NEWSLETTER
November 2007
Editorial
The Human Tissue and Embryo Bill has reignited the whole abortion debate. Those who would further liberalise the law on abortion have been very active. They are seeking to make abortion a legal right, resist any lowering of the gestational limit of 24 weeks for “social” abortions and extend the law to Northern Ireland. Meanwhile, London is also hosting international conferences to make abortion a legal right in all countries, especially in the developing world. In pursuit of this they are concentrating exclusively on women who have suffered from criminal abortions, using unverified data, whilst completely ignoring all those factors which really militate against women`s health such as the need for birth attendants, and the lack of medical expertise. They also completely overlook the selective abortion of females which is leading to gender imbalance in India and China with all its associated social problems. Why is this never mentioned, could it be that the so called “right to abortion”, is the only real agenda?
The Science and Technology Committee of the House of Commons examining the abortion question is heavily weighted with pro-choice MP s and most of those giving evidence before them are similarly pro-choice. Nevertheless, little by little some of the hard truths are emerging such as the survivability of pre 24 week newborns in good neonatal units and the practice of late abortion for easily correctable or even minor defects. Other meetings in Parliament allow MP s to hear from expert witnesses about the link between abortion and breast cancer and the long term psychological harm of abortion and the obstetric complications which may follow. All of this has been well known in medical circles but now is beginning to filter through to the public as the media report the evidence. Whatever Parliament decides the public is beginning to learn, not only, about the complications that arise from the destruction of one in five healthy pregnancies, but the actual process itself was graphically shown in “Dispatches”, on Chanel 4.
A toolkit of very specific question that constituents can put to their MP has also been prepared by the All Party Pro Life Parliamentary
Committee which is aimed at informing as well as influencing them. If this was taken up by large bodies like the Churches, then the debate would become a significant electoral issue. This is already the case in the US and despite 40 years of abortion in this country it is as controversial as ever.
"Women Deliver" Fails to Deliver
(PRESS RELEASE — C-FAM) An international conference to direct policies on maternal and child health gives scant attention to the top causes of maternal and child deaths while focusing 35 out of 98 of its sessions on abortion rights. Pro-family leaders from Europe and North America will attend the Women Deliver conference in London on October 18-20 to spotlight the real needs of women and children and report on the conference’s distortions. They will be available for media during the conference.
“Considering the conference’s obsession with abortion, policymakers should not rely on advice from Women Deliver,” noted Wendy Wright, President of Concerned Women for America (CWA). “If the conference truly focused on maternal and child health, it would tackle the leading maternal and child health needs as more than trivial additions.”
“The best way to reduce maternal and child deaths is with skilled birth attendants and emergency obstetrics. Yet skilled birth attendants is addressed in only 6 sessions, emergency obstetrics in one,” stated Susan Yoshihara, Ph.D., Executive Vice President of Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute. “Post-natal or peri-natal care, fistula, female genital mutilation, newborn health, violence against women, cancer, malaria, and failing health systems get three or fewer sessions each. The handful of panels on HIV/AIDS focuses on rights, not treatment. No sessions address primary child health issues such as vaccine availability, clean water, sanitation, basic nutritional supplementation such as prenatal and children’s vitamins, or the training of village health workers in spotting or combating protein calorie malnutrition.”
Lola Velarde, President of the Institute for Family Policy EU, stated “The medical journal Lancet reported recently on the 100 million missing girls lost to sex selection abortions and female infanticide. Not one session at Women Deliver tackles this leading cause of death of girls. Lancet’s special theme issue for Women Deliver appears to neglect its own revelations on girl-child deaths.”
“We cannot reduce maternal and child deaths if policymakers rely on inaccurate information,” said Laura Knaperek, Executive Director of United Families International.
“The U.S. experience shows that abortion is not safe, especially chemical abortion, which fails at least 10 percent of the time, requiring surgical abortion. Surgical abortion increases the risk of dangerous early birth in later pregnancies, infections and other complications,” said Donna Harrison, M.D., President-elect of the American Association of Pro Life Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.
These and other experts will be available for comment to the media
The Schindler Prize
Robert and Mary Schindler, the parents of Terry Schindler-Schiavo, fought for her life because they believed passionately in its infinite value. They stirred our memories of “Schindler’s list” in their unshakeable respect for human life.
‘FIRST DO NO HARM’, a medical group who prefer care to killing, is offering an annual prize of £500 to honour their name. This will be awarded to a doctor or nurse who provides the best account in recognition of a colleague or a lay person, who in his or her professional opinion, has engaged in a battle to save a life that had been dismissed as valueless.
The account should describe a situation where someone, known to you, attempted to save the life of a patient who was:
- suffering from dangerous neglect or
- denied food and fluids when unable to speak for him or herself
What is of importance is that, whether the attempt was or was not successful, it was sustained and revealed that person’s beliefs in the value of human life and the duty of all professionals, to do no harm.
Multidisciplinary members of the Schindler Trust will judge the best narrative account, in line with the above criteria. Entries should not exceed 750 words.
The account considered prize worthy, will be anonymised for publication, in consultation with the prize-winner.
Entries should be sent to: First Do No Harm, P.O Box 17317, London, SW3 4WJ.
Lobby your MP with the Parliamentary toolkit
Mon, 10 September, 2007
LIFE is supporting the All Party Parliamentary Pro Life Group in their efforts to canvas parliamentary opinion on specific issues which are addressed in the Human Tissue and Embryos (Draft) Bill. Please download the toolkit which will explain why your assistance is needed and how you should go about contacting your MP.
see www.lifecharity.org.uk/lifelines/timeforachange
News & Media
LIFE, a registered charity (no. 274144), is the UK’s leading provider of crisis pregnancy and post-abortion counselling and supported accommodation for pregnant women and mothers of small children.
LIFE Caring offers counselling, information and support on abortion and pregnancy related issues via our free phone national helpline (0800 915 4600) or our nationwide network of pregnancy care centres.
LIFE Housing runs a supported housing programme for pregnant women and mothers of small children.
LIFE Education employs regional officers throughout the UK, who speak to students about sex and relationships, encouraging them to seek to save sex for marriage, and promoting commitment, fidelity and permanence in relationships.
LIFE spokespersons are available to comment on issues relating to abortion, sexual health and sex education.
For all media enquiries please call 01926 421 587 or contact Michaela Aston at michaelaaston@lifecharity.org.uk
If you would like to be added to our press mailing list please e-mail your contact details to info@lifecharity.org.uk
Evidence given to the Parliamentary Science and Technology Committee from the Guild of Catholic Doctors;
Abortion Act 1967.
We in the Guild of Catholic Doctors believe that, apart from an Ethical argument, which is proscribed by your committee on this occasion, the 40 years of Abortion, largely “ on demand” , have had a number of serious ill-effects on our Society:-
1. The effect of the loss of 6 million, largely healthy , young citizens from our society is impossible to calculate, but it has seriously diminished our capability of looking after ourselves, without outside help, and has GUILD’ S Response to Parliamentary Science & Tech Committee’ s request for evidence re Effects of led, to some extent to the large amount of immigration we now see. Amongst this huge number will have been the average incidence of geniuses and prospective leaders, and we may well have killed the very people who could have led our Society forward more successfully.
2. The effect on Mothers having abortions has been serious, with more depression (evidence), suicide (evidence), future Gymea problems (evidence), increased risks of “ Medical Abortions” at home (evidence) and breast cancer (evidence). Post-Abortion Syndrome is now accepted as a long-term problem (evidence)
3. The effects on those carrying out abortions (nurses, doctors etc) is difficult to calculate, but the notion that vulnerable life (frail elderly, disabled, and premature) is less worthy of care is increasingly apparent (Joffe Bill & others). The Hippocratic Standards of the Medical Profession have been eroded.
4. Society wants to see less Abortion; a study by Communicate Research Ltd in April-May 2007 showed that 65% of women wanted less abortion; 80% of women believe that aborting a baby at 24 weeks (the upper limit) is cruel. 95% of people want the Abortion Act to be kept under regular review. People are far better informed now than they were in 1967, and know that at 24 weeks 72% of babies can survive, and at 23 weeks nearly 50% can survive. The general public has seen the Ultra-Sound pictures of babies in the womb. People want a proper debate, in the country and in Parliament, not just a Private Member’ s Bill situation.
5. The “ Blue form” which still has to be signed by 2 doctors is woefully misused and remains unchanged
. It is not even necessary for both doctors to have seen and spoken with the mother, and one may be the surgeon who is soon to do the abortion operation. Most abortions take place under the “ Ground C” section of the Act, where the “ Physical or Mental Health” of the mother is said to be at risk, and proper data on this is not available, but less than half a percent of these are due to risk to the physical health of the woman.
6. The Mental problem is sometimes a new psychiatric problem, and sometimes an aggravation of a pre-existing disorder. The data collected by the Office of National Statistics (1994) shows an impressive but rather vague list of mental disorders cited as a reason for abortion: Affective Psychosis-71.
Other non-organic Psychosis-1
Neurone disorders-99,012
Personality Disorders-91
Depressive disorders-44,005
Mental Retardation-20.
“ Neurone disorder” (The majority) is a particularly “ unknown” disorder to most doctors.
7. Doctors should find more difficulty in justifying these reasons in a Court of Law, but very rarely is there a challenge. The case of R v Smith (1974) A11 ER 376 is an illustration however; Scarman. L. J. apparently approved of the view that before forming an opinion on the mental health aspect, one would want to know as much as one could about the patient’ s general background, such as her past medical history, and whether there had been mental illness in the family. In this case the only ground given was that the girl was “ depressed” . The Court took the view that such a cursory comment following an apparently superficial examination of her mental health, and the lack of enquiry into matters affecting it, made it reasonable for the Jury to conclude that the doctor had not genuinely formed an opinion in good faith after balancing the risks involved, as the Act required him to do. The doctor was fined £1000 and given a 2 year suspended prison sentence.
8. A surgeon carrying out an Abortion under the Act bears the greater responsibility and should be very clear as to the facts. In balancing the risks involved, as recorded by the 2 doctors signing the Blue Form, he/she must be satisfied that the operation is proceeding within the terms of the Act, and we believe that this is not often the case. There is an urgent need to improve the Blue Form and ensure it is fully complied with.
9. We in the Guild, as you know, do not approve of Abortion at all, but it is clear that, with improvements in neonatal care, the upper limit of 24 weeks needs to be reduced.
10. The abortion of disabled babies up to term is abhorrent to many in our Society, and creates negative attitudes to all who are disabled , when everyone should be accorded equal standing as unique Human Beings. It therefore follows that we believe that there should be no distinction between babies “ in utero“ .
11. Finally, it is appalling that, after 40 years, and 6 million Abortions, we have so little useful data upon which Society can deliberate and find ways of reducing the killing. We call for much more research into the problem, more resources in antenatal genetic research and treatment, more help for those who face this dilemma and the many agencies who try to give balanced help and advice ; more care for those who suffer the after-effects, and more genuine debate in Parliament and in the country at large.
The Next Meeting of the MEA will take place with the Midland Branch of the Guild of Catholic Doctors
Thursday 29 th November at 8 p.m.
Newman House,
Harrison Rd.,
Edgbaston,
Birmingham
The title of the meeting is
“Dying the Liverpool Way”
Speaker,
Dr Gill Craig,
vice chairman of the MEA
All Welcome
A brief AGM will also be held that same evening at 9 p.m. Please notify the secretary of nominations or motions by 1st November. PO Box 11582. Edgbaston, Birmingham, B16 9XE