A blog launched on the 41st anniversary of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC), the first pro-life organisation in the world, established on 11 January 1967. SPUC has been a leader in the educational and political battle against abortion, human embryo experimentation and euthanasia since then. I write this blog in my role as SPUC's chief executiver, commenting on pro-life news, reflecting on pro-life issues and promoting SPUC's work.
A Liverpool couple have been ridiculed by their MP’s staff for trying to protect their ten-year-old son from a pornographic sex education programme widely used in UK primary schools, reports Liverpool media. The couple, Christopher and Pauline Power, have been supported in their efforts by SPUC's Safe at School campaign
Mr Power wrote to Alison McGovern (pictured), his member of parliament, about "Living and Growing", the Channel 4 DVD series for primary schools. One of the DVDs shows a naked cartoon couple having a pillow-fight and chasing each other before having sex in different positions. Mr Power heard nothing for four weeks and then received an accidental email from Mrs McGovern’s assistant which read:
“Alison, think we need to get a response out to this gentleman. Know it’s an awfully uncomfortable discussion to have, but think we need to get a position (stop giggling at the back) sooner than later. Jay”
Antonia Tully of Safe at School told the media this evening:
“Mr and Mrs Power are deeply distressed that a message to their MP has been turned into a vulgar joke. Safe at School has repeatedly highlighted the contempt for parents shown by those who advocate sexually explicit classroom sex education.
"Safe at School is writing to Michael Gove, the Secretary of State for Education, asking him to meet Mr and Mrs Power and to see at first hand this programme which is widely used throughout the UK."
“This Channel 4 programme is priming children for teenage sex. If Mr Gove is concerned about the damaging impact of the teenage sexual culture in Britain, it is important that he is aware of how explicit, crude and suggestive many sex lessons aimed at pre-teens are. 'Living and Growing' is a prime example.
“The programme not only teaches children how to have sex, it also promotes contraception. In the final lesson children are given an activity sheet entitled ‘Contraceptive Crisis’. This asks children of 10 and 11 years old to describe the way in which five different types of contraceptive work, and then asks them which one a confused couple should use.”
Yesterday a German high court ruled that embryos which have been frozen for future in vitro fertilisation (IVF) can be screened to see if they are likely to be born with disabilities. The Federal Supreme Court in Leipzig ruled in support of a Berlin gynaecologist who had carried out screening on embryos for three different couples and implanted only those without disabilities. The embryos with disabilities were left to die.
This follows the news last week of the development of a cheap blood test that could allow doctors to check unborn children for Down's syndrome.
Both of these developments, in my view, represent advancements in the genocide of unborn disabled human beings.
Like the article in The Telegraph that reported on the new blood test, the report on yesterday's development in Germany contains an offensive inaccuracy. The article describes human embryos without disabilities as healthy thereby implicitly suggesting that human embryos with disabilities are unhealthy.
Our society should not be applauding legal and scientific advancements in the targeting and killing of disabled human beings.
It is interesting to read today, again in The Telegraph, Edward Lyons, the former Labour MP, being praised (in his obituary) for his contribution to the advancement of the 1967 Abortion Act, specifically through advocating the abortion of unborn disabled children. The article reads:
Lyons made his greatest impact on the House of Commons in a deeply personal way, in his maiden speech. Breaking with convention by choosing a controversial topic, he intervened in the debate on David Steel's ultimately successful 1966 Bill to legalise abortion to disclose that his wife Barbara had herself had a termination early in their marriage.
Lyons told a hushed House of Commons that she took the step after contracting German measles, with doctors in Yorkshire telling her she must have the baby despite the risk of its being born deformed. "Our quest brought us to London," he said. "We were finally successful and we have no regrets."
I do not judge Mr Lyons or his wife for their decision. It is, however, worrying that The Telegraph, and other media outlets appear entirely comfortable with the promotion of the deliberate targeting and elimination of disabled individuals from our society.
The nomination of Elena Kagan by President Barack Obama to the Supreme Court is another example of the naked promotion of pro-abortion activists to influential positions. This nomination spells danger for the rule of law.
The radically pro-abortion credentials of Elena Kagan were exposed in reports last week, which revealed that she rewrote the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) position on partial birth abortion. She did so to the effect that the ACOG's language changed from saying that it could never foresee a circumstance when partial birth abortion would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of a mother, to language which says that in some circumstances partial birth abortion is the best option. As Yuval Levin reports:
Kagan saw ACOG’s original paper, which did not include the claim that partial-birth abortion “may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman,” but, on the contrary, said that ACOG “could identify no circumstances under which this procedure . . . would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman.” She wrote a memo to two White House colleagues noting that this language would be “a disaster” for the cause of partial-birth abortion, and she then set out to do something about it. In notes released by the White House it now looks as though Kagan herself—a senior Clinton White House staffer with no medical background—proposed the “may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman” language, and sent it to ACOG, which then included that language in its final statement.
By promoting Elena Kagan, President Obama is promoting a radically pro-abortion activist with a history of advancing the anti-life agenda. The danger is that Kagan may soon be granted the capacity to interpret law in accordance with her anti-life bias.
US citizens have every reason to fear that Kagan will attempt to use her position as Supreme Court justice to interpret the law in a way which will advance anti-life ends. Kagan has been reported as having described the constitutional interpretation of Thurgood Marshall, the former Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court as "a thing of glory".
Justice Marshall:
interpreted the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution (“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”) to mean that states were mandated to pay for abortions.
In 1981 opposed a Supreme Court case that said a physician should “[n]otify, if possible, the parents or guardian of the woman upon whom the abortion is performed, if she is a minor.”
In 1990 opposed another bill upholding parental notification of abortion of minors. He also opposed the bill because it asked for a 48 hour waiting period before an abortion took place.
The values that Elena Kagan described as a "thing of glory" are the values that mark out Thurgood Marshall as radically pro-abortion.
US citizens need no reminding of the inherent dangers in anti-life judicial interpretations. It is, after all, thanks to the judical interpretation of Justice Harry Blackmun in Roe vs Wade that abortion is so widespread across the United States. Blackmun interpreted that the "right of personal liberty" in the US Constitution also included a "right of privacy" that was "broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy". The fact that a "right to privacy" is not explicitly found in the U.S. Constitution and that, even if a right to privacy did exist, there is nothing to suggest that such a right should include the right to abortion, did not stop Justice Blackmun from interpreting that it did.
The danger of an anti-life bias in judicial interpretations has been made all too clear to UK citizens by the recent blunting of the laws against assisted suicide by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP). This was acheived by a shift in focus in the new judicial guidelines on assisted-suicide from intention (the suspect's deliberate will to assist the suicide) to motivation (why the suspect assisted a suicide). This undermining of the law makes assisted suicide very different from other serious crimes against the person, where consent to becoming a victim is not accepted either as a defence in court or as a factor against prosecution. Thanks to the DPP's new guidelines on assisted suicide this radical departure from the rule of law will now become the norm in the UK.
The following conclusion by Pietro De Marco perfectly expresses the dangers when individual judges dictate the moral compass of society :
Carl Schmitt saw it well when he wrote that jurists, instead of theologians, legitimize the institutions of modernity, and have the power of the sovereign, that of execution. In global configurations as in social institutions, in anthropology and in bioethics as in the decision over those who govern, a new wave of jurists are acting today who are "revolutionaries," some consciously and some not, and one does not know which is worse. It escapes many analysts that among the perverse effects of late modernity, this is one of the most pernicious.
The Times have published a surprisingly honest article by Antonia Senior (pictured), in which she describes her views on abortion.
In her article 'Yes abortion is killing, but it's the lesser evil' Antonia Senior says that the birth of her child has brought what she describes as her "absolutist position" in favour of abortion "under siege". She beautifully describes how the birth of her daughter has helped her to realise that human life truly begins at conception:
[m]y daughter was formed at conception, and all the barely understood alchemy that turned the happy accident of that particular sperm meeting that particular egg into my darling, personality-packed toddler took place at that moment. She is so unmistakably herself, her own person — forged in my womb, not by my mothering.
Despite this, Antonia Senior remains pro-abortion. She concludes that although abortion means killing an individual human life, exercising control over women's 'fertility' (by this Senior means actually giving birth, rather than exercising control of conception) is more important.
Senior says:
The nearly 200,000 aborted babies in the UK each year are the lesser evil, [JS: as opposed to the loss of women's control over what Senior calls their 'fertility'] no matter how you define life, or death, for that matter. If you are willing to die for a cause, you must be prepared to kill for it, too.
Senior admits to being prepared to kill so that, in her words, she and other women possess
[the] ability to impose our will on our biology.
Although Antonia Senior admits that abortion involves one person's deciding to kill another person, she also describes abortion just in terms of women's bodies (omitting mention of the unborn). She also claims that abortion is a lesser evil than the loss of women's control of their fertility, and she even says that women should be prepared to kill for such control. Although she concedes that unborn babies are human, she considers their lives disposable.
I very much suspect that Antonia Senior will be inundated with responses to this article. Some of the questions I would like to ask her are:
are you prepared to kill humans outside the womb, as well as inside the womb in order to maintain your control?
Do you believe that all the abortions that take place in the UK are undertaken by women with the same readiness to kill as yourself?
What about women who may not understand the reality of abortion or share your resolve to kill and who are pressured by society and by others into having an abortion that they may later regret?
As a Catholic parent, living in the archdiocese of Westminster, I am troubled by the BBC's Hardtalk interview with Vincent Nichols (pictured), the archbishop of Westminster, broadcast last Friday. I am troubled for my family. Not for the first time, we've been abandoned by our pastor. Equally, I'm troubled for Pope Benedict who, in his forthcoming trip to Britain, is being shepherded into a politically correct "broad church".
I pray that the state of episcopal leadership in England and Wales is brought to the attention of the Pope and that the Holy Father determines to speak out boldly and unambiguously about abortion, contraception and on the authentic truth of human sexuality, just as he does elsewhere in the world.
In BBC News Channel HardTalk last Friday night, Stephen Sackur questioned the archbishop on papal teaching on condoms and homosexual acts[*].
Archbishop Nichols showed his mastery of the political art of evading direct questions - until it came to exchanges on whether, in the future, the Catholic Church might accept "flexibility" on matters like gay unions. At the same time he speaks about "fidelity to Christ" and "faithfulness". I publish below a verbatim transcript of one section of the interview with the archbishop.
It reminds me of the Catholic bishops' position on abortion. On the one hand they explain the Catholic church's opposition to abortion. On the other hand, Archbishop Nichols and the Catholic bishops of England and Wales go along with the previous government's ideas and legislative plans on sex and relationships education - which involve giving access to schoolchildren under the age of consent to abortions, without their parents' knowledge or consent. The previous government's plans and ideas also included teaching that homosexuality is normal and harmless.
As a consequence of this dichotomy the Catholic Church in England and Wales, in particular its teachings relating to the culture of life, is wounded and divided. I pray that Pope Benedict will heal these wounds and division with love and forthright teaching.
I will return to this dichotomy between faithfulness/fidelity to Christ, the bishops of England and Wales, and abortion etc for schoolchildren later this week and its implications for non-Catholics and the Catholic faithful later this week. Here is a verbatim transcript of one section of Archbishop Nichols's interview on Hardtalk below.
Hardtalk, , BBC News Channel, 11.30, Friday, 2nd July Stephen Sackur interviews Reverend Vincent Nichols, archbishop of Westminster
"Stephen Sackur (S): Let's look at some specific issues then... Not so long ago on a visit to Africa, Pope Benedict said that in his view the distribution of condoms can aggravate and does aggravate the problem of HIV Aids. Now there are no scientific polls on this but I would suggest to you that most people in a country like the United Kingdom would fundamentally disagree with that position.
Archbishop Vincent Nichols (N): Yes I would agree with you and I think that most people in this country would disagree with it.
S. Do you disagree with it?
N. No. I don't actually. I wouldn't express it like that.
S. You think that condoms aggravate the problem of the spread of HIV Aids?
N. No, I wouldn't express it quite like that. What I would say is that the spread and the use of condoms in Africa have plenty of champions and still Aids spreads. So I think there are deeper questions that we should be asking and when you ask those questions, for example from the perspective of women in Africa, then you've got to say "Actually we should be looking for an understanding of sexuality that is something that isn't just contained within a technical response. I think the distribution of condoms is a technical response from a western technological cuture being imposed on a society which doesn't work like that.
S. But when you tell me that I cannot help thinking back to the interview I recorded for this programme not so very long ago with the Catholic bishop of Rustenburg, Kevin Dowling, and for him condoms was anything but a technological debate. He says that in his particular diocese he has decided that condoms are a crucial part of the healthcare alternative offered to women because he says they save lives and more than anything else he is pro-life and being pro-life has led him to believe that he has to challenge his own Pope on this fundamental issue.
N. Well I respect his views. He's been there. I've never been to Africa. That's why I would be cautious in expressing the view precisely on this point in practical terms. The point I was trying to make was the point that we can engage in a debate about in this country which is what is the meaning of human sexuality. What actually is it about? Is it a recreational activity? Is it a casual relationship activity? It is something intrinsically involving procreation? How exactly do understand human sexuality? And these are the underlying questions which I think the Pope provokes which many people find uncomfortable but nevertheless are very valid.
S. But I just wonder whether you sometimes feel uncomfortable because on the one hand your Catholic faith and your belief in the Pope and this Pope in particular leads you to a position where you want to be loyal. Loyalty is a fundamentally important part of the Roman Catholic tradition. On the other hand maybe from time to time like Bishop Dowling you believe that this Pope or any particular Pope takes a stand that you can't share. How do you wrestle with that personally?
N. Well I think we start off here by wanting say, and this would be my most fundamental commitment, would be a search for truth, a search for what actually helps me to know who I am, what my destiny is, what my deeper origins are, what is going to make sense of this myriad of experiences that make up a daily life. And I think the church is misunderstood when the Church is represented as saying we possess the truth and from here on we'll give it to you. And Pope Benedict would never say that. He would say and I would try and echo that we are searchers for the truth. We want to be possessed by the truth - not possessive.
S. But your perception of the truth may be different from his. For example in 1986 the famous letter he wrote on homosexuality in which he described homosexual acts as intrinsically and objectively disordered. Do you in your view of truth and searching for truth disagree with that?
N. Well again you have to understand the language. That's a technical language that draws on scholastic philosophy for over a thousand years and what it ...
S. (interrupting) But Archbishop When you say that you're probably losing a large part of the audience. People want to know from a senior churchman like yourself.
N. Well let me tell you what it means. It means there here is an understanding that human sexuality is to do with procreation and sex between two people of the same sex will never produce a child.
S. And is therefore unnatural.
N. ... Therefore it is not along the line of the order, the pathway, of sexuality as understood in this tradition.
S. You see you will know as well as I do there are social trend surveys in the United Kingdom and many other western developed nations which suggest that on issues like the view of homosexuality the general population is getting more and more "liberal"
N. Certainly.
S. And yet you and the Pope are sticking to a deeply traditional, small "conservative" line. Therefore the disconnect between the general population and the Roman Catholic church appears to be getting wider. Does that not worry you?
N. Well no, what would worry me more frankly is to try and refashion a message simply to suit a time. I think there is if you like a critical distance to be held between how the church struggles to understand a revealed truth and how a society is moving. If they're too close there's no light. If they're too far apart there's no light.
S. There's no church. If they're too far apart frankly there's no church
N. There might be no church. That's true.
S. There'll be nobody in the pews.
N. That's true
S. And let me first just quote [to] you, sorry to interupt but it is important, the Pope in his letter to Irish Catholics in which he expressed great remorse for what happened in Ireland going back to the child sex abuse scandals. He said and I'm quoting his words now: "Fast-paced social change has occurred often affecting peoples' traditional adherence to Catholic teaching and values." The Pope himself surely recognises there is a problem here and is the Chruch not going to have to respond to it?
N. Well let me quote the Pope back to you in 1986, I think it was, as a theologian he said he could foresee the day when the church in some parts of the world had shrunk so much that it would become a small flock.
S. He used the word "remnant"
N. Yes he probably did. That's a very biblical expression. So he's not ... afraid of that. He would put fidelity over success so the criteria we're here for is not success.
S. You say he's not afraid of becoming "a remnant" he would put orthodoxy, loyalty, purity
N. No, no a search for truth
S. OK so maybe purity of theology before ...
N. (interrupting) That is the experience of every Christian. That's the experience of everybody who loses their security loses their status in a society loes their life in martyrdom. It's the whole pathway of fidelity to Christ. It's just the way it is.
S. The Church of England for example in this country is taking a rather different view. They believe there has to be some flexibility. The church has to be a reflection of society's values to a certain extent and therefore we see women priests, women vicars, and there's obviously in some parts of the Anglican Communion, women bishops.
N. Certainly.
S. Some of their vicars are also prepared to sanction gay unions. That church is showing flexibility. Is the Catholic church not going to have to do the same eventually?
N. I don't know. Who knows what's down the road?
S. Well I'm just asking you. You're rather an important player in the Catholic church. What do you believe it should be?
N. No no. There's no doubt in my mind that our first call is to faithfulness and not to sucess. And if faithfulness involves that kind of shrinking then so be it. But it's not as if the church has policies and then focus groups then tries to re-shape so that it captures the mood of the day or the wind and therefore gets momentum behind it. That's not simply the way the Catholic Church understands itself.
[*] Pope John Paul II taught that it was an illusion to think that we could build a true culture of human life if we did not offer adolescents and young adults an authentic education in sexuality, and in love, and the whole of life according to their true meaning and in their close interconnection. However, with the bishops of England and Wales lending its support to legislation that obliges Catholic schools to provide information on contraception and abortion, is it not completely unrealistic to expect that Catholic sexual morality will be taught in these schools?
Alison Davis, of No Less Human, has sent me an unpublished letter she wrote recently to the Daily Telegraph. Alison was commenting on the Telegraph story about a blood test which will allow doctors to check unborn children for Down's syndrome. I wrote about this myself on the day the story appeared, and I referred to it again the following day in connection with Tony Blair's support for killing disabled babies up to birth.
Alison writes:
Dear Sirs,
I read with some dismay your story ("Blood test for Down's syndrome" 30 June 2010) which expressed the "hope" that a new non-invasive pre-natal test for Down's syndrome will soon be widely available. This "hope" seems to be based on the fact that the test may reduce the numbers of miscarriages of so-called "healthy" babies who currently die as a result of invasive tests to detect Down's syndrome." In doing so, it perpetuates the common myth that while killing a "healthy" baby is a tragedy, killing a disabled baby is to be lauded.
A spokesman for the Royal College of Obstetrics and Gynaecology dubs it the "holy grail" of Down's syndrome testing, while the lead researcher "hopes all women in the world will eventually be offered the test." She further claims it is "safe, cheap, fast, reliable and accurate" and that it "will be of immediate benefit to pregnant women ..." She fails to mention two facts: it is no benefit to a pregnant woman to be enabled to abort her disabled baby, however apparently "safe" and "cheap" the detection process may be. Indeed post abortion distress is particularly common among such women; and it most certainly is not a "benefit" to the baby who has Down's syndrome, or any other disability, to be killed by abortion.
I am severely disabled myself, and use a wheelchair full time. I have spina bifida, another disability subject to the popular notion that killing disabled people is more beneficial (to our mothers? or to society?) than letting us live - and that it is, conveniently for a cash-strapped society, also very cheap.
Is any greater offence possible to a human being than to be told that killing her/him is a "holy grail" and to laud the cost benefits of doing so? I seriously doubt it.
Christopher and Pauline Power are campaigning against what Christopher calls “cartoon porn” in Higher Bebbington Junior School in Wirral, Merseyside, with the help of Antonia Tully (pictured), who runs SPUC's Safe at School campaign. "We want to encourage other parents to take a stand like Mr and Mrs Powers", Antonia says.
The cartoon porn occurs in Living and Growing, a DVD teaching aid designed by Channel 4, which Higher Bebbington Junior School now admits “ ... does trivialise the important messages...” .
One section, entitled ‘How Babies Are Made’ (listed as being suitable for seven year olds and upwards) shows a naked cartoon couple having a pillow-fight and chasing each other before having sex in different positions. It includes a narrator talking about physical changes during sex, which is described as “very exciting for both as they feel happy being together.” The voiceover promotes sex as "exciting" and "fun" and with a child’s voice saying ‘they look so happy together.’
Christopher and Pauline Power whose son attends the Higher Bebington Junior School in Wirral were invited to a preview of the DVD and expressed their concern to the school about the graphic nature of the footage arguing that it removed the innocence of children. They said that the DVD presents sexual intercourse as "fun", with no reference to the dangerous consequences of encouraging children to mimic the video or even to start experimenting with sex.
The couple also took issue with a letter sent home from the school about the DVD which contained no mention of the footage of sexual intercourse and which stated that it was about issues concerning puberty.
Following their intervention, the school, which has been showing the DVD for the last four years, reviewed the material and concluded that “...it does trivialise the important messages...” . The school decided to edit that section for future showings. The Powers are continuing to campaign against the DVD.
This story highlights the Government’s continued efforts to enforce Sex and Relationships Education (SRE) in schools through a variety of methods regardless of the beliefs and wishes of children’s parents. The Powers rightly point out that this contravenes their role as parents and the duty of schools to safeguard children. Christopher Power says:
“As parents we believe that our son should be educated at the appropriate time and with good quality material not with this questionable material that has parents up and down the country crying out against it. Britain has the highest teenage pregnancies in Europe and thousands of these DVDs have been sold to our schools.
“Parents have a duty to safeguard the well-being of their children and they have a right to be properly consulted. We are calling for schools to have greater transparency as, often, parents are not told the contents of these DVDs in detail as you would with any other DVD at home.
“We as a society have the responsibility of helping our children learn, but also to have a childhood. We as parents feel that the dangers within sex education should be stated and taught, and I know that from what my wife and I have seen so far there is no mention of the dangers — this should be a basic duty.]
“The school should listen to them; but unfortunately parents rarely are listened to. Let’s not allow our Government or Channel 4 to dictate to us as parents what is an appropriate time. Let’s not take away the responsibility of the parents and, in doing so, place sensitive issues in the school which they are not getting right.”
Christopher and Pauline Powers have contacted the SPUC for support and advice. Antonia Tully of the Society's Safe at School Campaign said, “Any parents concerned about the Living and Growing DVD or any other video being shown at their children’s school should request to review the material. Parents have the option to withdraw their child from lessons in which such DVDs are shown.”
Mr and Mrs Powers have stated that they will march to 10 Downing Street if necessary to protect children from such graphic materials being promoted in schools. You can email support to the Powers at hamlet00@live.co.uk and you can contact SPUC's Safe at School campaign at 020 7091 7091
On Wednesday the Royal Society of Medicine (RSM) hosted a day conference and evening debate on the ethics of assisted suicide. Anthony Ozimic, SPUC's communications manager, was in attendance and has sent me some of his observations (some marked [AO]).
Lord MacKay, a former Lord Chancellor, was the day's first main speaker. He spoke about the findings of the 2005 House of Lords select committee on Lord Joffe's assisted suicide bill, which he chaired. The committee found that:
accurate prognosis of terminal illness is virtually impossible at a distance of months
disease can interfere with a patient's mental competence
Lord Joffe admitted to the committee that the definition of suffering in his bill was a subjective test (i.e. determined by the sufferer) not objective (i.e. determined independently).
Lord MacKay also said that:
the suffering of a person requesting assisted suicide may arise not from illness but from non-physical causes (i.e. death of a life-long partner). The real reason for their suffering may therefore be hidden under another reason
opinion polls are not a good guide to public opinion due to knee-jerk answers to simplistic questions.
Professor David Albert Jones, a bioethicist, argued that:
there are two types of slippery slope, one empirical (based on observation of data) and one logical (based on connections between rational arguments)
acceptance of voluntary euthanasia concedes the idea that suicide or euthanasia is a benefit (i.e. good) for some people, that their lives are not worth living and that they are better off dead
to allow the (supposed) benefit of euthanasia to those who can consent (voluntary euthanasia) but deny that same benefit to those who cannot consent (non-voluntary euthanasia) would be to discriminate against those who cannot consent (i.e. the mentally disabled)
the legalisation of death on request will therefore threaten the vulnerable
doctors shouldn't offer patients things they don't think will be of benefit to the patient.
Professor Jones also cited evidence of the empirical slippery slope. Under the euthanasia regime in The Netherlands, there have been hundreds of reported cases of lives having been ended without request or consent. This practice is officially condoned and such deaths are not treated seriously as unlawful killing. There is a lack of outrage about this because it has been widely accepted that suicide or euthanasia can be a benefit.
Professor Bregje D. Onwuteaka-Philipsen, a Dutch pro-euthanasia academic, said:
in The Netherlands, cases of euthanasia deemed compliant with the law by euthanasia tribunals (comprised of an ethicist, a lawyer and a doctor) mean such cases are never seen by the public prosecutor
under the Dutch law, the qualifying criterion of suffering is not limited to physical suffering but can include psychiatric conditions
statistics suggest that there was a fall in the numbers of cases of euthanasia and assisted suicide between 2001 and 2005 and an increase in cases of pain alleviation. Prof. Jones said that he suspects that this means that euthanasia is being hidden under the guise of pain alleviation in the form of continuous deep sedation
statistics suggest that between 2001 and 2005 there was a big increase in the number of doctors who say that they will never perform euthanasia
20% of euthanasia cases are not reported.
During the question-and-answer session, Dr Simon Kenwright of the Voluntary Euthanasia Society (now air-brushed as Dignity in Dying) said that in Britain "we already practise passive euthanasia through the withdrawing and withholding of therapy". I don't think his VES/DID colleagues will be happy about that admission. They deny that withdrawing and withholding of therapy (e.g. Bland, the Mental Capacity Act) can constitute euthanasia, and they now claim to oppose euthanasia!
Baroness O'Neill, a leading moral philosopher, said:
the ancient Greeks only spoke of communities, not individuals, as autonomous
Immanuel Kant, the 18th-century German philosopher, never spoke of autonomous individuals but only of autonomous principles (i.e. objective principles from independent, accepted sources)
autonomy today is deemed to be individual independence
there is no consensus today on the definition of autonomy, its criteria or limits
suicide is different from many choices in that it is irrevocable
she has received many letters from people saying that they will come under pressure if assisted suicide is allowed, because they are not in a position to be very independent.
Professor Paul Badham, an Anglican academic, made (what he claimed to be) a Christian case for legalising assisted suicide. He claimed that:
Jesus and St Paul were not martyrs but positively chose and actively sought death [AO: There is no evidence for this regarding St Paul; and Jesus' prayer to His Father after the Last Supper (Matt. 26:42) explicitly contradicts Badham's claim.]
many Christians before St Augustine's time followed the Stoics' belief in favour of suicide [AO: They were not Christians but Gnostics, who in the Middle Ages were known as Cathars or Albigensians. It says a lot about Badham's Christianity that he mistakes Gnostics for Christians.]
in the Old Testament the Fifth Commandment "Thou shalt not kill" had many exceptions [AO: There were and are no direct exceptions to the Fifth Commandment. As St Augustine explained the instances in the Old Testament to which Badham refers "by no means violated the [Fifth] commandment".]
St Augustine "added to the Fifth Commandment the words 'thyself or another'" [AO: St Augustine added nothing to the Fifth Commandment but in fact explained why those words were absent from it.]
Catholic opposition to assisted suicide is like the opposition by Christians to pain killers and epidurals and to the Catholic Church's ban on family planning [AO: The Catholic Church has never opposed pain killers, epidurals or family planning, though by "family planning" Badham probably means contraception and maybe abortion.]
the embracing of suffering in the life and teaching of the late Pope John Paul II contradicts a correct Christian understanding of medical treatment [AO: It's clear from this claim, as well as his claim about the deaths of Jesus and St Paul, that Badham both rejects biblical teaching on the value of suffering and simply doesn't understand many basic dynamics of human living e.g. resignation, opportunity, sacrifice.]
Michael Langrish, the Anglican bishop of Exeter, said that:
many people's experience of medical care is not of exercising autonomy but of being under the thumb of impersonal bureaucracy.
unlimited autonomy and choice do not address the needs of all human beings and therefore threaten to undermine the sanctity and dignity of all human beings
once a moral principle has been breached it often becomes to very difficult to police the boundaries.
He suggested four principles for approaching the debate on assisted suicide, in this hierarchical order:
affirming life
caring for the vulnerable (He argued that the danger to the vulnerable from allowing assisted suicide trumps any distress that may be caused by banning assisted suicide)
building communities
respecting individuals.
He also argued that:
allowing assisted suicide would contradict the government's suicide prevention strategy
examples of a bad death are not arguments for a bad law but a reason for good deaths and good laws.
Peter Carter, head of the Royal College of Nursing (RCN), tried unconvincingly to explain why the RCN has moved from a position of opposition to assisted suicide to a position of neutrality. Ominously, he told us that the RCN is consulting with a wider range of stakeholders on the issue. To me, this is officialese for saying that he's moving the RCN in the direction of endorsing assisted suicide.
Sir Graeme Catto, former president of the General Medical Council (GMC), also ominously explained that the GMC has moved beyond proscribing bad things for doctors to do, to advising doctors about how they can be good doctors. He gave his personal view in favour of allowing assisted suicide, saying that:
assisted suicide is not, or at least should not be treated as, primarily a medical matter
the risks entailed in allowing assisted suicide cannot be eliminated.
Ann McPherson, a doctor from Oxford, said that:
"I don't agree that every suicide is a tragedy. It can be a celebration, as a person can die with much more dignity."
Thus Dr McPherson argued that suicide is a benefit and that not to kill yourself may be undignified - thus neatly conceding Prof. Jones's arguments!
Baroness Jane Campbell, the disabled anti-euthanasia peer, argued that:
disabled people have to deal with fear and prejudice
it was said of her as a child that she would be better off dead
allowing assisted suicide contradicts suicide prevention. If one tries to commit suicide on one's own, society will try to prevent one, but if one seeks assistance, society wants to provide it
not one organisation of, or for, disabled people supports changing the law in order to allow assisted suicide
it's when disabled people aren't given the support they need that they start having suicidal thoughts
the law should not be changed because of a few people's perceived hopelessness.
Lord Joffe, the leading promoter in the House of Lords of assisted suicide, claimed that:
assisted suicide is a natural development of refusal of treatment which ends in death [AO: which is true where the intention is euthanasist e.g. as possible via the Mental Capacity Act.]
assisted suicide involves the provision of "life-ending medication" [AO: not medication but poison]
there is no evidence of abuse in The Netherlands under its assisted suicide and euthanasia law [AO: even though hundreds of patients have been killed without their consent or request!]
the director of public prosecutions (DPP)'s final policy on assisted suicide gives broader, not narrower, scope for assisted suicide by not specifying the deceased's disability as a factor.
Lord Carlile QC, the anti-euthanasia peer, said that:
the debate on Lord Joffe's bill had more speakers than any other debate ever in the House of Lords
coroners don't want to be involved in assisted suicide, and neither will judges, courts etc
nothing in Lord Joffe's proposals will protect weak and persuadable persons from vested family interests.
Professor Raymond Tallis, a retired physician:
spoke of "unbearable suffering prolonged by medical care" "inflicted on the patient" [AO: Yet medical care doesn't prolong or inflict suffering. Such results would be the antithesis of medical care.]
claimed that "respect for individual autonomy is a sovereign principle" [AO: Yet no legal system has ever regarded respect for individual autonomy as a sovereign principle. Human rights instruments (e.g. the European Convention on Human Rights) and national constitutions (e.g. the US Constitution) always make individual autonomy, and respect for it, subject to higher prior rights (e.g. the right to life) and common goods (e.g. protection of vulnerable classes). This is true even if sometimes courts interpret such instruments and constitutions in a contrary, false way (e.g. Roe v. Wade, in which the US Supreme Court declared abortion to be a constitutional right.)
admitted that well-off, middle-class, white, patients with strong personalities are over-represented in the cases of assisted suicide in the American state of Oregon [AO: This proves that laws allowing assisted suicide serve the vested interests of the strong, rather than helping the weak.]
Baroness O'Loan pointed out that:
there is no specialist palliative care, nor hospice system as we know it, in Oregon
article two (right to life) of the Human Rights Act needs to be the starting point in the consideration of assisted suicide
there is evidence of patients in The Netherlands choosing euthanasia out of fear of being left in pain, because of the lack of palliative care
A vote was held and the motion in favour of assisted suicide was rejected by a large margin.
Earlier this month the British Medical Association (BMA) issued a strong guidance statement warning doctors against any involvement, even indirect, in assisted suicide. Yesterday the BMA's annual representative meeting (ARM) passed a motion which points out that palliative care and other forms of patient support almost entirely eliminate requests for assisted suicide.
Earlier this week I blogged on what I called a "flawed account" from Archbishop Peter Smith on the pro-life battle over the Mental Capacity Act and its outcome in an interview published in The Catholic Herald.
Here's a message I've since received from John Finnis (pictured), professor of law and legal philosophy, at University College, Oxford University. He writes:
Dear Mr Smeaton,
Many of the points you make about the bad features and likely bad effects of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 are quite justified. I would just like to say that the interview which attracted your comment was mistaken in saying that I drafted the "not motivated by a desire" clause. (I don't know whether the mistake is the interviewer's or interviewee's.)
The only clause I drafted was one in terms of "a purpose of bringing about death", which would have been even stronger than the one you favour in terms of "intention". Amendments in my terms were voted down by the Government's supporters in Parliament, in both Houses, and instead the Commons inserted a wholly unsatisfactory Government-drafted clause known as the "Howarth amendment". Archbishop Smith and I jointly protested about this, and the Government came up with its final offer -- the "motivated by a desire" clause now in the Act. Though dismayed from the outset by this formula, I discovered that in other legal contexts the phrase "motivated by a desire" has been interpreted in the courts as equivalent to "intention". So I advised the Archbishop that this was better than nothing, and that if properly interpreted by a careful court it would be positively useful -- though if loosely interpreted it would be virtually useless. At no point did Archbishop Smith cease to favour the adoption of a "purpose" amendment in preference to the Government-imposed "motivated by a desire".
In my article "The Mental Capacity Act 2005: Some Ethical and Legal Issues" in Helen Watt (ed.), Incapacity and Care (Linacre Centre, 2009) 95-105 I cite (p. 101) the relevant legal precedents for a proper interpretation of the clause, and I hope that when the time comes counsel -- perhaps instructed by SPUC -- will deploy them, and to good effect.
At p. 99 I say that "it is seriously defective legislation, and I would, I think, have voted against it" had I been a member of Parliament. (The issue is not utterly straightforward, since the legal and practical situation before the Act was also deeply unsatisfactory and in danger of getting very much worse quite quickly.)
It would be quite unhistorical, and a shame from my point of view, if your phrase "the Finnis amendment" caught on.
Yesterday I reported that the media were applauding news of a new blood test which will promote the genocide of the disabled.
How very appropriate, then, that we should learn in today's news that Tony Blair (pictured), the former British prime minister, who has devoted so much of his political career to building the culture of death in Britain and overseas, has been named by the US National Constitution Centre as the winner of its prestigious Liberty Medal for 2010.
After all, it was undoubtedly in the name of "liberty":
that Tony Blair voted in 1990 for abortion up to birth three times during Parliamentary debates on what became the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 - a provision which applies specifically to disabled babies
that his government enacted legislation which allows, and in certain circumstances requires, doctors to starve and dehydrate to death vulnerable patients
- all of them policies and legislation he has refused to repudiate since becoming a Catholic.
It's also unquestionably in the name of "liberty" that Tony Blair, whilst in Parliament supported laws, policies and practices which mean that additional rules now apply bringing down the force of the law upon:
doctors who refuse to refer women to other doctors for abortion
What a fitting icon Tony Blair is for the age in which we live! It's in this context that we should congratulate him for winning the Liberty Medal for 2010.
I became involved in SPUC after graduating, when I established a branch in south London in 1974. I have worked full-time for SPUC for 33 years. I became director of SPUC in the UK in 1996, having been general secretary since 1978. I was elected vice-president of International Right to Life Federation in 2005. At UN conferences in Cairo, Copenhagen, Beijing, Istanbul and Rome, I helped coordinate more than 150 pro-life/pro-family groups resulting in pro-life victories in Cairo, Istanbul and Rome. I was educated at Salesian College, London, before going to Oxford where I graduated in English Language and Literature. I qualified as a teacher, becoming head of English at a secondary school. I am married to Josephine. We have a grown-up family and we live in north London.
Acknowledgement
I am grateful to SPUC's staff, supporters and advisers for their help to me in researching, writing and producing this blog.
I believe that I am allowed to use the images accompanying my blog and that they are licence- and royalty-free. However if the owner or the licensor disagrees, please contact me and I will remove it immediately.
