Briefing. This has been reported so many times it is becoming tedious. But it is also extremely worrying.
From SPUC: Patients are dying of malnutrition in British hospitals. A survey for the Health Service journal found that insufficient important and attention was given to feeding patients and to the quality of hospital food. Figures reveal that 242 died of malnutrition in NHS hospitals in 2007. [Daily Mail, 6 May] SPUC has warned that patients are at risk of euthanasia by omission under the Mental Capacity Act [SPUC director]
Showing posts with label Hospitals. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hospitals. Show all posts
Friday, May 08, 2009
Patients starving in British hospitals
Monday, March 30, 2009
Another health worker sacked for being Christian
Briefing.
From CFNews: A Council worker has been suspended for encouraging a terminally ill woman to turn to God after she told him her doctors could do nothing more for her.
Duke Amnchree, a Christian who has worked for Wandsworth council in south west London for neatly 18 years, was suspended after he discussed his faith with a client.
He claims he was later told that he should not raise the issue of religion at work. He says he was also told it was inappropriate to 'talk about God with a client and that he should not even say 'God bless'.
Mr Amachree, 53, a member of the UK World Evangelism Church in London, was disciplined as a result of a complaint made by the woman client who had come to the council to discuss a housing problem.
He described the moment he was told by council staff that he was being suspended: 'I was speechless. I was so stunned could not even bring myself to tell my wife,'
Mr Amachree, who is British but was born in Nigeria, has not worked for two months. 'This is it worrying time for me,' he said. Senior council sources have confirmed his suspension but dispute his account of events. They say it has been alleged that Mr Amachree made a long and aggressive 'religious rant' against the seriously ill woman, who has not been identified. They also say he has been warned in the past for raising his religious beliefs with members of the public.
The case comes two months after the Sunday Telegraph disclosed that Caroline Petrie, 45, a nurse from North Somerset, was suspended for offering to pray for an elderly patient's recovery from illness. Mrs Petrie, also a Christian, was accused of failing to demonstrate a 'personal and professional commitment to equality and diversity', but she was later reinstated by the North Somerset Primary Care Trust.
Mr Amachrce's case has been taken up by Christian Legal Centre (CLC). which seeks to promote religious freedom and, particularly, to protect Christians and Christianity. The centre. in turn, has instructed Paul Diamond, a leading religious rights barrister. Mr Amachree, a married man with two young children who earns £30,000 a year as a homelessness prevention officer, said that the incident took place on January 26 after a woman, aged about 30, came to ask for advice.
He says they spent 50 minutes discussing her concerns that she was going to have to move out of her privately rented flat because her landlord was selling it. The woman, an artist, hoped to find alternative accommodation nearer a hospital, where she could be treated for what he says she described as an 'incurable bowel condition'.
Mr Amachree said: 'She was in despair. It was out of compassion that I said to her: 'Sometimes the doctors don't have all the answers'. I suggested she could put her faith in God.'
He insisted the woman had not been concerned by his comments, although she said religion had not worked for her. According to Mr Amachree, she then smiled, thanked him and left.
But on January 28 he was handed a two-page letter by the council's director of housing and told that he was being suspended. Mr Amachree is taking legal action against the council decision which he says effectively 'privatises' Christian faith and is against his human rights.
A spokesman for the Conservative-run council said: 'A serious allegation has been made which is being investigated as a disciplinary matter'. [Sunday Telegraph]
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Parents lose battle to stop hospital withdrawing treatment from child
Briefing.
From LifeSiteNews: A seriously ill baby, known only as OT, died on Saturday in the U.K. after his parents lost a legal bid to keep him alive.
The nine-month-old boy suffered from mitochondrial disease, a rare metabolic disorder which resulted in brain damage and respiratory failure.
Two Court of Appeal judges refused the couple permission to challenge a decision by Mrs. Justice Parker of the High Court, made after a 10-day hearing, which gave the hospital treating the boy the right to stop the medical treatment that was keeping him alive.
His parents reportedly were 'deeply distressed' by the court's decision to end their baby's treatment and thereby his life. In a statement, the parents said that only one other child with the same condition had been identified by modern medicine and everyone was in 'unknown territory.'
'We are and always will be convinced that, despite his desperate problems, his life is worthwhile and is worth preserving as long as it is possible to do so without causing him undue pain.
'That was the real argument between us and the doctors - they think his life is intolerable and that his disability is such that his life has little purpose; but we, along with some of the nurses, believed that he experiences pleasure and that he has long periods where he was relaxed and pain free.
'Our belief in his humanity and inherent worth justified us taking every step to support him.'
A spokeswoman for the British Medical Association, which represents doctors involved in the case, said in a UKTelegraph report, 'Cases like this are very distressing and we have every empathy with the parents, but when the parents and the clinical team don't agree on the treatment for the child in question, the only way forward is to go to the courts and for the courts to decide on what is in the best interests of the child, which is paramount.'
Alex Schadenberg, chairman of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, commented on the court decision, saying, 'The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition is shocked that a High Court ruling in the UK would determine that a child who is disabled from a rare metabolic disorder is better off dead. It is very sad when parents make decisions to give up on a child with a disability, but it is shocking when the courts Court imposes death on the child, against the wishes of the child's loving parents.
'How is it possible that a court could impose death upon a vulnerable child? It is simply unbelievable.'
The parents told the BBC, through spokesman Christopher Cuddihee of Kaim Todner: 'During his short time with us OT became the focus of our lives.
'We were present during his last moments, together with O's extended family.
'He died peacefully. We will miss him greatly and wish to say that we are proud to have known our beautiful son for his brief life.' [LSN]
Friday, February 06, 2009
Christian nurse reinstated: but now NHS staff are to be sacked for discussing religion
Comment: this new document about religious proselytism makes the reasonable point that aggressive preaching could be construed as harassment. But it fails to make any distinctions: between what is reasonable and unreasonable, what is proselytism and what is just making conversation. It appears to want to banish all mention of religion from the NHS, Europe's biggest employer.
From the Daily Telegraph, in part: Following overwhelming public support for Caroline Petrie, the Christian nurse who was suspended after she offered to pray for an elderly patient, her employers have caved said she could return to her job.
The row over her treatment has reached the House of Commons, with Sir Patrick Cormack, the Tory MP for South Staffordshire, claiming that her case had highlighted the “utter absurdities” of political correctness.
Although Mrs Petrie was relieved her ordeal was over, fears have been raised that new rules could lead to the dismissal of any health care worker who tries to talk about their faith to others.
A little-noticed document published by the Department of Health last month gives warning that attempts by doctors or nurses to preach to other staff or patients will be treated as harassment or intimidation under disciplinary procedures.
But it does not make clear the limits of acceptable discussion about religion.
Faith groups said the guidelines were so vague that they could mean action could be taken against anyone who talks about their beliefs to fellow workers or patients.
The document, called Religion or Belief: A Practical Guide for the NHS, states: “Members of some religions... are expected to preach and to try to convert other people. In a workplace environment this can cause many problems, as non-religious people and those from other religions or beliefs could feel harassed and intimidated by this behaviour.
“To avoid misunderstandings and complaints on this issue, it should be made clear to everyone from the first day of training and/or employment, and regularly restated, that such behaviour, notwithstanding religious beliefs, could be construed as harassment under the disciplinary and grievance procedures.”
Thursday, January 01, 2009
Hospital of St John and St Elizabeth: Charity Commission ruling
Briefing: this is a vindication of those who resisted the attempts to secularise the hospital under Lord Bridgeman. It doesn't deal clearly with the continuing problems, upon which we have blogged here.
From The Tablet (30/12/08), in part: THE CHARITY Commission has sharply reprimanded
the previous leadership of a private Catholic hospital over its handling of a dispute
about its code of ethics, writes Isabel de Bertodano.
Following a nine-month inquiry, the commission this week issued a report that criticised the Hospital of St John and St Elizabeth in north London for its failure to implement a new code approved by Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor last year to clarify the charity’s opposition to abortion. The report also questioned the decision of the previous leadership to allow a group of NHS GPs to move on to the hospital’s premises, because of the potential conflict of ethical interest between public-sector doctors and the private Catholic charity. Furthermore, the report said that the hospital’s then board of trustees had “misled” the commission and ignored requests for information.
Monday, December 22, 2008
Vatican: no MAP for rape victims
Briefing. The question of giving the Morning After Pill to rape victims is complicated by the claim that it can prevent ovulation. Depending on the rape victim's cycle, the claim is that it could be used licitly not to cause an abortion or prevent implantation, but to prevent conception in the first place. (Preventing conception resulting from rape is legitimate, since the act of sex was not consented to. What is forbidden is intending an act of sex which is contracepted.)
The ruling of Dignitas Personae addresses one particular aspect of this debate - whether it might be legitimate to prevent implantion: 'no', because it is an early form of abortion - and Bishop Sgreccia appears to be ruling out the MAP entirely. We agree with Bishop Sgreccia: since the action of the MAP is usually abortion (if there is any possibility of conception taking place), not only is it highly risky taking it after rape if one regards avoiding causing an abortion as a priority, but it causes scandal for a Catholic institution to hand them out even in restricted circumstances. In fact the situation for Catholic hospitals in the USA is that they are being asked to hand them out without restrictions.
From SPUC: Some Catholic hospitals in America provide morning-after pills to women who say they have been raped. The practice reportedly happens in California, Colorado, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York, Washington state and Wisconsin. Dignitas Personae says that seeking to prevent a human embryo's implantation, which the pills can do, is generally the same as intending to perform an abortion. Bishop Elio Sgreccia, former head of the Pontifical Academy for Life, has told LifeSiteNews that there are no exceptions to the ban on morning-after pills. [LifeSiteNews, 17 December] NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts asked for such pills at 70 hospitals in the state and were refused by two Catholic institutions. This is reportedly against local law which requires all hospitals to provide morning-after pills to women who allege rape. [CWNews on EWTN, 16 December]
Monday, October 13, 2008
Hospital of St John & St Elizabeth: more on the new code of ethics
Action: if you haven't written to Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor, please do so: see here.
From Fr Tim Finnigan: Luke Gormally, Honorary Fellow of the Linacre Centre for Healthcare Ethics has kindly sent a comment to my article yesterday. Since this clearly sets out some important and very worrying information, I feel that it should be given prominence in a post rather than being left in the combox.
Professor Gormally writes:
The situation at John&Lizzies is one of grave scandal. The Cardinal has the authority in the constitution of the Hospital to determine the ethical norms that should govern clinical practice there. When objections where referred to the Cardinal in 2004 to admission of the St John's Wood Medical Practice, which is contractually committed to providing the full range of 'family planning services', including referrals for abortion, he in turn referred the matter to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) - though in truth the issue was clear cut.
The Hospital Management (which has long been non-Catholic) argued that there was no clear prohibition in the existing Code of referrals for abortion. The case was presented in somewhat unsatisfactory terms to the CDF who asked the Cardinal to establish a Committee to enquire into practice at the Hospital and what might be required to render the existing Ethics Code unambiguous in its directives. The Cardinal after some delay established the Brennan Committee (under Lord Brennan), a Committee which included Professor John Finnis in its membership.
This Committee eventually reported to the Cardinal in early 2006 and on 6 March that year following the advice of the Committee the Cardinal wrote to the then Chairman of the Hospital Board, Lord Bridgeman, requiring specific additions to the Code which made it unambiguously clear that no doctor practising at the Hospital was to refer for procedures, including abortion, which were contrary to moral truth as identified in the teaching of the Church. He asked that the Code be revised along these lines by the end of 2006, and that the following year the Hospital should set up a system of ethical governance to ensure that the Code was being observed. Lord Bridgeman disbanded the previous Ethics Committee, three of whose members, including Dr Helen Watt, had been at the forefront of complaining about unethical practices at the Hospital (it had, among other things, become the major centre in the UK for female to male transgender surgery), and established a new Ethics Committee.
This first met in September 2006 and I was, somewhat to my surprise, recruited to the Committee in October 2006. Lord Bridgeman's chosen Chairman of the Ethics Committee was extremely reluctant to proceed to the revision of the Code as required in the Cardinal's letter to Lord Bridgeman, but some of us managed to produce a revision of the Code in early 2007 precisely along the lines specified in the letter of 6 March 2006. This revised Code was then formally agreed by the Ethics Committee. Before it was presented to the Hospital Board however it was presented at the insistence of Management and Lord Bridgeman to the Medical Advisory Committee (MAC) of the Hospital. This is composed of a group of doctors not one of whom is a Catholic. They rejected the Code.
It subsequently emerged at a meeting with this Committee that they regarded the Code as having no authority over them and indeed viewed the Hospital as already a secularised institution. The view of the MAC was then invoked as a reason for non-acceptance of the Code by the majority of those on the Board with a secularising agenda for the Hospital. However, in the later part of 2007 there were a number of resignations from this group and towards the end of the year those members of the Board who had been faithful to the terms of the Hospital's Trust Deed and had sought to retain its catholicity found themselves in a sufficient majority to approve the Code. At this point the Cardinal intervened and demanded the resignation of those faithful few. Though he had no legal authority to do so, his wishes were complied with by a number who felt obliged to defer to his moral authority. Lord Guthrie was then installed as the new Chairman of the Board and he accepted this position on condition that he would be able to re-populate the Board with his own nominees. One of these is Sir Mark Allen who from a career as a spy master has now assumed Chairmanship of the Hospital's Ethics Committee. He has produced a Code which to anyone who knows about the controversy over the past 4 years about the ethical norms which should govern clinical practice at the Hospital is manifestly a complete capitulation to the demands of the MAC that certain key demands of Catholic moral teaching should have no authority over what they decide and do with their patients in consulting rooms in the Hospital. What happens in the operating theatres may be more restricted than hitherto, but the most striking thing about the new Code is the complete absence of any prohibition of referrals for abortion.
I began by saying that the situation is one of grave scandal. It is so because the Cardinal has given his approval to this new Code. The Church's teaching about the grave wrongness of abortion and cooperation in abortion has been sacrificed for essentially financial interests. How can the Church in this country effectively defend the sanctity of life when its Chief Shepherd is prepared to approve a Code which effectively accommodates referrals for abortion? A spokeswoman for the Brook Advisory Centres is reported as welcoming the liberalization of the Hospital's Code. That tells us pretty cleary where the Cardinal has got us to.
Urgent prayers, and action by some, are needed to reverse this situation.
Luke Gormally
Wednesday, October 08, 2008
SS John & Elizabeth: new code of ethics permits abortion referrals
See our previous posts about abortion referrals.
Hat-tip to Fr Tim Finnigan. See the Telegraph article.
Cormac, Cardinal Murphy O'Connor
Archbishop’s House
Ambrosden Avenue
London SW1P 1QJ
Email Archbishop's House
Friday, September 05, 2008
Brain death is not real death
Action: do NOT sign up for organ donation 'after death': they will probably take your organs BEFORE you die. Brain death is obviously not death: there are numerous cases of people recovering from it.
From Lifesitenews: Only a few weeks after a prominent article appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine noting that 'brain death' does not constitute true death, the Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano has carried a front-page article noting that a declaration of 'brain death' cannot be considered the end of life in light of new scientific research.
Such a determination would prohibit single vital organ donation, such as heart transplants, for Catholics or Catholic institutions, since Catholic teaching requires such organ donors to be truly dead. If potential donors cannot be said with certainty to be dead, vital organ removal would in effect constitute killing the donor.
The L'Osservatore Romano editorial, published September 2, was written by Professor Lucetta Scaraffia, vice-president of the Italian Association for Science and Life and a member of the Italian National Committee on Bio-Ethics. She notes that the Vatican accepted the 'brain death' criteria 40 years ago when it was put forward by the Harvard Medical School. She notes that in 1985, 1989, and 2006, the Pontifical Academy of Sciences still maintained that brain death was 'the true criterion for death.'
However, Scaraffia added that the Church accepted the new definition of death 'with many reservations,' noting that 'in Vatican City State the certification of brain death is not used.'
Commenting on the L'Osservatore Romano article, Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi said that it was 'interesting and authoritative' but 'cannot be considered a position of the Magisterium (teaching authority) of the church.'
The Catechism of the Catholic Church says on the subject of organ donation: 'Organ donation after death is a noble and meritorious act and is to be encouraged as a expression of generous solidarity.' The statement hinges on the establishment of true death of the donors. If not, complete removal of any vital organ would kill the 'donor.' Or, as Pope John Paul II put it in 2000, 'Vital organs which occur singly in the body can be removed only after death, that is from the body of someone who is certainly dead . . . This requirement is self-evident, since to act otherwise would mean intentionally to cause the death of the donor in disposing of his organs.'
For the general public, organ donation is becoming ever more controversial as accounts of patients declared 'brain dead' and living to tell about it are reported more and more frequently. Scaraffia points, however, to new scientific findings as raising questions for scientists. One of the new findings she points out is the case of a woman declared brain dead who could still bring an unborn child to birth while on life support.
The issue is sure to come to a head in the Vatican in the coming weeks as a Vatican conference promoting organ donation is set to take place in Rome in November. [LifeSiteNews]
Monday, July 07, 2008
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
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, 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."
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Ante-natal scans are fallible
Briefing: there is a regular stream of such stories; this is representative. There is more commentary from Fr Tim Finnigan.
From CFNews: Becky Weatherall and her partner Kriss Kramer where told by their doctors that their son would be born deaf and blind and would probably survive only for a couple of hours. Little Brandon Kramer was diagnosed in utero with rhomboencephalosynapsis - a condition in which the brain fuses together rather than being in two halves - as well as hydrocephalus - water on the brain. Tests conducted twice a month indicated the condition was worsening and Becky was advised to abort her pregnancy up to just weeks before the birth. The couple ignored the doctors' recommendation and Brandon was born healthy on October 1 last year.
A report in the Daily Mail said the Fetal Medicine Unit at the University Hospital of Wales in Cardiff was ordered to review the case to determine whether Brandon had the condition and recovered from it, or whether data from the numerous ultrasound scans had been misread by hospital staff. The couple does not intend to sue the hospital for compensation but does want the situation to be made know as a warning to other parents. 'Perhaps doctors shouldn't put so much confidence in scans,' Becky said in the Daily Mail report. 'One of the older doctors we spoke to said a scan is like a fuzzy image of a snowstorm - it cannot be relied upon - and he turned out to be right.' 'I feel incredibly guilty thinking that I could have killed him - and then I find myself wondering how many other babies are killed who would have turned out to be completely healthy.'
'We had prepared to spend Christmas without him - we thought we'd be planning a funeral. Instead, it was the best Christmas present ever and now we're having a christening.' Brandon's father Kriss said, 'We are not there to blame anyone but we want to thank them for the help and advice they gave us. They went over the MRI [scanner] results with us. They haven't given us any explanation.' 'It was a mistake, but all that is put to the side now and we are trying to forget about it because Brandon is normal.'
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
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.
Saturday, November 24, 2007
Hospital of St John & St Elizabeth: Victory
Action: congratulations to the Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor, especially from anyone who has written before on this subject, would be nice. This is a major victory for him and for the Church in England and Wales.
From The Telegraph, in part: A fashionable Roman Catholic hospital has agreed a code of ethics barring its doctors from referring abortions or providing contraceptives, The Daily Telegraph has learned. The board of the private St John and St Elizabeth Hospital voted to implement the new code earlier this month after intense pressure from Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, Britain's senior Catholic leader.
The north London hospital may now face financial difficulties because it could have to abandon plans to lease part of its site to GPs who would be obliged by their NHS contracts to offer contraceptive services. According to insiders, the decision by the board may also prompt the resignation of staff who have opposed the adoption of the code.
Comment: The Board of Management has finally agreed to the new Code of Ethics proposed by the Cardinal and the other Trustees. The departure of the anti-life contingent on the staff, anticipated by the Daily Telegraph, would be very welcome. See the full Telegraph story here.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Eldery starve in English hospitals
Briefing.
From SPUC: New government figures have shown that 375 elderly people in the English
Midlands starved to death in the last 10 years, many of them residents of nursing homes and hospitals. In 2006 four out of 10 elderly people admitted to hospitals were malnourished. The Department of Health stressed it was doing all it could to prevent the deaths of elderly patients, and it recently launched the Nutrition Action Plan. [Sunday Mercury, 12 November]
Friday, September 28, 2007
Catholic hospital to hand out MAP
Briefing. The Conneticut problem illustrates the difficulties faced by the Catholic hospital of St John and St Elizabeth in London. The US bishops here are mistaken: there is no doubt that, unless ovulation has not yet taken place, the morning after pill causes an abortion. Providing it in a Catholic hospital is direct and formal cooperation in grave evil, and cannot be justified.
From Yahoo News: HARTFORD, Conn. - Roman Catholic bishops in Connecticut have agreed to let hospital personnel give emergency contraception to all rape victims, reversing their decision days before a new state law requires it.
The church, which runs four of the state's 30 hospitals, had fought the state law requiring medical personnel to give rape victims emergency contraception, sold as Plan B, even if the women are ovulating.
Church officials had said the treatment was tantamount to abortion and had been considering legal action, but they took a step away from that position Thursday, in a joint statement by the Catholic Bishops of Connecticut and leaders of the Catholic hospitals.
The hospitals will be allowed to provide Plan B without ovulation tests "since the teaching authority of the church has not definitively resolved this matter and since there is serious doubt about how Plan B pills work," the statement reads. "To administer Plan B without an ovulation test is not an intrinsically evil act."
Plan B is a high dose of a drug found in many regular birth-control pills. Its maker, Barr Pharmaceuticals Inc., got approval last year to sell the drug over-the-counter.
The company says Plan B can lower the risk of pregnancy by up to 89 percent if taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex. The drug works by stopping ovulation and has no effect on an existing pregnancy.
The new law requires a pregnancy test, but not an ovulation test, before the drug is given. The Catholic hospitals wanted to first perform ovulation tests, and church officials said Thursday the law still should be changed to allow that.
Roman Catholics believe that life begins at conception, and the fact that Plan B is intended to work after sexual activity but prior to conception complicated their response.
Barry Feldman, a spokesman for the Connecticut Catholic Conference, said the bishops had "an evolution of thinking" about "the state of existing science and the lack of definitive teaching by the church and the fact that there are many who are affiliated with the church that believe the ovulation test isn't necessary."
The bishops consulted with Catholic ethicists and various constitutional lawyers. Some lawyers agreed the state law is unconstitutional, but warned that such a lawsuit could drag on for years, Feldman said.
"If they could find a way morally to do so, they wanted to put the issue to rest, at last, for the moment," he said, adding that the bishops might reconsider if there's more "certainty in the science" about Plan B.
Several states have enacted laws to improve rape survivors' access to the medication in hospital emergency rooms; some states also have laws that protect pharmacy employees who refuse to sell the contraceptive for reasons of conscience.
Connecticut's law takes effect Monday. According to Connecticut Sexual Assault Crisis Services Inc., 40 percent of rape victims were not offered or did not receive the full dose of emergency contraception at the hospitals where they were treated during the first half of 2006.
"It's a welcome change," said Laura Cordes, policy and advocacy director for the assault crisis service. "It's welcome news for women in Connecticut who survive rape and turn to hospitals for treatment and evidence collection."
Monday, September 24, 2007
Hospital of SS John & Elizabeth: the saga continues
Briefing.
From CFNews: Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor is under growing pressure to impose rules on a hospital in north London, banning doctors from offering contraception or referring patients for abortions. The cardinal is facing calls from a lobby group to use his position as 'arbiter of ethics' at the Hospital of St John and St Elizabeth, a private Catholic hospital in St John's Wood, to insist on the implementation of a code of ethics which forbids any medical practices banned by the Vatican. These include IVF for infertile couples and amniocentesis tests to detect Down's syndrome in unborn children.
Campaigners said this week that they intend to ask the Pope to intervene directly in the dispute if Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor does not take the action they want, which includes preventing an NHS-funded general practice due to open at the hospital in November from offering family planning services, including referrals for abortions and prescribing contraceptives. Nicolas Bellord, secretary of the Restituta Group, which is campaigning to preserve the hospital's Catholic identity, said: 'We have not seen effective legal action from the cardinal on this issue. As the matter stands, the hospital is committed to a GP practice on the premises which will have a contractual agreement with the NHS to provide family planning services . . . It has been agreed that where the requirements of the NHS conflict with the Roman Catholic ethics the requirement of the NHS will prevail. The Catholic authorities have been totally ineffective in preventing this happening when they had the legal powers to do so . . .We are looking to the cardinal to uphold the constitution of the hospital and the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. If that does not happen then we will have no alternative but to seek to refer the matter to the Vatican and his Holiness the Pope'.
Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor demanded that the hospital revise its existing code of ethics two years ago after it was alleged that some staff were flouting its rules by referring patients for abortions and giving prescriptions for the contraceptive pill. In a letter to the hospital's chairman, Lord Bridgeman, Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor wrote: 'There must be clarity that the hospital, being a Catholic hospital with a distinct vision of what is truly in the interests of human persons, cannot offer its patients, non-Catholic or Catholic, the whole range of services routinely accepted by many in modern secular society as being in a patient's best interest.' Attempts to revise the hospital's code of ethics led to a rebellion among staff, who refused to accept the stipulation that they could not refer patients seeking an abortion or contraception, including the morning-after pill, to another hospital or give advice on such issues.
The hospital's medical advisory committee, consisting of its most senior clinicians, wrote to the board in May telling them it expected Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor to resign his post as a patron and stating the hospital should be a 'non-Catholic hospital with a Catholic heritage' . It is understood that a new version of the code of ethics was referred back to the hospital board at the beginning of this month and is due for formal approval in the coming weeks. The key contention for medical staff is that they should be allowed to operate to the guidelines of the General Medical Council, the medical profession's governing body, which require all clinicians to offer objective medical advice and referrals regardless of their personal or religious beliefs. The hospital said this week that the revised code had been referred both to the GMC and the Nursing and Midwifery Council for approval. The Independent understands that the new version of the code recognises the requirement for medical staff to abide by the GMC guidelines. A source said: 'Without that the hospital risks the withdrawal of its permission to practice.' A spokesman for the archbishop said: 'The cardinal is actively engaged in finding a solution to these important issues. He sincerely hopes the board will make the right decision.' [The Independent / Catholic Herald]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
