Bruce Forsyth's recent pronouncements on assisted suicide are seriously misguided

Celebrity entertainer Sir Bruce Forsyth (pictured) has called for the legalisation of assisted suicide after watching his ex-wife succumb to dementia.

His first wife, Penny Calvert spent her last years in a care home, dying last year. Bruce was married to Penny from 1953 to 1973 and they had three daughters. He later remarried twice.

'It bothers me an awful lot that people are just left to suffer,’ he said. ‘If I had Alzheimer’s or dementia I would do something about it. The law should be changed and if people want to die with a bit of dignity left they should be able to do so.’

Forsyth is not the first celebrity to back a change in the law.

‘Moral’ philosopher Baroness Warnock believes that elderly people suffering from dementia should consider ending their lives because they are a burden on the NHS and their families.

She said in 2008 that pensioners in mental decline are ‘wasting people's lives’ because of the care they require and insisted there was ‘nothing wrong’ with people being helped to die for the sake of their loved ones or society.

Warnock added that she hoped people will soon be ‘licensed to put others down’ if they are unable to look after themselves.

A recent survey suggests that a significant proportion of doctors in the Netherlands, where euthanasia is legal, are prepared to carry out assisted suicide for people with mental illness.

Of the 1,456 physicians responding to the survey, 34% found euthanasia and assisted suicide conceivable in patients with psychiatric disease, 40% in early-stage dementia, 29-33% in advanced dementia and 27% in circumstances where the patient was ‘tired of living’. 

According to the Alzheimer’s Society there are currently 850,000 people with dementia in the UK.  But the number forecast to increase to over one million by 2025 and over two million by 2051.

The total cost of dementia in the UK is £26.3 billion. The NHS picks up £4.3 billion of the costs and social care £10.3 billion. Of the £10.3 billion in social care costs, £4.5 billion is attributed to local authority social services for state funded care.

Two thirds of the cost of dementia (£17.4 billion) is paid by people with dementia and their families, either in unpaid care (11.6 billion) or in paying for private social care.

The overwhelming majority of people with dementia do not actually want to die. But one can see that, were the law to change, there would be many families struggling to make ends meet and health administrators trying to balance the books in a cash-strapped NHS who would in fact have a financial interest in their deaths.

A law removing legal protection from people with dementia in an environment of economic recession would be a very lethal cocktail indeed.

This is why it is so important that the current law, which makes both euthanasia and assisted suicide illegal, does not change. It would be impossible to police and far too easy to abuse.

In the Netherlands plenty of doctors are willing to push the boundaries of the current law which does not currently allow euthanasia or assisted suicide for people who are not mentally competent.

The very same thing would inevitably happen here.

The real heart of a society is revealed in the way it treats vulnerable people – especially the elderly, sick or disabled. Does it make sacrifices for vulnerable people or does it choose rather to sacrifice them?

It deeply concerns me when misguided celebrities use the language of autonomy, choice and compassion to justify taking another person’s life through euthanasia or assisted suicide.

Caring for people with mental illness or dementia can be deeply harrowing and costly. But it is far better to do this than to remove their legal protection and place them at the mercy of those with something to gain, financially or emotionally, from their deaths.

Bruce Forsyth may be a gifted and popular entertainer. But his misguided pronouncements on this crucial issue of public policy are very dangerous indeed.

New study confirms that making morning-after pill free without prescription increases sexually transmitted infections and fails to reduce pregnancy rates

Half of all pregnancies in the United States are unintended.

One might therefore assume that making the morning-after pill (MAP) more widely accessible would cut the unplanned pregnancy rate.

Not so.

A new recent US study is the first to estimate the impact of making the morning-after pill available over the counter without prescription on abortions and risky sexual behaviour as measured by sexually transmitted infection (STI) rates.

Dr Karen Mulligan, associate professor of economics and finance at Middle Tennessee State University, found that providing individuals with over-the-counter access to emergency contraception (EC) leads to increased STI rates and has no effect on abortion rates.

Moreover, risky sexual behaviour such as engaging in unprotected sex and number of sexual encounters increases as a result of over-the-counter access to EC.

Mulligan’s analysis estimated that over the counter access increases STI rates by approximately 12% for women aged 15-44 and 9% for teenagers; these numbers are also consistent with the 12-17% increase in gonorrhea rates found in Washington as a result of expanded access.

She concluded that switching EC to over the counter status has three main effects on behaviour: individuals are more likely to have sex, they have a higher number of sexual encounters, and are less likely to use condoms.

The FDA approved access to emergency contraception, or Plan B (equivalent to Levonelle in the UK), through US pharmacies without a prescription in 2012 nationally. This followed pilot programmes in several states starting with Washington in 1998. 

But the US’s persistence with this unproven strategy is apparently driven more by ideology than evidence.

In the light of Mulligan’s research, Dr David Paton, professor of industrial economics at Nottingham University Business School, today called on local and national governments in the UK to review their current policy of aggressive promotion of emergency contraception (EC) to young people in schools, pharmacies and sexual health centres.

‘It is very interesting to see further confirmation that access to emergency birth control (EBC) does not seem to reduce abortions but leads to higher rates of STIs. This paper is one of the first to explore the mechanisms whereby EBC affects STIs, finding that both rates of 'unprotected' sex and numbers of partners increase in response to over-the-counter EBC. Although this paper uses US data, it is consistent with evidence from the UK’, he said.

A previous 2012 American study showed that making emergency contraception available free over the counter without prescription leads to an increase in rates of sexually transmitted infections and does not decrease pregnancy or abortion rates. 

Christine Durrance, Assistant Professor of Public Policy at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, used county-level data as well as specific timing of changes in pharmacy access to consider the intended and unintended consequences of pharmacy access to emergency contraception in Washington. 

The results were almost identical to those of a British study published in the Journal of Health Economics (full text) in December 2010 and reported in the Daily Telegraph in January 2011.

This research, by professors Sourafel  Girma and David Paton of Nottingham University, compared areas of England where the scheme was introduced with others that declined to provide emergency contraception free from chemists (See my previous blogs on this here and here).

The academics found that rates of pregnancy among girls under 16 remained the same, but that rates of sexually transmitted infections increased by 12%.

In fact, in a systematic review published in 2007, twenty-three studies published between 1998 and 2006, and analyzed by James Trussell’s team at Princeton University, measured the effect of increased EC access on EC use, unintended pregnancy, and abortion. Not a single study among the 23 found a reduction in unintended pregnancies or abortions following increased access to emergency contraception (see also fact sheet here).

The phenomenon whereby applying a prevention measure results in an increase in the very thing it is trying to prevent is known as ‘risk compensation’.

The term has been applied to the fact that the wearing of seatbelts does not decrease the level of some forms of road traffic injuries since drivers are thereby encouraged to drive more recklessly.

In the same way it has been argued that making condoms readily available actually increases rather than decreases rates of pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections because condoms encourage teenagers to take more sexual risks in the false belief that they will not suffer harm.

Whilst condoms offer some protection against sexually transmitted infections the morning-after pill offers none.

Britain has the highest rate of teenage pregnancy in Western Europe.  But international research has consistently failed to find any evidence that emergency birth control schemes achieve a reduction in teenage conception and abortion rates.

Now there is growing evidence showing that not only are such schemes failing to do any good, but they may in fact be doing harm.

Making the emergency contraceptive pill available over the counter free, without prescription, is sadly an ill-conceived knee-jerk response to Britain’s spiralling epidemic of unplanned pregnancy, abortion and sexually transmitted disease amongst teenagers. It is also not evidence-based.

The best way to counter the epidemic of unplanned pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease is to promote real behaviour change. The government would be well advised to enter into dialogue with leaders of communities in Britain where rates of sexually transmitted diseases and unplanned pregnancy are low, especially Christian faith communities, to learn about what actually works.

Four blood moons coinciding with major Jewish festivals in 2014-5 – does it have any significance?

In my experience British Christians are either deeply suspicious or profoundly disinterested in eschatology (the theology of the last things). Meeting Christ after death therefore features far more in their thinking than his ‘second coming’.

Many British atheists and secular humanists find the idea of the return of Christ frankly risible.

And so I’m guessing it is unlikely, if you are a British Christian, that you will have read much at all about the significance of the four ‘blood moons’ this year and last.

The Blood Moon Prophecy, recently popularised by Christian authors John Hagee and Mark Biltz, states that an ongoing tetrad (a series of four consecutive lunar eclipses—coinciding on Jewish Holidays—with six full moons in between, and no intervening partial lunar eclipses) is a sign of the end times as described in the Bible.

The latest such tetrad occurs in 2014 and 2015. The ‘blood moon’ comes from the New Testament and is referred to by two of Jesus’ closest disciples: Peter, who preached the first Christian sermon at Pentecost, and John, who wrote Revelation, the last book in the Bible.

‘The sun will be turned to darkness and the moon to blood before the coming of the great and glorious day of the Lord.‘ (Acts 2:20)

‘I watched as he opened the sixth seal. There was a great earthquake. The sun turned black like sackcloth made of goat hair, the whole moon turned blood red.’ (Revelation 6:12)

The prophecy has its origin in the Old Testament book of Joel which describes both a total solar eclipse and a total lunar eclipse.  

‘The sun will be turned to darkness and the moon to blood before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord.’ (Joel 2:31)

The event is also alluded to by Jesus Christ himself in the Olivet discourse, spoken just prior to his arrest and crucifixion:

‘There will be signs in the sun, moon and stars.’ (Luke 21:25)

 ‘But in those days, following that distress, “the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light”.’ (Matthew 24:29 & Mark 13:24)

Jesus immediately follows these words with a reference to his own return:

'Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory. And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.’ (Matthew 24:30-31)

This passage echoes the prophecy of Zechariah over 400 years earlier, which suggests that the Jewish people would recognise the crucified Christ as Messiah and turn to him en masse.

'And I will pour out on the House of  David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look upon me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a first-born son' (Zechariah 12:10)

This same theme of Jews recognising Jesus as the Messiah also features in Paul’s letter to the Romans in the mid first century.

‘I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers and sisters, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in, and in this way all Israel will be saved.’ (Romans 11:25-26)

Many Christians see this as a reference to Jewish people turning to Christ just prior to his return. They therefore see the current rapid growth of messianic (Christ- believing)  Jewish congregations as the start of this process. There are now estimated to be over 20,000 messianic Jews in Israel alone in over 200 congregations.

Jesus himself suggested that the return of Jews to Israel, after an almost 2,000 year diaspora following the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in AD 70, as a marker of the ‘time of gentiles’ coming to an end.

^‘They will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations. Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled. ‘(Luke 21:24)

Jews began returning to Israel in the mid 19^th century, leading to the Balfour Declaration in 1917, the establishment of the State of Israel in 1949 and the capture of Jerusalem during the six day war in 1967.

So what of the blood moons?

From the first century until now there have been a total of 62 tetrads of blood moons. However, only eight of these have fallen on Jewish feasts of Passover and Tabernacles (Sukkot). Several of these eight occurrences have coincided with important events in Jewish and Christian history.

The last two of these have been in the years 1949-50 and 1967-68 coinciding with the birth of the state of Israel and the capture of Jerusalem.

The latest tetrad of total lunar eclipses falls on 15 April and 8 October 2014 and 15 April and 28 September 2015.

This eighteen month period has been characterised by the rise of Islamic State, a rising tide of anti-semitism in Europe , a hardening of Western political attitudes to Israel and an escalation of persecution of Christians in the Middle East.

What further might happen this year remains to be seen but to all Christians these astronomic events are a poignant reminder to ‘keep watch’ by turning daily to Christ and being earnest in evangelism and active in his service. (Matthew 24:4, 42, 25:13)

There are those who mock the prospect of Christ’s return, pointing to 2,000 years passing since he first appeared.

But the Apostle Peter reminds us that God delays in calling history to an end precisely in order that people may have a chance to turn to him and receive forgiveness whilst there is still time to do so. (2 Peter 3:9)

For when the author of the story of the universe walks back on to the stage of history it will be too late to change sides.

For an explanation of the significance of Christ’s death and resurrection see, ‘The real meaning of Easter: why did Christ have to die?’  

For a fascinating account of how the Babylonian Saros Cycle can be used to date Jesus' crucifixion, which also occurred at a lunar eclipse, see here.

Today's aggressive LGBT rights movement takes no prisoners – and it’s not finished yet

I suspect that few reading this blog will have heard of the ILGA but will equally not be surprised to learn that it exists.

The International lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans and intersex association (ILGA) is a worldwide federation of 1,100 member organisations from 110 countries campaigning for lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans and intersex rights.

Its European wing maps the LGBT status of every European country and from this portal you can easily access the legal summary for the UK.

The latter lists the legislative objectives achieved and those still sought in these islands – in great detail.

You may be surprised that LGBT activists believe that there still are legal battles to fight. Northern Ireland still does not recognise hate crime on grounds of gender identity and has not yet legalised same sex marriage. Scotland has not yet criminalised hate speech on grounds of sexual orientation.

But overall the UK bridges not yet crossed are very few.

The ILGA is building a similar legal analysis for every nation on earth and its member organisations are working collaboratively to achieve every legislative objective.

Some may say ‘so what?’ Why shouldn’t LGBT people have the freedom to have what they are asking for?

But the problem is that legal rights for some constitute legal duties for others. Gay rights were once a concession. They then became an expectation. Now it seems they are a requirement.

What began as ‘accept me’ quickly became ‘affirm me’ and then ‘celebrate me… or else’.

Those who resist being coerced to deliver on the LGBT agenda pay a heavy price – not just ridicule and marginalisation, but legal sanctions - dismissal, fines, imprisonment, gagging and being driven from the public square.

These activists will not tolerate disagreement or dissent. Every knee must be made to bow, to recite the mantras and creeds and to grease the LGBT machinery.

The Coalition for Marriage has this week published a leaflet outlining 30 cases involving individuals or groups who have been ‘punished’ for ‘believing in traditional marriage’.

Each case is documented and carefully referenced and although coming from all over the world the vast majority come from the UK. Some examples:

Ashers Baking Company, owned by the McArthur family, was taken to court by the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland for declining to produce a pro-gay marriage campaign cake.

Lillian Ladele was pushed out of her job as a registrar at Islington Council for asking her managers to accommodate her belief that marriage is the union of one man and one woman.

Peter and Hazelmary Bull were ordered to pay £3,600 in damages because their B&B in Cornwall had a policy of only allowing married couples to share a double bed.

Andrew McClintock was forced to resign as a magistrate in Sheffield because he didn’t believe placing children with same-sex couples was in their best interests. He lost his discrimination case at an employment appeal tribunal.

All Roman Catholic adoption agencies in England have been forced to close or abandon their religious ethos because of their policy of only placing children with traditionally married couples.

That’s five. There are 25 more. And so it goes on and on. I’m informed that these 30 cases are a small minority of those that have occurred. A mere tip of the iceberg.

Now it appears that we are in for more of the same with the three main political parties all pledging in their election manifestos to do more for LGBT ‘rights’. They are full of specious euphemisms which cleverly disguise the realities for those will not play ball.

The Conservative Manifesto trumpets its pride in legalising same-sex marriage and promises more: 

‘Our historic introduction of gay marriage has helped drive forward equality and strengthened the institution of marriage. But there is still more to do, and we will continue to champion equality for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender people. We will build on the posthumous pardon of ... Alan Turing ... with a broader measure to lift the blight of outdated convictions of this nature’ (p46).  

The Labour Manifesto speaks of combatting ‘homophobia’:

‘We will also build on our history of championing LGBT rights, tackling homophobia with tougher laws at home and greater engagement abroad (p67) ...Labour will ...appoint an International LGBT Rights Envoy and a Global Envoy for Religious Freedom’ (p81).

The Liberal Democrat Manifesto boasts about further ‘marriage liberalisation’:

‘We will ... permit humanist weddings and opposite sex civil partnerships, and liberalise the rules about the location, timing and content of wedding ceremonies ... promote international recognition of same sex marriages and civil partnerships as part of a comprehensive International LGBT Rights Strategy’ (p107). 

It is clear that whoever gets to form a government after the general election on 7 May will be actively advancing the LGBT agenda.

Those who believe, teach and practise traditional Christian teaching on marriage, relationships and sexuality are therefore going to find themselves increasingly on the wrong side of the law as this new political correctness is taught is schools, enforced by the constabulary and judiciary and promulgated by the media, in parliament, through celebrity culture and inevitably in our churches.

Our first priority in opposing its pernicious influence must be to ensure that our congregations – and especially our children and young people – are firmly grounded in biblical teaching and also well briefed in how to argue against the new agenda. It is a task that will require clarity, compassion and, above all, courage.

The enemy’s goal is to undermine real marriage and the family. We must resist him with every fibre of our being – through speaking up for the truth and by faithfully upholding God’s model in our personal lives and Christian communities. 

Assisted Suicide – In the face of two major threats the price of freedom is eternal vigilance

Lord Falconer's Assisted Dying Bill sought to legalise assisted suicide (but not euthanasia) for mentally competent adults (aged over 18) with less than six months to live, subject to 'safeguards' under a two doctors' signature model similar to the Abortion Act 1967.

The Bill had an unopposed second reading in the House of Lords on 18 July 2014 and Committee stage debates took place on 7 November and 16 January 2015. Over 175 amendments were tabled and three votes held. Lord Pannick’s amendment (to delegate the final decision in any specific case to the courts) was ‘accepted’ and attempts to change the bill’s wording throughout from ‘assisted dying’ to ‘assisted suicide’ and to require two doctors to carry out examinations  were defeated by 179-106 and 119-61 respectively. 

The bill has now fallen with the approach of the general election on 7 May and will not enter the House of Commons in this parliament. However it is expected to be reintroduced, possibly in the Commons, later this year. Its progress then will depend very much on the post-election composition of parliament.

It is clear that the mood of the House of Lords is now sympathetic to Falconer but the lower house is another matter altogether. Both Prime Minister David Cameron and Liberal Democrat Leader Nick Clegg remain opposed to it although Labour leader Ed Miliband is neutral.

There are excellent reviews of the debate and analyses of the deficiencies of the Bill on the Care Not Killing website.

Patrick Harvie’s ‘Assisted Suicide (Scotland) Bill’, however, remains very much alive in the Scottish Parliament. The MSP (pictured above) took over the bill following the death of Margo Macdonald MSP in April 2014. It proposes an ‘Oregon type system’ with trained ‘licensed facilitators’ but with a wide scope for mentally competent adults (>16) with a ‘terminal or life-shortening illness’ or a ‘progressive and terminal or life-shortening condition’ who have concluded that the ‘quality of their life is unacceptable’.

The bill has even more holes than Falconer’s including relativistic definitions, poor reporting provisions, minimal penalties, a ‘saving’ clause protecting doctors acting in ‘good faith’, no specification of ‘means’ of suicide and the absence of a conscience clause.

Oral evidence sessions took place in January and February this year and a first stage debate considering the general principles of the bill must take place in the Scottish parliament before 28 May. Scottish First Minister and SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon has already signalled that she will not support the bill and over 15,000 Scottish people have signed a petition against it.  

The voices of Scottish Christian doctors and lawyers will be particularly crucial in the lead up to this first stage debate, where we hope the bill will be soundly defeated. Again, there are many resources available about the bill on the CNK Website.

We need to speak out for those voiceless vulnerable people who will be exploited and abused by this ill-conceived draft legislation (Proverbs 31:8,9).

'Cohabitation Can Be Hazardous to Your Health', says American College of Paediatricians

The American College of Paediatricians is a national medical association of licensed physicians and healthcare professionals who specialize in the care of infants, children, and adolescents. The mission of the College is to enable all children to reach their optimal physical and emotional health and well-being. They issued this press release on 23 March.

With its position statement, Cohabitation, the American College of Paediatricians cautions adolescents and young adults about the negative consequences of cohabitation for both themselves and their children, and urges parents to teach their children about the advantages of waiting until marriage.

Research shows that, rather than serving as a stepping stone to a healthy marriage, living together before marriage (cohabitation) makes couples more likely to break-up and more likely to divorce if they do marry.  Partners who cohabitate are more likely to be unfaithful than married spouses, and are more likely to be violent toward the other partner.  Poverty is more common among cohabitating women because their male partners are less likely to work and more likely to spend their time on personal pleasure than do married men.  Women in a cohabitating relationship are ten times more likely to have an abortion than married women, and therefore suffer from its associated mortality and morbidity.

Children also suffer due to parental cohabitation.  Not only do they have an increased risk of losing a parent to divorce or separation, but this may happen multiple times.  Children whose parents are cohabiting at their birth are over 4 times more likely to suffer separation of their parents by their third birthdays than those whose parents were married when they were born.  Couples often enter into cohabitation with a child from a previous relationship leading to the common scenario of child abuse involving a live-in boy friend or a stepfather.  Children whose parents lived together (before or after their birth) are at increased risk for living in poverty, achieving lower levels of education, experiencing school failure and earning lower incomes as adults. In addition, they face a greater risk of suffering from medical neglect, as well as chronic physical and mental health problems, including suicide, substance, alcohol and tobacco abuse. Finally, there are also higher rates of behaviour problems and incarcerations among these children.

The American College of Paediatricians urges parents and paediatricians to educate adolescents about the risks of cohabitation and the life-long benefits of marriage for the entire family and society.  The institution of marriage is one of the best and most cost effective public health tools society has. Saving sexual relationships for marriage should be promoted by the media, school teachers and policymakers alike. Adolescents and young adults should be encouraged to pursue this path for achieving optimal health for themselves, their children and society at large.

For further information, see Effects of Cohabitation on the Men and Women and Involved, and Effects of Parental Cohabitation and other Non-marital Sexual Activity on Children.

How should Christian doctors vote?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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