Overstretched?

As a general surgical registrar I was once helping my consultant remove a giant spleen when the patient began 'hosing' from an invisible source. After a frenzy of clamping, cutting and ligating, things stabilised and we were able to proceed at a more leisurely pace. 'It's good to see the boss sweat, isn't it?' he said, and I had to agree.

Seeing someone we admire really struggling can actually be a great encouragement, especially if the struggle has occurred because of their willingness to accept a difficult challenge. In my consultant's case it would have been far easier to avoid the giant spleen altogether, but his readiness to take it on – and sweat in the process – meant both a life saved and a trainee inspired.

As Christian doctors, most of us struggle to juggle the many demands of work, church and family successfully. Sometimes this is because we say 'yes' to extra responsibility when we should really have said 'no'. But often the struggle comes simply because we have responded in good conscience to do the right thing: choosing not to compromise, going the extra mile, being willing to help someone shoulder a burden, rising to the challenge.

The great biblical heroes of faith are inspiring because they teach us that God uses ordinary men and women who struggle in the same way that we do. Moses led his people out of slavery, performed miracles, talked face to face with God [1] and was the humblest man on earth.[2] And yet he once felt so desperately overwhelmed by the responsibility of looking after his people that he felt God was punishing him and asked to be put to death. God's response was to appoint 70 men to help him 'carry the burden of the people' so that he would 'not have to carry it alone'.[3]

Elijah felt so fearful after his heroics on Mt Carmel that he 'ran for his life' and 'prayed that he might die'. God's prescription was food, drink, a good night's sleep and a fresh filling of the Holy Spirit. God then assured him that he wasn't alone and led him to anoint a successor who would never leave his side.[4]

Esther was afraid that standing up for her threatened countrymen might lead to her own death, but she was persuaded that despite the risk, she should do the right thing and asked for her fellow Jews to fast and pray for her.[5] And God came through with the goods.

The Apostle Paul was the greatest church planter the world has ever seen, but he talked of himself, and Timothy, being 'under great pressure, far beyond our ability to endure, so that we despaired even of life'. [6] Through it he was able to know God's comfort in these trials, pass that comfort on to others [7] and learn that God's 'power is made perfect in weakness' [8].

Perhaps most striking are the words of the Servant of Isaiah, Christ himself, who could say 'I have laboured to no purpose; I have spent my strength in vain and for nothing' but then went on to declare that 'what is due to me is in the Lord's hand, and my reward is with my God' [9].

Are you feeling weighed down by bulging in-trays and looming deadlines, anxious that some of the many plates you are spinning will crash to the ground, worn down by the demands of managers or colleagues or just wondering how you are going to get through the next day? Be encouraged by the fact that even these greatest of saints at times were overcome with anxiety, fell exhausted, looked back and wondered if they had achieved anything of value, and even begged God to end their lives. And look to God as they did for the reinforcements, prayer supporters, courage, rest, fresh strength and words of hope to help sustain you. Most of all know that the God who calls you to walk in his footsteps has himself walked this earth, knows what it is like to be tempted [10] and lives in you by his Spirit. [11]

And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord's glory, are being transformed into his likeness with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit. (2 Corinthians 3:18)

References

1. Numbers 12:8
2. Numbers 12:3
3. Numbers 11:10-17
4. 1 Kings 19:3-21
5. Esther 4:6-17
6. 2 Corinthians 1:8
7. 2 Corinthians 1:3,4
8. 2 Corinthians 12:9
9. Isaiah 49:4
10. Hebrews 4:15
11. 2 Corinthians 4:7

CNK welcomes MPs endorsement of palliative care and rejection of attempt to change assisted suicide law

Care Not Killing has welcomed MPs’ decision to encourage further development of specialist palliative care and hospice provision and their endorsement of the current law on assisted suicide.

The House of Commons debate saw MPs welcoming the DPP’s policy for prosecutors in respect of cases of encouraging or assisting suicide published in 2010 and also unanimously backing an amendment encouraging palliative care services.

Care Not Killing Director Dr Peter Saunders said,

‘MPs have today given a ringing endorsement to the need for the further development of specialist palliative care and hospice provision in which Britain is already a world leader. We welcome this move to strengthen existing services and to make the highest quality care more accessible and available.’

‘They have also today, as expected, given endorsement to the DPP policy on assisted suicide, which enables the DPP to exercise discretion in bringing prosecutions on a case by case basis, whilst upholding a blanket prohibition on all assistance or encouragement with suicide.’

‘The law in Britain thereby is seen to have both a stern face to deter exploitation and abuse, and a kind heart to temper justice with mercy in hard cases. This is the right balance. The clear evidence that it is working well is seen in the very small number of cases occurring (20 per year) and the low number of prosecutions.'

'Any attempt to decriminalise assisted suicide or euthanasia would result in a huge escalation of cases as seen in jurisdictions like Oregon and the Netherlands. As determined by a previous House of Lords enquiry, with an Oregon or Netherlands type law in Britain we would have 1,000 and 13,000 cases respectively annually.’

‘We were particularly pleased to see the Solicitor General and many MPs stressing the importance of parliament allowing the DPP to exercise independent judgement on a case by case basis and the rejection of an attempt to micromanage and fetter him through a call for a parliamentary consultation aimed at placing his guidance on a statutory footing. This resulted in an amendment to this effect by pro-euthanasia MPs being unanimously voted down.'

‘We will continue to emphasise the importance of investigating all cases of alleged assistance with suicide and appropriate application of the guidelines to ensure that the law is properly upheld and that vulnerable people are protected from being placed under pressure to end their lives.’

Assisted suicide has been repeatedly debated in British Parliaments in recent years and the DPP guidance was the subject of an adjournment debate led by Patricia Hewitt in 2010. Attempts to legalise assisted suicide by means of the Joffe Bill (2006) and Falconer amendment (2009) in the House of Lords and the Macdonald Bill (2010) in the Scottish Parliament were all defeated by large majorities and this is the third debate in the House of Commons on Assisted Suicide in as many years.

The law remains unchanged and looks likely to stay that way for the foreseeable future.

Shroud of Secrecy surrounds Assisted Suicide in Oregon

I was doing an interview on BBC Radio Wales this am on the Ottaway debate when a spokesman for Dignity in Dying (formerly the Voluntary Euthanasia Society) was again singing the praises of the law allowing assisted suicide in the US state of Oregon. The ‘Death with Dignity Act’ was passed there in 1997.

Back in 2006 the House of Lords calculated that with an Oregon-type law we would have about 650 cases of assisted suicide a year in Britain, whereas as currently we see only 15-20 going to Dignitas in Switzerland to die currently. But given the increase of numbers in Oregon the UK equivalent would now be well over 1,000.

Life Site News has just published a piece by Jonathan Imbody, which draws attention to the recent critique of the Public Health Department of the Oregon Health Authority’s report for physician-assisted suicides for the 2011 year by the Physicians for Compassionate Care Education.

They note the following:

•There were more prescriptions and deaths than in any previous year; the number of prescriptions written for lethal doses of barbiturates increased from 97 in 2010 to 114 in 2011, and the reported deaths from assisted suicide increased from 65 to 71. This is indicative of an increase in hopelessness and despair among a vulnerable population with serious illness.

•62 doctors wrote 114 prescriptions, with some writing up to 14 prescriptions each. Some doctors knew the patient for only one week before writing the prescriptions. It is known that some doctors are prominent prescribers of lethal barbiturates for assisted suicide.

•As has occurred in prior years, not all who attempt to take the drugs will die. Two patients ingested the medication but failed to die. Each regained consciousness and died more than a day later, 30 hours and 38 hours respectively, of their underlying illness; they were not considered to have died from the ingested drugs. These are not easy drugs to take, they are bitter and foul-tasting, and vomiting does occur despite anti-emetics.

•As in previous years, there was virtually no formal evaluation for underlying depression, anxiety or other serious mental health issue. Only one of the 71 patients was referred for psychiatric evaluation. OHSU researchers in 2008 reported that 25% of patients requesting assisted suicide were considered to be depressed.

•As in previous years, pain has not been a major concern; only one third of patients had inadequate pain control or concern about it. The most commonly expressed concerns of those dying from physician-assisted suicide were unchanged from previous reports: less able to engage in activities making life enjoyable, losing autonomy, and loss of dignity.

•In only six cases was the prescribing physician present at the time of ingestion, in 3 other cases another provider was present. Thus, very little is known or reported regarding events at the time of ingestion of the medications. For 62 patients there was either no provider present or the information regarding presence of a provider was unknown. Physicians appear to be disengaged with patients at the end.

•In essence then, complications were unknown for 59 patients, and any information regarding minutes between ingestion and unconsciousness and death was unknown for 63 patients.

•The shroud of secrecy surrounding assisted suicide is heavier than ever. With each passing year, Oregonians know less and less about what is really happening with assisted suicides in the state.

Ironic then that DID and Margo Macdonald MSP continue to pursue a law change based on the Oregon model.

Let’s learn from Oregon and not go in that direction.

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.”