious crime of assisting with suicide it seems that the police and the courts have a different view. There have been 134 cases of people now taking ‘loved ones’ to the Dignitas facility in Switzerland to end their lives. Virtually all have been ‘assisted’ but only around ten cases have been investigated and in only two was there apparently enough evidence to bring a prosecution. But in both of the latter no prosecution was brought because it was felt ‘not to be in the public interest’.

The draft DPP prosecution guidelines (soon to be finalised) tell us why. They stipulate that if the ‘victim’ of assisted suicide is terminally or chronically ill or disabled or if the ‘assister’ is a spouse or close relative acting ‘compassionately’ then prosecution is unlikely.

And yet the vast majority of terminally and chronically ill or disabled people do not want to die – instead they want good care and help to live as independently as possible. Furthermore their rates of suicide are not significantly higher than those of the general population. So why should we remove legal protection from them and not others? And why should we exempt ‘loved ones’ from investigation ahead of time when in fact many cases of financial, emotional and physical abuse of elderly and disabled people happen in the context of so-called ‘loving families’. That seems both discriminatory and naïve.

I suspect it has something to do with the value our society gives to vulnerable people and the fact that we live in an increasingly materialistic culture where assisted suicide is seen simply, as Terry Pratchett has demonstrated this week, as just another celebrity endorsed life-style choice.

I was struck today by the story of the disabled fundraiser who was abandoned by ‘friends’ for three hours in his wheelchair on an exposed plateau on Mt Snowdon. He was eventually saved when rescue workers reached him and brought him down. Presumably he had become an encumbrance in their attempt to reach the summit.

The danger of changing the law to allow assisted suicide for vulnerable people is simply that we then will more easily view them as encumbrances holding us back from reaching our financial and life-style goals; and may therefore try less hard to persuade them that they are not a ‘burden’ and that their lives are genuinely worth living – making it in turn more likely that they will ‘choose' the decent thing.

The prophet Ezekiel condemned those in Jerusalem for being ‘arrogant, overfed and unconcerned’ and thereby distracted from attending to the needs of others. Like the Cambridge police and their blogging dog; or the ambitious climbers pushing for the summit. I wonder what he might have said about us today?

Margo MacDonald MSP is seriously misleading the Scottish People and Parliament

Margo MacDonald claims that about 50 Scots a year would die if her ‘end of life assistance’ bill were to be enacted.

She makes this remarkable claim on the basis that experience in the few countries where assisted death has been legalised shows that it accounts for only one in every 2,000’ deaths - though, interestingly, she names no specific country or source. The facts tell a very different story.

A select committee of the Westminster Parliament investigated the death rate from euthanasia and assisted suicide in Oregon and The Netherlands as part of its examination of Lord Joffe’s Assisted Dying Bill.

It found that, in the US State of Oregon, where physician assisted-suicide (but not euthanasia) is legal for the terminally ill only, the rate was 1 in 714 deaths. Given that there are some 55,000 deaths a year in Scotland, we might expect therefore about 80 deaths a year with an Oregon-type law. In fact, deaths from assisted suicide have risen steadily in Oregon since the law there was enacted 13 years ago. By 2008, the number of Oregonians who were committing suicide every year with drugs legally supplied by their doctors had risen nearly fourfold!

More important, however, Ms MacDonald’s proposed law, like that in The Netherlands, allows both assisted suicide and euthanasia and it would license the practice not only for the terminally ill but for anyone who is ‘permanently physically incapacitated to such an extent as not to be able to live independently’ and who ‘finds life intolerable’.

In The Netherlands the select committee assessed that one in every 38 deaths was the result of legislation similar to what Ms MacDonald is now proposing. This would translate into nearly 1,500 deaths of Scots every year. All this information is publicly available in the 2005 report of the House of Lords select committee, whose in-depth investigation of 'assisted dying' heard from nearly 150 expert witnesses in four countries.

Ms MacDonald's estimates, which are wide of the mark by a factor of 30 – or 3,000 percent, are seriously misleading. The Scottish public and Parliament would be well advised to approach her bill with great caution and in knowledge of the facts rather than the spin.

The government needs to invest more in cord blood

More than two years ago CMF welcomed a new bill which encouraged the donation at childbirth of umbilical cord blood and its storage for public use. It also called on the government to invest more actively in developing the NHS cord stem cell bank.

MP David Burrowes' Umbilical Cord Blood (Donation) Bill aimed to increase awareness of the value of umbilical cord blood in treating diseases and to promote further research for new treatment methods using cord blood stem cells. The Bill required doctors to inform all parents of the benefits of collection and storage of cord blood, and sought to promote collection from specific shortage groups, such as minority ones including mixed race families and families where there was a history of cord blood treatable diseases.

Sadly the bill was not granted parliamentary time to progress. The government instead was at the time pursuing its agenda of cytoplasmic animal human hybrid (cybrid) research through the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill – a bill that is now law. Very shortly after this bill was passed new research suggested that this avenue of research was very unlikely ever to be successful – and at the time I predicted animal human hybrid research would become a ‘farcical footnote in history’.

Today scientists reported exciting new developments suggesting that cord blood may well hold the answer for people with leukemia requiring bone marrow transplants and quite possibly also for those suffering from other similar diseases. The BBC website carried the story of Natalie Salama-Levy who is unable to donate cord blood from her baby due at the Royal Free Hospital in London next month because the hospital lacks the facilities to collect and store it. Ironically Natalie's husband Lionel is the chair of 'The cord blood charity’ and was inspired to become involved following the death of a close friend from leukaemia.

In 2008 only three NHS hospitals were collecting cord blood. It seems that the situation has not improved much since. Cord blood has already cured around 10,000 people around the world, but despite this our own UK cord blood banking facilities are woefully behind the times. We should instead be making this simple and uncontroversial technology much more readily accessible.

The Anthony Nolan Trust said today that 50,000 cord bloods would meet the UK's need for transplant and research purposes but the NHS has collected only 13,000 cords over 13 years and of these only 279 have been suitable for transplant.

In 2006 the number of live births in England and Wales reached 669,601 compared with 645,835 in 2005. The number of live births has been increasing every year since 2001. If the government had been more active in encouraging the storage of cord blood in the last five years, rather than over-hyping hopes about hybrid embryonic stem cells, we could potentially have had millions of samples of stem cells banked for treatment by now. Instead they intend to invest only £10 million to increase the size of the bank to 20,000 stored units by 2013.