Pro-euthanasia lobby faces difficult battle in DPP debate

On Tuesday 27 March MPs in the House of Commons will debate a motion by Richard Ottaway (pictured) which 'invites the Government to consult as to whether to put (the DPP’s guidance on prosecutions for assisted suicide) on a statutory basis’.

The aim is to secure immunity from prosecution for some cases of assisted suicide ahead of the event.

However the government has already made it very clear in a House of Lords debate in February this year that it is the job of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) to set prosecution policy and that it intends to let the DPP get on with his job without interfering. It is not for parliament to decide on a case by case basis who should be prosecuted or to usurp his role.

Assisting or encouraging a suicide remains illegal - and only parliament can change that - but it is the DPP’s job to decide in any given case whether there is enough evidence to bring a prosecution and whether to do so would be in the public interest.

The very small number of cases that crosses his desk, less than 20 per year on average, is evidence that the law is having a strong deterrent effect and working as it is intended to. A law allowing assisted suicide, such as that in the state of Oregon, would increase this number 50-fold to over 1,000 deaths per year.

If the pro-euthanasia lobby wants a change in the law they will have to argue for a change in the law itself and not try to interfere with the DPP's prosecution policy which is his responsibility, and not parliament's, to set and administer.

But they face a very difficult battle.

Assisted suicide, contrary to the claims of the pro-euthanasia lobby, has been repeatedly debated in British Parliaments in recent years, with two debates in the House of Commons alone since 2010 (brought by Patricia Hewitt in 2010 and David Burrowes in January this year).

The last bill in the House of Commons attempting to legalise assisted suicide, brought by Joe Ashton in 1997, was defeated by 234 votes to 89 and four attempts to change the law via the House of Lords since 2003 – three by Lord Joffe – have also all failed. The last bill in the Scottish parliament was also defeated resoundingly by 85 votes to 16 in 2010.

Richard Ottaway is a member of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Choice at the End of Life, which acts as the parliamentary wing of Dignity in Dying, formerly the Voluntary Euthanasia Society. This latest move to change the law on this this issue needs to be seen for what it is – yet another attempt by a small heavily funded lobby to foist its views on parliament, when they have already been consistently rejected on grounds of the threat such a law change would pose for public safety.

The Suicide Act 1961 currently protects vulnerable people from exploitation and abuse by those who might an interest, financial or otherwise, in their deaths. Any further removal of legal protection by creating more exceptions for bringing prosecutions would encourage unscrupulous people to take liberties and would place more vulnerable people – those who are elderly, disabled, sick or depressed – under pressure to end their lives so as not impose a burden on family, carers or society. These pressures can be particularly acute at a time of economic recession.

The current law is clear and right and does not need fixing or further weakening. On the one hand the penalties it holds in reserve act as a powerful deterrent to exploitation and abuse. On the other hand it gives the DPP and judges some discretion to temper justice with mercy in hard cases. It should not be meddled with.

Cases of assisted suicide (and euthanasia) are extremely rare and hard cases make bad law. The overwhelming majority of people with severe disability or terminal illness do not wish to die but rather want support to live. Our priority must therefore be the provision of excellent support and palliative care.

Abortionists try to unsettle peaceful vigil

Britain’s abortion industry is under pressure and industry leader BPAS (British Pregnancy Advisory Service) has been particularly under the spotlight recently, and not just for their aggressive marketing tactics aimed at increasing their ‘market share’ of the shrinking health budget.

First there was pro-abortion MP Diane Abbott’s high profile resignation from a government committee on abortion counselling after she was unable to shape proceedings to her liking.

Then there was the revelation that 98% of abortions in Britain are technically illegal as a consequence of the RC Psych enquiry finding that continuing with an unplanned pregnancy does not constitute a greater risk to the mental health of pregnant women than abortion.

Next was the Daily Telegraph’s undercover investigation into abortions for sex selection carried out at some of the country’s best known ‘clinics’. BPAS itself just escaped a police enquiry when a centre manager was able to stop an abortion that was in the process of being authorised.

And more recently BPAS revealed that was interpreting the Abortion Act in a very liberal way by conflating ‘distress’ with ‘mental ill-health’.

The latest episode in this evolving drama has seen BPAS complaining about peaceful pickets outside their abortion facility in London’s Bedford Square. Today they are calling through their press office (aka the Guardian newspaper) on the support of the Department of Health in dealing with a ‘new era of anti-abortion protests'.

Apparently a group of people from the pro-life organisation ’40 Days for Life’ (more background from Caroline Farrow) has been holding vigils outside its front door.

BPAS alleges that the group is placing pressure on its ‘clients’ and photographing them arriving at and leaving.

However, ’40 Days for Life’ dispute these claims and say that the camera is used only to record when they themselves are being harassed by centre staff.

Robert Colquhoun, a spokesman, said:

‘40 Days for Life conducts a peaceful, prayerful and legal vigil in London. The central point of our vigil is to pray for an end to abortion and show that that is a love in community that can help a woman to choose life for her unborn child.

Since our campaign started in September 2010, we estimate that more than 30 women have chosen life for their unborn children as a result of our campaign through prayer and also through an offer of love, help and support during a difficult time.’

A statement on their website gives more background.

‘We have a statement of peace that sets the tone and ethos of our prayer vigil as a peaceful and prayerful event. Since our campaign started, we have received a very large number of insults and threats. At times, members of the vigil have filmed themselves in order to protect themselves from these threats. We do not encourage anybody to film members of the public during our campaign.

Since 40 days for life started in 2007, there have been 1,633 individual 40 days for life campaigns that have taken place in 422 cities worldwide. 5,045 lives have been spared from abortions during campaigns and 21 abortion facilities have shut down following local 40 Days for Life campaigns.’

There have been over seven million abortions in Britain since the Abortion Act 1967 was passed, now over 200,000 every year. Every abortion stops a human heart and ends a human life. And as I have argued before there is no one more innocent, more vulnerable and killed in greater numbers than the unborn child.

But abortion also damages women, and many women choose it simply because they feel they have no alternative or because they are being put under pressure by partners, friends or family members.

We know that when given information and support many will change their minds.

Some years ago I spoke to a young woman in just this situation who was on the conveyor belt to abortion but changed her mind after I sent her a letter offering support. She later thanked me for helping her avoid ‘making the worst decision of (her) life’ and two years later a card with a picture of the two year old boy who was the joy of her life. I have never forgotten it.

40 Days for Life have already saved over 5,000 lives from destruction worldwide and protected a similar number of women from a lifetime of guilt and regret.

It’s not surprising that they are getting some stick from the abortion industry for it, but I commend their courage, persistence and willingness to face opposition and criticism in order to do something of eternal value.

I’m reminded of legendary cricketer CT Studd who left a promising career to do missionary work in China in perilous times and said:

‘Some wish to live within the sound of Church or Chapel bell; I want to run a Rescue Shop within a yard of hell.’

Rescue those who are being taken away to death;
hold back those who are stumbling to the slaughter.
If you say, ‘Behold, we did not know this,’
does not he who weighs the heart perceive it?
Does not he who keeps watch over your soul know it,
and will he not repay man according to his work? (Proverbs 24:11,12)

My shocking sex confession

I am fairly unshockable but a headline in the Daily Mail this morning took my breath away.

It reads,’“We abstained from having sex until we got married”: Ali Landry reveals startling wedding night secret'.

Ali Landry is a 38-year-old actress and former Miss USA who made the astounding confession on a talk show that she waited until her wedding night to sleep with second spouse Alejandro Monteverde (She annulled her first marriage just two weeks after the wedding because her husband had been unfaithful).

This, coupled with the equally astounding revelation in this morning’s Metro that a British man has been married to the same woman for 64 years (his name is the Duke of Edinburgh), has emboldened me to make a shocking personal confession.

My hope in doing this is that others might also feel able to ‘come out’ about their past sexual behaviour as, I'm sure you will agree, there is often strength in knowing that we are not alone in our personal experiences.

Ok so here goes. I lost my virginity aged 24 on my wedding night almost thirty years ago (to my first wife!) and have only had one sexual partner since (ie. my first wife to whom I am still married).

So there you have it. Has it all been plain-sailing? Of course not, and we have needed a huge amount of help and support along the way, surprisingly mostly coming from someone who never married and has never had sex.

But I think that is already enough information for now.

Coalition for Marriage respond to Government’s 'sham consultation' on gay marriage

The Coalition for Marriage, (C4M) has issued a statement following publication by Lynne Featherstone of Government plans to redefine marriage (PA summary here).

Colin Hart, C4M Campaign Director, said: “The Government has today launched a consultation on redefining marriage. After initially relenting and promising to include a question on the principle of introducing same sex marriage it is clear from the written statement given to both Houses of Parliament by the Equalities Minister that she will simply ignore any answers to this question.

“I always thought that a consultation was about listening to people and asking them their views, before making a decision. Not only are they redefining the meaning of marriage, they're redefining the meaning of consultation.

“This consultation is a sham. It is being pushed through despite the public never having a say on this change. None of the main political parties proposed redefining marriage in their manifestos and the impact assessment misses out many of the possible problems that could occur if this institution is redefined, for example how this change will affect our schools.

“The institution of marriage is the not the play thing of the state, it belongs to society and therefore cannot be redefined by a few politicians obsessed with appearing ‘trendy’ and ‘progressive’.

“It is also bizarre that Lynne Featherstone says that she wants to end the current two tier system’, yet wants to replace this with an even more complicated system that has two options for gays, and only one for heterosexuals. That’s equality for you.

“The plain truth is marriage is marriage and should not be redefined by politicians.

“C4M and the 200,000 people who have signed our petition believe that this change is profoundly undemocratic, will have massive consequences for society and is simply unnecessary as civil partnerships provide all the legal rights of marriage.”

C4M is a grassroots campaign representing faith groups, MPs, peers, academics, lawyers, pro-family organisations and members of the public. The petition was launched at 9am on Monday 20th February and says: “I support the legal definition of marriage which is the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. I oppose any attempt to redefine it.”

Case of locked-in syndrome seeks to establish dangerous precedent

Legal action brought by a locked-in syndrome sufferer, who wants a doctor to be able to end his ‘intolerable’ life lawfully, can go ahead following a judge's ruling today.

The Ministry of Justice had previously argued that the case should be struck out on the grounds that it is a matter for parliament, rather than the courts, to decide.

But the judge's ruling today means that Mr Nicklinson's case will go to a full hearing, where medical evidence can be heard.

Tony Nicklinson is 57 and paralysed from the neck down after suffering a stroke. I have blogged on this case in some detail previously so will not review the background again here except to say that Nicklinson himself believes that assisted suicide should be available to anybody over 18 who wants it and not just the terminally ill.

Nicklinson's legal team will be arguing:

1.'Necessity' can, in these circumstances, be a defence to murder (see my previous blog post for details about what this means)
2. The existing law of murder, insofar as it denies Nicklinson the chance to be actively killed at his request, is incompatible with Article 8 of the ECHR (European Convention of Human Rights) - dealing with 'right to respect for private and family life'.

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

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

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

No one can help but be sympathetic to Tony Nicklinson but cases like his are extremely rare and hard cases make bad law. The overwhelming majority of people with severe disability - even with ‘locked-in syndrome’ - do not wish to die but rather want support to live and the longer people have locked-in syndrome then generally the better they learn to cope with it and find meaning, purpose and contentment within the limits of their condition.

The desire to die is not primarily about physical symptoms but about the particular person and their ability to adapt to living with a profound disability. Most people with locked-in syndrome are happy, according to the biggest survey of people with the condition.

Nicklinson has the right to refuse treatment under existing law, and could do so, but what he is seeking to do instead is to give doctors the power to kill in specific circumstances on grounds of ‘necessity’. That would be a very dangerous precedent indeed.

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

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

Even in a free democratic society there are limits to choice. Every law limits choice and stops some people doing what they might desperately wish to do but this is necessary in order to maintain protection for others. No man is an island and this case is about much more than Tony Nicklinson.

Guardian editorial on same sex marriage – the full fisk

Earlier this week the Guardian published an editorial backing the legalisation of same sex marriage, titled ‘Gay marriage: torn asunder from reality’

Virtually every sentence in it contained claims that were inaccurate, distorted or simply false. It was, in short, a breathtakingly naïve and misleading piece of arrant nonsense.

I have reproduced it line by line below with my own comments in italics.

Gay marriage: torn asunder from reality’

It is surprisingly hard to find in the Bible a consistent endorsement of heterosexual marriage as we now understand it.
>> It is actually surprisingly easy for anyone who examines the Bible rather than reading what others with an agenda write about it. Marriage as ‘one man, one woman for life’ features from the first chapters of Genesis to the last chapter of Revelation. I have outlined the biblical case elsewhere on this blog.

The Old Testament is replete with stories of men like King Solomon who had 700 wives and 300 concubines.
>> No Solomon is unique in having this number of wives and concubines. Although polygamy was practised by some Old Testament characters it was nowhere commanded nor endorsed and it is difficult to find a single biblical example where it did not lead to serious family problems including jealously, favouritism, rivalry, apostasy and family breakdown.

And the New Testament is generally populated by single men and women whose domestic arrangements have little in common with the model of Christian marriage that is now being aggressively defended by Cardinal Keith O'Brien and others.
>> No again. Paul was unmarried like some New Testament leaders but this was a special (almost unique) calling. The other apostles and Jesus’ brothers were married (1 Cor 9:5). Furthermore Paul taught in the pastoral epistles that elders and deacons must be ‘husbands of one wife’ who ‘manage their families well’.

Indeed, the best that many wedding service liturgies can do to insist that Jesus himself supported the institution of marriage is to say that he once turned up at one.
>> The Gospels record that Jesus performed his first miracle at a wedding (turning water into wine) but he also upheld Old Testament teaching on marriage as ‘one man, one woman, for life’ (Matthew 19:1-12). Marriage is also used throughout the New Testament to symbolise Christ’s union with his bride the church underlining the crucial importance of the covenant.

None of which is to attack the institution of marriage, which provides many with a permanent, faithful and stable context for loving relationships.
>> Here surprisingly I find myself agreeing with the Guardian but it is marriage according to the biblical pattern which has been shown to provide a permanent, faithful and stable context for loving relationships. ‘Same sex marriage’ is by contrast an untested social experiment.

Cardinal O'Brien is, however, getting completely carried away when he speaks of gay marriage as an attempt to 'redefine reality'.
>> No because Cameron’s plan is to redefine marriage ('the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others’) to include same sex marriage. But same-sex marriage is an oxymoron like a four wheeled bicycle or a two storeyed bungalow. This is actually a redefinition of reality.

Traditionally, the church has explained the purpose of marriage in terms of three features: that it's the proper context for raising children, that it promotes monogamy and that it exists for the mutual comfort and society of one person for another.
>> No the church has always added that it is also the union of one man and one woman (biological complementarity) with the potential of procreation (it impossible for same sex parents to procreate without invasive technology and/or donor gametes)

How can the application of these three features to gay marriage justify the cardinal's blustering hyperbole?
>> Because these are not the only factors

Of course, the cardinal has not been alone in seeking to whip up moral panic.
>> No he has been backed by the Pope, the English and Welsh Catholic Archbishops, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Archbishop of York, hundreds of other Christian leaders, over 130,000 signatories to the C4M petition and numerous other commentators of all faiths and none.

The Archbishop of York recently described David Cameron's expressed desire to extend marriage to homosexuals as something done by ‘dictators’.
>> This was a reference to the fact that he is introducing this measure without any democratic mandate, having not mentioned it in his manifesto and without carrying out a consultation as to whether it is necessary, workable or desirable. This is what dictators do.

It is good, therefore, that a younger generation of church leaders, like the recently appointed Bishop of Salisbury and the new Dean of St Paul's are taking a different line.
>> These two men, who should never have been given a church appointment given their heretical views, are an exception. They are also hardly young! Nicholas Holtam, Bishop of Salisbury, is 56 and David Ison of St Paul’s is 57.

The argument that gay marriage undermines straight marriage is as unconvincing as it is insulting – as if the currency of marriage is devalued by extension to those who find love with members of the same sex.
>> Legalising same sex marriage is a legal can of worms and it cannot be done without changing the legal definition of real marriage and words such as husband, wife, consummation and adultery. This would have far-reaching repercussions. Marriage is also about much more than ‘finding love’. It is a life-long covenant commitment.

In fact, the reality that religious conservatives are themselves failing to face is that civil partnerships are already being understood as a form of marriage, with or without the endorsement of the church.
>> As civil partnerships already bestow all the legal rights of marriage then why is it necessary to change the definition of marriage itself?

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck.
>> A same sex couple making a commitment does not look like marriage to anyone in their right mind. In marriage the participants are of the opposite sex.

Some in the church continue to fight a rearguard action for the extension of civil partnership rights to siblings. In this way they hope to drive a wedge between marriage and civil partnership. But that ship has sailed.
>> This is perhaps true which underlines the fact that the government in legalising civil partnerships were primarily concerned with legitimising same sex sexual relationships and not concerned primarily with personal commitment, faithfulness or societal stability.

The language of marriage and of husband or wife is increasingly common parlance among those who have entered into civil partnerships.
>> Only by those who back gay marriage and as part of a campaign (‘they would say that wouldn’t they’) but most people still feel very uncomfortable about a man calling another man his husband as this changes the meaning of the word. Husband and wife are complementary terms which have meaning only in relation to their opposites.

And while some in the gay community worry about the use of what they take to be a heterosexual paradigm, this anxiety is also diminishing. Gay marriage is effectively already a reality. And Mr Cameron is right that the law needs to catch up with where people are.
>> The C4M petition by the end of next week may well have more signatures than the ‘drop the health bill’, the largest live petition in existence in Britain. It has already amassed 130,000 in less than three weeks. 51% of people oppose same-sex marriage given that civil partnerships already grant all the legal rights and 88% of conservative voters do not regard changing the law a matter of any urgency. The campaign to legalise same sex marriage is being pushed by a small group of politically correct activists. Cameron is already getting cold feet as revealed by his removing the same sex marriage bill from the Queen’s speech and introducing a question into the consultation asking whether it should be done. The pro same sex marriage lobby should not be counting its chickens.

Biblical teaching on marriage and sexuality – a quick overview for Guardian readers

I was amused to read an editorial in the Guardian today titled ‘Gay marriage: torn asunder from reality’. It made the extraordinary claim that ‘it is surprisingly hard to find in the Bible a consistent endorsement of heterosexual marriage as we now understand it’.

I will return to a full fisk of the editorial piece later (now available here) but for the benefit of Guardian readers here is a quick overview of biblical teaching on marriage and sexuality.

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

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

The Bible is full of references to sex and marriage -from the first chapter of Genesis to the last chapter of Revelation (Gn 1:28, Rev 22:17).

The one man and one woman for life pattern is an Old Testament creation ordinance, upheld by Jesus and Paul in the New Testament (Gn 2:24; Mt 19:3-12; Eph 5:22-33).

Sex in the context of marriage (Gn 2:24, Mt 19:3-12)
...is viewed as the good gift of a good creator (Pr 5:15-20, Song 4:11-16)
...and a sign of Christ’s coming marriage with the church (Eph 5:32, Rev 19:7)

Anything outside this context is seen as a disaster (2 Sa 11, 2 Sa 13, Gn 34)
... offensive to God (Lv 18:6-30, 20:7-21; 1 Cor 6:12-20)
... and accordingly judged (Lv 18:29; Dt 22:20-22, Rev 21:8)

All wrong patterns are spelt out specifically in detail (Lv 18:1-30; Lv 20:1-27; Ex 22:16-19; Dt 22:13-30) and include all homosexual acts (Lv 18:22, 20:13; Gn 19:1-29; Jdg 19:1-30; Rom 1:24-27; 1 Cor 6:9-11; 1 Tim 1:8-11)

God’s people are called to be ‘set apart’ in sexual behaviour (1 Thes 4:3-8; Mt 5:27-32)

Scripture is accordingly replete with love stories which affirm marriage: Isaac and Rebecca (Gen 24), Jacob and Rachel (Gen 29:16-30), Boaz and Ruth (Ru 3)… and similar narratives about how sex and marriage can be distorted – some examples:

Shechem and Dinah (Gen 34) - rape
Judah and Tamar (Gen 38) - prostitution
Amnon and Tamar (2 Sa 13) - incest
David and Bathsheba (2 Sa 11) – adultery
Zimri and Cozbi (Nu 25) – fornication
Sodom and Gibeah (Gn 19; Jdg 19) – homosexuality

Polygamy, whilst tolerated and permitted in Old and New Testament times (but with strict rules of faithfulness), was never endorsed or commanded and I am struggling to think of a single instance where it did not have serious consequences for the families involved in terms of jealousy, favouritism, rivalry, apostasy and family breakdown.

Lifelong, heterosexual monogamy is the consistent pattern.

Guardian readers are of course entitled to their opinions about what they think of biblical teaching but they should be aware of what the Bible actually says and similarly aware that Guardian editors are about as adept with scripture as 'a fool is with a proverb' or 'a paralysed man is with his legs' (Proverbs 26:7).