Disabled people fear change in assisted suicide law

Changing the law on assisted suicide would put pressure on disabled people to kill themselves, according to new research.

The new Comres poll found that 70 per cent of disabled people were concerned that such a change would lead to ‘pressure being placed on disabled people to end their lives prematurely’

The survey, commissioned by Scope, the leading disability charity, also showed that over one in three (35%) disabled people believed any move to decriminalise assisted suicide would place that sort of pressure on them personally.

Amongst blind and visually impaired people the figure was 49%.

Over half (56%) of all disabled people surveyed also said it would mean that it would be ‘detrimental to the way that disabled people are viewed by society as a whole’.

Richard Hawkes, chief executive of Scope, is reported in the Daily Telegraph as saying: ‘Assisted suicide is a complex and emotional issue, and there are loud and passionate voices on both sides of the debate.’

‘But while high profile lawyers, doctors and celebrities such as Terry Pratchett and Patrick Stewart grab the headlines, the views of the thousands of ordinary disabled people who could be affected by this issue are rarely listened to.’

‘Our survey findings confirm that concerns about legalising assisted suicide are not just held by a minority, but by a substantial majority of those this law would affect.’

‘Disabled people are already worried about people assuming their life isn't worth living or seeing them as a burden, and are genuinely concerned that a change in the law could increase pressure on them to end their life.’

Mr Hawkes also called on the Government to establish a new independent commission to explore the question of whether assisted dying should be legalised.

Lord Falconer’s highly controversial Commission on Assisted Dying, due to report this autumn, has been criticised for being ‘unnecessary, unbalanced and lacking in transparency’.

In particular, whilst the five leading disability rights groups in the UK (SCOPE, NCIL, UKDPC, RADAR and Not Dead Yet) oppose any change in the law, the only disabled person on the panel is an advocate for decriminalising assisted suicide who acts as a spokesperson for Dignity in Dying, formerly the Voluntary Euthanasia Society.

Under the Suicide Act 1961 those who ‘encourage or assist’ someone else to commit suicide may face a prison sentence of up to 14 years. But the Director of Public Prosecutions, in new guidelines issue in February 2010, has indicated that people who are ‘wholly motivated by compassion’ are less likely to face charges.

The fact that there have been very few prosecutions under this new arrangement has worried disabled people's groups who are concerned that some people believe people with disabilities are better off dead and will put subtle pressure on them to end their lives out of 'misguided compassion'.

They need a strong law in place to act as a deterrent in order that they may feel safe. It was precisely for this reason that the group 'Not Dead Yet' launched their 'Resistance Campaign' last June aimed at stopping any further erosion of the existing law.

Last November Margo Macdonald’s End of Life Assistance (Scotland) Bill, which would have legalised both assisted suicide and euthanasia for disabled people was rejected by the Scottish Parliament by an overwhelming majority of 85 to 16 after the general public expressed fears about disabled and other vulnerable people being put under pressure to end their lives.

The latest poll result will come as a blow to Dignity in Dying who have campaigned for a change in the law.

Whilst they have insisted that they want a change in the law only for mentally competent people who are terminally ill, some of their spokespeople, amongst them multiple sclerosis sufferer and campaigner Debbie Purdy, have been disabled but not dying.

This has raised serious questions about their real agenda.

Margo Macdonald MSP should concentrate on targeting loan sharks rather than advancing euthanasia

I see that Margo MacDonald has been re-elected as a member of the Scottish Parliament (MSP) and has vowed to revive proposals for a law to legalise ‘assisted dying’ (a specious euphemism for assisted suicide and euthanasia).

Her previous End of Life Assistance (Scotland) bill was overwhelmingly voted down by an 85-16 majority in November 2010 during the last parliament amidst concerns about the dangers it posed to elderly and disabled people.

Lest we forget why Margo’s bill was quite rightly rejected I have re-linked my previous blogs on the matter here.

Margo Macdonald’s criticisms of the Care Not Killing Alliance are without foundation

The Committee scrutinizing Margo Macdonald's Bill have rejected it – now it is time for MSPs finally to bury it

Margo Macdonald MSP is seriously misleading the Scottish Parliament over the number of deaths her bill would allow

I see that Margo has also set out plans to introduce legislation that would crack down on firms lending money to people at exorbitant rates of interest.

That would be a good thing – Britain’s whole approach to interest and debt needs a radical rethink as brilliantly argued by Paul Mills in his recent Cambridge Paper.

Let’s hope that she concentrates on that rather than wasting more parliamentary time and money trying to revive her dangerous euthanasia bill.

Economic recession plus a law allowing euthanasia and assisted suicide would provide a deadly cocktail that might push many vulnerable people over the edge into ending their lives so as not to be a financial burden on others.

Measures to alleviate debt and finanical exploitation should be the real priority.

The great financial crisis: A biblical diagnosis

May I draw readers’ attention to an excellent article, ‘The great financial crisis: A biblical diagnosis’ in the Cambridge Papers series?

Paul Mills is always stimulating and this paper in particular, building on his earlier articles on interest and debt, is profound in its diagnosis and challenging in its recommendations.

I have just summarized some highlights here majoring on personal implications but the whole (4,000 word) paper (including the sections on church and societal implications) is well worth careful examination by any thinking Christian who wants to apply a biblical mind to personal, public and global finance.

Summary

‘The self-destructive tendency of a debt-based financial system is being retaught with a vengeance by the current financial crisis. To diagnose our current plight, this paper expounds the biblical teaching on debt, interest, and finance; explains what is really going on from a relational perspective; and draws applications for the Christian, the church, and society.’

Introduction

The financial crisis working its way through the US and Europe demonstrates once again the extreme danger that debt-based finance poses. The very self-government of supposedly free nations, such as Greece and Ireland, is being suborned. This paper sets out a biblically-based alternative to conventional financial thinking, stressing its relational aspects. This perspective is not radically new. Rather it reapplies the church’s traditional stance on debt and interest that was upheld until the seventeenth century. Since then, Christians have elevated human reason above biblical revelation, meaning the church has had no prophetic voice when confronting a debt-induced financial crisis. It is time to break the silence.

The financial institutions

The financial system preaches ‘free market’ principles of loss for failure to others, but avoids having them applied to itself. Despite their industry’s very existence depending on taxpayer bailouts and assistance, managers continue to remunerate themselves extremely well, seemingly oblivious to their wider social and moral obligations. Given such hypocrisy and evident injustice, it is no wonder that we are entering a turbulent political period in which even the future of market-based economies is open to question.

The biblical alternative

There is a better way, but to follow it requires the courage to question the very foundations upon which finance has been built for the past four centuries. Rather than radical innovation, it means going back to how the church understood finance for the first three-quarters of its history.

(Relational biblical ethics) what has really been going on in the financial crisis. (This involves the following principles):

1. Lending freely to the needy is an act of love and neighbourly kindness.
2. Repayment of debt is a serious obligation.
3. Being in debt is tantamount to servitude itself because of the solemn promise to repay.
4. God’s ideal is for those made in his image to be free and clear of obligations (ie debt free)

The Bible’s teaching on interest and debt

Given the perspective of debt as ‘slavery’, it is no surprise that the Bible is clear that interest cannot legitimately be charged on a loan to a countryman, for such is to take advantage of the ‘bondage’ of another and an inherently unloving act… In the OT law, interest was prohibited within the Israelite community especially in the context of lending to the poor (Exodus 22:25; Leviticus 25:36, 37) but also between all fellow citizens (Deuteronomy 23:19). This prohibition is then upheld by David (Psalm 15:5), Ezekiel (18:8, 13, 17; 22:12) and Nehemiah (5:1–13).

Charging interest is folly for it attracts God’s retribution (Proverbs 28:8). As we have seen, Jesus assumes the prevalence of interest-free lending within his society and then radicalises the OT teaching for his disciples (Luke 6:34, 35). Moreover, he further condemns the taking of interest in the Parables of the Talents (Matthew 25:14–30) and Ten Minas (Luke 19:11–17). Here, in contrast to the servants commended for taking investment risk with their master’s resources, the wicked servant is judged for taking no chances. In the process, Jesus characterises taking interest from bank deposits as ‘reaping where one hasn’t sown’ (and so inherently unjust and exploitative); it is what ‘hard’ men do. As such, it is antithetical to both love of God and neighbour.

Personal implications

On an individual or family level, these biblical injunctions most clearly point to the desirability of being debt-free. While, in some cases, indebtedness may be unavoidable and not sinful per se, it places the borrower in ‘bondage’ with a strong moral obligation to repay. High debt levels and the resulting money worries constrain our service of God through career choice, often force both spouses to work, and can lead to marital pressures and divorce. God’s clear intention is for his children to enjoy the freedom that comes with their salvation and not to be enslaved by, or yoked to, unbelievers.Hence, we should limit consumption in order to give (Ephesians 4:28), and save to be debt-free as soon as feasible. If occupying a house, seek alternatives to avoid a mortgage or minimise its size (be that renting, using lease-to-buy arrangements,or raising equity stakes from family members or friends).

Then, use money to foster loving relationships rather than maximise financial return. Lend interest-free to help others get out of debt faster; take a stake in a relative’s home so that they can minimise their mortgage; or invest in a local or family business to sustain jobs and the local economy. Of course, all these desirable actions need to be tempered with prudence and wisdom, benefiting from the advice of others. But we shouldn’t let reverence of Mammon deprive us of the blessings promised to those who lend interest-free.

When considering where to invest one’s money, try to use the principles set out above to guide the choices. Attempt to avoid taking interest (through banks or bonds), own property or equities, and know in what you have invested God’s resources. This is unlikely to yield the best financial returns but it will embody relationally-positive principles in monetary form.

Conclusion

God’s intention is for those made in his image to enjoy freedom and stewardship. Instead, we indebt ourselves and others, inverting our moral and common sensibilities in the process and repeating the same mistakes of debt-fuelled booms and busts time and again. But God’s intention was not just our financial liberation. Rather, his ultimate purpose was to embody the gospel principle of debts forgiven and debt-slaves redeemed. Christ cancelled our certificate of debt on the Cross (Colossians 2:13–14). Christians should seek a debt-free future for themselves, their churches, and their society, to point to the exuberance and liberty of the truly redeemed life.

How could anyone object to a bill ensuring schools provide information and advice on the benefits of abstinence from sexual activity?

MPs have voted 67-61 in favour of a bill introduced by Conservative MP Nadine Dorries, which wants schools to ensure that sex education for girls includes ‘information and advice on the benefits of abstinence from sexual activity’.

The ten minute rule bill proceeds to a second reading next January but is unlikely to become law without Government support.

Dorries, MP for Mid Bedfordshire, said all schoolgirls should be given lessons in ‘how to say no’ as part of a new-style sex education curriculum.

Speaking in the Commons, she insisted society was ‘saturated in sex’, with pupils currently being shown how to put condoms on bananas and self-diagnose diseases but not to reject sexual advances altogether.

The early sexualisation of girls was being fuelled by television references to sex, newsagents stocking pornographic magazines and high street stores that sell provocative items such as padded bikinis for seven-year-olds, she added.

It is perhaps because of the poor quality of current teaching that 59% of parents in a recent survey said they do not want sex education taught in schools at all (also see BBC).

Labour MP Chris Bryant, who introduced his own Sex and Relationship Education Bill in 2010 which sought comprehensive Sex and Relationship Education (SRE) in schools, spoke in the House of Commons to oppose the abstinence bill.

The British Humanist Association (BHA) has described the vote as ‘disheartening’ and has stated that ‘abstinence education does not work’.

I note that the Family Planning Association guidance says the same:

‘There is no evidence that abstinence-only education programmes delay the initiation of sex, increase a return to abstinence or decrease the numbers of sexual partners.’

These sorts of claims have always struck me as rather bizarre. There are many faith-based and ethnic communities in the UK which have very low levels of unplanned pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease as the consequence of lower levels of promiscuity.

The FPA and BHA seem blind to this simple fact and instead cherry pick ‘evidence’ to back their ideological convictions that abstinence is impossible and that you cannot change behaviour through good education. All rather defeatist.

The passing of the bill sparked a storm of protest on Twitter, with many users attacking its focus on girls at the expense of boys. At one point, Dorries was among the top ten most discussed topics worldwide on the social networking website.

The full text of the bill read as follows:

‘Sex Education (Required Content): That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require schools to provide certain additional sex education to girls aged between 13 and 16; to provide that such education must include information and advice on the benefits of abstinence from sexual activity; and for connected purposes.’

The debate and result is reported on the BBC website and you can read the full debate in Hansard.

Nadine Dorries gives her own comments on her blog.

Health Minister Anne Milton courted controversy earlier this year when she was reported as not backing an abstinence approach. But she has since claimed that she was misrepresented.

There were very few MPs present at today’s vote so it will be interesting to see if the Cameron government supports the bill when it returns.

The last government’s policy on preventing teenage pregnancy (condoms and morning after pills) has left us with a legacy of unplanned pregnancy, sexually transmitted disease, abortion and broken relationships.

In an instructive piece on the CMF website (titled ‘Quangos for the bonfire’) GP Trevor Stammers applauds the dissolution of the Teenage Pregnancy Independent Advisory Group (TPIAG) and the Independent Advisory Group on Sexual Health and HIV (IAGSH).

Since TPIAG was set up in 1998 to halve the national under-18 conception rate by 2010, it has put most of its efforts into the promotion and provision to teenagers of the very contraceptives which, when they fail, then constitute the commonest reason for requesting abortion.

The IAGSH (March 2003) equally adopted an ideological approach which consistently ignored evidence-based practice, such as studies indicating that abstinence-only education programmes can reduce both teenage conception, abortion and STI rates.

The vast majority of members of both TPIAG and IAGSH had declared interests in the contraception and abortion industries. Baroness Gould, the chair of both, was President of the fpa and chaired a pro-abortion lobby group in Parliament.

Like Baroness Gould, many of the members of one of these two 'independent' groups were also members of the other; whereas there were no representatives at all with any experience of alternative strategies such as the highly successful ABC programmes in Uganda or Love for Life programmes in Northern Ireland, Lovewise in Newcastle or Love2Last in Sheffield.

The Coalition Government says it wants to work with charities and churches across the whole spectrum. Supporting the work of these groups would be a good step in the right direction.

I wish Nadine Dorries well and hope that she finds the support she is seeking from the government.

I see that SPUC have launched a Safe at School campaign to advise and support parents and teachers who are concerned about the explicit nature of sex education in schools.

You Tube video of assisted suicide could well lead to the deaths of more vulnerable people and should be removed

The Daily Telegraph and Daily Mail have both reported on the tragic story of a British couple in their 80s who died in a suicide pact at their home in Victoria Australia last Thursday.

Don Flounders, 81, suffered from mesothelioma, which is an incurable form of lung cancer and his 88-year-old wife Iris, who was not suffering from a terminal illness, decided she did not want to live without him.

The couple made no secret of their intention to die together and travelled to Mexico in 2008 to buy the drug they need for a controlled death.

A video from the couple has been posted on you tube explaining their intentions.

They killed themselves after receiving advice from Philip Nitschke, a dangerous self-publicist and extremist who is well known for promoting suicide amongst elderly people.

In a 2001 interview on ‘National Review Online’ Nitschke was asked who would qualify for access to his ‘suicide pill’. He replied that ‘all people qualify, not just those with the training, knowledge or resources to find out how to “give away” their life and someone needs to provide this knowledge training or resource necessary to anyone who wants it, including the depressed, the elderly, bereaved, the troubled teen’.

In the same article Nitschke said that the so-called peaceful pill should be ‘available in the supermarket so that those old enough to understand death could obtain death peacefully at the time of their choosing’.

It is well-established that the occurrence of one suicide can lead to another suicide. This phenomenon is the ‘Werther effect’, otherwise termed ‘copy cat’ suicide, ‘suicide contagion or ‘suicide cluster’.

It is also well-established that how the media reports a suicide can influence whether other suicides will follow.

The World Health Organization has developed guidelines for reporting suicide to minimize other suicides which state that ‘the degree of publicity given to a suicide story is directly correlated with the number of subsequent suicides. Cases of suicide involving celebrities have had a particularly strong impact’.

The WHO guidance on the media coverage of suicide is very clear:

•Don’t report specific details of the method used
•Don’t publish photographs or suicide notes
•Don't glorify or sensationalize suicide
•Highlight alternatives to suicide
•Provide information on help lines and community resources
•Publicize risk indicators and warning signs

The You Tube video violates all six of these guidelines.

The BBC editorial guidelines on suicide and assisted suicide are equally unambiguous:

Suicide, attempted suicide and self-harm should be portrayed with great sensitivity, whether in drama or in factual programmes. Factual reporting and fictional portrayal of suicide, attempted suicide and self-harm have the potential to make such actions appear possible, and even appropriate, to the vulnerable.

In Oregon, where assisted suicide was made legal in 1997 general suicide rates (in addition to those who are dying under the provisions of the Death with Dignity Act) are rising significantly.

Oregon’s suicide rate is 35 percent higher than the national average; 15.2 suicides per 100,000 people compared to the national rate of 11.3 per 100,000.

After decreasing in the 1990s, suicide rates have been increasing significantly since 2000, according to a new report, ‘Suicides in Oregon: Trends and Risk Factors,’ from Oregon Public Health.

The report noted a marked increase in suicides among middle-aged women. The number of women between 45 and 64 years of age who died from suicide rose 55 percent between 2000 and 2006 — from 8.2 per 100,000 to 12.8 per 100,000 respectively.

The highest suicide rate occurred among men ages 85 and older (78.4 per 100,000). White males had the highest suicide rate among all races and ethnicities (26.5 per 100,000).

It is hard to imagine that the legalisation of assisted suicide in Oregon has not at least in part contributed to this state of affairs.

The danger to elderly people of publicising joint suicides has been noted before and is well recognised in the medical literature.

A 2003 report which has just come into the public domain, titled ‘The Werther Effect and Assisted Suicide’, tells of a large epidemiological study in the region of Basle, Switzerland, from 1992 to 1996, in which a considerable rise in suicides assisted by the right-to-die society EXIT was uncovered after wide press coverage of an assisted double suicide of a prominent couple in that region in March 1995. It also notes that women over 65 are particularly vulnerable.

The posting of this You Tube video is in breach of the WHO guidance on the handling of suicide by the media. It risks promoting other similar suicides and should be removed immediately.

Two news stories on the health risks of obesity are a challenge to Christians

Having just returned from a Christian medical conference where large (especially male) abdomens were very much in evidence I was interested to see that the two lead stories on the BBC health pages this morning deal with the health consequences of obesity.

The first story, published yesterday, reports on a study from the Mayo Clinic which showed that people with coronary artery disease have an increased risk of death if they have fat around the waist.

These US researchers analysed data from five studies involving 15,923 patients, and found this even affected people with a normal Body Mass Index.

There was a 75% increased risk of death for patients with high levels of fat around the waist compared with those with thin waists and even patients with a normal weight, a BMI between 20 and 25, had this increased risk of death if they were carrying fat in that position.

The second story reports on a Swedish study showing that middle aged people who are overweight but not obese, are 71% more likely to develop dementia than those with a normal weight.

The research, published in the journal Neurology, looked at 8,534 Swedish twins. Those with a body mass index (BMI) - which measures weight relative to height - greater than 30, who are classified as obese, were 288% more likely to develop dementia than those with a BMI between 20 and 25.

But there was an effect even for those who were overweight but not obese (BMI between 25 and 30) who were 71% more likely.

Alzheimer's Society head of research, Dr Susanne Sorensen, has commented: ‘This robust study adds to the large body of evidence which suggests that if you pile on the pounds in middle age, your chances of developing dementia later in life are also increased. By eating healthily and exercising regularly, you can lessen your risk of developing dementia.'

Alzheimer's Research UK head of research, Dr Simon Ridley, added: ‘This study adds to existing evidence that excess weight in middle age could increase our risk of developing dementia.’

Now of course dementia is caused by a complex mix of genetic, environmental and lifestyle factors. But it appears that being overweight or obese is one risk factor that can be controlled.’

I have previously blogged about other recent research showing that two-thirds of Britons are overweight or obese – making us the fattest country in Europe.

This means more than 40 million British people are deemed to be at an unhealthy weight.

At the same time a separate study showed that the number of people admitted to hospital for obesity-related illnesses has shot up by more than ten times in the past decade.

The health risks of being overweight are significant. Obesity isn't just an issue of personal health either. The cost to the NHS and to the wider economy - because of increasing time off work - is estimated at about £7 billion per year, of which £1 billion is direct health service costs.

The risks are higher as BMI increases for type 2 diabetes (20 times greater for those who are very obese), cancer (10 per cent of all cancer deaths among non-smokers are related to obesity), coronary heart disease, stroke, high blood pressure (85 per cent of hypertension associated with a BMI greater than 25) and fatty liver (affects 90% of obese people and may lead to cirrhosis).

Last week CMF published a paper showing that Christians generally enjoy better health than those without faith – and attributed this in large part to better lifestyle choices - but judging by the number of BMIs visibly over 30 at the annual conference we have a lot of inroads to make on obesity.

Christians do seem to be at least as prone to obesity as those in the general population. But when did you actually last hear a sermon on overeating or exercise?

Maybe that’s part of the problem.

Of course we never know when God might call us home through trauma or disease – but given that there are clear links between obesity, sickness and death – we may well, by taking care about diet and exercise, be lessening the chance that our spouses and children will be bereaved, or looking after us in a dependent state, ahead of time.

So if you are – if only ever-so-slightly – on the plump side then today might be the day to start doing something about it.

My former post contains information about weight loss and A much fuller treatment of the issue of obesity from a Christian perspective can be found on the CMF website. See Facing the Obesity Epidemic

Russia leads the way in dealing with demographic time-bomb. Britain take note!

I warned recently that unless something is done to reverse current demographic trends, economic necessity, together with the ‘culture of death’ ideology which is becoming more openly accepted, may well mean that the generation that killed its children will in turn be killed by its own children.

In other words legalised abortion will lead to legalised euthanasia as a cost-saving and population-control measure.

I was interested to see, following Minette Marin’s proposed ‘final solution’ for Britain’s growing number of elderly people, yet another article in the Sunday Times this weekend linking euthanasia with demographic trends.

Lois Rogers, reporting on the recent joint suicide of a British couple in Australia, concluded her article with the provocative words:

‘Assisted dying is becoming more commonplace with the rise in the number of elderly people. Projections by the government suggest 11m Britons alive today can expect to reach 100.’

In the West we have a growing elderly population supported by a smaller and smaller working population – fuelled by elderly people living longer and an epidemic of abortion, infertility and small families.

These demographic changes, together with economic pressure from growing public and personal debt, and increasing pressure for a change in the law to allow euthanasia, produce a toxic cocktail indeed.

Marin’s solution is euthanasia – ie. continue with our consumptive lifestyles and small families and kill off the elderly.

But there is an alternative – promote marriage, stop abortion, have more children, live more simply, get out of debt, invest in producing goods and services that help rather than harm people, and spend more time and money on care and support for the poor, elderly and vulnerable.

Now there is a challenging (politically incorrect) election manifesto!

The Telegraph this morning, under the headline ‘Vladimir Putin promises £33 billion to boost birth rate’ reports on Russia’s response to the demographic time-bomb.

Putin, the Russian President, has promised to spend £33 billion to boost the country's flagging population by up to a third over the next four years, during a two-and-a-half hour speech that appeared to gear him up for a 2012 presidential run.

As part of a series of measures aimed at making Russia less vulnerable to ‘external threats’ he has pledged to boost the country's birth rate by between 25 and 30 per cent by 2015. He is reported as saying:

‘According to preliminary calculations, between 2011 and 2015 some 1.5 trillion roubles will be invested in demography projects. First, we expect the average life expectancy to reach 71 years. Second, we expect to increase the birth rate by 25 to 30 per cent in comparison to the 2006 birth rate.’

A report on LifeSite news gives more details:

Following Putin’s speech, the Russian parliament, the Duma, introduced a bill to disqualify abortion as a medical service in the national health plan. It would also allow doctors to refuse to commit abortions.

‘The bill aims to create the conditions for a pregnant woman to opt for giving birth,’ Yelena Mizulina, head of the State Duma committee for family, women and children, said.

On Wednesday the Duma also introduced a bill to restrict advertising for abortion.

Anton Belyakov, author of the bill and deputy from the Just Russia Party faction, told journalists, ‘The bill also commits doctors to warn women who decided to have an abortion that it may cause infertility, death or negatively affect physical and mental health.’

Russia has the highest rate of abortion in the world at 53 abortions per 1000 women between 15 and 44, according to UN statistics. Abortion is a key issue in Russia’s plummeting population that has seen a drop from 148.5 million in 1995 to 143 million today.

Belyakov said Russia’s abortion rate is ‘unacceptable.’ The country’s own statistics show that there are 1022 abortions committed for every 1000 births. Official numbers show between 1.6 and 1.7 million abortions per year, but unofficial estimates put it at closer to 6 million per year, 90 percent of which are done, as in most of the developed world, at the woman’s request for ‘social,’ not medical reasons.

Against this backdrop, Christian Newswire reports that the World Congress of Families is to hold the world's first demographic summit – ‘Moscow Demographic Summit: Family and the Future of Humankind’ – at the Russian State Social University (RSSU), on 29-30 June.

It suggests that this conference may a good place to start the reversal of demographic trends.

The Western world, including Britain, needs to take note. Although our demographic problems are not currently as bad as Russia’s, we are certainly moving in the same direction, and unlike Putin, most Western leaders have not even recognised the problem, let alone begun to embrace solutions.