Prayer and fasting initiative begins today

Earlier this month I blogged about an initiative launched in Northern Ireland - praying and fasting for 40 days to protect Northern Ireland from the British Abortion Act. The proposed period for this intiative is from today and it finishes on 4th October (excluding Sundays).

It was Liam Gibson’s idea (SPUC's Northern Ireland development officer) and he wrote a paper on the biblical background to the project making a number of practical suggestions about both fasting and praying.

For example, he points out that fasting can include: Abstaining from certain foods, such as meat or a favourite food; Going without milk or sugar in tea and coffee, or giving up tea or coffee themselves; Fasting from all food and drink (except water) for a 24 hour period (This may be more demanding but is not difficult for anyone in good health, providing it does not conflict with work or family commitments); Going without television etc

And Liam has many simple, practical suggestions about prayer in the above paper.

I'm a campaigner but I also believe in prayer. I believe that the dangers of the evils proposed in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill - and now the terrible threat posed by extreme pro-abortion amendments at report stage in October - are so great, all believers should be begging God to spare both Northern Ireland and Britain. Let those who believe like me that there are certain evils which are so great they can only be overcome by fasting and prayer consider joining in this initiative in a way that is appropriate and achievable in the light of our work and family commitments.

The Times and blatant bias on life issues

The Times was once regarded as the UK's newspaper of record, a serious publication with high standards of journalism ... but those standards, in recent years, have slipped .

As a daily reader I could give many examples, but the newspaper's blatant bias on life issues is one of the most flagrant.

Yesterday, a full-page, public-opinion-forming, spread of reportage and commentary, headlined "Abortion does not harm mental health, says study" presented an American Psychological Association review as significant, authoritative research into the effects of abortion. The fact that this study has been shown (see my post yesterday), on the basis of good evidence, to be fundamentally flawed, is completely ignored. To add insult to injury, Nigel Hawkes writes dismissively in a short commentary piece : "Anti-abortionists would like us to believe that women who have abortions suffer lifelong regrets ... The bulk of the best available evidence suggests that a single abortion does not carry psychological hazards greater than does a single pregnancy ... " - again completely ignoring evidence to the contrary.

The Times report makes great play of the fact that there are impending votes in Parliament on abortion and that the American Psychological Association review [and their spin on it!] will influence "uncommitted" MPs.

Pro-life lobbyists and readers of this blog may recall that there was a similar situation back in June . Evan Harris MP had tabled extremely damaging amendments to the Abortion Act via the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill - to de-restrict abortions up to 24 weeks, and to empower midwives and nurses to perform abortion. Everyone expected the debate on these amendments to take place in July - until the government suddenly postponed the report stage of the Bill.

Lo and behold: The Times, on Friday, 20th June and Saturday, 21st June, carried no less than six stories on abortion, all of them clearly presenting a pro-abortion position with little or no comment from anyone who disagreed.

They included 'Rise in teen abortions prompts calls for reform of sex education' a story about the latest abortion statistics which completely ignored evidence that the government's style of sex education has completely failed, as Professor David Paton has shown.

Then there was "The ones I worry about are those who have the baby", featuring an interview with abortionist John Parsons, a director of BPAS. Not only does the story present abortion as an inviolable moral right which has no consequences worth mentioning, but Mr Parsons says, completely unchallenged: "It is not in the interests of any child to have a 16-year-old mother." (This is another way of saying that it is better to be dead than have a teenage mother, something which feminist author Germaine Greer, amongst many others, disagree with.)

Another article called secret abortions 'common sense'.

Then there was a particularly callous article from Caitlin Moran who showed no concern for the future mental health of the mother, let alone the unborn child. Whilst acknowledging that abortion causes problems that are, "emotional, social and [a] risk to future reproductive health", she says this "has an impact solely on the women having these abortions". What kind of editorial policy at The Times allows this kind of assertion to go unchallenged when there is so much important research to the contrary?

For my part, I acknowledge that in today's Times there's a sincere piece by their columnist Melanie McDonagh who makes a plea for women to be told that their baby is human and about the risks of abortion to their mental health. But, sadly, her column has far less impact than yesterday's full-page news reportage - because of its relative size, its positioning on a page headlined "Opinion", compared with yesterday's story which is written by the newspaper's science editor, and finally, because Melanie McDonagh suggests that objective research on the effects of abortion does not exist - which is saying to Times readers ... "This is my opinion - pure and simple - but it's by no means authoritative" - which is definitely not the message sent to the readers by the writers of yesterday's report on the American Psychological Association's review.

Mental health risk of abortion wrongly denied

A member of the American Psychological Association has criticised that organisation's survey of the effects of abortion on women's mental health, saying it is politically motivated and bad science. The project concluded that early abortion did not increase the likelihood of significant mental problems.

Dr Rachel M MacNair, research director for Consistent Life, Missouri, and an official reviewer of the report, points out that the task force's conclusion was based on a single British study. Furthermore, that research actually found a higher incidence of drug overdose among women who had had abortions.

Dr MacNair writes: "'[S]cience' means what the [association] says it means, rather than what those of us trained in a university might have been taught. … [C]iting only one study in support of a politically-desired conclusion cannot be explained in any other way than a politically-motivated exercise."

Dr MacNair and Consistent Life wrote to leading association members expressing concern, as did others. She was also allowed briefly to address a meeting of the association's council earlier this month, voicing her concerns about the flimsy basis for the report's conclusion. She received no response then or since.

She makes the point that, if the association can base its view on a single study, it would only take another solitary piece of research to reverse it. She says, however: "[T]hat would be [making] the assumption that [the association] was actually interested in keeping up with real science, an assumption for which at this point I have no evidence."

During the review process, at least some of Dr MacNair's input on some matters was omitted. Professor David Fergusson of Otago University, New Zealand, who was also a reviewer of the report, agreed with Dr MacNair about the poor quality of science. He reportedly calls himself an "atheist pro-choicer". Dr Priscilla Coleman of Bowling Green State University, Ohio, also broadly concurred about the poor science.

Dr MacNair says there was no general call for nominations to the task force. Instead, the division responsible for women's psychology simply had their choices for membership approved by the council. By the time Dr MacNair was aware of who was in the group, it was too late for nominations.

Consistent Life wrote to the council pointing out that three members of the task force were outspoken defenders of abortion while the other three had made no statements of positions. There was no reply received from any members of the council.

What Dr MacNair described as a "grotesque caricature of pro-lifers" was removed at draft stage.

• The research arm of Consistent Life, an international network for peace and life, is the Institute for Integrated Social Analysis.

The pro-life movement needs a clear direction

How can we move forward in the pro-life movement? This is a key question. A clear direction is needed and we must make the very best use of our resources – that is, pro-life people.

Two specific areas on which SPUC is focusing are schools and hospitals. In schools, every time parents voice their concern to schools authorities about explicit sex education and sexual health clinics on the schools premises they are resisting government policy. Every teacher, who refuses to participate in anti-life lessons, is striking a blow against the government.

In hospitals, every time a friend or relative questions doctors carefully about the treatment of a loved one, they are challenging the culture of euthanasia.

SPUC has developed two campaigns to push forward the resistance movement on which I’ve blogged in the last couple of days. Safe at School supports and advises a parents and teachers. Patients First Network supports and advises those trying to defend a loved one at risk from euthanasia.

SPUC’s biggest resource in this great undertaking is pro-life people. Will you order two or three copies of our new Safe at School leaflet and of our new Patients First Network leaflet. You will know someone you can give these to and help spread the resistance movement. We also need you to organise a group – no matter how large or small - to whom we can come and talk about these campaigns.

Next month I’m speaking about building a pro-life resistance movement and about the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill in Uxbridge (1st September), Newport (10th September), Leyland (15th September), Bedford (17th September), and Rotherham (24th September).

And at the SPUC national conference in Derbyshire from 5th – 7th (Friday to Sunday) next month, building the pro-life resistance movement will be a major theme. You can find a booking-form here.

To order leaflets contact lizfoody@spuc.org.uk and for help in organising a local meeting telephone Tony Mullett on 01772 258580

SPUC's Safe at School campaign

A new leaflet has been developed to encourage parents to get to grips with what is happening in their children's schools. This is part of our campaign to raise awareness about what is happening in schools and to identify those people who will take action and start working for change within their own child's school.
Please order copies to hand to mothers and fathers whom you know - either in your locality or to send to friends and acquaintances further afield.

Parents need to check on what is happening in their children's schools. The leaflet lists 17 questions to put to the school authorities - and provides a helpline on the issues the leaflet raises. Questions include: "Are you aware of your child filling out questionnaires at school with leading questions on their knowledge of sexual matters and local availability of the morning-after pill?...Are you aware of websites advertising abortion facilitate and confidential advice which may be promoted at your child’s school often on plastic cards which may also offer help on careers advice?...Are you aware that school governors have to consult with parents over sex education and that they have the power to veto anything they feel is detrimental to the child?..."

The Safe at School campaign, run by the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, is raising awareness about the ways in which children and young people at school are exposed to anti-life classroom materials and agencies through which they can get abortion referrals, abortion-inducing contraception and the morning-after pill. This includes faith schools (including Catholic schools).

Order the leaflets you need from lizfoody@spuc.org.uk

SPUC's frontline resistance to euthanasia - at the bedside of vulnerable people

Please order copies of this leaflet to give to everyone you know.

Euthanasia threatens us all - anyone could be at risk through an accident, illness or old age. The leaflet has been specially designed for people to carry with them or keep in their homes for reference.

The confidential telephone support service is available to everyone. This is our frontline resistance to euthanasia - at the bedside of vulnerable people.

The front of the leaflet (pictured) reads: "Worried about the way a friend or relative is being treated in hospital? Supported about the way you may be treated at the end of your life? For advice and support call Patients First Network on 0800 169 1719. Euthanasia by neglect is a painful, distressing way to die. Don’t let it happen to you or someone you love."

Order copies of the leaflet from SPUC. Email lizfoody@spuc.org.uk

Interviewing prospective parliamentary candidates on abortion amendments to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill

As well as lobbying sitting MPs to oppose the pro-abortion amendments to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology bill, we urge people to contact prospective parliamentary candidates (PPCs) in their constituencies to find out how they would vote on the amendments proposed.

We don’t normally ask people to contact their PPCs until an election is approaching but this is a good way of increasing the “political temperature” on the abortion amendments. We have the opportunity to do this because many local constituency parties selected their prospective candidates last year, in the expectation of an election last October. This means we have the opportunity to approach those prospective candidates now and ask how they would vote if elected.

Bear in mind that unless your MP has announced that he/she is stepping down at the next election, only the parties “in opposition” in your constituency will have appointed a PPC.

You can Google for the party headquarters – which vary in their efficiency in providing details of prospective parliamentary candidates; or just look up the local party headquarters in your phone book.

A list of questions to put to your local candidate/s is available from SPUC here. The SPUC website has a page about this campaign here.

Contact Anthony Ozimic, SPUC’s political secretary, for advice if you need it. Please let us have information on the responses you receive. Write to political@spuc.org.uk

Abortion amendments threat - briefing

Pro-abortion MPs have tabled a raft of amendments aimed at widening the Abortion Act. With abortions climbing to over 200,000 in recent years. These amendments aim to ensure that abortions can be done:

• by less qualified operators
• with less medical oversight
• in less well-equipped premises
• on poorly informed women
• for no medical or psychological benefit.

There are also amendments that weaken the conscience clause, and seek to criminalise pro-life counsellors if women claim their advertisements suggest that they can tell them where to get an abortion.

We are asking people to write to their MPs asking them if they will oppose any such amendments that are debated in the HFE bill report stage. People should also contact the Prime Minister pointing out that, as these amendments would be attachments to a government bill, he will be held accountable for the harm to women and deaths of babies that they would lead to.

A summary briefing on these abortion amendments is available here.

David Cameron confirms he backs discrimination against unborn disabled babies (and Brown voted for it in 1990)

David Cameron confirmed this evening that he would not vote to reverse current discrimination against unborn disabled babies who can be aborted right up to birth since the law was changed by Parliament in 1990. Mr Cameron made a similar commitment in a Daily Mail interview earlier this year on which I blogged at the time.

I heard this news from Rachel and Bill Peck who attended a "Cameron Direct" Question and Answer Session this evening in Barrow-in-Furness. Rachel asked David Cameron. the Conservative leader, the following question: "In 1990 when Mrs Thatcher was Prime Minister the Human Fertilization and Embryology Act discriminated against the disabled by allowing disabled babies for the very first time to be aborted right up to full term. My question is: If in power would you favour measures to reverse this discrimination by giving unborn children who are disabled the same protection under the law as currently enjoyed by all other children?"

David Cameron answered: "A short answer first then a longer one. My personal view about that is no. I think abortion votes, and votes on embryology, and votes on all of those things should be free votes. They are matters of conscience and on the last embryology bill we’ve just had I pushed very hard (if you remember, the Prime Minister wanted to have whipped votes like they had whipped votes in the House of Lords) and I said this is wrong; this is a conscience issue; this is one where MP’s have got to examine their consciences, listen to their constituents, and explain their positions and it should always be a free vote. So it should always be a free vote. My own view is yes, I think that we should change the abortion limit down from 24 towards 20 weeks; I voted that way and I think it would be right to do that. But in the case of parents who have medical evidence that they may have a very disabled child, I would not want to change that. And I speak as someone, I mean, I’ve got a six year old boy who is severely disabled has cerebral palsy and is quadriplegic and he’s a sweet boy, he’s a lovely boy Ivan, and, you know, it is though incredibly tough bringing up disabled children and I don’t want to kind of put myself in the position of saying to other parents you’ve got to go ahead and have that child or you can’t have an abortion or you can do this or you can’t do that. Personally Ivan, he’s brought incredible things to my life but it is an enormous challenge and I don’t think it’s right to sort of tell other parents if you hear that you’ve got a very disabled child on the way, that actually doing something about it isn’t an option. That’s my view.”

Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister, of course, voted three times for this discriminatory legislation in 1990. David Cameron was first elected to Parliament in June 2001.

Praying and fasting to protect Northern Ireland from the British Abortion Act

SPUC is not a religious organization but many of our supporters are religious.

One of them, Liam Gibson, is SPUC’s development officer in Northern Ireland. He has published and distributed widely in Northern Ireland a paper entitled “Prayer and Fasting to prevent the extension of the Abortion Act [to Northern Ireland]” which calls for a 40-day fast from Wednesday, 20th August, until Saturday, 4th October (excluding Sundays).

In his paper he points out biblical examples of prayer and fasting and to Jewish tradition which “associates fasting with mourning for terrible events; wars, disasters, the destruction of the Temple, the Holocaust, or the death of loved ones”.

On a personal note, I think it is entirely appropriate for a UK-based human rights organization, like SPUC, to promote prayer in defence of human life and in the face of the potential catastrophe of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill completing its passage through Parliament. After all, both Houses of Parliament in the United Kingdom begin their proceedings every day with prayer.

Moreover, on 6th June, 1944, at a time of national peril, King George VI called his people “to prayer and dedication” for the D-day allied forces landing in Normandy.

This is a time of national peril. MPs are proposing to impose the 1967 Abortion Act on Northern Ireland and to extend enormously the killing of unborn children under that law through various amendments at report stage of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill in early October.

You may like to look at Liam’s paper and to consider joining in some modest way in the 40 days of prayer and fasting.

You may also like to join in a world day of prayer and fasting tomorrow, on which I have previously blogged.

International media, ignorance and the morning-after pill

Reuters in New York reported yesterday that “Urban-living minority girls appear to lack general knowledge about emergency contraceptive pills” but evidently those girls aren’t the only ones who lack knowledge!

The Reuters report goes on to say “Morning-after pills … consist of hormones that prevent a pregnancy from occurring” but Reuters is telling only part of the truth. The morning-after pill manufacturers say that they can prevent or delay ovulation which prevents conception. However, the makers also concede that these drugs can affect the lining of the womb so that embryos can't implant. This may be a death sentence for young human lives.

Seven years ago, SPUC took a case to the High Court to defend these lives.

In December 2000, UK drug licensing law was amended to allow morning-after pills to be sold without prescription in pharmacies. The following year and in 2002, we in SPUC went to the English high court to try to stop it. Our case was based on section 58 of the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act, which prohibits the use of means with intent to procure miscarriage.

Mr Justice Munby held that the act wasn't contravened by the administration of morning-after pills with intent to prevent the implantation in the uterus of any embryo conceived as a result of sexual intercourse. Mr Munby decided that a mother is not pregnant until the embryo implants in her womb. Although an embryonic child is present before implantation, the judge said, the mother is not legally pregnant.

Justice Munby’s decision has been strongly challenged in the academic press and elsewhere. In a careful analysis of the evidence considered by Justice Munby, Drs Fleming, Neville and Pike concluded that the substantial majority of dictionaries uphold the proposition:

• that conception is to be equated with fertilisation
• and that a woman is pregnant from fertilisation/conception onwards
• and that miscarriage, being synonymous with abortion, refers to loss of the preimplantation embryo, potentially caused by the morning after pill.

Professor John Keown of Georgetown University, Washington, DC, also found that the Justice Munby’s judgment was deeply unsatisfactory. Writing in the 27 April 2007 edition of Legal Studies, Dr Keown, Rose F Kennedy professor of Christian ethics at the Kennedy Institute of Ethics, questioned the judgment made by High Court Justice Munby that preventing the implantation of an embryo in the uterus by administration of the ‘morning after pill’, does not constitute the procurement of a ‘miscarriage’. Dr Keown’s paper provides an excellent analysis of the relevant legal precedents, expert evidence, and legislative intentions. More importantly, it critiques Munby’s weighing of this evidence and shows how the judgment is ultimately unjustified. Details of how to obtain Dr Keown’s article can be found here.

Whatever the legal judgements upholding the political status quo on the morning-after pill, urban-living minority girls in the US and women and men everywhere are entitled to the full truth about the abortifacient nature of the morning-after pill.

The Reuters New York piece was about research by Dr Cynthia J Mollen of Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and colleagues, is reported on in this month's Paediatrics. There are serious questions to be asked about this research. I intend to return to it in a future post.

Media blackout as Kenyan Head of State rules out legalised abortion

A statement last weekend by President Mwai Kibaki ruling out legalized abortion was virtually ignored by the Kenyan media. He was speaking at the installation of a new bishop in eastern Nigeria.

I heard this news over the phone today from Dr Stephen Karanja, a retired consultant obstetrician and gynaecologist, and former secretary of the Kenya Medical Association. He told me: “Last Saturday, 9th August, Bishop Anthony Muheria, was installed as the Bishop of Kitui, in eastern Kenya, in a ceremony at the Kitui High School grounds.

“The installation was graced by the presence of Mwai Kibaki, the President of Kenya, two ministers, and at least five members of the Kenyan Parliament.

“During the inauguration, His Eminence John Cardinal Njue addressed all men and women of goodwill about the position of the church on the draft Reproductive Health and Rights Bill. This bill was publicly launched last month but has not yet been introduced to the Kenyan Parliament.

“The Cardinal said that the Bill was unacceptable. It was an affront to humanity of everybody and, especially, to the integrity of the human being.

“Cardinal Njue said that a country [is going mad] if it starts killing its youth – because in children the country has the seed for its future. He said that if any government, including President Kibaki’s government, were to enact such a law, they would be acting against the people of Kenya.

“Mwai Kibaki, the President of Kenya, responded to the Cardinal’s comments. He said he saw no reason, now, or in the future, why anyone would want to legalize abortion in Kenya.”

Mutula Kilonzo, Minister for Nairobi Metropolitan Development, also spoke the draft Bill, saying that, if it reached Parliament, he would marshal the parliamentary forces to shoot the bill down.

The installation ceremony was conducted by the papal nuncio, Bishop Allan Paul Lebeaupin.

Earlier last week, Cardinal Njue said of those promoting the draft Reproductive Health and Rights Bill, that they are “slaves of foreign ideologies and policies that are devoid of Christianity.” He said that life begins after conception and was sacred and “so nobody has authority to terminate it” and called on Christian parliamentarians to reject the proposed draft bill.

Naprotechnology: a natural and realistic alternative to IVF

The 25th of last month was the 40th Anniversary of the papal encyclical Humanae Vitae. According to the Catholic Church (see, for example, Pope John Paul II's Evangelium Vitae) the sanctity of human life from its natural beginning to its natural end is central to the gospel message. From this knowledge stems the understanding, set out in Humanae Vitae, that to separate the nuptial act from its procreative potential is profoundly wrong, leading to disastrous adverse consequences for individuals, especially young people, for married couples, especially in men's attitude to women, and for society generally.* (See Note below)

For the best part of the last forty years, one of the world's leading health professionals who has dedicated his career and life to bringing this teaching of the Catholic Church to the practice of medicine is an American obsetrician and gynaecologist, Dr Thomas Hilgers who was inspired by Humanae Vitae as a young medical student.

With a team of nursing staff in St Louis, Missouri he pioneered the Creighton Model System of natural fertility appreciation (FertilityCare), which in turn has given birth to Natural Procreative Technology (or Napro). Now running the Pope Paul VI Institute for the Study of Human Reproduction in Omaha, Nebraska, and operating at the Creighton University School of Medicine, Dr Hilgers continues to explore the and develop this fascinating and growing arm of medicine.

On 9 -14 June 2008 in Rome, over 200 FertilityCare Practitioners and NaProTechnology physicians and gynaecologists gathered for the annual meeting of the American Academy of FertilityCare Practitioners. SPUC was represented there by Dr Lisa McCready, from whose report I now quote:

"Usually held in the States, Rome was chosen for this gathering because of the anniversary, but also to facilitate attendance by a growing number of trained or interested healthcare professionals from Europe. The conference addressed all aspects of NaProTechnology ranging from surgical restorative techniques to treat endometriosis, (a common cause of infertility) to discussion of the secularization of bioethics.

"NaPro is the medical extension of the Creighton model fertilitycare system, a natural fertility awareness program has been running in the USA for almost forty years. The medical applications of NaPro have grown during that time to become a comprehensive branch of women’s health medicine, which respects both the natural fertility cycle and the teaching of the Catholic Church. Working cooperatively with the woman’s body, NaPro has been shown to treat many gynaecological conditions including Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome, miscarriage and other causes of infertility.

"Presentations at the conference included case reports of the successful use of NaPro for a wide range of conditions. This included very significant data from Dr Phil Boyle’s clinic in Ireland, showing his success in achieving pregnancies in women who have had previously unsuccessful attempts at IVF, some of them multiple. Statistics from the USA suggest that in treating infertility, NaPro has between a 40-60% success rate in achieving pregnancy. This compares to a maximum success rate of 30% for IVF (UK average raw data “take-home-baby” rate).

"There is a profound depth to the ethos of NaPro, which somehow reveals the truth of human life and the fertility cycle. It is natural, holistic and at the same time sacred...

"Bringing NaProTechnology to the UK is and will be an uphill struggle, but one that will be worth fighting... The desire to give life and the compassion that causes people to seek and work in the IVF industry are forces for good that have become twisted. We are inadvertently allowing the destruction of thousands of embryos to give life to a few, and this is morally ignorant at best, and utilitarian at worst. NaProTechnology has the potential in this country to provide a realistic and successful alternative to most couples struggling to conceive, and this is precisely where the battle must be fought."

*Note: "Finally, careful consideration should be given to the danger of this power passing into the hands of those public authorities who care little for the precepts of the moral law. Who will blame a government which in its attempt to resolve the problems affecting an entire country resorts to the same measures as are regarded as lawful by married people in the solution of a particular family difficulty? Who will prevent public authorities from favoring those contraceptive methods which they consider more effective? Should they regard this as necessary, they may even impose their use on everyone. It could well happen, therefore, that when people, either individually or in family or social life, experience the inherent difficulties of the divine law and are determined to avoid them, they may give into the hands of public authorities the power to intervene in the most personal and intimate responsibility of husband and wife." (Humanae Vitae, 17)

The history of the last 40 years has demonstrated the prophetic nature of the encyclical, not least the imposition on famlies by governments of birth control policies. In the UK, for example, even the Catholic authorities are co-operating with the government to provide Catholic schoolchildren secret access to abortion and contraception; and the UK government is one of 180 governments worldwide which are funding UNFPA, the United Nations Population Fund, which participates in China's forced abortion one-child policy. And the catastrophic decline in respect for human life which these policies involve is also reflected in IVF practice. As I blogged last month, IVF – which gave birth to the first IVF child thirty years ago – has led to over two million embryos discarded, or frozen, or selectively aborted, or miscarried or used in destructive experiments. (2,137,924 human embryos were created by specialists while assisting couples in the UK to have babies between 1991 and 2005, according to BioNews. During this period, the HFEA informs us that the total of live babies born through IVF procedures was 109,469.)

Are the Chinese Olympic games the greatest triumph of the population control lobby?

I searched Google “news” using the words China, forced, and abortion. I got 245 results. Using just two words, China and abortion, I got 299 results.

The largest number of those results referred to three Christians arrested on Tiananmen Square for protesting against China’s forced abortion and one-child policy.

Googling for China Olympic Games produced 9,760,000 results.

Quite a crude piece of research to do early on Saturday morning. But it prompts the question for me: Are the Chinese Olympic Games the greatest triumph of the population control lobby?

What’s more, is the indifference of the west to what’s been described as “arguably the greatest bioethical atrocity on the globe” giving the green light to the population control lobby to move into developing countries around the world with their totalitarian schemes attacking the family and attacking the sanctity of life?

Take the Philippines, for example, and the Reproductive Health Bill which just cleared the Appropriations Committee in the House of Representatives. The Bill, which paves the way for legalized abortion “…proposes a heavy handed approach to dissenters, and elements of the Bill appear to be totalitarian" according to Southern Cross Bioethics Committee, SPUC’s advisers on bioethics.

I received the following message yesterday from Fenny Tatad, executive director of the Bishops-Legislators Caucus in Quezon City, the Philippines, regarding the Reproductive Health Bill. She said: “John, there is tremendous and unbelievable pressure coming from external sources to pass these bills. Could you please let me know if similar efforts are being brought down on legislatures in other parts of the developing world? And why?”

I would be very interested to receive informed comments from readers on Fenny’s question to me. I do wonder if the population control lobby is saying: “Well if we can get away with it in China where our abuse of the people is so well-documented, we can get away with it anywhere.”

Young people protest against China population policy

As the Olympic games open in Beijing, and some courageous American pro-lifers are arrested for protesting there, SPUC's youth and student division have been demonstrating against the one-child policy at the Chinese embassy in London. Their six-hour silent vigil includes one blindfolded participant kneeling. Our picture shows Francis, an Oxford University postgraduate student, Miss Maloney, a postgraduate student of bioethics at the Queen of Apostles Pontifical University, Rome, and Fiorella Nash of SPUC, event organiser (right).

Fiorella writes: "As a mother, it is incredible to me that any government regards itself as having a right to prevent women from having children. Western nations are complicit in this policy because they fund UN agencies which work alongside Chinese population controllers.
"Many people I have spoken to about this subject, including women who would regard themselves as feminists, shrug their shoulders as if it isn't that important. I wonder if people would be so accepting of such an abuse if it were going on in England? Would people still shrug their shoulders and refuse to comment if, during my second pregnancy, my husband had been told he would be thrown out of Cambridge University if I didn't abort, or if I had been forcibly detained at Addenbrooke's hospital during an ante-natal check and woken up from the sedation to find my baby had been killed and I had been sterilised?
"Reproductive rights just aren't that important when the woman actually wants to have a baby. The hypocrisy is disgraceful."

US administration gets cold feet on abortifacient birth control

The US administration seems to be getting cold feet on defining certain types of birth control as abortifacient. A draft directive on medics' conscientious objection mentioned the provision of drugs and procedures that terminate human life "before or after implantation". Mr Mike Leavitt, health secretary, now says that what people saw was an early draft that he'd not yet looked at. This draft: "contained words that lead some to conclude my intent is to deal with the subject of contraceptives, somehow defining them as abortion. Not true." He goes on to say that the proposed measure – which would withdraw funding from institutions which would not comply – is mainly about conscientious objection.

Well, yes. It is. No-one disputes that. Where there may be a misunderstanding is on what contraception is. As many of my readers will know, some types of birth control may be both contraceptive and abortifacient. Hormonal pills and intrauterine devices are like that. And the draft directive goes out of its way to mention human life from conception – it doesn't just talk about surgical abortion.

Mr Leavitt seems to have come under pressure from the population control lobby after the text was allegedly leaked. However, he shouldn't be tempted to back down. Pro-life medics will have conscientious problems with providing any drug, device or procedure that terminates human life at any stage.

Mr Leavitt is quoted as saying: "The Bush Administration has consistently supported the unborn." He's right; that government has done some good things at home and abroad. Now, in its last months, it can seal its legacy by ensuring that American medics can, without fear of retribution, refuse to take part in any action, direct or indirect, that threatens unborn children, regardless of their developmental stage.

Dangerous Philippines bill makes progress

On Monday I blogged on the reproductive health bill in the Philippines. This measure could pave the way for legal abortion and promote contraception, sex education and reproductive technology. It also contains coercive elements. Sadly, it was yesterday passed by the parliament's appropriations committee, which is actually chaired by one of the bill's sponsors.

Mrs Fenny Tatad, executive director of the Bishops-Legislators Caucus in Quezon City, kindly tells me that the next stage is the rules committee. The bill would then be scheduled for plenary discussion by the House of Representatives. That would be the major battle. Before it gets to that stage, though, the senate would need to pass its own version of the bill. That house has a great deal of other business to consider.

Both houses, Mrs Tatad tells me, are also considering a Magna Carta for Women. While this doesn't mention reproductive health (a phrase used to cloak the promotion of abortion and other unethical practices), it does talk about "comprehensive health care services" which could cause problems. As a result, Mrs Tatad's caucus are keeping a close eye on the measure.

Proposal to widen a patient’s “best interests…beyond the purely medical”

Alarm bells began ringing for me earlier this week when The Times reported that Chris Rudge, the new National Clinical Director for Transplantation, favours defining a patient’s “best interests” more widely to encompass aspects “beyond the purely medical” with a view to honouring a patient’s wish that his or her organs can be used to help others.

The Times says: “He believes that broadening the definition would … enable a critical care doctor to keep a patient alive for an hour or two longer, even when hope of recovery was gone, to enable organs to be collected”

And Mr Rudge observes: “We may need to seek legal advice. The Mental Capacity Act doesn’t define the phrase clearly.” Exactly, Mr Rudge. And that’s when the alarm bells got pretty deafening.

As SPUC’s adviser on bioethics, Dr Greg Pike, put it to me: “I think one of the concerns about too widely construing best interests is that there is currently a strong drive to implement living wills in practice and in legislation. One of the key problems with living wills is their application in circumstances where it would obviously be contrary to best medical practice enacted in the best interests of the patient. It is no surprise that the pro-euthanasia people are very interested in living wills because they see an opportunity to use the denial of treatment - that would be encouraged as the content of a living will - as a form of soft euthanasia.”

Kimberley Pfeiffer, a research officer at Southern Cross Bioethics Institute, offers another perspective on Chris Rudge’s comments: “This article suggests changes should be made to the life support laws so that organ donors’ wish to donate their organs can be granted – because removing organs for transplant may be in a donor’s ‘best interests’.

“The central issue here is - is it in the best interests of an organ donor to have their organs donated when they die? Organ donation is a wonderful gift of life to another, but a gift must be freely given (donated) and is only ‘useful’ if a matched transplant recipient is willing and able to receive the donation.

“It is bizarre to suggest that the giving of organs will benefit the giver so much that it is essential - in their best interest - when they are dead. The needy recipient of an organ is the only one who benefits from this type of donation. If the donor were living, they too may benefit because they might find joy in the service they have done for the other person (gift giving) but this is a secondary good and is a side effect of the primary good (the recipient’s gift). The family of a dead organ donor may find joy in the gift their deceased loved one gave to an organ transplant recipient, but this too is secondary to the primary recipient’s benefit. This backward concept of ‘gift-giving’ seems to be a self-interested perspective of altruism, not the Judaeo-Christian altruism which holds a concern for others for the sake of themselves.

“Chris Rudge suggests that donors' best interests should be ‘drawn more widely, to include honouring a wish that his or her organs should be used to help others’. Is honouring a dead or dying person’s wishes the same as serving the donor’s best interests? Practically speaking, these changes could lead to a donor being held on life-support for an indefinite period of time until organ transplantation can be arranged. But what can be said about this state of limbo between life and death? Are they physically dead if brain death has been declared – yet have their living organs preserved?

“It should be the dying donor’s best interest to be honoured and respected in life and death because of their inherent human dignity. And if this is contradicted by manipulation or exploitation of the dead person’s body in order to harvest organs, then it is not in the best interest of the donor to have their organs donated. It is worrying that this ‘best interest’ language could be used to trade-off respect for the dead and harbour living ‘dead’ cadavers in order to increase organ donation transactions.”

Bernard Farrell-Roberts of the Maryvale Institute, whose serious concerns on presumed consent for organ donation I blogged on last week, also told me he’s worried: “Alarm bells rang when I read ‘I would like to see a recognition that a patient’s best interests can encompass aspects beyond the purely medical’ Another slippery slope I fear. I … understand what Chris Rudge is trying to achieve, but I believe a change such as this would be extremely dangerous. A move away from ‘purely medical’ would open a real can of worms.

“Living wills, euthanasia (Holland springs to mind here as having something similar), etc. would all be made much easier to introduce. Abortions too up to full term, and even infant killings could be justified under such a policy. Who would judge the global best interest of a patient? A doctor, a panel ... ? And would anything written or expressed then become legally the patient's best interest, or even legally binding, even though in reality it isn't? At a time when the state wishes to take control over our bodies [see my earlier post] and has made consistent progress in this direction for years now, it would be so easy for them to further their aims if this were to become the norm. I feel that Chris Rudge is thinking one-dimensionally at present, and doesn't seem to have considered the broader picture yet.”

BPAS is first winner of John Smeaton, SPUC director blog's George Orwell Prize

It was George Orwell who said: “Political language ... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.” I cannot help feeling that this statement accurately describes the tactics used by the abortion lobby to promote their ideology among the general public. Over the forthcoming weeks, I will be awarding regular George Orwell Prizes to abortion promoters and/or providers who make the most misleading, euphemistic or blatantly dishonest statements.

There is no better place to begin than with the ugly reality of the abortion procedure itself. For a movement that claims to believe in a woman’s right to choose, the abortion lobby shows a distinct unwillingness to allow women to make an informed choice about abortion. I looked at materials put out by the Brook Advisory Service, BPAS, Marie Stopes, FPA and IPAS to see whether any of them had the courage and honesty to describe what actually happens during an abortion.

There are certain misleading words that are common to virtually all abortion providers when describing abortion, such as speaking of "the pregnancy" instead of unborn child, foetus, baby or embryo. For example, Marie Stopes claims that “gentle suction is used to remove the pregnancy from the uterus” when describing surgical abortion, FPA talks about “taking pills to expel the pregnancy” and BPAS, when describing a late term dilation and evacuation, states: “Forceps are used to remove the pregnancy.”

It takes very little knowledge of obstetrics and gynaecology to notice that the word "pregnancy" refers to (in the words of the Oxford English Dictionary) "the condition or period of being pregnant", not the unborn child whose life is ended in the womb by abortion. However, abortion providers do not seem to feel that women have a right to know this.

The other way abortion providers get around the inconvenient truth of abortion is to describe the unborn child as a mere "product", i.e. abortion removes "the products of conception" or to speak of the unborn child as though he or she were simply filling up space in the womb that it has no business to occupy. So we have BPAS describing manual vacuum aspiration in the following terms: “The uterus is emptied using a gentle manual or electric vacuum.” Emptied of what?

The runner-up for the George Orwell Prize this week is IPAS, the international abortion promoter, which uses virtually every euphemism possible in its literature; ‘uterine-evacuation procedures’ , ‘contents of the uterus', ‘products of conception’ etc. However, the overall winner is BPAS, which promises women who undergo a late abortion: “All tissue from abortion procedures is disposed of in a sensitive way. However, if you have specific wishes about the disposal of your fetal tissue, please discuss this with a member of staff before the procedure.”

When describing medical abortion between nine and 23 weeks, BPAS informs women: “The doctor will put a needle into the uterus and inject medicine to stop the fetal heart.” [ibid.] Medicine does not deliberately stop a beating heart. Maybe the word they were looking for is poison.

“Political language ... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind."

Philippines reproductive health bill has totalitarian elements

A bill before the Philippines parliament, due to be discussed tomorrow by the Appropriations Committee of the House of Representatives, could pave the way for legal abortion, as well as promoting contraception, sex education and reproductive technology. Southern Cross Bioethics Institute of South Australia (logo shown here) have written a commentary on the bill and I've used it for this blog. In it they say: "The Bill proposes a heavy handed approach to dissenters, and elements of the Bill appear to be totalitarian".

Much of the bill covers areas, such as the elimination of violence against women, which are subject to existing laws. Although the Philippines presently has pro-life laws, this proposed bill, with its "reproductive rights" language, could lead to conflict. Such conflict might lead to case law in this area.

The bill would permit abortifacient birth control even though the constitution says that the state will protect people from conception. It defines birth control drugs and devices as medicines, yet they do not treat illnesses and can actually terminate young lives.

The proposed measure severely restricts conscientious objection to its provisions and, where it does allow such objection, requires practitioners immediately to refer the enquirer to medics who will provide the unethical service. For some health workers, this will itself go against their consciences.

It also recommends two-child families and, while it doesn't mention coercion, couples could come under subtle pressure. The bill could be amended to include coercion. Couples wanting to marry would need a certificate showing they had been instructed in family planning. The bill would punish people who are deemed to have misrepresented what it contains, a significant threat to free speech and a potential weapon against pro-lifers.

Overall, this proposed measure is an intrusion by the state on couples' rights to have families in accordance with their beliefs and it advances the international sexual health agenda which is part of the campaign for widespread birth control and abortion.

[Commentary on the Philippines Reproductive Health Bill, Southern Cross Bioethics Institute, August 2008]

Fertilisation is ethical, scientific and legal starting point of the life of a human being

There’s a helpful article by Dr David Albert Jones in the Observer on human embryo research. It puts into clear perspective the Catholic church’s teaching on the inviolability and dignity of human life from the moment of its conception (which is also SPUC's position).

He points out the unchanging nature of the church’s teaching – refuting Lisa Jardine’s claim (the new chair of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority) that protection of the embryo from the beginning was an invention of 21st century Catholicism. He also shows how the church’s position is rooted in science and is even reflected in the very UK legislation which permits human embryo experimentation: “According to UK law brought in to allow experimentation on human embryos, "references to an embryo include an egg in the process of fertilisation". This starting point is maintained in the bill currently going through parliament…”

The hypocrisy of Tony Blair

Tony Blair is in China tomorrow (Monday, 4th August) as he puts it on MySpace, “answering questions from MySpace users about the global challenges we face, in particular related to our campaign to show how people of faith can help the world achieve its Millennium Development Goals. How we can join together as global citizens both of faith, and of none, to tackle the great social ills that we face today and provide the opportunity for young people to make a real difference?”

As Anthony Ozimic, SPUC’s political secretary put it to me, what about the great social ill of abortion?

Since giving up the premiership (and being received into the Catholic Church) Tony Blair has repeatedly refused to repudiate the strongly pro-abortion, pro-human embryo research and pro-euthanasia by neglect policies he and his government pursued.

Under Tony Blair’s government, the UK was the world’s fourth highest donor country to the UNFPA, giving just under $US38 million in 2006. The UNFPA’s well-documented involvement in China’s one-child policy has been described as “arguably the greatest bioethical atrocity on the globe”. To their credit, earlier this month, President Bush's government withheld some $40 million from UNFPA, making a total of $235 million withheld over seven years on the grounds of the UNFPA’s participation in a programme of forced abortion and sterilization. See my post last week on this topic.

When Tony Blair goes to China to explain to global citizens how to tackle the great social ills that we face today, will any Chinese citizens be able to ask him any questions, who have been fined, had their property destroyed, imprisoned or tortured for resisting forced abortion, or forced sterilization, a policy funded by his government?

In-depth information about China's one-child policy can be found in SPUC's February 2004 submission to the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee.

The hypocrisy of Tony Blair takes some beating.

BBC says it aims to provide balance of opinion on abortion

When Ms Diane Abbott MP announced her intention to amend the Human Fertilisation and Embryology bill to extend British abortion law to Northern Ireland, BBC Radio 4 gave her a pretty clear run. According to one of our supporters, she was on the Today programme on the 23^rd of last month and there was no-one there to put the opposing view. Mr James Naughtie, the interviewer (pictured), was apparently neutral on the matter.

Our supporter wrote to the BBC to ask about their supposed commitment to editorial balance. They replied: " … our aim isn't to provide a balance of opinion within a single news report or programme, but to do so over a period of time across our entire radio, television and internet news output."

Well, on many items that are far less important than abortion and Northern Ireland, you'll find the BBC getting people into the studio, or down the line, or in the radio-car to give the other point of view. Even if we take the BBC at their word, I wonder just how balanced the coverage they give to this matter will be, between now and the autumn when the bill comes back to parliament. If you see or hear the BBC reporting on abortion and Northern Ireland during the next couple of months, tell me if you think their reporting was fair.

The kind of thing to watch out for is untrue claims going unchallenged like Diane Abbott claiming, as I blogged recently, that there is a terrible backstreet abortion problem in Northern Ireland when, in reality, it has the lowest maternal mortality rate in the UK. A pro-life spokesperson, as well as providing the facts which expose Diane Abbott's claim, could point to the recent statement from former abortionist Bernard Nathanson, reported by Pat Buckley last week, repeating the admission Nathanson made in his book "Aborting America": "We claimed that between five and ten thousand women a year died of botched abortions," he said. "The actual figure was closer to 200 to 300 and we also claimed that there were a million illegal abortions a year in the United States and the actual figure was close to 200,000. So, we were guilty of massive deception." These kinds of false claims have played a massive role in persuading politicians around the world to legalize abortion - and the BBC, in SPUC's experience, is one of the worst offenders in promoting such claims. Let's see how they get on in providing a balanced opinion in the run-up to possible votes in Parliament in October which could strip the unborn child throughout the whole of the UK of the virtually the last vestige of protection.

Serious concerns over organ donation

Organ donation is on the political agenda and, in particular, the matter of donors' consent. At present, you need to indicate that you'd be happy for your body-parts to be used for transplantation when you die. This is reasonable and makes sense. Organ donation can be a good thing, but it's not a duty on all of us to do it. The pressure is now on, however, for people's consent to be assumed. The British Medical Association (BMA) are among those calling for this. If you didn't want to have your organs re-used, you'd have to make a statement to that effect. And if you didn't know anything about the issue, your organs could just be used. The BMA recently expressed disappointment when Welsh politicians decided against such presumed consent.

The current Faith magazine includes an article on organ donation by Mr Bernard Farrell-Roberts of the Maryvale Institute, a Catholic college in Birmingham, England. He points out that the Catholic church says that explicit consent is needed, and that John Paul II warned prophetically in 2000 that a shortage of organs could mean that there would be calls for presumed consent.

If consent is presumed, Mr Farrell-Roberts says, the state has rights over our bodies after death. If that same state changes the definition of death, we could end up having organs taken from us while we're still alive. In Brazil, the number of available organs actually dropped once presumed consent was introduced. The article describes the problems associated with ascertaining when a person is dead.

Brain death is one criterion used for harvesting organs, but Mr Farrell-Roberts points out that Dr David Jones of St Mary's College, Twickenham, Middlesex, and others increasingly dispute that someone can be brain-dead yet have a beating heart. There is even talk of recovery after brain death. Other research suggests that life endures for a good while longer than assumed by at least some transplant surgeons. The author writes: "… the possibility of recovery may well still exist when organs are being removed for donorship."

Mr Farrell-Roberts concludes that there is much uncertainty about when a person is truly dead. Testing for death could even cause it! He points to new scientific advances, such as adult stem cell research, which could mean that fewer donated organs are needed.

His most chilling conclusion is that we can't presently be sure that, if we are donors, we can be confident that our organs and tissue will be removed following our deaths in an ethically acceptable manner. This means it's crucial that:

• we oppose all attempts to presume consent to organ donation
• researchers find better ways of ascertaining death
• governments legislate to protect the sanctity of life.

I can't do the article justice, so do read it here.

The abortion president would gravely damage America's reputation worldwide

Senator Barack Obama, de facto Democrat candidate for US president, has said he will reinstate American funding for the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). Such spending is presently prevented by the 1985 Kemp-Kasten Amendment which, according to the Population Research Institute "forbids U.S. funds from going to any organization or country that participates in a program of forced abortion or sterilization." Earlier this month, President Bush's government withheld some $40 million from UNFPA, making a total of $235 million withheld over seven years.

Reinstating funding for UNFPA will gravely damage America's reputation worldwide. Under the current president, the US has done a lot of good work to protect the unborn overseas and an Obama victory would throw all that away. He will also do immense damage in his own country. Mr Obama has said that, if elected, he will immediately sign the Freedom of Choice Act which would enshrine abortion in US law and overturn all state-based restrictions. No wonder the Christian Defense Coalition has called him the abortion president.

While SPUC never endorses candidates, least of all those in other countries, an Obama presidency would have bad effects throughout the world, so it is a legitimate concern for us and our pro-life colleagues elsewhere to know that a new administration would fund UNFPA. Obama's neo-colonialist abortion policies will kill unborn children, destroy the lives of women and families overseas, and gravely damage the good name of the US.

On a related note, the Democratic and Republican parties have yet to choose their candidates for US vice-president. The choice is an important one, because vice-presidents sometimes succeed the incumbent (e.g. Lyndon Johnson succeeded JFK; Gerald Ford succeeded Nixon) or can become influential, either while vice-president (e.g. Dick Cheney) or in later life (e.g. Al Gore). It stands to reason that Mr Obama's running mate will probably share his anti-life positions. John McCain, Mr Obama's Republican rival, said recently that his running mate should share his "values, principles, and priorities." Among those speculated as a possible running mate for Mr McCain is Condoleezza Rice, the current Secretary of State (equivalent to the British Foreign Secretary). It would seem that Miss Rice does not share what is reported to be Mr McCain's position on abortion.

Reproductive Health Bill in the Philippines to resume hearings next week

On Saturday I blogged about a bill in the Philippines' house of representatives which would pave the way for abortion, and which promotes abortifacient birth control and sterilisation. The proposed law would over-rule medical staff's conscientious objection to being involved in such practices. I now hear from a contact in the Philippines that the appropriations committee will resume hearings on the measure a week from today (6 August). May I ask those of you who read this blog and who are religious believers kindly to pray earnestly that no part of this measure will pass into law.

29,000 reports of serious incidents relating to poor nutrition – the problem is the law

The Telegraph reported yesterday that there were more than 29,000 reports of serious incidents relating to poor nutrition in England during last year. Stephen O’Brien (Conservative), the shadow health minister, is reported as saying:

"This is a further disgraceful statistic from a Government which has failed patients and the public. People go to hospital expecting to get better, yet in 2007, 29,000 people suffered unnecessary and completely avoidable harm from poor nutritional care.”

The range of incidents included badly-fitted feeding tubes, frail patients who cannot reach a glass of water and deaths due to dehydration and choking.

According to The Telegraph, Stephen O’Brien went on to say "Nutrition is central to health and dignity – how many more patients must suffer at the hands of this inept Government?"

Given Mr O’Brien’s concern, which I’m sure is genuine, it’s a pity that he failed to vote on either the second or third readings of the Labour Government’s Mental Capacity Act.

Under the Mental Capacity Act, assisted food and fluids (e.g. tube-delivered) is regarded as medical treatment. Indeed, treatment is defined so broadly in the Mental Capacity Act that other elements of basic care, maybe even spoon-feeding, may be withheld from patients – as SPUC’s lobbyists warned MPs and Peers when the law was introduced into Parliament.

Moreover, the checklist for how to determine a patients' best interests in the Mental Capacity Act is dangerous. The checklist includes many woolly and subjective non-medical factors which serve to undermine protection for the patient’s life or health - clear and objective medical factors which used to be the principle criteria for determining a patient's best interests. A doctor can thus over-ride life and health when considering a patient's best interests.

The legislative environment is thus ripe for euthanasia by starvation and dehydration to flourish.

There is a connection between today’s report of poor conditions in hospitals and nursing homes and euthanasia by neglect. SPUC’s Patients First Network receives calls from distressed relatives saying that their loved ones are not being fed properly. Vulnerable patients are made weaker by lack of food and relatives often feel this is contributing to the premature death of their loved ones. Patients First Network is a support group which promotes good medical care until natural death. Anyone concerned about a friend or relative can call the Patients First Network confidential telephone support service on 0800 1691719.

The Telegraph report tells us that Dr Kevin Cleary, medical director of the National Patient Safety Agency, said:

"We recognise that good nutrition and hydration is essential for the recovery of patients and we support clinicians with guidance to ensure that learning from reported incidents is provided."

Dr Cleary may recognize the importance of good nutrition and hydration to aid the recovery of patients. The problem is the law, however, under which food and fluids can be withdrawn with the intention of ending the patient’s life.

Welsh assembly reluctance over organ donation consent

Members of the Welsh assembly have rejected calls for people's consent to organ donation to be presumed. Instead, the assembly's health committee wants potential donors to be encouraged to register their intentions. The British Medical Association is disappointed. Regrettably, the committee has not completely ruled out so-called presumed consent but one should be grateful for small mercies.

As I blogged in January, there is a risk that eager medics could hasten patients' deaths to get fresh organs for a person in need - well-intentioned but wrong. Earlier this year, a patient in Paris, presumed dead, revived as surgeons began to remove his organs. The International Forum on Transplant Ethics proposed that certain patients to be given lethal injections so that their organs are in better shape for transplant.

Presuming consent isn't the same as obtaining it, so it's not really consent at all, and such an presumption effectively nationalises everyone's bodies. Some countries which presume consent actually get fewer organs that are obtained in this country where consent is still needed. Mr Jonathan Morgan AM, health committee chairman, rightly points out that it's difficult asking grieving relatives to make decisions about a patient's body-parts. While organ donation can be a generous act, none of us is morally required to do it and government has no right to require it of us.

Also in January, I blogged on the dangers of defining tube-feeding as medical treatment and its implications for organ donation. We're keeping an eye on this issue of organ donation and our Patients First Network continues to watch out for the interests of people in hospital.

Huge drop in abortions in Poland - Fascinating interview in Zenit

Antoni Zieba (pictured right) the secretary of World Prayer for Life, and vice-president of the Polish Federation of Pro-life Movements, was interviewed in Zenit yesterday. He provides fascinating insights into the reasons for the huge drop in the number of abortions currently being experienced in Poland and into the history of abortion in Poland - first legalized by the Nazis in 1943. "They wanted to eliminate Poles with abortion", says Mr Zieba.

In his role as secretary of World Prayer for Life, he recently proposed making March 25 the World Day for the Protection of Life, but without giving up the national Pro-Life Day. Quoting Pope John Paul II's Evangelium Vitae (#100), Antoni Zieba says that a great prayer for life should be made throughout the year "but I am convinced that March 25, feast of the Incarnation -- of Jesus' conception in Mary's body -- must become a world day of prayer for the defence of life".

As joint vice-secretary of the World Prayer for Life, naturally I support Antoni's proposal. In addition, I support a suggestion made closer to home here in England for a world fast day of prayer on 14th August - particularly in view of the terrible threat posed by the Human Fertilisation & Embryology bill, due to be debated again in Parliament in October and the appalling bill currently before the House of Representatives in the Philippines.