Catholic MPs avoiding their responsibilities to the unborn

Sometimes it's right and necessary for constituents to remind MPs, not least Catholic MPs, of their responsibilities to the unborn. That's exactly what Mrs Pat MacDonald, a SPUC supporter in Crosby, Liverpool, did recently when she wrote to her MP, Claire Curtis-Thomas (pictured), a Catholic. Mrs MacDonald wrote:

"Dear Claire Curtis-Thomas,

I again urge you to vote against the pro-abortion amendments that are expected to be placed before Parliament on Monday, 14th July. Your comments on May, 20th expressed during the debate are not acceptable for any member, and particularly not for the Vice-Chair Person of the "All Parliamentary Pro-Life Group" - "I am not opposed to abortion. ... I would be happier with 12 weeks - and that's where I stand, let women have the choice". The unborn child has no voice except ours. It is therefore imperative that you vote against any amendments which will make abortion easier to obtain.

The right to life is not for you or I to decide. It is a God-given right that only He can give and take.

Your comments and continued support and membership of "Emily's List" are a major cause of concern. They are a contradiction of the position you hold. If you do not oppose any pro-abortion amendments then you will be culpable and held responsible for your actions, or lack of them.

Yours sincerely, P.E. MacDonald - Mrs"

Mrs Curtis-Thomas replied:

"Thank you for your very rude E Mail. As the vice chair of the Parliamentary Pro Life group I take my responsibilities very seriously! Regards, Claire Curtis-Thomas MP"

Mrs MacDonald has commented to SPUC HQ: "I do not see why Claire Curtis-Thomas considers the truth rude; she persistently refuses to respond to my queries re 'Emily's List'.".

Mrs Curtis-Thomas received a grant from "Emily's List", which helps elect female Labour candidates to Parliament, but only if they are pro-choice i.e. pro-abortion.

If Mrs Curtis-Thomas really took her responsibilities as a vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Pro-Life Group seriously, she would not have taken offence at Mrs MacDonald's points.

Similarly, another north-west Catholic MP, cabinet minister Ruth Kelly (pictured), is avoiding her responsibility to the unborn, by reportedly arranging with the Prime Minister to be absent on Monday when Parliament again votes on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology bill.

Mrs Curtis-Thomas and Mrs Kelly should be reminded that the Catholic Church teaches that:

• the late Pope "John Paul II, continuing the constant teaching of the Church,...reiterated many times that those who are directly involved in lawmaking bodies have a "grave and clear obligation to oppose" any law that attacks human life." (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, "Doctrinal note on some questions regarding the participation of Catholics in political life", 2002)

• "Those who formulate law therefore have an obligation in conscience to work toward correcting morally defective laws, lest they be guilty of cooperating in evil and in sinning against the common good." (United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, "Catholics in Political Life", 2004)

What is it about "obligation" and "any law" that Mrs Curtis-Thomas & Mrs Kelly don't understand?

Mrs Curtis-Thomas should resign as a vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Pro-Life Group, and not rejoin the group until she is prepared to take her responsibilities to the unborn seriously, by stating a total opposition to access to legal abortion at any point of pregnancy. Also, Mrs Kelly should resign from the government and campaign against the HFE bill (as well as the government's stem cell research policy, which she endorsed in 2005). The unborn deserve no less. Indeed they are entitled to a lot better.

the dangers of changing the law on organ donation

 
Mr Gordon Brown, the UK prime minister, wants to change the current system of organ donation so that people's consent is assumed unless they actively opt out. While most people probably regard organ donation as a valuable life-saving practice, presuming consent touches on a number of real problems.

Many arguments for an opt-out system are utilitarian, where the goal is just to obtain a better outcome i.e. a greater number of organs donated. The worst situation would be where people's deaths could actually be hastened because their organs were needed for someone else. There is already pressure for this. The International Forum on Transplant Ethics proposed that lethal injections be given to people who are long-term unconscious, in so-called persistent, or permanent, vegetative state, and for whom life has been deemed unworthy of living. It is argued that such injections could produce better-quality organs than if the person died naturally. While the donor would be dead when the organs were taken, the death would nevertheless have been caused to enable their removal. Even if the patient had given consent, medics would be involved in hastening his or her demise.

Donation of anything is customarily based on consent. They are, after all, my organs. However, in an opt-out system, where most people's wishes are unknown, consent is absent and you can't really speak of organ donation any more.

An opt-out system also represents a high level of interference by the state in personal life. The dead person's body effectively becomes government property.

The evidence even seems equivocal about whether such a change would increase the number of organs available. Some countries with opt-out systems do worse than the UK but some do better, suggesting that other factors may be more important.

Opt-out systems come in soft and hard versions, depending upon whether next of kin are consulted. With a soft opt-out system, as in Spain, grieving relatives are presented with a choice that many find very difficult. With a hard opt-out system, relatives can find their exclusion from the decision process very painful.

An opt-out system also requires high public awareness so that everyone who objects to organ donation actually does opt out. It's argued that opting in cannot produce high donation rates because many people who want to donate simply don’t register but, with an opt-out system, many people's genuine wishes would be over-ridden.

An opt-out system could further alienate those who already distrust the authorities. Indeed, some people who are registered to donate say they would opt out in protest at state interference if consent were presumed.

Consent might also come to be presumed in other medical contexts. It could be argued that presumed consent should extend to the use in research of tissues and organs obtained at autopsies, despite the strongly negative public reaction to revelations of such practices at UK hospitals in recent years.

While opt-out systems tend to refer to organs from deceased persons, they could also be made to apply to tissues. If they did, there could be implications for consent regarding the use of tissue from miscarried or aborted foetuses.

By contrast with opting out, opt-in systems are aligned with the ethical view that people should actively give their consent.

Melanie Phillips in the Daily Mail today raises another extremely serious concern. She says: "There is, however, a yet more fundamental objection to the opt out proposal. This is the serious doubt whether people whose organs are harvested are dead." This is a matter to which I shall return.