Update: the BMA have held back from endorsing Evan Harris' proposal.
From SPUC: The British Medical Association has narrowly turned down a motion to require pro-life doctors to declare their views. Dr Evan Harris MP wanted physicians to have to use leaflets and posters state their preparedness (or otherwise) to co-operate with abortion and/or IVF. The association's annual conference voted by 50.6% to reject the proposal.
Briefing, 27/06/08.
From SPUC: A motion before the British Medical Association's annual meeting would
effectively bar doctors with a conscientious objection to abortion from seeing patients with unplanned pregnancies. The move comes from Dr Evan Harris, Liberal Democrat MP and member of the association's medical ethics committee. The Christian Medical Fellowship has published an analysis of the motion and Dr Harris's parliamentary agenda for more abortion. SPUC supports medics who object to abortion and has produced a flyer and a briefing for doctors. [SPUC director's blog, 26 June]
Here's the motion:
528 Motion by OXFORD DIVISION: That this Meeting:
(i) supports the rights of doctors and other health care professionals to conscientiously object to carrying out, or referring directly for, certain non-emergency lawful procedures, where:
(a) such conscientious objection is recognised in statute, as in abortion and IVF;
(b) the doctor recognises that s/he is not in a position to give balanced advice to patients considering that procedure and does not claim to do so;
(c) the medical practice makes every effort to inform patients in advance, for example through practice leaflets, which doctors are able to provide such advice and make appropriate referrals;
(d) in the event of seeing a patient seeking advice on such a procedure, the doctor must refer them to another doctor for such advice;
(e) in the event of seeing a patient seeking such a procedure, the doctor must, in line with GMC guidance, tell them of their right to see another doctor and ensure that the patient has sufficient information to exercise their right; but if the patient cannot readily make their own arrangements to see another doctor, the doctor must ensure that arrangements are made, without delay, for another doctor to take over their care.
(ii) calls on the GMC to ensure its guidance on personal beliefs and medical practice reflects this view;
(iii) calls on parliament to retain the statutory right of doctors and other health care professionals to conscientiously object in abortion and IVF services within the above limits."
Apart from anything else (d) is outrageous: a conscientious doctor is more capable of giving balanced advice on abortion than a non-conscientious one. The whole thing is an attempt to circumvent the legal protection for pro-life doctors which was one of the much-hyped protections included in the original Abortion Act. Without these protections the Act may not have been passed: now, of course, is the time to go back on the concessions to pro-life opinion they made back then.
Here is the GMC's guidance:
"GMC Good Medical Practice (2006)s8 If carrying out a particular procedure or giving advice about it conflicts with your religious or moral beliefs, and this conflict might affect the treatment or advice you provide, you must explain this to the patient and tell them they have the right to see another doctor. You must be satisfied that the patient has sufficient information to enable them to exercise that right. If it is not practical for a patient to arrange to see another doctor, you must ensure that arrangements are made for another suitably qualified colleague to take over your role."
This itself renders conscientious objection illicit: anyone with a thought-through objection to abortion has an objection to ensuring a patient will see a pro-abortion doctor. This guidance has not yet been legally tested. For a full critique of the GMC's document 'Personal Beliefs and Medical Practice' see here.
Monday, July 14, 2008
BMA considers barring pro-life doctors from seeing crisis pregnancy patients
Friday, July 11, 2008
BMA votes for sex ed in primary schools
Briefing.
From SPUC: The British Medical Association has voted for sex education in primary
schools. The annual representative meeting approved a motion by a vote of nearly 55%. Proponents said the move would reduce teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease. [Scotsman, 10 July]
Monday, July 07, 2008
Pro-Life GP cleared of misconduct
Briefing.
From SPUC: A doctor in western England who suggested to patients that they should consider alternatives to abortion has been cleared of professional misconduct. Dr Tammie Downes has persuaded some women not to go ahead with terminations. The General Medical Council investigated a complaint after Dr Downes described her views to a newspaper. She reportedly refuses to refer for abortion.
Involuntary euthanasia standard on the NHS
Vigilance is essential for anyone with loved ones under the care of the NHS.
From LifeSite, via CFNews: A British 'end of life' care protocol approved for use by the National Health Service (NHS), has created a systematic, and legal, method of euthanising elderly and disabled patients, even while 'mercy killing' remains officially illegal, says a prominent expert in elder care. The 'Liverpool Care Pathway' will be used to eliminate patients deemed to be 'blocking beds' in the increasingly financially strapped public health system.
For years, NACF member Dr. Adrian Treloar, a psycho-geriatrician and senior lecturer at the Greenwich Hospital and Guys', King's and St. Thomas's Hospitals in London, has been sounding the warning that the NHS has an unofficial system in place to authorise the killing of vulnerable disabled patients with an unwritten policy of 'involuntary euthanasia' by deep sedation and dehydration.
On April 26, 2008, Dr. Treloar wrote a letter to the British Medical Journal, saying that the protocol known as the 'Liverpool Care Pathway' for dying patients, is a blueprint for systematic euthanasia of disabled patients. The Liverpool Care Pathway, which allows for 'continuous deep sedation' for patients judged to be incurable, was developed between the Royal Liverpool hospital and Marie Curie cancer hospices in order to standardise the medical approach to dying that could then be used as a template nationally. Combined with withdrawal of fluids, deep sedation leads quickly to death.
In 1999, the NHS dismissed Dr. Treloar's warnings as 'ludicrous.' But media coverage of families resorting to lawyers to stop the killing of their relatives has made it increasingly difficult for health officials to deny that there is an accepted euthanasia procedure in place. Dr. Treloar maintains that the motivation for killing patients judged to be incurable is not the relief of extreme suffering but the enormous pressure on the socialised health care system to make hospital beds available and the 'triaging' of costly tax-sponsored medical care.
Since that time, the government passed legislation in 2005 - the Mental Capacity Act - that, following existing guidelines from the British Medical Association, allows doctors to withhold all 'treatment,' including food and water, from patients who are judged to be incapable of making decisions for themselves. Under this law, doctors, and not the family and not the patient, have the last say in whether a patient is judged mentally capable. Once this judgement has been made, withdrawal of fluids can be ordered on the grounds that it is in the patient's 'best interests' to die. If families try to intervene to save their loved ones lives, social services and police can be, and have been, called to intervene.
Since 2000, the instances of helpless patients being denied the basic necessities needed to sustain life are becoming more prominent in the news. Only this week, the BBC reported on the case of Mrs. Ellen Westwood, an 88 year-old woman whom doctors had decreed was 'due to die' in February, and whose life was saved only after the determined efforts of her family and clergy resulted in her being removed from the hospital.
Dr. Treloar wrote that the Liverpool Care Pathway threatens patients because its 'eligibility criteria do not ensure that only people who are about to die are allowed on the pathway.'
'They allow people who are thought to be dying, are bed-bound, and are unable to take tablets onto the pathway. In chronic diseases such as dementia, dying may take years, but
such patients may be eligible.'
Elspeth Chowdharay Best, from the anti-euthanasia group ALERT, wrote recently, 'Death by dehydration has been occurring for some years in Britain without the new official blessing [of the Liverpool Care Pathway protocol] and sometimes challenged by relatives.'
The Sunday Times reported on May 18 this year that many families are 'dismayed' that their cases are not being included in a long-term investigation into ten suspicious deaths of elderly patients in a convalescent home in Hampshire between 1996 and 1999. Mike Wilson told the Times that his 91 year-old mother, Edna Purnell, had been out of bed and using a walking frame when she was transferred to the Hampshire unit for what was supposed to have been a brief period of rehabilitation.
Records show that Mrs. Purnell was put to bed and given morphine. The hospital threatened Mr. Wilson with arrest when he was caught feeding his mother. She was judged to be 'demented' and thus falling under the auspices of the Mental Capacity Act. Mr. Wilson told the times that his mother was not 'demented' before she was given morphine: 'We are in no doubt that this is what killed her.' [LifeSiteNews] 1462.8
Friday, July 04, 2008
Catholic and Muslim doctors defend conscientious objection
Briefing.
From SPUC: Doctors' organisations have reacted to a proposal to the British MedicalAssociation's conference which would require doctors to refer women forabortion. Dr Tony Cole of the Catholic Medical Association said: "Thistakes away the right of conscience already guaranteed by statute. This isopen to legal challenge." Dr Majid Katme of the Islamic MedicalAssociation said Muslim doctors were very unhappy. He said: "You cannotforce me, as a doctor, to do things against my conscience." [Daily Mail,30 June, and SPUC director's blog, 26 June]
Saturday, June 21, 2008
Hospital of St John & St Elizabeth: Defeat snatched from jaws of victory
Briefing.
Fromn CFNews: The Restituta Group comment : ''The Hospital Trustee's Annual General Meeting confirms our worst fears. The Cardinal has insisted upon a new Board for the Hospital Trustee Company and the question that arose was whether this new Board would follow the teachings of the Church or, as reported in an article in 'The Tablet', adapt the ethics of the Hospital to suit doctors, clinicians and others who wish to carry out procedures such as referrals for abortions which are totally unacceptable in a Catholic Hospital. It would now appear that the report in The Tablet was correct.
The Hospital's Annual General Meeting
This was held on 2nd June 2008 much earlier than usual. No accounts for 2007 were presented to the meeting and no auditors were appointed. It would seem that the purpose of the meeting was to consolidate the appointment of Directors sympathetic to the Cardinal's agenda. Under the articles a third of the directors have to retire at the AGM and can be presented for re-election. As most of the elected Directors had already resigned the agenda required Charles Fitzherbert, Jacob Rees-Mogg and Aida Hersham to retire.
Charles Fitzherbert is a Trustee of the Brampton Trust as well as being on the Hospital board. We have always understood him to be fully supportive of the Brampton House Development Plan whereby the St John's Wood Medical Centre entered the Hospital to provide unacceptable services. In December 2007 on the resignation of Lord Bridgeman he was appointed temporary chairman of the Hospital to guide the prospective Chairman, Lord Guthrie. At the AGM on 2nd June he stood for reappointment but was voted out with three appointees of Lord Guthrie voting against him: Nicholas Coulson, Jonathan Scherer and Julian Schild. This was a strange development. Had the unlawfulness of the actions of the Brampton Trustees dawned on him as a result of the Charity Commission's institution of an enquiry into those actions? Had he begun to see the light and therefore became unacceptable to the Cardinal's party?
Jacob Rees-Mogg was a member of the Ethics Committee and all along has supported the teachings of the Church. For his loyalty to the Church the Cardinal asked him to resign in February of this year. The Guardian newspaper reported on 22nd February 2008: 'The cardinal's primary objective has always been for St John & St Elizabeth to remain a Catholic hospital and several issues were jeopardising that aim, including GPs prescribing the morning-after pill and referring patients for abortions'.
Earlier in the article it said: 'Scalps from Tuesday evening's decision include Aida Hersham, a Persian heiress and socialite, and Jacob Rees-Mogg, son of former Times editor William Rees-Mogg'. .
This could only suggest to the reader that Jacob Rees-Mogg and Aida Hersham were in opposition to Catholic teaching and were asked for their resignation. They both knew this to be untrue and therefore refused to resign.
Mrs Aida Hersham although not a Roman Catholic but Jewish has always supported Catholic teaching and has been a very generous benefactor of the Hospital. It is understood that such was her concern over the proposed entry of the St John's Wood Medical Practice that she approached the Cardinal to make an offer to put up the necessary funds for them to be persuaded to relocate elsewhere. This might have involved over a million pounds. The Cardinal's response was to ask for her resignation in February.
As neither of them had resigned Lord Guthrie informed them that he was arranging for them to resign automatically and to be put up for re-election. He further said they would not get his support. Mrs Hersham having seen Charles Fitzherbert, with whom she had done gallant work in fund-raising, forced out, decided to resign at the meeting before a vote could be taken as did Jacob Rees-Mogg.
One of the incoming directors has been heard to say that the Cardinal has done an excellent job in rescuing the Hospital from the hands of Catholic fundamentalists. The Archdiocese has certainly learnt a great deal about spin from Mr Blair's former office.
The Cardinal's Agenda
After several years of watching developments at the Hospital we can only conclude that the Cardinal has no intention that the vision of Cardinal Basil Hume for a Centre of Catholic Medical Excellence should be followed. Instead his agenda would appear to be one of compromise with the current secular ethic or lack of one. The intervention of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith provided a set-back to this agenda when he was obliged to set out the teachings of the Church in March 2006. However we have never had any explanation of what he said privately to Lord Bridgeman, the then Chairman of the Hospital, the previous month in February 2006. A smokescreen was set up in the form of appointments to a new Ethics Committee whose deliberations would have taken years if left to the Committee's Chairman. Again it was a set back for the Cardinal's agenda when it delivered after a year an updated Code of Ethics - the 2007 Code. The Cardinal did nothing to persuade the Board to act within this 2007 Code or to prevent the entry of the St John's Wood Medical Practice in January 2008. Instead he found the new code an embarrassment and insisted on a new Board which has now been finally elected in June 2008 to carry out his agenda.
The Cardinal's New Board & New Ethics
We have always said that for the Hospital to become, once again, a truly Catholic work it must have a management which is imbued with a Catholic vision. Since the departure of the Sisters of Mercy in the 1980s this has been sorely lacking. Neither the present Director, Christopher Board, nor his assistant Claire Hornick have this vision and have clearly not been supportive of orthodox Catholic teaching. This has been pointed out on numerous occasions and yet the new Chairman Lord Guthrie expressed full confidence in the probity and competence of Chris Board and Claire Hornick at the AGM.
In their issue of 8th March 2008 The Tablet had reported that: 'The Cardinal is understood to have recognised that a strict, Vatican-sanctioned code of ethics he had wanted to impose at the hospital needs to be reassessed if the hospital is to survive'.
However, a spokesman disputed that this week: 'The cardinal expects the board to move forward according to the agreed code'. The new appointees will be expected to hammer out a code of ethics acceptable to all.
Although we have asked for clarification of this issue from the Archdiocese none has been forthcoming. At the AGM Lord Guthrie announced that there would be a new Ethics Committee under the chairmanship of Sir Mark Allen, a former department head at MI6. A licence to kill perhaps? Will Bishop Stack, Canon Brockie or Father John Wilson be members of this committee as of the previous one? We will be surprised if they are. Lord Guthrie said the previous committee had been too large. He further said that there was no time-frame for setting it up; it would be a leaner committee and its remit would be wide-ranging and everyone in the Hospital would be consulted. Its principles are to be applied more 'broadly'. Lord Guthrie was not prepared to say whether the new Code would allow the St John's Wood Practice or anyone else in the Hospital to practice contrary to Catholic teaching. We got the impression that we were unlikely to hear anything from the Committee before the next AGM. Furthermore the new Ethics Committee is to be a sub-committee of the board and not be in charge of ethical governance in the Hospital. Does this mean that governance on ethical matters will be removed from Catholic control and left entirely to the Medical Advisory Committee which has no Catholics on it and is under the chairmanship of Nicholas Goddard who, with the management, has organised the opposition to the 2007 Code of Ethics? The system of governance asked for by the Cardinal in March 2006 would appear to be a dead letter. The result of the Cardinal's actions would appear to be that no attempt will be made to implement any Catholic ethics.
The Legal Perspective
What needs to be clearly understood is that the defining law on the ethical practices at the Hospital is set out in the constitution:
4A. Ethics. The Hospital shall be conducted in accordance with the ethics of the Roman Catholic Church in communion with the see of Rome. The Trustee shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that all persons working in the Hospital shall comply with this requirement and be fully informed on the subject. In the event of any difference of opinion arising as to these ethics or the application thereof then such difference will be submitted to the person for the time being exercising Archiepiscopal jurisdiction over the Roman Catholic Province of Westminster whose decision shall be final and conclusive.
That is the defining statement. In the past the Code of Ethics was merely a guide to what the ethics of the Roman Catholic Church are. If there is now to be a Code of Ethics which is NOT in compliance with those Catholic ethics then its implementation at the Hospital will be unlawful and the Board of the Hospital will be in complete breach of trust. We hope everyone understands what is meant by a breach of trust. The Board like the Brampton Trust have been entrusted with money and assets on a solemn trust that they be used for Roman Catholic purposes. If they use that money and assets for some other purpose they are purloining those assets. Morally this is little different from robbing a bank; those responsible would be acting dishonestly and are not to be trusted. There are penalties financial, civil and criminal. If the Board follow this course they can expect to be pursued through the available legal channels whether the Charity Commission or the Courts.
The problem though is that the Cardinal could deny the teachings of the Church and inform the Board and the Charity Commission that secular ethics that allow abortion are acceptable in a Catholic hospital. The question that we now ask is whether the Cardinal will proceed in such a manner.
A second problem is that the Cardinal, through his Board, may attempt to get the constitution changed by deletion or severe modification of clause 4A. Lawyers unsympathetic to the Catholic cause have already suggested this is possible. If the Cardinal consents to this course of action he will be allowing the destruction of part of our Catholic heritage in a manner little different from those bishops who cowardly accepted the Henrician reforms.
A Sorry Story
So matters are now looking pretty bleak. Questions were put to the AGM about the current state of ethics. It was apparent that the whole subject of ethics was being put off until some future unknown date and in the meantime no regard will be had to Catholic ethics. Questions about Gender Reassignment Operations were again dismissed. The evidence for these is in the hands of the Board and it is utterly dishonest to say that there is no proof one way or another.
How have we come to such a pass? The Sisters of Mercy and other Roman Catholic nuns who nursed the soldiers in the Crimea under Florence Nightingale were acting out their vocation as part of the Church whose mission is to train men's souls for heaven. They sought to carry out that spiritual mission by corporal works of mercy. When they returned to England Cardinal Wiseman and the future Cardinal Manning encouraged them in a similar spiritual mission in founding the Hospital. As Monsignor Ronald Knox has written there is a risk that a 'spiritual message will lose itself in philanthropic endeavour … Her [the Church's] message is of the world beyond; on it her eyes are set; she tends, feeds, teaches her children distractedly, only that she may point them to heaven; she will not lose her soul in what the world calls charity'. [ 'Pastoral Sermons' Ronald Knox. Burns & Oates 1960. p.36].
Over the years the spiritual message seems to have been lost. The founders: Cardinal Wiseman, Cardinal Manning, Cardinal Bourne (who set up the Brampton Trust), the Sisters of Mercy and the many Catholic laymen amongst whom many of us can recognise our ancestors would never have contemplated that abortions would be facilitated or phalloplasties carried out for deluded and exploited women. What trace is there now of any spiritual message? The absence of the Church's spiritual message means the loss of souls. Does anybody care? Do not Bishops other than the Cardinal have concerns? It was remarked the other day that the English Channel seems to put off a miasma which rots brains in the littoral Dioceses; the further North one goes the situation does improve; contrast the actions of Cardinals Winning and O'Brien over the abortion issue with those of their southern brethren. If there are Bishops, theologians or any Catholics who disagree with us let them speak out. One of the most remarkable aspects of this whole affair is that not one Catholic has put to us a reasoned argument that we have got it wrong either factually, theologically, pastorally or morally. We hope we have the humility to acknowledge and accept any sound correction.
But how much bleaker the outlook must have seemed for those martyrs who kept coming to England's shores in penal times; we must therefore not lose hope and we must have faith. There is after all the possibility that we may have a new Archbishop of Westminster with different ideas in the not too distant future; we would suggest that the parable of the dishonest steward is not irrelevant and some should be hedging their bets: 'for indeed, the children of this world are more prudent after their own fashion than the children of the light' Luke ch 16: v.8. The next few verses are worth reading as well!
Secretary to the Group
Nicolas J Bellord.
Email: njbellord@aol.com
Friday, June 13, 2008
Taking vital organs from living donors
Briefing. This sort of thing happens all the time. If you agree to allow your organs to be taken 'after death' they won't actually wait for you to die, even in the UK, since people can recover from 'brain death'.
From SPUC: A patient, presumed dead, revived as transplant-surgeons in Paris began
the process of removing his organs. The city's university hospital's
ethics committee has reportedly been told that doctors massaged his heart
for 90 minutes before surgeons arrived. He began breathing and now can
talk and walk. France recently changed its law to allow the harvesting of
organs without a declaration of brain-death. [Telegraph, 10 June]
Friday, May 16, 2008
Euthanasia encouraged by NHS leaflet
Briefing. Since the Mental Capacity Act describes food and water as 'medical treatment' this leaflet is encouraging people to ask to starved to death on the false promise of 'basic care, support and comfort.' How comfortable is it to starve to death? See Salford document here.
From SPUC: Local government in north-west England is distributing a leaflet on making advance treatment directives under the Mental Capacity Act. Salford City Council's publication gives refusal of mechanical life support and cancer treatment as example-decisions. An associated webpage lets people refuse cardio-pulmonary resuscitation, assisted breathing and artificial feeding. Below the declaration is written: "I am aware that I will be provided basic care, support and comfort." [SPUC, 15 May] Antonia Tully of Patients First Network said: "This is a dangerous and confusing leaflet, which could to used to place vulnerable people at risk of a painful and premature death. It is ludicrous to suggest that 'basic care, support and comfort' can be given to someone while they are being dehydrated and starved to death. There seems to be a 'death at all costs' mentality behind this scheme which also suggests that people fax or post a copy of their advance decision to the local ambulance service. Perhaps this is to avoid the risk of the ambulance crew doing anything to preserve life."
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Linacre Centre Ethics Forum on pregnancy counselling
Readers may like to attend this.
From the Linacre Centre: Sr Roseann Reddy is a great speaker and will be talking to us on a topic that should have wide appeal and interest - pregnancy counselling. If you didn't know, Sr Roseann is a Sister of the Gospel of Life, sisters who care for women in crisis pregnancy situations among many other things - see [gospeloflifesisters.wordpress
The Linacre ethics forum is a chance for junior healthcare professionals and students (medics, nurses, pharmacists etc. are welcome!) to explore and discuss Catholic healthcare ethics. Each month a senior practitioner or other expert will be invited to give a 30 minute presentation, followed by discussion. The aim will be to understand the Church’s teaching, and explore ways in which we can present it sympathetically to patients, colleagues and managers.
Speaker and Topic: Sr Roseann Reddy - Pregnancy counselling
Date: Tuesday 13th May
Time: 6.30pm for 7.00 (There is Mass at 5.30 in the Cathedral)
Venue: Vaughan House, behind Westminster Cathedral (SW1P 1QN)
further details available on our website - www.linacre.org
Monday, March 24, 2008
GMC: Catholic doctors must cooperate with abortion
Briefing: despite the many excellent responses to their earlier consultation, the GMC have reaffirmed in their guidlines that doctors opposed to abortion must cooperate in it: they must ensure that anyone wanting an abortion gets it, fast. Such cooperation is gravely morally wrong.
The GMC's guidlines do not have the force of law, but they will be referred to in any legal case on the matter. The key paragraphs are these (adressed to doctors):
Full document 'Personal Beliefs and Medical Practice' here.
Monday, March 03, 2008
Involuntary euthanasia of the elderly
Briefing. Concerned relatives should contact the Patients First Network.
From the Pro-Life Times (SPUC), in part: [According to Government figures] In 2006 a total of 240 people over the age of 65 died of malnutrition.
... 'No-one is using the word 'euthanasia' in these situations. However, persistent low-level neglect, in hospitals and nursing homes, has opened the door wide for the process of legalised euthanasia by omission. We fear this will be rapidly accelerated by the enactment of the Mental Capacity Act.'
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Involuntary euthanasia in Northhampton
Briefing. The hospital's investigation found no evidence of 'malpractice' for the simple reason that killing off its patients is no longer regarded as malpractice.
From SPUC: A meeting organised by SPUC's Muslim division in Northampton, UK, heard how a woman patient at Northampton General Hospital had her feeding tube removed against her family's wishes, and died five days later. Mr Pervez Akhter, marking the first anniversary of his mother's death, said that the family were hoping to take her home when her care regime was changed. He accused the hospital of assuming a "licence to kill". The hospital said that an investigation had found no evidence of malpractice.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Hospital of St John & St Elizabeth: update
Briefing.
From CFNews: After three years of investigations and disputes, Cardinal Cormac Cardinal Murphy O'Connor has asked the entire board of directors of the Hospital of SS John & Elizabeth to resign in order to facilitate the implementation of a Catholic ethics code that would preclude abortion referrals, IVF and contraception. A spokesman for the Cardinal, who is patron of the hospital, is quoted by the Guardian saying, 'In light of recent difficulties and challenges the cardinal asked the board to resign their office.'
An investigation into the practices of the hospital in St John's Wood was launched in 2006, after complaints came from the Vatican that the hospital was dispensing chemical contraceptives and referring for abortions. Later it was also revealed that the hospital had allowed phalloplasties, a woman-to-man 'sex-change operation'. After nearly two years of disputes with the hospital's board, Cardinal Murphy O'Connor, the hospital's arbiter on ethics, imposed a new ethics code and appointed an auxiliary bishop of Westminster archdiocese to oversee implementation. At this, a number of the Catholic hospital's board members resigned, accusing the cardinal of promoting Catholic 'values', which they held to be in conflict with patient care.
The hospital is also under investigation by the government's Charity Commission for failing to disclose vital information surrounding an £11 million loan to open an NHS primary care centre on its premises. Money to refurbish the property, a former convent, was approved by the government's Charity Commission, but the agency was not informed that a clause in the lease allowed doctors to opt out of the hospital's own ethics code. The cardinal's office said the removal of the previous board was 'to enable a new chairman to begin his office with the freedom to go about ensuring the future well-being of this Catholic hospital'.
Charles Baron Guthrie of Craigiebank has been appointed in that position. Lord Guthrie is a former Chief of the Defence Staff of the British Army, and is Vice President and Knight of Sovereign Military Order of Malta, the ancient Catholic military order that focuses on medical charity work around the world. The Order has its London headquarters, including an ornate and historic chapel, at the hospital. As a member of the House of Lords, Baron Guthrie has spoken against the Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill in 2005, saying that it is the failure of the medical community to improve pain relief and appropriate care of the dying that has generated a demand for euthanasia.
But the Restituta Group, an organisation that has been working to restore the Catholic ethos to the hospital, told LifeSiteNews.com that the move by the Cardinal to remove the board is 'baffling'. Nicolas J. Bellord, secretary to the group, said the problems in the board and the hospital's Catholicity were being resolved and that the situation was improving.
'I'm totally baffled,' Mr. Bellord said, 'The board seemed to be getting on top of the problem. They seemed to have achieved a great deal. They were getting back towards Catholicity, they started on that way and now they've being asked to resign.' Bellord pointed out that technically, the Cardinal has no legal power to remove the board. The hospital said it would not be commenting further on the resignations. Deputy chief executive, Claire Hornick, said 'Lord Guthrie, supported by Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor, has stated that under his chairmanship there is no desire that the hospital be sold and that the committed plan remains to continue the objects of the charity, which, guided by its Catholic ethos, is to serve the local community.'
Thursday, February 07, 2008
Infanticide on the NHS
Briefing.
From CFNews: A new report shows that 66 babies were born alive on one year alone after abortions done with public money under the NHS's health care system. The babies were routinely left to die after their premature birth and some survived for as long as 10 hours afterwards. According to the report, the babies were in the latter stages of pregnancy and were aborted not with a standard surgical abortion procedure. Instead, the NHS says women were given drugs to soften their cervix and had labour induced to birth the child so prematurely that there is no way to provide enough care for the child to live. After birth, the babies received no medical care or attention, the report indicated.
According to the Evening Standard, the babies in these abortions mostly involved unborn children who suffered from severe physical or mental disabilities, some of which may have been life-threatening. However, the newspaper said the report showed some of the babies had very minor issues such as a club foot or cleft palate that could easily be repaired with surgery after birth.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Abortion and breast cancer: evidence of a link
Briefing. The article says "Pregnancy causes breast cells to grow and divide. An abortion interrupts this process, leaving large number of undifferentiated cells which are especially susceptible to cancer." It is interesting to note also the well-established negative link between breast cancer and breast-feeding (ie breast feeding makes cancer less likely).
From CFNews: Patrick Carroll's Research and the ABC Link Debate, by Colin Mason
Rates of breast cancer are skyrocketing in countries which have legalized abortion. But this suggestion--that abortion causes breast cancer--causes radical feminists, who are otherwise greatly concerned about breast cancer--to go into spasms of denial. This is why it is vitally important to the pro-life cause that the ABC link be investigated rationally, documented carefully, and presented convincingly. British statistician Patrick Carroll, who is Director of Research at Britain's Pension and Population Research Institute, has done just that in his new study, "Assessing the Damage," which was just published on October 25th of this year.
Some years ago, Carroll recognized that the U.K., because of the all-pervasive British Medical System and the public funding of abortions, has some of the most complete data on abortion, breast cancer, and other illnesses available anywhere. He used this data, which spans the 40 years since the legalization of abortion in 1967, to see if it showed any connection between abortion and suiicide, mental illness, and breast cancer in each of the U.K.'s four regions: England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. He also looked at other medical sequalae of abortion, such as the level of mental illness and subsequent suicide rates.
According to official figures, the modal age for abortions in England is 20,
while the modal age for live births is 30. Women are marrying later, if at
all, and the proportion of pregnancies among unmarried women continues to
grow. Many of these women seek abortions. Of the 180,000 abortion in 2006,
100,000 were performed on women who had no prior abortions, while 80,000
were performed on women who have at least one prior abortion.
Carroll's study shows, as one might suspect, that mental illness is more
common following first-time abortion. As the number of first-time abortions
grows, so has antidepressant use. Thirty-one million prescriptions were
written in England in 2006, a nearly 10 million increase over the
21.3million written in 2001.
Most importantly, however, his study clarifies why there has been a radical
upswing in the incidence of British breast cancer since the legalization of
abortion. Rates of breast cancer have risen by an incredible 80 per cent
since the late seventies.
Carroll begins by noting that upper class women are more likely to
develop breast cancer and more likely to have abortions. "The social
gradient for female breast cancer is unlike that of other cancers with upper
class women having a higher rate of incidence than those from lower social
classes," Carroll writes. "As in other countries this is termed a negative
or reverse social gradient for female breast cancer . . British official
publications report on the social gradient but do not explain it in terms of
known risk factors."
This reverse social gradient for breast cancer is far too steep to be
explained by the fact that upper-class women are having children later in
life, when the risk for breast cancer is more severe. Rather, Carroll
explains, "upper class and upwardly mobile women are more likely to choose
abortion when they are pregnant and this helps to explain this otherwise
inexplicable social gradient. Upper class women tend to postpone
childbearing and have a later age at first birth. Abortions before full-term
pregnancies are the more carcinogenic nulliparous [first-time] abortions."
The results? After a judicious parsing of the data, Carroll concludes:
"Breast cancer can be considered a long term sequel to abortion."
Although the causes of breast cancer are not completely understood, it is
commonly accepted that hormonal changes play a large role. Pregnancy causes
breast cells to grow and divide. An abortion interrupts this process,
leaving large number of undifferentiated cells which are especially
susceptible to cancer.
The media in the U.K., not surprisingly, have not been kind to Carroll's
study and the British medical establishment has yet to comment. What can
they say, after all? The data on abortions and breast cancer come from the
government itself, and are not subject to "recall bias," or any of the other
shortcomings that normally afflict survey data. The argument is clear and
convincing.
While Carroll ends by calling for further study, he also makes it clear that
he thinks the facts speak for themselves. "The correlation [between breast
cancer and abortion] is much higher than for other known risk factors such
as Childlessness, Age at First Birth and Fertility," he says. He goes on to
point out that "Modelling using abortion and birth rates as explanatory
variables has been used to make forecasts for eight countries for the future
incidence of female breast cancer."
When you can not only explain the past, but offer predictions of the future,
you are in possession of a very powerful theory indeed. We have long been
convinced at PRI that the abortion breast cancer link is fact. Carroll's
work should help convince all those who are not blinded by the ideology of
choice.
*Colin Mason is the Director for Media Production at PRI.
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,
