Friday, 17 August 2012

Dr Sardella's loses top job rather than research on tissue from a baby killed in induced abortion

Thomas and son Emanuele
Dr Sardella is one of the bravest men I've had the privilege to meet and it's my pleasure to introduce him now to my readers - a man who, together with his wife, has risked his future because of his respect for human life.

Dr. Thomas Sardella obtained his Master in Research in Biological Sciences in Rome University – Tor Vergata  – with summa cum laude following a 5-year course. The subjects he studied included zoology, botany, molecular biology, biochemistry, embryology, genetics, anatomy, physiology, cytology and histology, and ecology. He then successfully completed a Ph.D. course in the Faculty of Biomedical and Life sciences in a leading British university carrying out scientific research on spinal cord regeneration and transplantation of adult cells in animal models. He was then employed as a research assistant in the same university and went on deepening his understanding of pain and its transmission through the central nervous system.

I met with Thomas in one of my trips north. We had lunch together in an Italian restaurant next to Edinburgh Haymarket station where we ate a delicious pasta all’ amatriciana!

Fortunately, I have a note of our discussion - which now follows:

JS: Thomas, tell me about the adventure which led you to put your entire future in jeopardy?
TS: John, as you probably know, funding research is not considered a priority in the present critical financial situation. Year after year it is becoming harder and harder to secure money for scientific research, so my work contract in the university in which I was working was to end on the 31st of December 2011 due to limitation of funding. My boss is a leading researcher in his field and we were hoping to find a grant to pay my research and salary to support my family, while we were waiting for a larger five year grant. Finally, a small funding opportunity arose at the end of September 2011. This was supposed to keep me going for the first six months of 2012 and consisted in a collaboration with a research group in San Diego (USA).

JS: What did the research involve?
TS: The research group led by Dr. M. in San Diego would take tissue from an unborn child immediately after an induced abortion. This was carried out around the 8th week of gestation and then the American team would culture the tissue from the embryo in the appropriate conditions. The cells would then be transplanted in the central nervous system in animal models. Slices from these transplanted animals were to be sent to my group in Britain where I was to analyse them. This collaboration was necessary as my group has renowned knowledge and skills.

As you can notice I was not going to be directly involved in the abortion, but how could I have looked through the microscope forgetting that those cells were taken away from the child together with his/her life?

JS: Why as a scientist do you think it was wrong?
TS: The same question was put to me by a student in the John Paul Academy secondary school during a talk I gave some time ago.

My answer is surprisingly simple! If we agree that it is wrong to kill a human being, a member of the homo sapiens species, then we need to ask ourselves when do we become homo sapiens? For every organism of the animal kingdom it is the same answer: when a sperm cell fertilises the egg of the same species, any zoologist or embryologist will affirm that a new organism is conceived. When a human egg is fertilised by a human sperm cell there is nothing we can do to stop the new embryo from being part of our species. The new individual must be considered a human being.

Based on this knowledge, who can deprive this young human being of his/her right to live? Who can assign to the stages of embryonic development a moment when he/she holds human being’s rights? Who can arbitrarily choose a date when he/she acquires this right so that before this he/she can be legally killed?

JS: What was your first reaction when you found out about this research?
TS: I still remember when I read the email sent from San Diego about the requirement of human abortion in this collaboration: I leaned back on my chair with a feeling of repulsion and told myself I could not and would not do this. How could I convince myself that those 8 weeks old human beings did not have the right to live, and my career, my salary and my family were more important than their lives?

So I decided to lose my job.

JS: If it was not you killing those embryos and if the mother chose willingly to abort her baby, why did you feel that way?
TS: That same evening my wife, who has studied bioethics, confirmed that my stand was correct. We consulted Italian bioethics’ textbooks that asserted that I would have become a passive and remote collaborator of the abortion procedure: that is why I could not stop feeling so bad.

Not to be considered a collaborator in the abortion a scientist should be completely independent from it, and it is impossible for two reasons: firstly, before the abortion takes place the mother gives her consent for her aborted child to be used; as a consequence, all those involved in the research programme become co-responsible with her decision. You may not see it, but I personally know mothers who had IVF that gave their surplus embryos for research and were proud to make the world a better place because their “sacrificed” children were somehow useful to science. Secondly, for the researcher it is impossible to make it clear to everyone in his field that he does not approve of induced abortion. Last but not least, the most important aspect of research is to contribute to the advancement of scientific knowledge by publishing in scientific journals. If my research had been successful, then how could I have carried the burden of promoting the use of cells from the unborn victims of induced abortions?

JS: When did you make your choice official to your team?
TS: That same night, looking for comfort and guidance, I spoke on the phone to our parish priest, Father John Keenan, who confirmed my view and encouraged me, and the decision was officially taken in my heart.

The following day, I told my boss I needed a few minutes to chat together. When I told him, he was surprised human embryos were involved as he had not noticed himself. So we went through the methodology together and confirmed that was the case. He asked me if I wanted him to continue the paperwork for the job or if I preferred to be without a job. I said I could not carry out such research even if it meant becoming jobless from the 1st of Jan. End of story!

JS: Did you ever doubt you made the right choice?
TS: In the days that followed I questioned myself whether I had taken the right choice or not. The answer was straightforward as I pictured myself in two different lives, two different “mes”: the first "me", coming back home from work and playing with my child thinking: “The child that I am using for my every day research work could have been playing right now with his parents, just like my son is”. The second "me", stressed without a job, but with a clean conscience.

Thomas and wife Eleonora
JS: Once you told everyone, what did your family and friends say?
TS: Not everyone agreed and I did much talking to get my message through. My parents and parents in law and many friends supported us in this choice and included us in their daily prayers. I was surprised to see how many wrote to us and spoke to us with words of encouragement and pride. At the same time I was surprised to see how many friends thought that choices in life are never black or white but there are always shades of grey, and some insisted that I should have chosen grey for the sake of my family. It is a pity that when we become adults we start believing that white does not exist or it is simply utopia!

JS: Is this the reason why you have been giving talks in schools about your choice and about abortion? Tell me more about that.
TS: Yes, I visited some schools in collaboration with the religious education department.

Once I made this choice that changed the course of my family’s life, I browsed the internet to find out more about abortion. I was shocked when I found out that it is so common in today’s society. The idea that in the western world one out of three to five women in a life-time will choose to abort is beyond imagination. Not even the worst dictator of the 20th century could have thought of something so mean and well organised! And these figures do not include multiple abortions, abortions resulting from IVF and from the morning-after pill. I felt in my heart I had to inform  young people scientifically to show the difference between truth and falsehood.

JS: Why do you think so many women choose abortion today?
TS: In my view this is because today’s society de-responsibilizes women and their actions in two ways: firstly, abortion is promoted by separating the connection between sex and reproduction, and by promoting a culture of egoistic relativism where each one is to please his/her own needs and pleasure. Have you ever come across young kids who are surprised to find out they are expecting a baby, as if sex did not involve conception or contraceptive methods were 100% efficient? Secondly, termination of embryonic human life is promoted by not informing women about what is a pregnancy, when life begins, what are the alternatives.

Once mothers feel de-responsibilized, then most of the load falls on all members of society who don’t do anything about it, including me.

Therefore, I felt the urge to make myself useful; informing schoolgirls and boys about the main issues involved in abortion and also research on tissue derived from the “wanted” death of an "unwanted" child. You should have seen the faces of these kids in different schools! They truly had no idea about what abortion was and how it was carried out.

What particularly touched my heart was the expression of shock and surprise on the boy’s faces: probably when they were thinking about sex they thought it just a game; probably no one had ever been so clear with them showing diagrams of the female reproductive system and describing in detail when life started and how it could be ended piece by piece in the abortion procedure; probably they understood that abortion involved them much more than what they had thought before.

Some pupils also came to me and told me their opinion about abortion had completely changed so I told myself “if I have lost my job just to save one life then it was worth it!”

JS: Have you found an ethical job to support your family?
TS: I will tell you the story but please do not laugh!

At the end of 2011 I registered in my university’s roll for job-seekers, because internal staff members have priority over outsiders. As I fitted in very well with a job profile that was needed in my same department, I was verbally offered a three-year contract starting on the 1st January, but believe it or not I had to turn down this offer, as  this research also involved the use of tissue obtained from the unborn victims of induced abortion! This research was the result of a collaboration with a group in Australia who collected the foetuses at the gestation time of 10-13 weeks and carried out electrophysiological experiments on their spinal cord, then sent us spinal cord slices to be analysed under the microscope. The person who I was supposed to work with was a very close colleague of mine for seven years; I told him I was saddened by this as I did not realise he carried out such type of research, and he told me: “This is science, someone has to do it!” His answer made me extremely angry!

JS: Why were you surprised by his reaction and point of view?
TS: He and many others in our society consider science a superior entity and motor immobilis guiding mankind’s decisions. He refused to consider that science is only a word, from the Latin scientia meaning knowledge. Knowledge does not possess a conscience. It is the scientist who has a conscience and an ethics that guides his thoughts and decisions. Not every doable thing has to be done. First comes life, and then secondarily comes the improvement to it. It is inadmissible to consider a human life expendable and to use it in research programs for the hypothetical improvement of other people’s lives. I am a scientist and for the first time I felt disgusted by how unwisely my colleagues use the power of knowledge.

Furthermore, a human life at its embryonic stage is too young to be able to choose. Instead of protecting this life in a very special way, society prefers to use it for its own interests. That is why I am still angry!

JS: Please Thomas, give me a happy ending for SPUC readers!
TS: The funniest part is that I was then invited for an interview for a very interesting job in a private foundation in Palermo, Sicily, where I was supposed to carry out research on foetuses aborted in the second trimester due to malformations: what they call in Italy “therapeutic abortion”. Speaking on the phone to one of the members of the interview panel, I said that in my view a therapy should not involve the intentional suppression of the patient as that does not cure the patient. She listened and laughed quietly and agreed and I turned down the invitation to the interview.

I then was unable to apply to a number of other jobs in Britain and abroad as these clearly stated the use of human embryonic stem cells or tissue from aborted embryos. I was shocked by the number of them! Maybe it is due to the financial crisis? Maybe more mothers agree for their children to be used for research? I do not know, but I can tell you that seven years ago neither I nor any of my friends had come across this type of research.

Finally, I have had some “ethically-friendly” job offers in Britain, in my same University and abroad and I chose the best offer, so I will soon leave Great Britain for good with my expecting wife and three years old child!

JS: So finally a happy ending!
TS: More than you can imagine...more than we could imagine!

A simple choice became a review of my life and beliefs, a moment of true unity with my wife and family.

I must admit it was not easy to push our lives to the edge in this time of economical crisis. In 2012 I have already lost £20,000 of salary plus pension benefits I would have been granted if I had chosen differently. It is so easy to take the wrong decision and chose grey when you are short of money! My wife and I are alive because in our families so many women were strong, notwithstanding everything, and they gave life to their children: we could not do less than that to thank their faith and strength.

Looking back my choice looks so right: it brought only blessings to our lives! I had to stop my crazy routine and you have no idea how important it is in our society to have a completely white page in front of you and feel the freedom to fill it out. Keep in mind I could have just spent my time waiting for the five year grant with my old boss, but this choice forced me to open my eyes and look for true happiness in my life as a husband, a father and a scientist.

I thank  God for this challenge because I could choose the best for my life, career and children.

Once again I learned that if you choose white, even if this seems irrational at that moment, even if the mountain you have to climb looks so high, you are simply opening your arms to so much more happiness than you could have ever planned.

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Thursday, 16 August 2012

Nicklinson euthanasia ruling welcomed by SPUC Pro-Life

Tony Nicklinson
SPUC Pro-Life has welcomed the High Court’s rejection today of the pro-euthanasia requests in the Tony Nicklinson and ‘Martin’ cases.

Paul Tully, SPUC Pro-Life's general secretary, told the media earlier today:
“We welcome the High Court’s ruling, and we question whether those who have encouraged Mr Nicklinson and 'Martin' to pursue this legal action have the best interests of disabled people at heart. The court has reiterated once again that direct, active, voluntary euthanasia is unlawful in English and European law. To have allowed euthanasia would have seriously undermined both the laws against homicide and the right to life enshrined in the European Convention of Human Rights. Those who are sick, vulnerable or disabled need the law to be robust in protecting the inviolability of every human life. That is why SPUC Pro-Life was officially represented before the courts in the Debbie Purdy and Diane Pretty cases. Compassion and solidarity are the  humane and caring responses to ‘locked-in’ syndrome. To legalise killing of those who are suffering would adversely affect many, many people. We believe that Mr Nicklinson and ‘Martin’ have lives of equal value to any other member of society. We urge those around them to rise to the challenge of helping them realise their value and overcome their sense of hopelessness.

We  trust  that today’s judgment will help end the insidious campaign in the British courts to change the law on assisted suicide and euthanasia. SPUC Pro-Life will be making further comments on the High Court’s ruling as soon as the details are available."
Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Wednesday, 15 August 2012

More British women aborting their children over financial worries, say UK doctors


Top story:

More British women aborting their children over financial worries, say UK doctors [LifeSiteNews.com, 14 August]

Other stories:

Abortion
Euthanasia
Population
General

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Letter by pro-family leaders worldwide protesting participation of the US embassy in Prague 'gay pride' parade

Prague
Below is a letter which I and many other pro-life/pro-family leaders worldwide have signed, protesting against the participation of the US embassy in Prague in that city's 'gay pride' parade. The letter was initiated by the World Congress of Families.
"We the undersigned pro-family and pro-life leaders vigorously protest the participation of the United States Embassy in the Czech Republic in a so-called gay-pride parade which will take place on August 18.

As representatives of the international pro-family movement, we note the following:
  • At the directive of the president of the United States, Washington is aggressively promoting the “gay’’ agenda internationally, including same-sex “marriage” and the stigmatization and marginalization of any who object to the same.
  • The Obama’s administration’s embrace of “same-sex marriage” has been overwhelmingly rejected by the American people. There have been 32 state referenda on marriage. In every one of them, voters endorsed the natural definition of marriage (a man and a woman). The North Carolina vote, on May 8, was 61% in favor of natural marriage.
  • The United Nations has never affirmed homosexual “marriage” or rights.
  • The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (adopted by the General Assembly on December 10, 1948) provides that “Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family.”
  • Article 16, Section 3 of the Declaration further defines the family as “the natural and fundamental group unit of society” which is “entitled to protection by society and the State.”
  • It stands to reason, then, that anything which undermines the family – including changing the definition of marriage – is a breach of the State’s responsibility to protect this indispensable institution which precedes government and makes a stable and free society possible.
  • The Madrid Declaration of World Congress of Families VI (May 25-27, 2012) -- which was unanimously adopted by more than 3,200 delegates from 72 countries -- provides, in part: “We affirm the natural family to be the union of a man and a woman through marriage for the purposes of sharing love and joy, propagating children, providing their moral education, building a vital home economy, offering security in times of trouble, and binding the generations.”
  • Regarding “gay rights,” those caught up in this lifestyle have the same rights as other citizens. This does not include the “right” to force others to validate a lifestyle they find objectionable, for religious or other reasons. It also does not include the right of men to marry men and women to marry women.
  • The foregoing pseudo-rights do not advance human freedom and dignity but debase them.
  • We can not imagine a worse form of cultural imperialism than Washington trying to force approval of the “gay” agenda on societies with traditional values.
  • Finally, we commend Michael Semin, chairman of Akce Dost (Action ENOUGH), and other Czech pro-life and pro-family leaders for their stalwart defense of the natural family."
Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Tuesday, 14 August 2012

Excellent letter in defence of Ireland's unborn children

county Mayo
A SPUC supporter has very kindly sent me the excellent letter below which appeared recently in The Connaught Telegraph, in county Mayo, Ireland. An equally excellent accompaniment to the letter is Pat Buckley's blogpost yesterday "Abortion legislation demanded by a small group of Irish academics".

Letters, The Connaught Telegraph, August 2012

Without the right to life, all other rights are meaningless

Sir,

In a time when politicians get criticised for following the party line without question, I was very pleased that some members of Fine Gael stood up recently and said they were not going to accept abortion.

I'm referring to this month's meeting of the Fine Gael parliamentary party when a number of Fine Gael representatives challenged the Minister for Health and vowed to vote against abortion legislation.

I was especially glad to see Mayo Fine Gael TD John O'Mahony listed among those who spoke up on this issue.

Based on his defense of the unborn so far I would have no difficulty either voting for him or asking others to vote for him in a future election.

While it seems that Ireland remains an overwhelmingly pro-life country, according to consistent Millward Brown Lansdowne opinion polling, there does seem to be bias among the national media that favours legislating for abortion.

Over 79 per cent of people in Mayo want Fine Gael to keep their pre-election promise. That is considerably more than the 65 per cent that voted for Fine Gael in the last election.

In the same election the pro-abortion Labour party got less than five per cent of the vote. Clearly the people of Mayo support women who are pregnant and they want to see the law reflect this.

I was shocked to see that some member of the Labour party were critical of the Fine Gael TDs and senators. The fact that the Fine Gael party made a pro-life commitment to [T]he [P]ro[-L]ife [C]ampaign prior to the general election is laudable and the fact the Fine Gael deputies feel that they should honour their promise is something Fine Gael should be proud of.

The many arguments that are presented for abortion in Ireland, that it is available in Britain, that is necessary to save the life of pregnant mothers, etc., are all shallow and easily refuted. Women in Ireland receive all necessary medical treatment, even if it indirectly results in the death of the unborn child. This is not abortion because it is not a deliberate attack on the unborn child.

It continues to be a tragedy that Irish women travel for abortions and it's a scandal that women do so because they do not feel they have adequate supports in Ireland.

I hope our politicians will continue to see the need to offer women more and better support services when they are faced with a crisis pregnancy.

Without the right to life, all other rights are meaningless. I congratulate the Fine Gael deputies on their stance and hope that the rest of the Fine Gael party follows suit.

Yours sincerely,
Tom Ryan
Castlebar

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

SPUC welcomes appeal date for Glasgow midwives

SPUC has welcomed the news that an appeal will be heard next January in the case of two Glasgow midwives who refuse to supervise abortion procedures.

In February this year a judge in the Scottish Court of Session said that the midwives, Mary Doogan and Connie Wood, had to accept management instructions to oversee abortions performed by other midwives on the labour ward.

The midwives had argued that they had never been required to supervise abortion procedures in the past, and that the hospital was asking them to be morally, medically and legally responsible for abortions. They argued that this conflicted with their profound objection to abortions and with the right to opt-out that is protected in the 1967 Abortion Act.

SPUC has underwritten the midwives' legal costs. People wishing to make donations towards the midwives' legal costs should telephone SPUC on 020 7091 7091.

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Sunday, 12 August 2012

Keep up-to-date with the abortion debate in Ireland

Pat Buckley, SPUC's man in the Republic of Ireland, keeps the pro-life world up-to-date with the abortion debate in Ireland, via his blog. There has never been a more crucial time for Ireland, with the prospect of abortion legislation being introduced into the Irish parliament. Here are Pat's recent blogs about the situation in Ireland:
Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy