Chilean Miner’s T-Shirt gives testimony to Jesus Christ: ‘To him is the honor and the glory’

Just received another fascinating update on the Chilean miner’s story to follow up the Alfredo Cooper interview I blogged about two days ago.

Apparently someone passed an audio version of the Jesus Film to the miners during their imprisonment. And this guy (pictured) jumping for joy at his release is wearing a Campus Crusade T-shirt!

The CCC logo of Campus Crusade for Christ is on the right shoulder and the Jesus Film ‘Jesus’ on the left hand shoulder. The front of the shirt carries the Chilean Flag with the words ‘Gracias Senor’ (Thank you Lord!)

On the back are the words of Psalm 95:4: ‘Porque en su mano están las profundidades de la tierra, y las alturas de los montes son suyas’ (In his hand are the depths of the earth; the heights of the mountains are his also). The text at the bottom reads ‘To him is the honor and the glory’.

The new healthcare professionals’ group seeking to legalise assisted suicide includes a number of well known campaigners

A new group of ‘health professionals' has this week joined the growing number of ‘societies’ and ‘forums’ seeking legal permission for doctors to assist with suicide.

‘Healthcare Professionals for Change’ follows on the heels of Libby Wilson’s FATE (Friends at the End), Michael Iriwin’s SOARS (Society for Old Age Rational Suicide), Philip Nitschke’s EXIT International and the Secular Medical Forum (also founded by Michael Irwin) in pushing for a change in the law which would allow doctors to end the lives of patients in their care.

The group’s leader, Oxford GP Ann McPherson, initially claimed a membership of twelve (which although a small number would have made it larger than most of the aforementioned) but this seems now to have grown, judging by the ‘supporters’ page on its website, to around 100 (a figure still only representing about 0.05% of the country’s estimated 200,000 doctors).

Prominent amongst HPFC’s supporters are several well known campaigners for the liberalisation of the law on assisted suicide and abortion. These include former MP Evan Harris, Simon Kenwright, Wendy Savage (who leads a similar doctors’ pressure group on abortion), David Paintin and Ray Tallis.

Evan Harris (pictured) has campaigned for some years for the legalisation of assisted suicide through both the British Medical Association and also as a back-bencher in Parliament, but with little success. Interestingly he lost his West Oxford and Abingdon seat in the general election earlier this year on a large swing to a candidate who opposed his views on a number of ethical issues.

Ray Tallis held the influential position of chairman of the Ethics Committee of the Royal College of Physicians (RCP) when that organisation went briefly neutral on the issues in 2005. After he had vacated the chair, and just before the debate on Lord Joffe’s Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill in May 2006, the RCP reverted to opposing any change in the law after seeking the opinions of its members, a position it has held ever since.

Sir Richard Thompson, currently President of the Royal College of Physicians, responding to the launch, has just this week eloquently outlined the reasons why a clear majority of the College’s members still do not support a change in the law.

They are in good company. Other official doctors’ bodies opposing any change in the law to allow assisted suicide or euthanasia are the British Medical Association (BMA), the Association for Palliative Medicine (APM), the British Geriatric Society (BGS), the Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) and every other Royal Medical College that has expressed an opinion on the matter.

The British Geriatric Society earlier this year issued a strong statement on assisted suicide which outlines its concerns about how a change to the law would remove protection from vulnerable elderly people. The full statement is most worthy of study by all who take an interest in this debate, especially given that the media seem to give far more column inches and broadcast time to groups such as Dr McPherson’s than they do to the official bodies which represent the majority of doctors.

HPFC is, perhaps not surprisingly, being sponsored by the pressure group Dignity in Dying (formerly the Voluntary Euthanasia Society) whose Chief Executive, Sarah Wootton, has said: ‘It’s a real move forward. It’s important for doctors to be able to challenge the views of the BMA and other medical bodies. They need to be able to represent a wider viewpoint.’

This is a rather curious statement given that the minority of doctors who support assisted suicide and euthanasia have been trying to change BMA policy for years, and have been consistently unsuccessful precisely because they do not represent the more widely held viewpoint that doctors should not be involved in assisted suicide and euthanasia and that any law legalising either practice would pose grave dangers for vulnerable elderly and disabled people.

Dr Christopher Hufeland, Goethe's doctor, warned in 1806, ‘The physician should and may do nothing else but preserve life. Whether it is valuable or not, that is none of his business. If he once permits such considerations to influence his actions, the doctor will become the most dangerous man in the state.’

The words of the Hippocratic Oath on the matter, ‘I will give no deadly medicine to anyone, nor suggest such counsel’ are thankfully still supported by a majority of doctors today.

As I suggested a couple of weeks ago, we need to remember that there have always been a minority of doctors who support euthanasia, but they are only a minority.

Fantastic interview! Rev Cooper, chaplain to Chile’s president, gives glory to God on Radio Five Live about God’s hand in rescue of Chilean miners

Reverend Alfredo Cooper, chaplain to Chile’s president, was interviewed this afternoon about the rescue of the Chilean miners on Radio Five Live’s Drive programme by presenter Peter Allen.

Cooper took the opportunity with both hands to give the full glory to God, delivering a wonderfully clear and gracious testimony about the power of prayer. You are very unlikely to read the following transcript in any newspaper, so enjoy!

The discussion took place just after 5pm and you can now hear it on you tube or on the Christian Institute website.

Peter Allen: ‘Actually there was one gentleman I got a chance to talk to a little bit earlier. He’s the Reverend Alfredo Cooper. I’ll be absolutely honest with you. We heard an English voice down the line and in fact this gentleman apparently had turned up to thank the British press for what they’d done with this whole event and when they heard his English voice we got him in front of the microphone. He’s called the Reverend Alfredo Cooper. He’s actually chaplain to the country’s president and he told me when he first got involved in the aftermath of the mine’s collapse.’

Rev Cooper: ‘I am a chaplain in the presidential palace and so we had to quickly put together an emergency prayer meeting and it was with all our hearts because to imagine these 33 men a kilometre under the earth not knowing whether they were alive or what was going through their minds.17 days we prayed and then the miracle came when the boring machine glanced off a rock and hit them – hit the cavern they were in - and of course we just erupted in praise. The second service the president called for was a praise meeting so we had a thanksgiving service and since then we’ve had constant prayer. And this has been one of the interesting factors for folk like us to notice. Many of the miners went down as atheists, unbelievers or semi-believers and they have come up to a man testifying that they were not 33 but that there were 34 down there - that Jesus was there with them and that they had a constant sense of his guidance and presence.’

Peter Allen: ‘If you truly believe that it was divine intervention that rescued then presumably you believe that it was divine intervention that left them down there in the first place. I mean it doesn’t always make sense this kind of (chuckles) argument does it?’

Rev Cooper: ‘Well the thing is that in this fallen world this is exactly what does occur. Man is subject to accidents and all sorts of problems thanks often to his wilful negligence as was the case in this mine. There are consequences when you don’t care enough for people. And of course in those situations we might compare Jonah in the whale - you know people tend to cry out to God and this is what’s happened. And God has answered.’

Peter Allen: ‘So you believe God listened to your prayers? God listened to your prayers - God listened to their prayers. You believe they were rescued by divine intervention really?’

Rev Cooper: ‘Well of course we see the hands of all these magnificent experts all around, the good will of so many people internationally and the brilliant coverage of the press and we would suggest that all this works together for good, that certainly as we prayed God has guided in remarkable ways – even the scientists. I was with the NASA people who came the other day. And to my surprise - to a man they were believing scientists in their case - and they all said “This was a miracle. There is no other word for what happened here”.’

Peter Allen: (mumbling and sounding a bit uncomfortable)

Rev Cooper: (really getting into it now!) ‘So you know - Scientists, politicians, presidents - we’ve all come together in one happy moment saying, “Goodness! God is there and he answers prayer.” That’s how we feel. And certainly the miners are also testifying to the world of this - not just about that but certainly it seems to be a central factor.’

Peter Allen: ‘That’s the religious perspective from the Reverend Alfredo Cooper. It’s 5.15pm.’

I waited patiently for the LORD; he turned to me and heard my cry.
He lifted me out of the slimy pit, out of the mud and mire;
he set my feet on a rock and gave me a firm place to stand.
He put a new song in my mouth, a hymn of praise to our God.
Many will see and fear and put their trust in the LORD.
Blessed is the man who makes the LORD his trust.
(Psalm 40:1-4)

If you want to know about advances in the treatment of spinal cord injury don’t read any British newspaper or ask the BBC

Reading the reports about the new embryonic stem cell trial for spinal cord injury that have been all over the BBC and the British papers today I am struggling to know what all the fuss is about and why in fact it is even news at all.

I’ve come to the conclusion that it is causing such excitement for five main reasons:

1.Our media are obsessed with any story involving embryonic stem cells despite the fact that these entities have not yet provided any treatments for any human disease after more than ten years of hype (By contrast adult and umbilical stem cells have already provided treatments for over 80 diseases – see my Triple Helix review)

2.Because there is ethical controversy in their use (as harvesting them involves the destruction of human embryos) it provides an opportunity for the media to revive the myth that religious zealots are trying to hold back scientific advance and stop millions of people being cured from terrible diseases.

3.The science correspondents writing for our national newspapers seem not to read medical journals any more but simply regurgitate press releases produced by commercial companies (like Geron) who wish to promote their products and improve their public image.

4.Geron have lots of money (they have already spent $170m developing this ‘treatment’) and a very good PR machine.

5.British scientists are worried about research funding in the current economic climate and so are trying to attract public and media attention in the hope of attracting grants so they are trying to pull the wool over the eyes of gullible politicians and members of the public with exaggerated claims.

If you go to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) website which logs current clinical trials you will find there are 3,124 listings of trials involving adult stem cells and 141 involving umbilical stem cells. These therapies are increasingly well established and pose no ethical problems (and so are of little interest to the British media).

By contrast today’s story is of the first clinical trial involving embryonic stem cells after over a decade of breath-holding.

There are no results yet and no scientific papers yet published in any peer-reviewed journals.

Nor will you learn from any UK media outlet today that there have been clinical trials involving (adult) stem cell treatments for spinal cord injury going on for some years now.

This story seems to be in the news simply because Geron have decided to announce to the world that they have started a clinical trial involving a possible future treatment that has not yet (and may well never) actually deliver.

Just over a week ago I blogged about a new advance in stem cell technology - involving a new improved method of producing induced pluri-potent stem cells (iPs) from ethically harvested adult cells - that led to over 1,400 headlines worldwide.

The British press has to my knowledge still not noticed it – presumably because it did not come packaged in easy cut and paste format from a biotechnology company with a financial vested interest.

For those who are interested in reading a more balanced overview of the research currently going on into stem cell treatments for spinal cord injury in different centres around the world - and about the relative merits of the several different kinds of adult and umbilical stem cells that have been used in animal experiments, or are currently being used in human trials - I would recommend, for starters, the following review articles freely available on the internet.

1.Challenges of Stem Cell Therapy for Spinal Cord Injury: Human Embryonic Stem Cells, Endogenous Neural Stem Cells, or Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells?

2.Stem cell-based therapies for spinal cord injury.

3.Stem and progenitor cell therapies: recent progress for spinal cord injury repair

And if you would to know more about all the varied avenues of work in which researchers are involved in trying to develop treatments for spinal cord injury then try typing the words ‘spinal cord injury’ into the search box here.

When I checked there were 304 clinical trials listed – with only one (today’s story) involving embryonic stem cells!

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

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

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

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

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

The full text of the amended resolution reads as follows:

The right to conscientious objection in lawful medical care

Resolution 1763 (2010) [1]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sir Michael Caine’s report of his father’s death is an opportunity to educate the public about what good palliative care can achieve

Sir Michael Caine (pictured) has revealed how he asked a doctor to help his terminally ill father to die. Maurice Micklewhite, a Billingsgate fish market porter, apparently died in hospital at the age of 56 in 1955 after suffering from liver cancer.

Sir Michael told Classic FM: ‘My father had cancer of the liver and I was in such anguish over the pain he was in, that I said to this doctor, I said “Isn't there anything else you could, just give him an overdose and end this”, because I wanted him to go and he said “Oh no, no, no, we couldn't do that”. Then, as I was leaving, he said “Come back at midnight.” I came back at midnight and my father died at five past 12. So he'd done it...’

He said his father had been given just three to four days to live when he asked the doctor to perform the mercy killing. Asked if he agreed with voluntary euthanasia, Sir Michael, 77, said: ‘Oh I think so, yeah. I think if you're in a state to where life is no longer bearable, if you want to go. I'm not saying that anyone else should make the decision, but I made the request, but my father was semi-conscious.’

We know nothing about this sad case apart from what Sir Michael Caine has told us and should therefore be very wary in drawing conclusions about what actually happened, especially in the light of the recent controversy around Ray Gosling’s discredited confessions about smothering a gay lover. Elderly celebrities have their own vulnerabilities which should not be exploited by media people hungry for a good international news story or campaigners looking for another friendly face to drive their campaign to soften up public opinion on euthanasia.

We are told that Caine’s father had only days to live but cannot know whether he died from a lethal injection or from the disease itself and have no objective medical evidence to draw on that might help us to know for sure. Witnesses apart from Sir Michael may be long dead.

We also need to take note that this case occurred 55 years ago in 1955 when palliative care was not as it is today and when many dying patients were not managed well. It is simply not necessary to kill the patient in order to kill the pain and any doctor who uses pain as a defence for ending a patient’s life is either incompetent, inadequately trained or just being disingenuous.

Earlier in July this year an international survey by the Economist Intelligence unit ranked Britain first in ‘Quality of End-of-Life Care’ which includes indicators such as public awareness, training availability, access to pain killers and doctor-patient transparency.

The British Medical Association, at its annual general meeting in July this year passed a motion affirming that requests for assisted suicide and euthanasia are very rare when patients are being properly cared for and called for better training of doctors and education of the public about palliative care.

That this Meeting, recognising that persistent requests for assisted suicide and euthanasia are very rare when patients' physical, social, psychological and spiritual needs are being appropriately met, calls on the BMA to campaign for:
(ii) better training in palliative medicine for all GPs and hospital doctors involved in managing dying patients;
(iii) better education of the public about what good palliative care can achieve.

We should also be wary of any media reports linking this case with the recent DPP guidelines on prosecution criteria for assisted suicide.

If Michael Caine’s father was indeed killed intentionally by his doctor with an overdose of painkiller without actually requesting it (being semi-conscious at the time) then this would not be a case of assisted suicide or voluntary euthanasia but rather non-voluntary euthanasia. And the DPP has recently refused to excuse any kind of euthanasia on compassionate grounds.

Is was somewhat inevitable that pressure groups such as Dignity in Dying, formerly the Voluntary Euthanasia Society would seize on this case involving a high profile celebrity as an opportunity to further their agenda of legalising so-called ‘assisted dying’ for the ‘terminally ill’ (two terms they are not willing to define precisely).

However if they are asking for the law to be changed for cases such as this then they are extending their agenda beyond assisted suicide for the mentally competent terminally ill to include non-voluntary euthanasia for the mentally incompetent.

Are we seeing more evidence of incremental extension here? I wonder.

The House of Lords has twice in the last five years (in 2006 and 2009) rejected any change in the law to allow ‘assisted suicide’ for so-called compassionate reasons on grounds of the danger such a move would pose to public safety – especially for disabled and elderly people who might feel their lives to be a burden to others. All medical institutions including the BMA, RCGP, RCP and Association for Palliative Medicine remain opposed to any change in the law for similar reasons.

Some brief Christian reflections on infertility treatments to mark Robert Edward’s receiving the Nobel Peace prize in medicine

The decision to award the Nobel prize in medicine to Robert Edwards(pictured), the British scientist who developed IVF, has met with a mixed reaction. On the one hand there have been 4 million babies born to couples who would not otherwise have been able to conceive. On the other IVF has opened what many regard as a Pandora ’s Box of genetic engineering, cloning, pre-implantation diagnosis, embryonic stem cell harvest and animal-human hybrids.

I’m not intending to comment on the appropriateness of Dr Edward’s award or weigh the perceived benefits of his research against its downside but rather to use the occasion for some brief Christian reflections on infertility treatments.

There are over two million infertile couples in the UK (one in eight). Infertility can result from defects in the production, release or transport of egg or sperm and successful treatment depends on accurate diagnosis. The range of treatments and their speed of development is bewildering, and not all couples need IVF: other common treatments include artificial insemination (AI), intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) and gamete intra-fallopian transfer (GIFT).

In IVF (in vitro fertilisation), sperm and eggs are brought together in a petri dish, and resulting embryos are then transferred into the womb. There is a high failure rate (75-85% per cycle) and the treatment costs of £2,500 per cycle will exhaust the resources of many of the couples who are unable to get NHS treatment. The emotional roller coaster of raised hope and dashed expectation is another important cost to be counted; but I believe the most important decisions Christians need to make involve honouring embryonic life and upholding the marriage bond. We should not seek a child at any cost (Romans 3:8).

Some IVF programmes involve the production of spare embryos, which are then used for research, disposed of, or frozen for future use. Freezing compromises embryo survival and there is a high chance that frozen embryos will never be used. Other programmes involve screening out embryos or fetuses with congenital disease either before implantation or later in pregnancy. Our society thinks that because human embryos are small, weak and physically insignificant they are expendable. But this is at odds with the God’s loving grace, which sees even the weakest of human beings as precious, and worthy of wonder, love, respect and protection.

The other key question to consider is whether the use of donated eggs or sperm somehow violates the marriage relationship. Clearly using donor gametes does not involve sex outside marriage nor the cheating nor lust aspects of an adulterous relationship. But marriage is a spiritual, emotional and physical union in which two become one and donor eggs or sperm inevitably introduce a third person that will be genetically related to the child, but play no part in their upbringing. And the child will be biologically related only to one, or perhaps neither of his or her parents.

So my own guidance is that prospective parents considering IVF should carefully count the economic and emotional cost and seek treatments that both respect the human embryo and also honour the marriage bond.

Some infertile Christian couples will go on to conceive, either naturally or with ethical infertility treatment, after a period of waiting. But this does not happen for all, and God in his wisdom has left some couples childless despite good treatment and patient prayer. Perhaps this is to ensure that there are couples with a strong desire to be parents, who can either adopt children, serve others’ children in some way or be freed up for some other special purpose which God has for them.

These comments are based on a longer article in Nucleus, which can be accessed here

Those wanting a more in depth review of the issues can’t do much better than Fertility and Faith by Brendan McCarthy (IVP, 1997, ISBN: 0851111807)