Friday, 10 August 2012

Another interesting letter on the Liverpool Care Pathway

Further to my blog-post yesterday on letters about the Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP) in the 3 August edition of The Catholic Herald, this weekend's edition (10 August) contains a letter (full text below) from a doctor who argues that:
"patients might well have had weeks or even many months more of life had they been properly supported rather than put on the LCP."
Letters, The Catholic Herald, 10 August 2012

From Dr R J Clearkin

SIR – Quentin de la Bédoyère (Science and Faith, July 27) mis-states the concerns that many physicians have with the Liverpool Care Pathway. It might be helpful to consider a few of these concerns.

The question has never been whether the LCP offers a “peaceful” death. After all, euthanised patients can die peacefully. The issue has always been whether patients are dying prematurely by being put on the LCP. While the LCP claims it is for those in the “last few hours or days of life”, it is essential to realise that there is no accurate way of determining this, so that for most patients it is at best a guess with large margins of error. This is particularly true for the two thirds of patients who do not die of cancer. Such patients might well have had weeks or even many months more of life had they been properly supported rather than put on the LCP. The article makes reassuring noises about audits but fails to explain that the audits are conducted by the very body which developed and still fervently promotes the LCP. Unsurprisingly, these audits fail to critically address such vital areas as patient selection and use of the LCP in non-cancer patients. As other interested parties cannot access the raw data they are unable to audit the LCP themselves. Sadly, conflicts of interest are repeatedly encountered with the LCP and obstruct the close and necessary examination of a “pathway” which is literally a matter of life and death for tens of thousands of patients.

Count de la Bédoyère incorrectly claims that the LCP relies on the “principle of double effect”. But it has long been recognised that agents like morphine, employed correctly, do not shorten life. The same cannot be said of deliberate dehydration, which is almost always a means of accelerating death. Furthermore, many, even most, patients are not made aware of either their diagnosis or their selection for the LCP.

As for “spiritual care”, this, for most patients, is conspicuous by its absence.

Yours faithfully,
R J CLEARKIN
Market Harborough, Leicestershire

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, 9 August 2012

Read these important arguments about the Liverpool Care Pathway

This past weekend's Catholic Herald contains two letters about the Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP). You can read more about concerns about the LCP elsewhere on my blog (13 Dec. 2011; 2 Dec. 2011; 26 Mar. 2011; 3 Sep. 2009; 13 Aug. 2009). The first letter is from Professor Patrick Pullicino, who is professor of clinical neurosciences at the University of Kent. The second letter is from Dr Gillian Craig, a campaigner and author against euthanasia. I reproduce both letters in full at the end below.

Interestingly, Professor Pullicino argues:
"[T]he diagnosis of being “within the last hours or days of life”, which is necessary for a person to be put on the LCP, has no scientific basis. This diagnosis is, in fact, a prediction and as such is likely to be in serious error about 50 per cent of the time."
Dr Craig warns that:
"[T]here is a very real danger that some who appear to be dying but have a treatable disorder will be put on the LCP with fatal results."
Letters, The Catholic Herald, 3 August 2012

The Liverpool Care Pathway is becoming a deadly machine

From Professor Patrick Pullicino

SIR – One worrying statistic about the Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP) that is not well known is that in both the First National Audit (2006/7) and the Second National Audit (2008/9) the mean time to death on the LCP was 33 hours. The fact that two large national audits two years apart came up with an identical mean time to death shows that effectively the LCP is a machine. Unless the LCP is quickly discontinued death occurs in less than two days, whether someone has terminal cancer or a potentially reversible condition such as pneumonia.

What is not mentioned in the Science and Faith column (July 27) is that the diagnosis of being “within the last hours or days of life”, which is necessary for a person to be put on the LCP, has no scientific basis. This diagnosis is, in fact, a prediction and as such is likely to be in serious error about 50 per cent of the time.

Although it is possible to discontinue the LCP if the patient improves, it becomes more difficult to detect changes in the underlying illness as a patient becomes more drowsy on the LCP.

Yours faithfully,
PATRICK PULLICINO
By email

From Dr Gillian Craig

SIR – It is right to warn people about the Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP). Those who have produced warning cards have done the public a service. Your report (July 27) was helpful, as was that of Quentin de la Bédoyère (Science and Faith, July 27).

If all doctors were trained in the care of the elderly and had all the time in the world to discuss end-of-life care with patients and relatives there would be less cause for anxiety about the LCP. But given the current pressure on hospital beds and the number of frail, elderly people needing attention, there is a very real danger that some who appear to be dying but have a treatable disorder will be put on the LCP with fatal results.

Count de la Bédoyère mentioned some dangers of the LCP towards the end of his article. These are worth repeating lest they be overlooked:
  • Some medical staff may see death as a benefit for the patient or the NHS. It was suggested that death is sometimes hastened if the bed is needed for someone else.
  • Some healthcare staff will be too busy to follow the LCP protocol correctly.
  • Once on the LCP progress checks may be overlooked until the patient is dead.
  • Some doctors may not involve a multi-disciplinary team or seek advice before putting patients on to the LCP.
  • The importance of hydration was not mentioned in the Catholic Herald articles.
When palliative care first emerged as a speciality in 1987 the only patients who received hospice care were those with pain that was difficult to control or those with significant anxiety about the prospect of dying. All the rest were managed by their GPs in the community or by hospital staff if they were admitted to hospital. Surprisingly few old people needed the services of palliative carers in those days and most died peacefully without the need for sedation or morphine. Syringe drivers were never used on geriatric wards in those days. If medication was needed it was given orally or by injection.

Palliative care is in overdrive and patients are in danger. (For discussion see the American Journal of Hospice and Palliative Care 2008; Vol 25: No 2.) The NHS is fast becoming a death service rather than a health service for the elderly. Attempts are being made to vet potential admissions and send the elderly home before they block a precious hospital bed. Those who are admitted and appear to be dying may be put on the LCP and die within a matter of days. People can no longer be sure that the elderly will be treated well, so great vigilance is needed. Many people suffer long-term distress after watching a loved one die on the LCP. It is surely time to review and reduce the role of palliative care in the NHS.

All these problems have followed the closure of far too many hospitals that cared for the elderly. We now have too few hospital beds to cope with the ageing population. Hospital facilities must be increased and care in the community improved as a matter of urgency, so that more people can remain at home until they die in peace.

Yours faithfully,
GILLIAN CRAIG
Northampton

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, 8 August 2012

Respond to Welsh consultation on organ donation

The Welsh government has announced plans to introduce presumed consent for organ donation. They are calling it "deemed consent", in which people living in Wales for a period of six months or more will be opted-in automatically as organ donors. This will include prisoners, tourists, and students.

A consultation on the draft bill "Human Transplantation (Wales) Bill" opened on 18 June 2012, and closes on 10 September 2012. The consultation is open to everyone.

SPUC has produced a briefing and summary assisting pro-lifers to fill in the consultation.

I blogged about the dangers of presumed consent for organ donation in January 2008 when Gordon Brown, the former British prime minister, wanted the law on organ donation to allow presumed consent, and July 2008 when the Welsh Assembly rejected presumed consent for organ donation.

These measures could impact negatively on the seriously-ill and dying and their families, who may not be aware of medical controversies surrounding the determination of death which, if known to them, might make some reluctant to donate their organs. The evidence seems mixed about whether such a change would increase the number of organs available. Some countries with presumed consent systems do worse than the UK but some do better, suggesting that other factors may be more important.

There are many serious objections to the proposals that are not addressed at all (or only inadequately) in setting out these proposals; most importantly the question of whether so-called ‘brain-death’ or ‘brain stem death’ is actual death. As David W Evans MD, FRCP has noted:
“the basis upon which a mortally sick patient is declared “deceased” – for the purpose of acquiring his or her organs for transplantation without legal difficulties – is very different from the basis upon which death is ordinarily diagnosed and certified and that highly relevant fact is not fully and generally understood.”
The proposals ignore the facts concerning this area of scientific dispute, yet this is a question with enormous ethical implications. Most organ donors are unaware that their hearts may be beating when their organs are taken, and that they may be pink, warm, able to heal wounds, fight infections, respond to stimuli, etc.

They are also unaware of common practices of paralysing and (sometimes) anaesthetising supposedly brain-dead donors before their organs are taken.

Simply signing a donor card does not in any way indicate that the prospective consenting donor understands what will be involved, and those who are merely ‘presumed to consent’ are likely to know even less.

In other medical contexts, informed consent is the gold standard. So it really must be asked why in this particular setting informed consent is being set aside.

Presumed consent effectively abolishes organ donation understood as a free gift (providing all ethical considerations are fulfilled).

The key documents are:
How to respond:
  • online: http://goo.gl/kvovB
  • email: fill in the consultation response form (above) and email it to organdonation@wales.gsi.gov.uk Please mark the subject of your email: Consultation on the Draft Human Transplantation (Wales) Bill
  • post: print out the consultation response form (above), fill it in, and post it to: Organ Donation Legislation Team, Medical Directorate, 4th Floor, Welsh Government, Cathays Park, Cardiff, CF10 3NQ
  • telephone: call the following number and ask for a response form to be posted to you. Large print, Braille, and alternative language versions are available. 029 2037 0011
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

US abortionist talks of the “ugly black babies” he aborts

Pro-lifers speak to Dr Virmani
Top story:

US abortionist talks of the “ugly black babies” he aborts
An American abortion doctor has been caught on video saying that he aborts "ugly black babies". Operation Save America, a pro-life group, videoed Dr Ashutosh Ron Virmani justifying abortion as a way of reducing crime and not wasting taxes. He told pro-lifers to “adopt one of those ugly black babies.”  Day Gardner, president of the National Black Pro-Life Union, commented that Dr Virmani's "statement supports what we already know of the billion dollar abortion industry – black babies are targeted because they are seen as poor, worthless and maybe even 'ugly'." [LifeSiteNews.com, 6 August]

Other stories:

Abortion
Euthanasia
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

Friday, 3 August 2012

The Association of Lawyers for the Defence of the Unborn (ALDU)'s blog is a must-read for pro-lifers

The Association of Lawyers for the Defence of the Unborn (ALDU) published a quarterly Newsletter every year from 1979 until 2006. In its new blog, launched in June, it is including extracts from those Newsletters and additional comments on legal issues relating to abortion and related matters.

The ALDU blog is a must-read for pro-lifers, especially the extracts from the Newsletters, which contain argumentation on bioethical matters of crucial relevance today:
"We should not forget that the Abortion Act was drafted and supported by people who were fervently in favour of abortion being legalised and one would expect, therefore that abortionists would at least comply with the law that their supporters had produced. But they do not obey even their own law." http://aldulaw.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/it-has-now-been-confirmed-as-if-we-did.html

"'Every child a wanted child' is another abortion mantra, revealing the eugenic background to abortion. Woe betide any child who is not wanted, for you will be killed." http://aldulaw.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/abortion-act-1967-25th-year-reflection.html

"'You have to educate a woman about her contraceptive choices', says [Melinda] Gates. One of the choices that women (and men) have, the only one that makes sense, is to reject chemical and technological interference with their bodies and to embrace the truth about themselves." http://aldulaw.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/humpty-dumpty-thinking.html
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

Lobby your MP to defend real marriage

Here is a campaign alert from Paul Tully, SPUC's general secretary:
Dear friend of the unborn, 

Many thanks to all SPUC supporters who made submissions to the government’s consultation on marriage, which closed in June. In a few months there will be a report, but whatever this says about the government proposals, we face the likelihood that the government will try to push through legislation to redefine marriage. It is critical that we act now to bring pressure to bear on our politicians to defend marriage. Continuing to promote the Coalition for Marriage (C4M) petition is of great importance, and we also need to begin lobbying individual MPs in earnest.

To help do this, please read two new documents:
Please consider whether you can undertake one or more of these actions:
  • visit your MP – either on your own or with a few like-minded friends - and ask him/her to support real marriage;
  • ask clergy from your church or your local deanery meeting to visit and speak to the MP about this;
  • urge groups like parents with school-age children, members of prayer groups, sodalities like the Knights of St Columba or members of "new movements" to visit the local MP and lobby him in support of real marriage.
In this way, we must work to ensure that local MPs understand the depth of local constituents’ concern about the extraordinary and momentous threat to children and to the family posed by the government’s proposals to redefine marriages. I must stress that it is most important to see MPs of all opinions on this matter. Many sympathetic MPs are resigned about this issue because they think that children won't be harmed, or nothing can be done to stop it, or because of the alleged assurances that churches won't be affected. We need friendly MPs to take a far more pro-active position. Equally we need to put our opponents on the back foot.

We have also produced a revised version of our "Real Marriage" leaflet – and we invite you to order copies to help raise awareness and concerns as widely as possible in your community. You can order a supply of the leaflets by contacting SPUC HQ:
Whatever action you can undertake is greatly appreciated, and I would also make a special request of those who pray to make a point of bringing these issues before God – for the protection of the unborn, of our families and of all peoples.

Yours sincerely in defence of life,
Paul Tully
General secretary
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, 2 August 2012

Details of Chinese rubbish collector who saved and raised 30 abandoned babies emerge

Lou Xiaoying
Details of Chinese rubbish collector who saved and raised 30 abandoned babies emerge
Details of the story of a Chinese rubbish collector who saved and raised 30 abandoned babies have emerged. Lou Xiaoying, now 88, and her late husband Li Zin kept four of the children and passed the others onto friends and family. One admirer of Lou's work commented: "She is shaming to governments, schools and people who stand by and do nothing. She has no money or power but she saved children" [Mail, 30 July]

Other stories:

Abortion
  • Gestational limits are the wrong approach, says leading Canadian pro-life group [Interim, 2 August]
  • Pre-natal Down's syndrome testing gets go-ahead in Switzerland [Mail, 30 July]
Euthanasia
  • English judge rules that life-support should be removed from brain-damaged child [Mail, 1 August]
Population
  • Forced abortion opponent Chen Guangcheng welcomed at US Congress [AP, 2 August]
Sexual ethics
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, 1 August 2012

Powerful incentives protect one-child policy

Powerful incentives protect one-child policy
A British academic has written that powerful financial and personal incentives for local officials will ensure forced abortions continue in mainland China. Dr Jackie Sheehan, associate professor of Nottingham University's School of Contemporary Chinese Studies, said: "Coercion and violence are integral parts of the system ... Officials lose points for every out-of-quota birth in their area and earn cash bonuses for every abortion and sterilisation they enforce ... [D]esperate officials resort to forced abortions and sterilisations." [South China Morning Post, 25 July] Anthony Ozimic, SPUC's communications manager, commented: "Dr Sheehan's analysis gives the lie to the claim by Western governments and the worldwide abortion lobby that the one-child policy is not intrinsically abusive and is capable of reform."

Other stories:

Euthanasia
Embryology
  • Maltese bishops call for natural solutions to infertility as country proposes first-ever IVF law [LifeSiteNews.com, 31 July] 
Population
Sexual ethics
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, 31 July 2012

Age UK's response on euthanasia

Last year SPUC re-launched its information on charities as an online index, with new entries and updated information added as and when new information is received. Today's charity is Age UK.

Age UK was formed when Age Concern England and Help the Aged merged in 2009. (Please see the entries in 2006 edition of SPUC's Charities Bulletin for life-related information about these charities).
In a letter from SPUC dated 23 July 2012, Tom Wright, Age UK's chief executive, said:
"Age UK has a governance framework, agreed by our Board of Trustees, to ensure both legitimacy and corporate ownership of our policy positions. The principles set out within this framework explicitly state that Age UK will not develop policy positions on certain matters, including matters which unnecessarily promote division amongst older people.

I can confirm that as a result of this Age UK does not have a policy position on euthanasia or assisted suicide, nor do we fund or support any campaigns in relation to these issues. In relation to your query on advanced directives, as you might expect, this is a subject on which we are asked for advice by older people and we have developed a factsheet...".
SPUC comment: As anti-euthanasia groups such as SPUC have pointed out over several decades, "one of the key problems with living wills [advanced directives] 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." (Dr Greg Pike, Southern Cross Bioethics Institute, 7 August 2008)

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

Must-read pro-life news-stories, Tue 31 July

Top story:

Donegal county council back call opposing abortion legislation
The Donegal Daily reports that a motion has been passed by Donegal County Council opposing any form of legislation on abortion. The council resolved that: “In keeping with the will of the Irish people, as emphatically expressed in the referendum of 1983, Donegal County Council opposes any form of legalisation of abortion in any circumstances”. 17 councillors backed the motion, 6 abstained and one voted against. [Pat Buckley, 31 July]

Other stories:

Abortion
Embryology
Euthanasia
Population
  • Iranian authorities encourage families to have more babies [BBC, 30 July]
Sexual ethics
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

Saturday, 28 July 2012

The Catholic Church must stand up to IPPF abortion agenda in Ireland

Tony O'Brien (pictured), one of the leading campaigners for the legalization of abortion in Ireland, and formerly chief executive of the Irish Family Planning Association, has been appointed Director General of Ireland's Health Service Executive. The Irish Family Planning Association is, of course, an affiilate of the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), the world's largest abortion-promoting agency.

Thus, IPPF has its feet firmly under the top table of Irish government. Read the blogpost of Pat Buckley, European Life Network Ireland director, for further information about the implications of this appointment and pro-lifers' dismay.

Last year IPPF launched It's all one curriculum. A quick review of that document shows the kind of policies which the Irish government might reasonably expect an IPPF man to promote as director general of Ireland's health service executive. I urge all Irish citizens, and all those who love Ireland, to read my earlier post on it.

It tells you everything you need to know as to what utterly corrupt and corrupting policies, targeted at young children, to which at least some in the Irish government appear to want to sign up.

The big question now is: Will Catholic church leaders stand up and be counted - in Ireland, or in Rome - and try to stop what is almost certain to happen to the Irish people unless they act?

Accommodation of the pro-abortion lobby, as we saw in 2009 with Archbishop Rino Fisichella, hasn't worked. It's simply served to embolden the most powerful political leaders in the world - Obama in the US, Blair and Cameron in Britain - who know that they can promote their abortion policies without fear of disapproval.

It's time to take Catholic doctrine on the sanctity of human life, on the duty to oppose the scandalisation and corruption of young people, off the shelf; shake off the dust on the pages which has accumulated after decades of lack of use; it's time to get up in the pulpits and out in the public square; it's time to speak the truth and to defend this generation's families and children - just as the Scottish bishops have done so well over the years and in recent weeks.

As my pro-life colleague in Ireland, Pat Buckley, said to me recently:
"Until now Ireland's fidelity to the Christian faith has helped it stand almost alone in Europe in prohibiting abortion.  At the same time it has led the world in the reduction of maternal mortality.  For both these reasons Ireland is hated by the forces of the culture of death which are preparing the imminent destruction of its pro-life laws."
The pro-life groups in Ireland are doing what they can. Will the Church speak out? will they help them?

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

Friday, 27 July 2012

Pro-abortion "practising Roman Catholic" MP to address Catholic Justice and Peace annual meeting

The Catholic diocese of Brentwood website is advertising the annual conference of its Commission for Justice and Social Responsibility. The conference is to be opened by Bishop Thomas McMahon and it's to be addressed by Jon Cruddas MP for Dagenham and Rainham on social justice issues. He is described in the media as a practising Roman Catholic.

If the Brentwood Diocese's Commission for Justice and Social Responsibility was actively planning to endanger vulnerable children, in the sense clearly understood and explained by Catholic teaching, they could not have done better than to invite Jon Cruddas MP, who has told Andrew Marr, the TV political journalist:
“I fully support the gay adoption proposals the Government put into place.”
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on the other hand, teaches that allowing children to be adopted by couples in homosexual unions "does violence to these children":
"As experience has shown, the absence of sexual complementarity in [homosexual] unions creates obstacles in the normal development of children who would be placed in the care of such persons. They would be deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood. Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development. This is gravely immoral and in open contradiction to the principle, recognized also in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, that the best interests of the child, as the weaker and more vulnerable party, are to be the paramount consideration in every case."
If the Commission for Justice and Social Responsibility had been actively planning to undermine the work of the Catholic Church and the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children in defence of the family, based on marriage - the permanent, exclusive union of one man and one woman - it could not have done better than invite Jon Cruddas to speak to their annual conference on social justice issues a man described as:
"Someone who believes ... that same-sex couples should be provided partnership rights equivalent to those of married heterosexual couples ... "
and who has expressed his pride in his voting record in support of the homosexual agenda.

The Catholic Church, on the other hand, has very clear teaching in respect of Catholic politicians and legislation in favour of homosexual unions. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith says:
"If it is true that all Catholics are obliged to oppose the legal recognition of homosexual unions, Catholic politicians are obliged to do so in a particular way, in keeping with their responsibility as politicians. Faced with legislative proposals in favour of homosexual unions, Catholic politicians are to take account of the following ethical indications.

When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual unions is proposed for the first time in a legislative assembly, the Catholic law-maker has a moral duty to express his opposition clearly and publicly and to vote against it. To vote in favour of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral."
And if the Commission for Justice and Social Responsibility were actively planning to undermine the work of pro-life groups and Catholic teaching on the sanctity of human life, they could not do better than invite an MP who says he supports a woman's right to choose [abortion]; that he's perfectly happy with the current situation (which provides legal sanction for the killing of 550 unborn babies daily); and who has voted 18 times with the anti-life lobby, for example voting in favour of the anti-life Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act at second reading (which denotes approval for the bill's principles) - a law designed to kill millions of innocent human beings deliberately created never to be born.

This is not my idea of justice and peace.
Concerned readers of this post may wish to express their views to the Brentwood Diocese's Commission of Justice and Social Responsibility.

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, 26 July 2012

45 years ago Dr Michael Ramsey, Archbishop of Canterbury, sold the pass on abortion

Today is the 45th anniversary of the Committee stage of David Steel’s Medical Termination of Pregnancy Bill in the House of Lords. Although the pro-abortion lobby were buoyed by their success on Second Reading, things did not go quite as well as they had planned when the Bill reached its Committee stage.

Although Second Reading decides the principle of the Bill, the Committee stage opens the whole Bill to scrutiny and amendment, with the Bill being debated line by line and Clause by Clause.

Two major amendments were carried by the House of Lords against the wishes of Lord Silkin (who sponsored the Bill in the Upper House) and the pro-abortion lobby.

Things got off to a ominous start for Lord Silkin and his friends in the pro-abortion lobby when an amendment moved by the former Conservative Lord Chancellor, Viscount Dilhorn, that one of the two doctors required to certify an abortion under the Bill must be employed under the National Health Service as a consultant or must be approved for this purpose by the Minister of Health or in Scotland by the Secretary of State.

Viscount Dilhorne said the amendment sought to ensure there was the right medical advice and opinions of the right medical people before the operation was performed to ensure it was performed by a person well qualified to perform it.

Lord Silkin on behalf of the sponsors of the Bill argued that in his opinion the Bill as it stood was right. Abortions, he said, could be carried out only in institutions for the purpose. He added that the previous week (during Second Reading) 123 peers had wanted the Bill passed. They approved it. He argued that, quite frankly “time is against us and if we pass any amendments of which the Commons did not approve, we have effectively killed the Bill.” The amendments had all been discussed in the Commons who had come to the conclusion as it stood in the Bill.

Silkin begged the House not to play around with it now. He was prepared, if the amendments were withdrawn, to discuss them later and see whether they could find an acceptable form of words to be moved after the summer recess. This drew a rebuke from Viscount Dilhorn who said: “the noble Lord has not promised to put in any words at all. All he has done—and he has done it before—is to say that he would consider it seriously. I am rather tired of that formula. I know the noble Lord does 'consider seriously', but nothing ever happens on this Bill after that consideration.”

Despite the opposition of Lord Silkin, the pro-abortion lobby and of the Labour Minister, the amendment was carried by 116 votes to 67.

The second amendment carried by a narrow 87 votes to 86 removed the words which permitted an abortion if the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk of injury to the physical or mental health of the women’s existing children.

Viscount Dilhorn who moved the amendment said the provision was seeking to introduce as a justification for abortion a criterion wholly unrelated to the condition of the pregnant woman.

He said he found it difficult to visualise how the birth of a child could affect the physical or mental health of any existing child. Maybe little Willie would get so upset at the prospect of having a little brother or sister that his mental health would become disturbed, but that is no ground for terminating a human life.

Other amendments made on this day to the Bill included a re-writing of the conscience clause and at the request of the Home Office an amendment was carried delaying the commencement of the Bill by six months.

These two defeats led to a hysterical reaction by the pro-abortion lobby and their allies in the media who spoke of a constitutional crisis should the Lords amendments be rejected by the House of Commons.

The full debate in Committee can be seen here.

However, the story doesn't end on 26th July 1967.

During the summer recess, there was a campaign led by the pro-abortion lobby about a constitutional crisis if the House of Commons rejected the amendments and the Lords insisted on keeping them. At one point, there were even calls for the Archbishop of Canterbury to lose his Seat in the House of Lords.

During the Report stage (held on 23rd October, the first day back from the summer recess), the House of Lords reversed the two amendments to the Bill which they had approved in the Committee stage, and then went on to complete the Bill’s Third Reading.

In reversing the two amendments, they thus avoided a clash with the House of Commons which would probably have wrecked the Bill for the 1966-67 Session and could have caused - so the pro-abortion lobby argued - a constitutional crisis.

First the House of Lords defeated by 113 votes to 79 the requirement that one of the two doctors needed to agree on an abortion must be a National Health Service consultant. They had voted this amendment into the Bill in July by 116 votes to 67.

Later that day the House of Lords voted by 80 to 69 to restore the "social" clause, allowing an abortion on the grounds of injury to the health of children of the family. They had defeated this clause in July by a majority of one.

It seemed at first as if the House of Lords would stick with their amendments, led by Viscount Dilhorne, Lord Brock (president of the Royal College of Surgeons), the Marquess of Salisbury, the Earl of Longford, and the Archbishop of Canterbury (pictured above).

The first sign of weakening came when the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Ramsey, after speaking firmly against the deletion of the requirement of an NHS doctor, voted in favour of its deletion. Rebuked by Viscount Dilhorne, the Archbishop said he had been convinced by arguments during the debate and changed his mind.

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

Macmillan Cancer Support's response on euthanasia

Last year SPUC re-launched its information on charities as an online index, with new entries and updated information added as and when new information is received. Today's charity is Macmillan Cancer Support.

Macmillan Cancer Support provides practical, medical and financial support and push for better cancer care.

In a letter dated 28 June 2012, Macmillan Cancer Support said:
"Macmillan Cancer Support does not have a policy on euthanasia and assisted suicide. With regard to advance directives or living wills, we have an information page on our website, titled 'Advance decisions'."
As anti-euthanasia groups such as SPUC have pointed out over several decades,
"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." (Dr Greg Pike, Southern Cross Bioethics Institute, 7 August 2008).
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

Must-read pro-life news-stories, Wed 25 July

Top story:

MPs who vote for Cameron gay marriage pledge will be punished at election time
MPs who vote for David Cameron's gay marriage pledge will be punished at the general election, says SPUC. SPUC was responding to Mr Cameron's speech, reported by The Telegraph http://goo.gl/fNQJn in which he promised to enshrine same-sex marriage in law before the next general election in 2015. John Smeaton, SPUC's chief executive, commented: "There are numerous reports that the Conservative party is already losing huge numbers of voters, members and activists because of Mr Cameron's foolish support of same-sex marriage. SPUC and its colleagues in many pro-family, Christian and Muslim groups, representing countless thousands of supporters and activists up and down the country, will ensure that same-sex marriage becomes a big general election issue, especially in marginal constituencies." [SPUC, 25 July]

Other stories:

Abortion
  • Disability no longer to be legal ground for abortion, announces Spanish government [ThinkSpain, 22 July]
Sexual ethics
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, 25 July 2012

MPs who vote for Cameron gay marriage pledge will be punished at election time

SPUC has responded to David Cameron's speech, reported by The Telegraph this morning  in which he promised to enshrine same-sex marriage in law before the next general election in 2015.

As I told the media this morning, there are numerous reports that the Conservative party is already losing huge numbers of voters, members and activists because of Mr Cameron's foolish support of same-sex marriage. SPUC and its colleagues in many pro-family, Christian and Muslim groups, representing countless thousands of supporters and activists up and down the country, will ensure that same-sex marriage becomes a big general election issue, especially in marginal constituencies.

Mr Cameron's speech reveals that his understanding of marriage and religion is woefully simplistic and ignorant. His mantra of 'equality' totally ignores the nature, history and role of marriage, which is the union of one man and one woman ordered towards the procreation of children.

Redefining marriage to include same-sex couples is outside Mr Cameron's remit as a political leader. The family - not the government - is the first and vital cell and source of human society, and is therefore a pre-political institution. By seeking to redefine marriage, Mr Cameron is also seeking to redefine the family, which is based upon marriage between one man and one woman. Mr Cameron is clearly doing his best to copy Tony Blair as a social engineering guru.

SPUC's position paper on same-sex marriage explains why SPUC, as a pro-life campaigning organisation, campaigns against same-sex unions.

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, 24 July 2012

Must-read pro-life news-stories, Tue 24 July

Top story:

SPUC welcomes new Catholic archbishop of Glasgow
SPUC has welcomed the appointment of Bishop Philip Tartaglia as the new Catholic archbishop of Glasgow. John Smeaton, SPUC’s chief executive, commented: “Archbishop-elect Tartaglia has been outspoken in the defence of the sanctity of human life, as well as the dignity of the family based solely on marriage between one man and one woman. We at SPUC look forward to supporting Archbishop-elect Tartaglia in his pro-life and pro-family ministry in the coming, challenging years." [SPUC, 24 July]

Other stories:

Abortion
Sexual ethics
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

SPUC welcomes Philip Tartaglia as new Catholic archbishop of Glasgow

SPUC has welcomed the appointment of Bishop Philip Tartaglia as the new Catholic archbishop of Glasgow.

As I told the media earlier this morning, Archbishop-elect Tartaglia has been outspoken in the defence of the sanctity of human life, as well as the dignity of the family based solely on marriage between one man and one woman. In 2011 he said that:
"[T]he fundamental human right is the right to life from conception to its natural end... [L]egalised abortion is the primary fatal injustice of our times, which has no place in a civilised society." (endorsement, 40 Days for Life 2011)
Archbishop-elect Tartaglia has been equally strong in opposing same-sex marriage, saying:
"Nature, reason and religion concur that marriage is uniquely the union of a man and a woman, which, by its very nature, is designed for the mutual good of the spouses and to give the children who may be born of that union a father and a mother ... Same-sex ‘marriage’ will change the nature of parenting. The normal mother and father model of parenting will be replaced in law and then gradually in culture by a non gender-specific model of parenting which will deprive children of their right to have a mother and a father" (pastoral letter, 4 October 2011)
We at SPUC look forward to supporting Archbishop-elect Tartaglia in his pro-life and pro-family ministry in the coming, challenging years. We thank Archbishop Mario Conti for the support he has given to SPUC and to the pro-life and pro-family cause over many years.

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

Monday, 23 July 2012

Concerned parents in Tower Hamlets hear family issues expert

Dr Lisa Nolland
On 11 July 2012, over 500 mums streamed into the London Muslim Centre, to hear Dr Lisa Nolland, a leading family issues expert. Most of the parents had been active in collecting over 10,000 signatures for a petition calling on Tower Hamlets council to stop funding explicit sex education in the borough’s primary schools.

In a lecture titled, “Giving our children the best”, Dr Nolland gave a social historian’s analysis of how we come to have UK schools showing graphic cartoon sex scenes to young children in the classroom.

It all started with Dr Alfred Kinsey (1894-1956), whose “sick-sex ideology” spread through Playboy, pornography, world sexual health organisations and into sex education programmes.

Dr Nolland encouraged parents to read up on this, to fully understand the background of what we are facing now.

In Dr Nolland’s view Alfred Kinsey’s legacy of perverted sexuality, including sexualising young children through explicit sex education programmes, can be seen today:

• Numbers and rates of sexually transmitted infections have risen costing the NHS £1 billion annually
• Teen pregnancy cost the NHS: £63 million annually

• Family breakdown costs the state around £42 billion annually.

Dr Nolland’s key message to parents was to understand these issues in order to be better prepared and able to protect their children.

“I want you to be the best and most effective mothers (and fathers),” she told the meeting.

“All children need lots of the 4 As from you, their mothers and fathers:

• Your AFFECTION (physical and emotional)
• Your AFFIRMATION
• Your ATTENTION
• Your ADVOCACY"

Please read the edited version of Dr Nolland’s presentation, which includes the books she referred to during the meeting.

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

Friday, 20 July 2012

Sterilization of "mental defectives" defeated by Parliament 81 years ago tomorrow

81 years ago tomorrow a Bill for the sterilisation of certain categories of "mental patient" was proposed in the House of Commons in 1931 by Labour MP Archibald Church as a Ten Minute Rule Bill. Church moved that leave be given to bring in a Bill to “enable mental defectives to undergo sterilizing operations or sterilizing treatment upon their own application, or that of their spouses or parents or guardians; and for purposes connected therewith.”

In moving his motion, Church claimed it was necessary to stop the reproduction of those "who are in every way a burden to their parents, a misery to themselves and in my opinion a menace to the social life of the community". He added he would be failing in his duty to the House if he did not state that in his opinion, this Bill was “merely a first step in order that the community as a whole should be able to make an experiment on a small scale so that later on we may have the benefit of the results and experience gained in order to come to conclusions before bringing in a Bill for the compulsory sterilisation of the unfit.”

Opposition to the Bill was led by Dr Hyacinth Morgan (Labour MP for Camberwell Norty) who said:
“I rise to ask the House not to give leave for the introduction of this Bill. The House has heard a harrowing tale which is mostly moonshine. The Bill is said to be in advance of public opinion, but it is really in advance of common sense and ordinary sanity....If once the principle of maiming or mutilation is admitted, not for the benefit or health of the individual but for the good of others or the State acting for others, there is no brake to sliding down the slippery slope leading to the swamp of State penalisation, where we may get rid of all those obnoxious to the State. Those preaching subversive doctrines may have their tongues cut out. Those writing subversive doctrines may have their hands cut off. The State (those temporarily in power) are the dictators of limb and life. The eugenicist upon a pinnacle of intellectual snobbery, looking down upon the less fortunate mental defective, may gradually raise the standard of mental deficiency and push more and more citizens into the maelstrom of the mentally-maimed."
Dr Morgan concluded by appealing to the House to “refuse to give leave to introduce this pagan, anti-democratic, anti-Christian, unethical Bill.”

The House then divided and Major Church’s proposed Bill was defeated by 167 votes to 89. It is interesting to note that future Prime Minister Anthony Eden (then a back bencher) voted in favour of the Bill.

The debate can be seen here.

And in case anyone thinks that such blatant eugenic thinking in political circles is a thing of the past ... completely to the contrary, it has become part and parcel of the British political establishment, and now with lethal consequences on a grand scale:
  • In the UK 92% of babies prenatally diagnosed with Down's syndrome are killed by abortion. This has remained constant since 1989 when the National Down's Syndrome Cytogenetic Register began. Under the UK Abortion Act, a child deemed to have a disability can be aborted up to birth. These are sad and utterly unacceptable facts.
  • As recently as 18th October 2005, Caroline Flint, a junior minister of health under a previous government, told Parliament that a risk of repealing the Abortion Act 1967 (and thus, inter alia, the risk of making the killing of disabled unborn babies unlawful) would be an annual cost to the country of £5 million for the "cost to care for disabled children" (See Partial Regulatory Assessment of The Prohibition of Abortion (England and Wales) Bill).  David Cameron, meanwhile, the current UK prime minister, has made it clear that he supports abortion up to birth for disabled babies.
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, 19 July 2012

SPUC supporters conquer Britain's highest peaks

On 1 and  2 July, a team of SPUC supporters climbed Britain’s three highest peaks – Ben Nevis, Snowdon and Scafell Pike – in order to raise funds for the Glasgow midwives’ appeal costs and SPUC’s other life-affirming work. (Make a donation over the phone, by cheque, or online . If donating online, select 3 Peaks Climb from the drop-down menu).

gold201207

The ascent of Ben Nevis (4370 ft), Scafell Pike (2900 ft) and Snowdon (2400 ft) within 24 hours has long been regarded by many as one of the ultimate physical challenges in the British Isles. The challenge includes a total of 9670 feet of climb, covering a walking distance of approximately 25 miles, with 500 miles of travel by road between the peaks. [Heights given measured from the starting point of each climb]

Success depends on several factors, some of which can be controlled, such as personal fitness, scheduling to minimise climbing in the dark and using the correct equipment, food and clothing. But there are other factors over which one has no control; principally the weather and road and traffic conditions between the peaks.

The difficulty of this challenge should not be underestimated. It is easy to get lost, particularly when mountains need to be climbed in the dark or in poor weather. With full knowledge of what the challenge involved, a group of SPUC supporters from the Yorkshire Region conquered the peaks.

Report from Michael Hill, 5 July 2012

It would be quick and easy just to cobble together a few lines for the SPUC website confirming that this year’s sponsored challenge was completed successfully on 1st & 2nd July, who took part, and how long it took them.

But our sponsors deserve more than that. And having been personally involved with this event from the early discussions in 2011 through to the fond farewells in the middle of a rainy Welsh car park at the end of the challenge, I can tell you that every member of the challenge team deserve more as well - so hear goes:

3peaksteam201207
Gill Suddaby, William Jenkinson, Andy Openshaw, Gavin Sharp, Sally Hill, Alex Hill, Gina Suddaby, and Michael Hill.

Prelude

William and Andy arrived for the final planning meeting a week before the event. Alex and Gavin had each sent their apologies but confirmed that they would be doing the Challenge. The four of us at the meeting reviewed the schedule, agreed travelling times, decided who would be responsible for the food and confirmed Sat-Nav postcodes. After the meeting we knew that the next time we would see each other would be at the foot of Ben Nevis in the Scottish Highlands.

Two days later I received a phone call from a total stranger, a young lady called Gina. She told me she had planned to do the Three Peaks Challenge but her team had cancelled, leaving her high and dry, and she was looking for another team to hook up with. Her search began on Facebook, which led her to contact a Hospice in Wakefield where a member of staff suggested she contacted SPUC. Bingo - how could we say no? Gina was obviously committed to raising funds for her charity and would go to any lengths to do it. That impressed me.

We met Gina and her mum, Gill, for the very first time in the Ben Nevis car park just one hour before the Challenge was scheduled to begin. We chatted together while we sorted our rucksacks, waterproofs and boots, and when the 5 o’clock start time came we set off up that first mountain not as strangers, but as friends.

Ben Nevis
Conditions on Ben Nevis were perfect on that Sunday evening in July, with blue sky, high cloud and sunshine. We had travelled through quite a bit of rain on the way to Fort William, so this was an unexpected pleasure. Climbing is physically challenging even in good weather, and it wasn’t too long before the breathing became laboured and conversation ceased. The girls pulled ahead of the boys to reach the summit first. We claimed that the spectacular views had delayed us, which to a degree was true, but I think the girls were just fitter!

peak201207

There were a good few walkers on the mountain that evening, and being able to exchange banter and pleasantries with like minded people engaged in a common pursuit was another bonus. The only incident to mar the conquest of Ben Nevis was my fall. I was returning from the summit and not far from the finish, when I clipped a rock and toppled like a felled oak onto the rocks! I lay still for a while thinking I must have broken something. My left leg had taken the brunt of the impact and was numb. After a while I struggled to my feet. I had escaped a fracture, but had serious soft tissue damage. I knew I had to continue the descent if only to determine whether or not I was going to be able to complete the challenge. I desperately hoped I could. The others could tell something was wrong as soon as they saw me, and I told them what had happened. I would decide what I would do later.

After hot soup and sandwiches at ‘Andy and Sally’s Car Boot Café’ we all got into our       respective vehicles and set off for the Lake District and Scafell Pike, 266 miles away. It would soon be getting dark but it remained dry - for a while.

The total driving distance between the 3 peaks is approximately 490 miles, which translates to a minimum of 10 hours driving at safe speeds. The travelling element of the challenge is crucial, so you can imagine what colour the air turned when we discovered that the route we had chosen was the subject of an unscheduled overnight closure. It was midnight, we had an extra 22 miles to travel, and it had begun to rain. The mood was changing.

Scafell Pike

The rain increased as we approached the National Trust car park at the foot of Scafell Pike. It was almost 4am and still dark, but the rest of the gang were already there and ready to go. Weather conditions at the bottom of Scafell were poor, and I explained to the team that conditions would be much worse on the top, but there wasn’t the slightest doubt – they were going for it regardless!

I had climbed Scafell Pike twice in the past, and I knew my knowledge of the route would be valuable to the team, especially in the dark and the rain. So despite my injured leg (hero that I am) I decided to accompany them to a place called Hollow Stones, about two thirds of the way up. From there they would be able to follow a chain of Cairns to the top.

I recognised that my personal challenge was at an end as I watched those four young men and women disappear into the wind and rain towards the summit. The weather worsened as dawn broke, and my descent was slow and painful.

lake201207

Gina, Alex, William and Gavin all reached the summit safely, but did not linger as the wind chill factor was high. On their return, absolutely soaked to the skin, the team was greeted by the mouth-watering smell of bacon sandwiches. Yes, that’s right - ‘Andy and Sally’s Car Boot Café’ was open for business, but a full change of clothes was needed first. This is not easy in a car park, but with the aid of a towel and a strategically placed umbrella, modesty was preserved!
    
We left Scafell Pike dead on schedule at 7.30am, but arrived at Snowdon one hour behind schedule. This was due to an incompetent and un-cooperative Sat-Nav insisting we take the M58 instead of the M56. The rain and the heavy Monday morning traffic did nothing to improve the 222-mile journey, either.

Our only consolation was that it was most unlikely that we would suffer the same weather conditions on Snowdon that we’d had to endure on Scafell Pike (the words ‘Hope’ and ‘Eternal’ spring to mind here)

Snowdon

We were the last of our team to arrive at the Pen-y-Pass car Park. It was one o’clock in the afternoon and time was slipping away. The rain was coming sideways again. I just couldn’t believe our misfortune. But just like at Scafell Pike, there was simply no doubt in the team’s mind that they were going to complete the challenge, even in these most appalling weather conditions. Gavin and William had already set off on the Miners Track. Alex and Gina cobbled together some waterproofs, and chose the Pyg Track. By sheer coincidence all four met up at the summit for photos. Alex and Gina were the first to finish with William and Gavin not far behind. Again, these four young people showed tremendous grit and determination in the face of real adversity. They had completed the challenge half an hour outside their own schedule, but one hour inside the 24-hour limit!

Farewell

Sally presented each of the walkers with a chocolate ‘gold’ medal in a light-hearted gesture to mark their achievement, but they had given so much of themselves in completing this challenge that real gold medals would not have been out of place. After the presentation we bid a sad farewell to Gina and her mum. We didn’t know if we would ever see each other again, living at   opposite ends of the country, but we knew that we had shared a very special experience, one that we would remember for the rest of our lives. It was a privilege to have been part of it.

Michael Hill

summit201207

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

Evidence points to the negative impact of contraception on women's health

Edmund Adamus, director for marriage and family life in the Westminster Catholic archdiocese, has an excellent letter in last weekend's Tablet on contraception and women's health.

It's worth reading in full and to note the chapter and verse he cites in making his case that "more and more evidence points to the negative moral and physical impact of contraception" as Edmund puts it.

Earlier this week, SPUC published an extensively researched document which provides the most up-to-date information on how certain forms of ‘birth control’ operate and whether they have an abortifacient effect.

And last week, I reported that the newly-appointed bishop of Portsmouth, Monsignor Philip Egan, has argued that Humanae Vitae is infallible, i.e. irreversibly and without error, by the Catholic Church's ordinary universal magisterium. Humanae Vitae is Pope Paul VI's encyclical letter on the regulation of birth published 44 years ago on 25th July 1968.

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, 18 July 2012

Must-read pro-life news-stories, Wed 18 July

Top stories:

Mayor of Tower Hamlets to investigate explicit sex education programme in schools
The mayor of Tower Hamlets in east London has told parents that he will order an investigation into how £80,000 was spent on training and resources for an explicit sex and relationships education (SRE) programme for schools in the borough. Representatives from Tower Hamlets Parents' Action Group on SRE presented a petition of over 10,000 signatures from local people to Mayor Luthfur Rahman. Antonia Tully of the Safe at School campaign has supported the parents throughout the campaign. [SPUC, 17 July]

SPUC releases "Contraceptives: what you need to know: birth-control (‘contraception’) methods which can cause abortion"
SPUC has released a new leaflet entitled "Contraceptives: what you need to know: birth-control (‘contraception’) methods which can cause abortion". This much-needed document, based on extensive research undertaken by the Southern Cross Bioethics Institute (SCBI), gives readers the most up-to-date information on how certain forms of ‘birth control’ operate and whether they have an abortifacient effect. More in-depth information can be found in SPUC's paper "Birth control methods which can cause abortion" [SPUC, 16 July]

Other stories:

Abortion
  • Stop using terms 'baby' and 'unborn child', they’re cells, says US abortion doctor [LifeNews.com, 17 July]
Embryology
Population
  • Doctors suspended in India's Rajasthan for 'gender tests' [BBC, 17 July]
  • UK statistics show population up in last decade [BBC, 16 July]
Sexual ethics
To subscribe to SPUC's email information services, please visit www.spuc.org.uk/em-signup. The reliability of the news herein is dependent on that of the cited sources, which are paraphrased rather than quoted. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the society. © Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, 2012

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