A converted abortionist speaks from beyond the grave about guilt, faith and tactics

Bernard Nathanson, who died last February, was an American medical doctor from New York who helped to found the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws, but later became a pro-life activist.

His book ‘the Hand of God’ is the subject of a review in this week’s British Medical Journal, by Trevor Stammers, programme director in bioethics and medical law at St Mary’s University College, London

Stammers introduces Nathanson as ‘the only US abortionist to have changed his mind and faced national vilification twice over—initially for advocating abortion in the ‘60s and subsequently for campaigning against it, culminating in his widely available 1984 documentary The Silent Scream.’

He describes how Nathanson ‘found the tensions of the “moral whipsaw” of both aborting and delivering babies were becoming intolerable’ and later ‘became seized by “an unremitting black despair”’ which led eventually to his Christian conversion'.

I will leave you to read the review for yourself but I was interested also to find Nathanson’s ‘confession’ on line which gives insights into how he and others worked to legalise and popularise abortion in the United States:

‘I am personally responsible for 75,000 abortions. This legitimises my credentials to speak to you with some authority on the issue. I was one of the founders of the National Association for the Repeal of the Abortion Laws (NARAL) in the U.S. in 1968. A truthful poll of opinion then would have found that most Americans were against permissive abortion. Yet within five years we had convinced the U.S. Supreme Court to issue the decision which legalised abortion throughout America in 1973 and produced virtual abortion on demand up to birth. How did we do this? It is important to understand the tactics involved because these tactics have been used throughout the western world with one permutation or another, in order to change abortion law.’

What were these tactics? Essentially three:

1.Lie to the media about the true number of illegal abortions
2.Pretend that all opposition was Catholic
3.Denigrate and suppress all scientific evidence that life begins at conception

For more detail see Nathanson’s confession.

General Medical Council considers changes to its guidance that could further restrict faith discussions

Pulse magazine reported last week that the General Medical Council is planning to ‘harden’ its guidance on religion in practice.

The document Good Medical Practice (2006) is the core guidance to doctors and describes what is expected of all doctors registered with the GMC. Although the guidance is addressed to doctors, it is also intended to let the public know what they can expect from their doctors.

The GMC says that it is reviewing Good Medical Practice ‘to make sure it is up to date and fit for its many purposes’.

A formal consultation will be launched later this month and will lead to publication of a new edition of the guidance in 2012.

The new draft guidance has added a duty for GPs to consider ‘patients' religious, spiritual and cultural history' when assessing patients.

The regulator also plans to tighten up anti-discrimination guidance on doctors expressing personal views, including religious beliefs, in consultations.

Its previous guidance had stated: ‘You must not unfairly discriminate by allowing your personal views to affect adversely your professional relationship with patients.' Its new version removes the word ‘adversely', requiring GPs to challenge their colleagues' behaviour if there is any effect to the professional relationship.

Once ‘Good Medical Practice’ has been modified it is expected that the GMC will then move to modify its supplementary guidance ‘Personal Belief and Medical Practice’ which goes into these matters in far greater detail.

The revision of ‘Good Medical Practice’ comes during the course of an ongoing investigation into the case of Dr Richard Scott, a GP in Margate, Kent, who was the subject of a complaint for suggesting to a patient that he might find an examination of the Christian faith helpful.

The GMC had proposed giving Dr Scott a warning for discussing his Christian faith during a consultation, but he refused to accept it and opted instead for an oral hearing before its investigations committee.

Dr Scott told the BMJ in May that he had raised the possibility that Christianity might help his patient only in the last five minutes of a 20 minute consultation, after first asking his permission and being told to ‘go for it.’

His mother then brought a complaint to the GMC, saying that Dr Scott had ‘pushed religion’ on her son.

On 23 September, the second day of the two day hearing in Manchester, the committee adjourned ‘to make a further attempt to secure the attendance of Patient A,’ who has so far refused to appear before the committee. His absence prevented Dr Scott’s lawyer cross examining him to challenge his account of what happened at the consultation in August 2010.

The committee heard that Dr Scott had seen the 24 year old man at his surgery in Margate, Kent, after his mother had said that he was ‘suicidal’.

Paul Ozin, for the GMC, said, ‘A line was crossed because Dr Scott expressed his personal religious belief to a person he knew was a vulnerable patient in a way that was plainly liable to cause the patient distress.' However this is disputed by Dr Scott's lawyer, Paul Diamond of the Christian Legal Centre.

Ozin claimed that Dr Scott 'suggested that Jesus or Christianity - his own religion - offered something exclusive and superior to that offered by the patient’s own religion. It is a matter of record that Patient A subsequently complained about Dr Scott and said he was very upset about the consultation and he was offended by what he saw as the belittling of his own religion.’

The revision of the GMC’s guidance appears to have been influenced by this case. The suggested amendments indicate that the regulator is considering more formally acknowledging that doctors have a duty to consider a patient’s spiritual history whilst at the same time taking a sterner view of any attempt to share their own faith.

Interestingly the GMC guidance ‘Personal Beliefs and Medical Practice’ actually acknowledges that 'all doctors have personal beliefs which affect their day-to-day practice' and that these principles apply to all doctors whatever their political, religious or moral beliefs.

It also emphasises that 'personal beliefs and values, and cultural and religious practices are central to the lives of doctors and patients' (p4); that 'patients' personal beliefs may be fundamental to their sense of well-being and could help them to cope with pain or other negative aspects of illness or treatment.' (p5) and that 'discussing personal beliefs may, when approached sensitively, help you to work in partnership with patients to address their particular treatment needs.' (p9)

The GMC’s suggested new approach will not just make things more challenging for Christian doctors but will have implications for any doctor of any faith (or none) who expresses a personal belief that he or she feels might help (about anything) to a patient. This has the potential to lead to many more complaints against doctors and many more cases for the GMC to examine. The regulator could be walking a very delicate path indeed.

I suspect it will not just be Christian doctors who will be awaiting the draft guidance with much interest and examining its wording very carefully.

New suicide prevention strategy for England needs to address more effectively the phenomenon of media-induced suicide contagion

The Department of Health’s Consultation on its draft suicide prevention strategy for England closes on 11 October.

Over the past 10 years, there has been progress in reducing the already relatively low suicide rate in England. However, there were still nearly 4,400 suicides in England in 2009, the latest year for which national data is available.

One of the questions posed by the consultation reads as follows:

‘In your view, are there any additional measures or approaches that could promote the responsible reporting and portrayal of suicide and suicidal behaviour in the media?’

The Care Not Killing Alliance has responded as follows:

The WHO international guidelines on suicide portrayal refer to over 50 published studies, systematic reviews of which have consistently drawn the same conclusion, that media reporting of suicide can lead to imitative suicidal behaviours. This phenomenon is variably termed suicide contagion, copycat suicide, suicide cluster or the Werther effect.

Its recommendations to media professionals include the following:

• Avoid language which sensationalizes or normalizes suicide, or presents it as a solution to problems
• Avoid prominent placement and undue repetition of stories about suicide
• Avoid explicit description of the method used in a completed or attempted suicide
• Avoid providing detailed information about the site of a completed or attempted suicide
• Exercise caution in using photographs or video footage
• Take particular care in reporting celebrity suicides'

A recent paper by Austrian authors published in the British Medical Journal and a much longer one by the same group in the British Journal of Psychiatry published only late last year review media coverage of suicide.

The authors note in the first (BMJ) paper, ‘Papageno vs Werther Effect’, that some media coverage of suicide actually leads to a decrease rather than an increase in suicide rates.

‘Newspaper items accounting for (a decrease) form a distinct non-sensationalist class of suicide reporting. They follow the recommendations of the World Health Organization in reporting suicide—for example, avoiding terms such as suicide epidemic. Our findings suggest that media reports on individual mastery of suicidal crises are highly relevant in preventing suicide.’

In other words, media stories about how people coped positively with suicidal feelings actually lead to a decrease in levels of suicide in the general population.

They name this protective effect ‘the Papageno effect’ in honour of the character in Mozart’s opera the Magic Flute.

‘When Papageno fears that he has lost his love, Papagena, he prepares to kill himself. But three boys save him at the last minute by reminding him of other alternatives to dying.’

The second (BJPsych) paper had the aim ‘to test the hypotheses that certain media content is associated with an increase in suicide, suggesting a so-called Werther effect, and that other content is associated with a decrease in suicide, conceptualised as a Papageno effect.’

It concludes that ‘The impact of suicide reporting may not be restricted to harmful effects; rather, coverage of positive coping in adverse circumstances, as covered in media items about suicidal ideation, may have protective effects.’

Since 2008 the BBC has screened no less than five docudramas and documentaries portraying assisted suicide in a positive light and none giving the opposite perspective. The WHO recommendations have been repeatedly and consistently breached. The latest featured Terry Pratchett and Peter Smedley and showed the latter taking his life at the Dignitas Suicide facility in Zurich.

Figures from the Office for National Statistics show that suicides in England rose from 3,993 in 2007 to 4,390 in 2009 – an overall increase of 10% and the greatest two year rise in over a decade. Amongst males aged 45-74, the age group of Terry Pratchett and Peter Smedley, the rise has been 16% from 1,174 to 1370. The latter figure is the highest in over 20 years.

It is noteworthy that the national suicide prevention strategy for England, launched in 2002, is failing dismally to reach its targets and, perhaps tellingly, no annual reports are available since 2008.

Two recent media stories featured people who pointed to the Terry Pratchett programme as contributing to a real suicide or leading to the contemplation of suicide as a solution.

The full CNK submission is available on the CNK website.

Real death with dignity

Lord Falconer’s Commission on Assisted Dying is due to report this autumn and, given its composition, is likely to recommend that a bill be brought forward to legalise assisted suicide for mentally competent adults who are terminally ill with so-called 'robust safeguards'. Dignity in Dying, the former Voluntary Euthanasia Society, is planning fresh assaults on the Parliaments of Westminster, Scotland and the Isle of Man and hopes to build on any momentum the Commssion report might provide.

As a general surgeon, I have sometimes seen patients fall victim to overzealous treatments at the end of life that have simply prolonged the dying process and ignored the ancient wisdom that speaks of ‘a time to die’. I believe there is a time to recognise that enough is enough. It is good medical practice to stop, or not to start, invasive treatments in certain situations – especially when death is imminent and inevitable, and where the burden of a treatment outweighs its benefits.

And yet, having witnessed first-hand the deaths of patients, friends and relatives, I remain convinced that the law should not be changed to allow either physician-assisted suicide (PAS) or voluntary euthanasia.

I have only twice been asked to end the life of a patient, and on both occasions the request was withdrawn quickly as soon as the symptoms prompting it were relieved! Requests for euthanasia are in fact extremely rare when patients’ physical, psychological and spiritual needs are properly met; in general most patients adjust their expectations during a terminal illness and become thankful for the quality of life that they have. We have an excellent tradition of palliative care in this country; and putting increased resources into research and making good palliative care more readily available must always be a key priority.

Requests for assisted dying are usually motivated by fear of ‘loss of control’, and yet paradoxically legalising voluntary euthanasia or PAS would actually undermine patients’ freedom. Requests for euthanasia are rarely free and voluntary. Vulnerable people very often feel a burden on family, society and a struggling health service and feel pressure, whether real or imagined, to request early death. A third of people requesting PAS in Oregon, USA, where it was legalised in 1997, currently do so because they feel themselves to be a burden to others.

Hard cases make bad laws. A change in the law to allow euthanasia or PAS would give doctors power that could be too easily abused and would threaten the trust necessary for the doctor-patient relationship to function.

The experience in the Netherlands (where over 1,000 patients are killed by doctors each year without their consent) demonstrates that progression to involuntary euthanasia would be a real danger should the law be changed here. Furthermore, one out of five attempts at PAS fails leaving the doctor to step in with a lethal injection.

PAS and euthanasia cannot be separated and ethically they are equivalent as the doctor’s intention is the same in each case. To protect the vulnerable majority it is right that a tiny minority of insistent patients forego a ‘right’ that the European Court of Human Rights, in considering the case of Diane Pretty in 2002, has said they don’t have anyway.

Legalising PAS and euthanasia would split the medical profession. 75% of doctors have already indicated that they would not participate in euthanasia if it is legalised, and a change in the law, as in the case of abortion, will lead to doctors who want to abide by the Hippocratic Oath (by not practising PAS or euthanasia) being excluded from specialities where euthanasia becomes part of the ‘full range of services’.

Euthanasia legislation would have a devastating effect throughout the National Health Service on already critical levels of staffing, where we are reliant especially on many overseas nurses from Muslim, Christian and other faith backgrounds who are strongly opposed to the practice. Furthermore it would put Britain out on a limb from the international community. The World Medical Association recently reaffirmed its strong opposition to both PAS and euthanasia and the British Medical Association and all medical Royal Colleges remain strongly opposed to a change in the law.

In 1994 a Lords’ Select Committee wisely and courageously rejected any change in the law. They concluded ‘that it would be virtually impossible to ensure that all acts of euthanasia were truly voluntary and that any liberalisation of the law in the United Kingdom could not be abused’. British Parliaments have on the basis of public safety since rejected moves to change the law three times, in 2006, 2009 and 2010.

Euthanasia and PAS are unnecessary (because alternative treatments exist), dangerous (because they undermine autonomy) and morally wrong (being contrary to all historical codes of medical ethics and the Judeo-Christian ethic on which our laws are based).

Nobody has a ‘right’ to be killed by a doctor, Britain does not need PAS or euthanasia and no society could ever control them. As professionals and society we need instead to get on with the task of working for that genuinely ‘gentle and easy death’ all patients deserve. Real ‘death with dignity’ means facing the end with courage, hope and serenity with balanced medical intervention and effective palliative care.

180 Movie on Abortion Goes Viral with over 500,000 Views in One Week

During the Rugby World cup in New Zealand I have been using the alternative branding of ‘Kiwi, Christian and Medical’ for this blog.

So here is a story that is truly all three.

When I was a medical student I went back one summer to my birth city of Christchurch, on the East Coast of New Zealand’s South Island, to do an internship with the Christchurch City Mission working amongst homeless people.

It was there I had the privilege of meeting Ray Comfort (pictured), a Kiwi Christian evangelist who used to preach from a ladder to the crowds in the Christchurch town square. He was at the time also running a drug education centre.

The Christchurch cathedral, which is the centerpiece of the square, was destroyed in the Christchurch earthquake earlier this year and has already featured on this blog with respect to memorial services and reflections on the aftermath of the earthquake.

I have often wondered what had happened to Ray and now I know. Currently he lives in California and has just produced a film on abortion which has gone viral on the internet with over half a million hits in its first week.

Life Site News in the US takes up the story:

The new pro-life movie 180 has become an overnight sensation as nearly half a million people have watched the 33-minute pro-life documentary in just one week since director and producer Ray Comfort released it to the public.

The film is changing public opinion on abortion 180 degrees in a matter of minutes as it shows Comfort asking pro-abortion students questions that change their views quickly. Titled to reflect the complete turnaround in the mindsets of all to whom the question is posed, the award-winning film shows eight ‘pro-choice’ people, mostly college students, changing their stance to pro-life just moments after the question is asked in its entirety. It was Comfort’s hope that the documentary would go viral and it appears to have done so.

That has happened — with the video getting more than 500,000 views after it was featured at LifeNews and elsewhere across the Internet. Viewers have left 7,500 comments — with people saying they changed their minds on abortion or regretted the abortions they had had.

One person said, ‘From someone that been Pro-choice this video changed my view on life completely.’

‘I was always pro-choice and now I am pro-life after watching such a powerful video,’ said another and a third added, ‘It changed my mind and made me aware that I’ve got to make a stand on this issue.’

A Facebook comment had one viewer saying, ‘My husband and I have always disagreed about the right to life for the unborn. After watching 180 today he has had a change of heart and now wants to protect children in the womb. Thank you for this amazing gift.’

To learn more visit Life Site News and watch the movie.

More irresponsible suicide reporting by the media - there is a better way of dealing with this issue

The former chief inspector of schools, Chris Woodhead, has told how he has considered ending his life at Dignitas, the Swiss suicide facility, after being confined to a wheelchair by motor neurone disease.

The hugely controversial head of Ofsted in the 90s claims to have been influenced in this decision by the recent BBC ‘documentary’ fronted by Terry Pratchett, which he said portrayed the clinic in a ‘dignified’ light.

In 2009, Prof Woodhead rejected the idea that he may eventually end his life at the facility but he has now apparently changed his mind.

The story, because of Woodhead’s celebrity status, has been given some prominence by the Daily Telegraph, Daily Mail and Guardian. Thankfully the BBC has not on this occasion covered it.

What do we learn from this case?

First it underlines how changeable suicidal feelings are. This man was adamant that he would not consider ending his life in 2009 but has now changed his mind. Others change their minds in the opposite direction during the progression of an illness if given the right support and time to reflect. It calls the lie to the concept of a ‘settled wish’ to end one’s life.

Second it illustrates the influence of the media. The World Health Organisation guidelines on media portrayal of suicide - ‘Preventing Suicide: A Resource for Media Professionals’ - are very clear.

Its recommendations to media professionals include the following:

• Avoid language which sensationalizes or normalizes suicide, or presents it as a solution to problems
• Avoid prominent placement and undue repetition of stories about suicide
• Avoid explicit description of the method used in a completed or attempted suicide
• Avoid providing detailed information about the site of a completed or attempted suicide
• Exercise caution in using photographs or video footage
• Take particular care in reporting celebrity suicides

These guidelines were all broken by the BBC during the Pratchett documentary and Woodhead’s is now the second case in less than a week where a person has claimed to have been influenced towards ending their life by watching it.

I have previously highlighted a recent BMJ article describing the kind of media coverage that either encourages or discourages suicide, the so-called Werther and Paganeno effects respectively.

Suicide contagion and copycat suicide are real phenomena and I hope that the current Department of Health consultation on suicide prevention, which closes on 11 October, will be addressing these issues.

Third, Woodhead’s case should be counterbalanced by stories which represent the vast majority of people with motor neurone disease who do not want assisted suicide. Otherwise it creates the false impression that Woodhead’s reaction to his illness is normal.

The overwhelming vast majority of people with diseases like motor neurone disease, multiple sclerosis and Parkinson’s disease – or even locked in syndrome for that matter - do not wish to end their lives.

They want help and support from others to make the very most of the lives that they have. Not ‘assisted dying’ but ‘assisted living’.

Stories of triumph over adversity should get more column inches and air time.

Let me just highlight two.

I have already drawn attention on this blog to Alistair Banks’ inspiring story of courage. His optimism is not unusual, he maintains. 'Everyone I know with MND is trying to do positive things, otherwise they would sink into despair. It’s a coping mechanism. Doing things means that you can pull in friends and family to share something both fun and rewarding.'

Another MND sufferer Michael Wenham has told the Independent about his determination to keep on living life. Diagnosed in 2002 with a rare, slower form of Motor Neurone Disease, Michael has always intended on not giving up.

In his book, 'My Donkey Body' (pictured above) he clearly and compassionately describes the process of being diagnosed with the terminal disease, and the struggle of living with the condition. He also deals eloquently with these issues on his blog.

A second book which Wenham co-authored with a South African fellow MND sufferer Jozanne Moss, ‘I choose everything’, is available on Amazon, has its own face book page and is recommended by the Motor Neurone Disease Association.

It is becoming something of a habit for media outlets to highlight stories like Woodhead’s. They should instead be highlighting cases like those of Banks and Wenham.

Is it too much to hope for the BBC to run a documentary on one such case?

Religion is based on dogma whilst science is based on evidence? No, actually each accommodates both.

Dr Evan Harris has this morning recommended that everyone read an article in the Guardian newspaper on Science and faith titled, ‘Faster than light story highlights the difference between science and religion’. So I did.

You are welcome to read it yourself (it is very short) but its main message is encapsulated in the following paragraph:

One of the things that appeals to me about science is that, unlike religion, science is not dogmatic. It does not say: ‘This is the way things are, and it can be no other way.’ Instead it says something like: ‘Based on the evidence we have so far, this is how things probably are; if clear and solid evidence is discovered that shows this is not how things are, then we will need to change our minds.’

The article thereby perpetuates two myths believed by many atheists. ‘Science is based on evidence whilst Religion isn’t’ and ‘Religion is dogmatic whilst Science is not’.

Well I can’t answer for other religions but I chose to become a Christian on the basis of examining the evidence. Yes the evidence of personal experience and the complexity of the universe played a part in me coming to believe that God existed. But the key things that persuaded me to become a Christian were the teaching, claims and actions of Jesus Christ as recorded by eye-witnesses.

I suspect that most of the 580 million evangelical Christians in the world today, and many of the total of 2.3 billion who call themselves Christian, would argue similarly. They became Christians because they were convinced by evidence that Jesus Christ was in fact who he claimed to be.

The evidence of Jesus’ teaching, life, miracles and actions, including his death and resurrection, leads us to the conclusion both that God exists, and that Jesus Christ, is this God, creator, sustainer and judge of the universe, in the flesh. Putting our personal trust and faith in him is the logical corollary.

The dogma in Christianity is based on this belief. If Jesus is indeed God then we ought to take what he says rather seriously. To disbelieve God’s teaching is both foolish and arrogant. So is Christianity dogmatic? Well in a sense yes, because Jesus Christ is the absolute authority in the universe, but our belief in the authority of Jesus Christ is actually based on evidence.

What about science? Well belief in science, like belief in Christianity, is based on an interpretation of evidence. We gather data, observe regularities and develop theories which are then tested against further observed regularities.

But science is also based on a number of unprovable ‘religious’ assumptions including the following:

•There is a real world of matter out there that is accessible and correlated to our senses.
•Our minds are giving us reliable information about the world.
•Language and mathematics, reason and logic can all be applied to the world of our senses.
•Nature is uniform – the expectation that the present and future will be like the past.

None of these above assumptions, which are all integral to the scientific process, can actually be proved scientifically. We all accept them all of course, but we do so by faith. And the view of many philosophers is that they are reasonable assumptions only if God actually exists.

True scientists of course should not be dogmatic, but many are, about issues which are actually beyond scientific evaluation. This is most interesting.

Richard Dawkins, in his dogmatic teaching about the Christian faith, stands in a lengthy tradition. Sir Julian Huxley, at the Darwin Centennial, University of Chicago, in 1959 said: ‘In the evolutionary pattern of thought there is no longer either need or room for the supernatural.’

In the same vein, Nobel laureate Jacques Monod writes: ‘Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, is at the very root of the stupendous edifice of evolution with the result that man at last knows that he is alone in the unfeeling immensity of the universe... Neither his destiny nor his duty have been written down.’

Thus, Monod not only banishes God from the universe, he denies any concept of absolute morality. And in so doing he seems to miss the rather obvious observation that many Christians are also evolutionists, whilst for many others, their disputes with Dawkins are disputes about the interpretation of scientific evidence.

Deducing atheism from biology is a very suspect philosophical procedure in itself. However, in some prominent cases, far from the philosophy being deduced from the science, the very reverse is true. Richard Lewontin, a world famous geneticist at Harvard, writes:

‘Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs... in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment...to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover that materialism is absolute for we cannot allow a divine foot in the door.’

As John Lennox has remarked, ‘This revealing statement from a prominent member of the scientific establishment is a far cry from the common naive understanding of science as impartially following the implications of experiments wherever they lead. For Lewontin, commitment to materialism comes first, the science follows. And if you shape your science in such a way that you are never in danger of detecting a divine footprint, then of course you never will. But that is to leave wide open the question as to whether divine footprints exist!’

So is it true that religion is based on dogma whilst science is based on evidence? No, there are actually elements of faith, evidence and dogma in each.