Briefing.
From CFNews: Women may be at risk of mental health breakdowns if they have abortions, a medical royal college has warned. The Royal College of Psychiatrists says women should not be allowed to have an abortion until they are counselled on the possible risk to their mental health. This overturns the consensus that has stood for decades that the risk to mental health of continuing with an unwanted pregnancy outweighs the risks of living with the possible regrets of having an abortion. MPs will shortly vote on a proposal to reduce the upper time limit for abortions 'for social reasons' from 24 weeks to 20 weeks, a move not backed by the government. A Sunday Times poll shows 59% of women would support such a reduction, with only 28% backing the status quo. Taken together, just under half (48%) of men and women want a reduction to 20 weeks, while 35% want to retain 24 weeks. Some MPs also want women to have a 'cooling off' period in which they would be made aware of the possible consequences of the abortion, including the impact on their mental health, before they could go ahead.
Monday, March 17, 2008
Abortion linked to mental breakdowns
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Opting out of the NHS database
Update: Comment. From a Catholic point of view, the information the Government is gathering will make it easier to do put a 'black mark' on anyone who fails to toe the line: homeschoolers; people who object to sex education; women who refuse advised eugenic or social abortions, or who decline to go back on the Pill immediately after childbirth; anyone objecting to euthanasia; etc.. All this information will be in front of every single NHS employee who has contact with you; it is bound to be made available to social services, the benefits office, the school system and the tax man. Any group the government doesn't like can then be persecuted in a hundred subtle ways. Object to a nuclear power station? Perhaps you knee operation will be delayed. Who is going to stop this happening?
Briefing 10/01/08: the NHS database project is extremely alarming from the point of view of privacy and its liability to error. It will be accessible to all the million-plus NHS employees and also academic and commercial researchers; it will include details of every interaction you have had with the NHS and your name, address, age etc.. It is possible to opt out, but only by writing to your GP. See here for more information; below is a form letter you can write to your GP.
Exercising right to opt out
Dear Drs. ...,
As you are probably aware, the Government is intending to ask you to transfer the electronic medical records of your patients onto a national database called the “Spine”. They intend you to do this without first seeking the consent of your patients. It is BMA policy that patients should give their individual consent prior to their information being transferred on to the national database.
There are substantial concerns about the privacy and confidentiality of information transferred onto the national database, not least because promised software security safeguards called “sealed envelopes” will not be in place and because the patient’s instructions with regard to who may access the records can be overridden. We do not believe that such a large database, with so many staff users, can be regarded as secure.
We would be grateful if you would ensure that none of our records or those of our children, [names] held by you are entered onto the national system. Would you please also file or scan a copy of this letter in our records and also record our dissent by entering the “Read code” - ‘93C3. - Refused consent for upload to national shared electronic record.’ into our computer record. We are aware of the implications of this request and will notify you should we reconsider.
This request is itself confidential. Please do not divulge our decision, in an identifiable manner, to anyone other than to clinicians who are providing care to me and who might otherwise place information about us on the national care records service.
Further information for GPs is available online at www.TheBigOptOut.org/for_GPs
Accordingly, the following seven patients at your surgery should be regarded as opting out of the Spine: [names]. We would be grateful if you would acknowledge receipt of this request and inform us of any action taken.
Yours sincerely,
Monday, November 05, 2007
GMC: doctors not to inform parents of minor's abortions
Briefing.
From CFNews: The General Medical Council (GMC), which regulates doctors in the UK, has advised doctors that they need not, and in most cases should not, tell the parents of girls between 13 and16 if they have abortions, treatment for sexual infections, or birth control. Doctors are advised to try to persuade children between the ages of 13 and 16 to inform their parents, but have been told not to tell parents unless the child gives them permission. Family groups Christian Voice and Family and Youth Concern condemned the new guidelines. One of their spokesman said the guidance seems geared to bring GMC advice into line with the 2003 Sexual Offences Act and the 2004 Children's Act, which critics regard as seeking to normalise sexual activity for 13 year-olds.
Monday, September 24, 2007
'Opt out' organ donation proposed
Briefing: this is commonly proposed to increase organ donation rates. Unfortunately they want to take your organs before you are actually dead: they remove them from patients still breathing, but pronounced 'brain dead', a state from which people have recovered in numerous cases. Death, of course, is by definition something you can't 'recover' from, barring a miracle! Readers should get hold of a 'Catholic ID' card.
From SPUC: Mr Alan Johnson, the British Health Secretary, is promoting proposals for
people have to opt out if they don't want to donate their organs after death, rather than the present system of opting in to become organ donors. A task force has been set up to suggest how to achieve higher organ donation rates. Scotland's chief medical office, Harry Burns, rejected a such a presumed consent scheme for Scotland. According to the BBC, some European countries with presumed consent have more organ donations than the UK but Sweden has fewer.
Saturday, August 18, 2007
Amnicentesis dangerous
Briefing. Pre-natal testing with a view to destroying babies with apparent abnormalities is itself gravely wrong; amniocentesis is also extremely dangerous.
From SPUC: Prenatal tests for Down's syndrome could cause women to miscarry their healthy babies, according to a British doctor. Dr Hylton Meire, formerly of King's College Hospital, London, warned that the amniocentesis test can be needlessly invasive and can lead to miscarriages of unborn children. Writing in Ultrasound, he calculated that there are 160 healthy babies lost for every 50 cases of Down's or Edwards' syndrome detected.
Friday, August 17, 2007
Abuse of elderly
Briefing: euthanasia is one aspect of the appalling attitude of many in the 'caring professions' to the old; this is another.
From SPUC: A report by British MPs and peers has warned that many older patients are being neglected in their hospitals and care homes. The Joint Committee on Human Rights heard evidence of care home residents subjected to neglect and discrimination, and has concluded that 21% of facilities have failed to meet even minimum standards of dignity and privacy for elderly patients. Mr Andrew Dismore MP, committee chairman, said: "Neglect and ill-treatment of the elderly is a severe abuse of human rights. We must see a complete change of culture in the health and care services." Mr Ivan Lewis MP, health minister, has said that reforms of services for the elderly are on the way: "We are strengthening our leadership role and embarking on a major programme of change which will seek to address the issues raised in this report."
Monday, July 23, 2007
More Sex Ed and more STIs
Briefing. Two stories about the Government's failed sex-education and family policies.
From SPUC: The British government is planning to give teenage mothers personal contraception counsellors to prevent them having more children. The strategy will be a joint venture between local councils and NHS primary care trusts which aims to provide each teenage mother with a counsellor who will advise on how to look after the children and also how to obtain and use contraception. Mr Norman Wells, from the Family Education Trust, said: "So long as the Government encourages teenage sexual activity by making contraception freely and confidentially available in school clinics and other settings, teenage pregnancy rates will remain high and sexually transmitted infection rates will continue to soar." [Telegraph, 20 July]
The number of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) is continuing to rise in Britain, according to the latest figures from the Health Protection Agency. The rate of genital herpes has gone up by nine percent and chlamydia has gone up by four percent, while syphilis and gonorrhea have gone down by one percent. Overall there is a two percent rise in the diagnoses of STIs, with an especially high rate among young people and gay men. Professor Pat Troop, chief executive of the Health Protection Agency, said: "There is mixed news in these figures. Some infections now appear to
be slowing down. But there is no room for complacency. The picture for young people remains particularly worrying." [BBC, 20 July]
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Scottish Bishops ask for delay to Human Tissue & Embryo Bill
Action, please: please complete the HFEA consultation on hybrids, a key component of the Bill, listed on the side-bar, if you haven't done so.
From SPUC: Leaders of the Catholic Church in Scotland have written to the British prime minister, Mr Gordon Brown, calling on him to give longer time for consultation on the Human Tissue and Embryos Bill. In their letter, Cardinal Keith O'Brien, Archbishop of St Andrews and Edinburgh, and Archbishop Mario Conti of Glasgow highlight the proposal to remove the requirement to consider the child's need for a father before offering IVF treatment: "We believe that the state should not deny the child's need for a father nor ignore a wealth of social research findings upholding the notion that deliberately planning to have fatherless children is inimical to their long-term welfare." [Christian Today, 17 July, and Herald, 18 July]
Saturday, July 14, 2007
Mediawatch-UK on children and TV violence
Update: 14/07/07 mediawatch-uk has initiated a new petition, that theoretical restrictions on violence and bad language on TV actually be enforced. Please sign it!
Their new book on the subject can be seen as a pdf here; their full publication list here.
Briefing. 06/07/07
From CNews: At the mediawatch-uk conference in April at Portcullis House, the organisation's director John Beyer made a hard-hitting speech in which he drew drew attention to some of the scandalous material finding its way on to television. He reminded those present of the letter published in the Daily Telegraph in September 2006 signed by 100 experts and academics warning that children are exposed 'via the electronic media to material that would have been considered unsuitable for children, even in the very recent past'.
Mr Beyer set his remarks at Portcullis House into the context of regulations, such as the EU Television Without Frontiers directive, which in Article 22 requires member states to take appropriate measures to ensure that television broadcasters ... do not include any programmes which might seriously impair the physical, mental or moral health of minors, in particular programmes that involve pornography or gratuitous violence. He went on to remind those present that Ofcom's Broadcasting Code states, in Clause 1.1, that 'material that might seriously impair the physical, mental or moral development of people under 18 must not be broadcast'. Mr Beyer said: 'Of course these are fine sounding words but over time they have been rendered meaningless, more so, by the rush to sweep away constraints in an era of light-touch' regulation. mediawatch-uk has campaigned for many years about television because it comes directly into the home, where there is normally a feeling of security and safety and where sensibilities are relaxed. For this reason it can have a huge influence on attitudes and behaviour as well, of course, as to properly inform, educate and entertain. We have consistently campaigned against glorified, fictional violence in programmes because, as our founder the late, great Mary Whitehouse CBE said more than 40 years ago, 'If you constantly portray violence as normal on the television screen it will help to create a violent society'. Of course we welcomed the clause (2.4) in the Ofcom's Broadcasting Code saying that 'programmes must not include material which ... condones or glamorises violent, dangerous or seriously antisocial behaviour', but it is evident that it has 'been, and continues to be, ignored by broadcasters, and the regulator has made no real effort to enforce it.'
Dr Aric Sigman, author of the book 'Remotely Controlled' said that watching television is now the industrialised world's main pastime, taking up more of our time than any other single activity except work and sleep. According to the Broadcasters' Audience Research Board in January 2004, by the age of 75 the average Briton will have spent more than twelve years of their lives watching television. 'The average six-year-old will have already watched for more than one full year of their lives. When other screen time is included, the figure is far higher. Children aged 11 to 15 spend 55% of their waking lives, 53 hours a week, seven and a half hours a day watching TV and computers, an increase of 40% in a decade. More than half of three-year-olds now have a TV set in their bedrooms,' he said.
Dr Sigman warned: 'The biological sciences are fast becoming the new arena for examining the effects of society's favourite pastime. And in industrialised societies the findings are set to re-cast the role of the television screen as the greatest unacknowledged public health issue of our time. Research by the American Academy of Paediatrics shows that children who watched television at ages one to three had a significantly increased risk of developing attention problems by the time they were seven. For every hour of television a child watched per day there was a 9% increase in such problems.'
Jim Gamble, chief executive of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection centre, outlined his involvement in coordinating their work with parents, teachers, police and industry to protect children whilst they are online. He informed the conference of the success that had been achieved by putting pictures of the most wanted known sex offenders on their website and how they had involved children and young people in tackling the problem of child abuse by producing a short movie on the subject. He supported the Government's education programme through the thinkuknow.co.uk website initiative and mentioned all CEOP's faculties including Harm Reduction, Intelligence, Operations, Partnerships and Child Protection and went on to outline all that they have learned and achieved. Dr Sigman's paper is available at: www.iob.org/downloads/1260.pdf Find out more about Mr Gamble's work at: www.ceop.gov.uk [mediawatch-uk]
For mediawatch-uk's press release, see here.
Monday, July 02, 2007
BMA: now they want DIY abortions
Briefing.
From CFNews: One day after they voted to promote changing England's abortion law to allow just one physician to sign off on an abortion, the British Medical Association has voted to promote allowing nurses to distribute the abortion drug. They want nurses to hand out RU 486 even though it has killed two women in England. In addition to the British deaths, several women have died in the United States from the abortion drug and in Canada, Sweden and France as well. More than 1200 women in the United States alone have reported medical problems following the use of the drug, with hundreds needed medical treatment and some requiring surgeries or blood transfusions. But that didn't stop the BMA from voting to promote allowing nurses to give out the abortion drug to women who are less than nine weeks pregnant [LifeNews]
Gynacology degrees and abortion
Briefing.
From CFNews: Only four countries in Europe offer gynaecology degrees without requiring abortion. The president of the International Federation of Catholic Medical Associations, Dr. Jose Maria Simon, said this week medical students can obtain gynaecology degrees without having to perform abortions in four countries in Europe - Spain, Italy, Portugal and Greece. While participating last week in a conference for Catholic gynaecologists in Zagreb, Simon told Europa Press that in Spain, 'although it is difficult, it is still possible to find a place that accepts residents who don't practice abortions.' That is not the case in France, Switzerland, Germany or Austria, where the 'normal' thing is for students to be required to practice abortions. 'Things are very bad in Europe,' he insisted. On the other hand, Simon said participants at the conference concluded that one of the most important priorities for gynaecologists should be the care for pregnant women in poor countries, as well as promoting 'state assistance' in the developed countries to encourage women not to have abortions.
Saturday, June 23, 2007
British Medical Journal rejects infanticide
Briefing.
From Care Not Killing (Newsletter): In a recent British Medical Journal commissioned editorial, professor of paediatrics Kate Costeloe reviewed the situation in the Netherlands, where neonatal euthanasia is occurring, before going on to consider the situation in the UK. She referred to the Nuffield Council of Bioethics' November 2006 paper, Critical care decisions in fetal and neonatal medicine, and stated that its position – rejecting neonatal euthanasia even when life is intolerable - was received with relief by most UK paediatricians.
Professor Costeloe considered the reasons why UK doctors are resistant to accepting active killing as a therapeutic option: the slippery slope argument; the negative impact of the psychology of professional staff; and the pressure parents may feel to accept euthanasia 'so that they do not become a burden on medical and social services'. She went on to discuss how difficult it is to judge another human being's quality of life, and described how indicators of severe disability in very preterm babies are not foolproof. She then emphasised the experience many neonatal nurses have in assessing babies' palliative care needs.
Her conclusion: 'the availabilty of active euthanasia as a therapeutic option would undermine this progress [of transparency of clinical decision making, with parents increasingly involved] and would be a step backwards'.
Professor Costeloe's recommendations give further support to the Nuffield Council's clear rejection of neonatal euthanasia.
Saturday, June 16, 2007
Doctors' Right of Conscience petition
Action: please sign the petition. Although the law is not quite clear on this point, it is highly likely that a doctor invoking the existing 'conscience' clause in the Abortion Act to refuse to refer a patient to another doctor for an abortion, would lose his case. The guidlines of the British Medical Association and the General Medical Counsel, and the NHS General Practioners' contract of employment, all assume that conscientious objections can be made only to participation in the abortion procedure itself. But if it is wrong to perform an abortion (an intrinsically and gravely evil act), it is also wrong to send a patient seeking an abortion to a doctor who will perform it (proximate material cooperation in an intrinsically and gravely evil act). The right of doctors not to be involved in abortion and other immoral procedures must be extended explicitly to referral.
The petition description: In the USA many states have passed laws that protect doctors from adverse consequences that might arise as a result of refusing to participate in medical services that would be contrary to their consciences. For example the Illinois Healthcare Worker Right of Conscience Act protects healthcare providers from all liability or discrimination that might occur as a result of “his or her refusal to perform, assist, counsel, suggest, recommend, refer or participate in any way in any particular form of healthcare service which is contrary to the conscience of such physician or healthcare personnel.” In the UK we are currently under legal obligation to refer patients to colleagues whom we must know will provide the service to which we have an objection through conscience: This situation is unacceptable. In view of increasing pressure from abortion and euthanasia organisations; doctors, nurses and ancillary health care personnel in the UK urgently need to be protected likewise by a law similar to the Illinois Healthcare Worker Right of Conscience Act.
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
Starvation of the old revealed
Briefing.
From SPUC: Patients in British hospitals who need help with eating, particularly the
elderly, are in danger of malnutrition because of a lack of nursing staff with time to supervise their meals, according to a survey held among members of the Royal College of Nursing. [Times, 19 April]
Monday, January 15, 2007
Human-animnal hybrids: Consultation
Background briefing. When the consultation appears on their website, we will ask for contributions.
From SPUC: The HFEA has announced a public consultation over whether scientists should be allowed to create hybrid human-animal embryos. The Human Fertilisation and Embryo Authority (HFEA) said it would not rule on any research applications until the consultation is completed in the Autumn. The decision comes after ministers proposed outlawing the mixing of human and animal cells to create embryos after critical public opinion. Two UK teams want permission to carry out the controversial research in an attempt to find cures to conditions such as Alzheimer's. Dr Evan Harris, the Liberal Democrat MP, is co-ordinating the support for human-animal embryos and said such research was widely supported. [BBC Online, 11 January] But the Church of Scotland said it was an ethical line "not too be crossed". A spokesperson said: "It is hard to see what respect is being shown in creating an embryo, purely to extract cells from it, which is both a hybrid of human and animal, and which is thereby so disrupted that it could never be viable." [Christian Today.com, 12 January]
Monday, January 08, 2007
Morning After Pill: does not reduce abortions
Background briefing: this kind of evidence against the efficacy of the Morning After Pill - which itself often acts as an abortifacient - in reducing conventional abortions has been piling up for years, but UK politicians take no notice.
From SPUC: A review of 23 studies on the use of morning-after pills has concluded that, "[t]o date, no study has shown that increased access to this method reduces unintended pregnancy or abortion rates". Writing in this month's Obstetrics and Gynecology, the researchers nevertheless supported the availability of post-coital birth control, on the basis that it may increase the likelihood of women using more reliable means. In the US, the Plan B morning-after pill was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in August 2006. Pro-life people have opposed the drug because of its potential to cause early abortion by disrupting implantation. The lead author was Elizabeth G Raymond; co-author James Trussel has been a leading proponent of the drug. [Washington Times, 8 January]
Monday, December 11, 2006
Parliamentary Committee calls for Population Control
Background briefing: if this becomes Government policy, we will call for lobbying. The findings of the Committee derive from ideology rather than facts; many of the most fast-growing economies have fast-growing populations (such as Morocco); the growth of many other developing countries is threatened by falling birth rates (such as Korea); aggessive population control measures in China and India, including forced abortions and sterilisations, have led to appalling social consequences, including serious gender imbalances in the population. The fact that at a certain stage of development fertility tends to drop spontaneously (due to later marriages, for example) lends spurious support for the Committee's key claim, quoted: "No country has ever raised itself out of poverty without stabilising population growth." This obviously proves nothing.
From SPUC: A British parliamentary group has concluded that the UN's Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) are "difficult or impossible to meet" without curbing population growth. The All-Party Parliamentary Group on Population, Development and Reproductive Health will publish a report later this month claiming that high birth rates result in poorer infant nutrition, higher risk of death in pregnancy and childbirth and less chance of receiving education, as well as impacting on the environment. Richard Ottaway, MP, the group's vice-chairman, recommended increased sexual education for women and easy access to birth control. He said: "No country has ever raised itself out of poverty without stabilising population growth. And the MDGs are going to be difficult or impossible to attain without a levelling out of population growth in developing countries...We have the solution; it's not that difficult. The question is, will we go for it?" [BBC News, 8 December]
Child benefit for the unborn
Background briefing. Another example of 'joined up government': these babies can in many cases legally be killed, but now their existence and importance is to be acknowledged by the benefits system.
From SPUC: From April 2009, mothers in Britain will receive child benefit (a state allowance) from the 29th week of pregnancy, instead of from the baby's birth, as at present. The changes, worth up to £200, were announced by the chancellor of the exchequer (finance minister) in his pre-budget report. The change is designed to encourage healthy eating . [BBC, 6 December]
Sunday, October 29, 2006
GPs to quiz children on sex
Background briefing.
Children visiting their GPs with minor ailments could be closely questioned about their sex life. The measures are proposed in draft guidance from the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (Nice). Doctors will be expected to spend 15-20 minutes inquiring into the sex-life of each teenager, even if the teenager comes in for an ailment such as a sore throat. Dr Trevor Stammers, honorary senior tutor at St George's Medical School in London and a trustee of the Family Education Trust, says: ''Guidance such as this will compound the growing sexualisation of very young teenagers'. [Sunday Telegraph, NACF News]
See the Sunday Telegraph story here.
Friday, October 27, 2006
Post Abortion Trauma
Background briefing. The official recognition of the negative side-effects of abortion on women is always fiercely resisted by pro-abortionists.
From SPUC.
A group of physicians in the UK have drawn attention to research suggesting that abortion can increase the risk of mental problems in women. In a letter to today's Times newspaper, the 15 doctors write that women should be warned about the psychological problems of abortion, and they call on the bodies which regulate obstetricians, gynaecologists and psychiatrists to change their guidance. The research which they cite was published in The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry in January. [The Times, 27 October] The newspaper also carried an article about Ms Sue Hulbert who suffered from long-term depression after an abortion. She said: "I had never suffered from any mental illness before and I had never been depressed and, really, I am the last person who you would expect to react like this. But I was haunted by my abortion and it robbed me of all my confidence." Ms Hulbert was helped by British Victims of Abortion. [The Times, 27 October]
