The situation
is grave. The Mental Capacity Bill of April 05 provides for certain
types of euthanasia. It was followed by Leslie Burke's Appeal.
The judges declared that where the patient expressed the wish
to be kept alive, stopping life-prolonging treatment would "leave
the doctor with no answer to a charge of murder". But the
Judgment handed down on 28 July 05 denied Leslie Burke the right
to food and water when he becomes unable to communicate. His disease
will progress until he loses the power to speak and swallow. He
is then denied water and nutrition.
The British Medical Association 30 June 05
voted to take a neutral position on the euthanasia issue. Lord
Joffe's Assisted Dying Bill is in the offing. It is reported that
responses to the British Medical Journal's recent articles on
euthanasia have been 5-1 against it. Please be ready to respond
to similar articles and news items.
Mary Knowles
|
|
Everything about the progress of Lord Joffe's
Assisted Dying Bill seems to be pre-arranged. Under the heading
"Target 09", the Voluntary Euthanasia Society's newsletter
states "The Select Committee's Report will soon be debated
and Lord Joffe is planning to reintroduce the Bill to the Lords
in the autumn..... We have a target of getting a finalised version
of the Bill into the Commons in this Parliament by 2009."
(That is wise - if there were a change of Government after that
its chances would not be so good). During the sittings of the
Select Committee it became clear that the chance of persuading
committed supporters of euthanasia to think again was absolutely
nil, whatever the evidence put before them. The Assisted Dying Bill is supposed to
be passed nem. con. at 2nd Reading in the Lords and referred
to a Committee of the whole House. It sounds like the old story
of a man in hospital who looked down at his feet and found they
were on a pathway marked in a map on the wall "REFUSE TO
GO TO THE INCINERATOR". Will the Peers refuse? |
|
|
First Do No Harm published a public opinion poll in May which showed
77% support for Leslie Burke's position, at least that an advance
request for food and fluid should not be ignored. After the jiggery-pokery
at the BMA's Annual Meeting on 30 June 05 resulting in a vote
to leave the euthanasia issue entirely to Parliament, FDNH commissioned
a survey of 500 G.P.s, to ascertain whether or not doctors think
they should have a voice on the issue. Results show 70% disagreement
with the BMA's new stance (enclosed). |
|
|
The Daily Mail of 10th July reported a vote against euthanasia and assisted dying in the General Synod of the Church of England, of 243 to 1. The Archbishop of Canterbury, for once giving a clear message, said "This is not simply a debate about medical ethics, it's about economic ethics. In a climate where the pressure is all towards a functionalised, reduced style of healthcare provision, this [assisted dying] must be a very, very tempting option to save money and resources." |
|
|
Dr. Michael Irwin, former chairman of the
Voluntary Euthanasia Society, said he would continue his fight
to legalise doctor-assisted suicide after being found guilty
of acting "unprofessionally, inappropriately and irresponsibly"
by the General Medical Council, the Daily Telegraph reported on 28 Sept. 05.
He "travelled to Patrick Kneen's home in the Isle of Man
in 2003 with the intention of helping him to die," though
he did not actually do so. He had prescribed a Class C drug in
his own name. Dr. Irwin plans to appeal to the High Court. ALERT commented in a statement: "We
congratulate the General Medical Council on their action in this
case. Thank goodness they are on this occasion upholding medical
ethics and the safety of patients." |
|
|
"Murder could be graded into categories
ranging from the most depraved to mercy killings as part of a
full review of the law demanded today by government advisers,"
The Times reported on 6 Aug 2004. "The Law Commission, the government's
law reform adviser, says that a review is necessary because of
the 'breadth and depth of discontent' with the present law." The Daily Telegraph of 3 Sept 05 reported that
"A devoted husband who admitted killing his terminally ill
wife walked free from court after a judge described it as a 'mercy
killing' . . . "He strangled her with a carrier bag and
told paramedics that he 'held it there for five minutes' after
she stopped breathing to make sure she was dead." |
|
|
"For months, Australia's Dr. Death,
Philip Nitschke, has been doing an impression of Chicken Little,
claiming the 'sky' is going to fall on him and his work,"
the US. International Task Force reports in Update, vol. 19,
No. 2. "On June 23 2005, the 'sky' did fall: the Australian
Parliament passed laws outlawing just about everything Nitschke
and his organisation EXIT do via the Internet. "The laws have banned the use of the
Internet to incite people to commit suicide or to instruct them
on how best to kill themselves. Violations of the new laws carry
fines of up to A$110,000 for individuals and up to A$550,000
for organisations. The laws also apply to other means of communication,
such as telephones and faxes." |
|
|
The case against a doctor carrying out a late abortion for cleft palate, which was brought by the Rev. Joanna Jepson, and the beautiful pictures of unborn children making stepping movements in the womb from as early as 12 weeks, revolutionised the treatment of the issue in the Press. To a veteran of the 1967 abortion campaign, it was almost unbelievable. Michael Howard, leader of the Conservative Party, called for a review of the time limit. Now the "Alive and Kicking Campaign" has been launched at a fringe meeting at the Labour Party conference in Brighton to "make abortion rare". Pro-abortionists protested outside. Martin Foley, chief executive of LIFE, wrote in LIFE News, Summer 2005: "If it is clear that a particular Bill or legislative
proposal will improve the current situation - will save some
of the almost 190,000 unborn children that are being aborted
each year and safeguard women's health - then surely we have
a duty to give such legislation What if it is a quite different sort of Bill? SPUC reported (19 July 05) "Today's debate in Parliament on abortion has revealed an agenda for easier and more frequent abortions. "Dr. Evan Harris MP (Liberal Democrat) led an adjournment debate today in Westminster Hall, in which he called for abortion law and practice to be relaxed alongside a parliamentary inquiry into the upper time limit for abortions. Dr. Harris specifically called for 'first trimester abortions to be made easier; for the safeguard of two doctors' signatures for abortion to be abolished; for chemical abortion (using RU486) to be permitted at home ('bedroom abortions'); and for the 1967 Abortion Act to be extended to Northern Ireland. "Caroline Flint, the minister replying on behalf of the Government, ominously told the House that the Government is 'putting a lever on primary care trusts' to reduce waiting times for abortions and is currently trialling 'bedroom abortions.'" A review of time limits was rejected, but at the "Alive and Kicking" launch the ghost of a Government "bargain"could be seen approaching: a reduction of the upper limit in return for abortion-on-demand up to 12 weeks. The Pro-Life Alliance is alarmed by "suppression of data" by the Government, the Catholic Herald reported on 5 Aug 05. "Last year official statistics on abortions were not released because of the Joanna Jepson case and the high media profile of the abortion issue. Now the 2003 and 2004 abortion statistics have been published, but they do not include sensitive information about controversial abortions because of foetal abnormalities." Anthony Ozimic of SPUC said (27 July 05) "Politicians and commentators must realise that the government's approach of promoting early abortions is increasing the number of abortions." The Association of Lawyers for the Defence of the Unborn
reminded readers in their newsletter of Spring 2004 that "the
removal of the law's protection from older unborn babies was
the work of a Conservative Secretary of State, the Rt. Hon. Kenneth
Clarke, QC. MP. who introduced this further grave injustice into
our law in his government's Human Fertilisation and Embryology
Act of 1990." |
|
|
"A number of babies have been born alive after only 18 weeks of pregnancy," the Daily Mail reported on 6 August 05 after a study was published in the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology." Some of the babies who initially survived terminations were only in the 18th week of pregnancy and more than half were under 22 weeks. "In the 31 cases they studied, babies lived for between five minutes and four hours 6 minutes after the termination. In four cases there were regular breathing movements." Doctors at the Neonatal Intensive Care
Unit, Hope Hospital, Salford had written to the Journal of Obstetrics
and Gynaecology in February: "We report an infant who survived
abortion at approximately 23 weeks' gestation and who survives
long-term following many months of neonatal intensive care."
The abortion had been attempted at a private clinic. When the
mother felt her baby moving she changed her mind. |
|
|
The Sunday Telegraph on 11 Sept 05 reported that
an abortion clinic in Spain is offering financial kickbacks to
women with late-term pregnancies to entice them into having illegal
terminations. It is In October 2004 the same newspaper revealed that the British Pregnancy Advisory Service was deliberately directing women with healthy post-24 week pregnancies towards the Clinica Ginemedix in Barcelona, where they were given illegal terminations with false paperwork. "A British Government inquiry into the scandal has yet to report its findings." Facts were unearthed by the Pro-Life Alliance. The Mail on Sunday reported on 4 Sept 05 "Britain's leading abortion clinic has been accused of paying staff cash bonuses to carry out more terminations. "Marie Stopes International, a registered charity, is alleged to have offered nurses payments of hundreds of pounds if they can increase the number of NHS-funded abortions they perform each day." On 11 Sept. 05 the Mail on Sunday revealed that
private abortion clinics are paying doctors to authorise terminations
without their ever meeting the women involved.Anna Furedi, chief
executive of the BPAS, confirmed: "Forms issued by the Dept.
of Health allow for both doctors to sign, stating that they have
not seen the women." |
|
|
"Women with a history of induced abortion were at higher risk of very preterm delivery than those with no such history (OR + 1.5, 95%Cl 1.1-20); the risk was even higher for extremely preterm deliveries." BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaaecology, Vol. 112, Issue 4, p.430, April 2005). LIFE commented. "The French research
studied a large sample - 1943 very pre-term babies (less than
33 weeks' gestation) and 276 moderately pre-term babies (33-34
weeks' gestation). The study controlled for social and demographic
characteristics, lifestyle habits during pregnancy and obstetric
history." |
|
|
Peaceful UK Life League protesters against
forced abortions and imprisonment without trial in China were
allowed to assemble on the pavement outside the Chinese Embassy
in Portland Place, London on 24 Sept. 05, - the first time the
Metropolitan Police have allowed anyone near. "It took the
preparing of papers for a judicial review yesterday for the Met
to climb down," co-ordinator Jim Dowson reported. |
|
|
Friday Fax, by Austin Ruse, reported on 21 Apr. 05 that the UN now admitted that access to abortion was not effective at reducing maternal mortality. "Earlier this month, the United Nations
Population fund (UNFPA) released its annual report on maternal
mortality around the world. The report shows that the most important
means of reducing maternal mortality is the presence of a skilled
birth attendant with access to emergency obstetrical care. The
report contradicts UNFPA's earlier "The report acknowledges that 'almost
all maternal mortality is avoidable,' because 'all five of the
most life-threatening complications can be treated by a professional
health worker.'" |
|
|
IMAGE News in September reports: "There is evidence that insisting
on parental involvement before abortions are given to minors
not only reduces the number of abortions but the number of pregnancies
among minors," Professor David Paton told a meeting at the House
of Commons. He said insisting on the right to confidentiality
for minors accessing family planning "Latest Government figures show pregnancies
in under-16's in England and Wales rose from 7,875 in 2002 to
8,076 in 2003. More than 2,000 pregnancies were in under-14's. |
|
|
"Uganda has recorded declining rates
of HIV infection since 1993," Personal Update (Ireland)
reports, September 2005. "Among pregnant women the rate
of HIV rose from 24 per cent in 1989 to 30 per cent in 1992,
but by 1999 it had dropped to 10 percent, according to the latest
figures from the AIDS Control Programme (ACP) in the Ministry
"The Government's campaign to make abstinence the first call went counter to the accepted wisdom of western AIDS professionals and was in huge contrast to neighbouring countries like South Africa, Botswana, Namibia and Zambia. . . "In Botswana, 38 per cent of pregnant
women were HIV positive in 2003, compared to 6.2 per cent of
Ugandan women." |
|
|
Peter Oborne, quoted in the Spectator of 30th April 2005 wrote, "Hostility to a 'reality-based' analysis of events can be traced back to postmodernism, which has become a fashionable orthodoxy among teachers of philosophy, and indeed other academic disciplines. "Postmodernism is one modern manifestation of extreme philosophical scepticism, a tradition which can be traced right back to the beginnings of thought and the ancient Greek school of Pyrrho. This school despaired of the notion that truth was accessible and deduced that no ultimately stable distinction could be drawn between truth and falsehood." In the view of the American philosopher
Richard Rorty, following the French writers Foucault and Derrida,
truth claims could never be incontestably grounded and "an
alternative way of giving weight to words was to 'to construct
what he called a narrative.' This has the effect of shifting
the emphasis of argument from truths which can be verified to
'narratives' that can be manufactured." Peter Oborne accuses
New Labour of latching on to this. |
|
|
During the lengthy debates in the House of Lords on the Mental Capacity Bill (now an Act), the Minister of State for Constitutional Affairs, Baroness Ashton of Upholland, proved a veritable Scheherezade with her narrative. If any meaningful amendment had been passed the Bill might have fallen for lack of time, because the Commons (owing to the Labour Whip) would not have accepted it. With her charming and tireless exposition of the story of the Bill, she staved off that possibility and enchanted most of the Bishops and Peers. Bishop of St. Albans, 24th March: (Hansard)
I want to place on record my personal belief that this is a very
reasonable Bill. It is noble and humane in its purpose and will
ensure that the most vulnerable in our society, which can be
and may be each one of us here today, are accorded the dignity
and respect that is coterminous with being human. So I wish the
Bill every success on its journey. |
|
|
Charles Moore, in the Spectator of 23rd April 2005, reported "Because of the election various Bills were dropped in the Parliamentary 'wash-up'. One that made it to the Statute Book was the Mental Incapacity Bill, which provides for certain types of euthanasia. I had dinner that night with an MP who had just voted against it. "We've just voted tonight to be
free to starve old ladies to death," he said. "If any
of us did that to a dog, we'd be thrown out of the House of Commons." |
|
|
In the High Court in July 2004 Mr. Justice Munby ruled that Leslie Burke should be able to request tube feeding and hydration in advance of its becoming necessary - and receive it - as well as being able to refuse. The Dept of Health was so appalled by this that they intervened in the Appeal by the General Medical Council. Their solicitor in applying for leave wrote: "The Secretary of State would wish to put before the Court evidence of the actual cost of ANH to individual cases and the incidence of the provision of ANH (or artificial nutrition and hydration on their own) in NHS hospitals. Again, it is the Secretary of State who is best placed to make these points, as they affect the NHS as a whole; and the Secretary of State who has perhaps the most direct interest (as ultimately the providing and paying party) in being able to address the Court on these matters." After a critical headline in the Daily Mail, Baroness Ashton told the House of Lords the only grounds on which the Dept. of Health had joined the appeal were that "the judgment could be read as allowing patients to request any life sustaining treatment, even if it was harmful to the patient or if the treatment was not available, such as a transplant or a very expensive experimental treatment that in the clinical judgment of doctors was not appropriate or in the patient's best interest." On 24th March in debates on the Mental Capacity Bill, when challenged by Lord (John) Patten to explain the discrepancy, she repeated the cover-up. However on 18th May, when the Burke case came to the Appeal Court, Mr. Sales, Counsel for the Dept. of Health, said that judges must respect the will of Parliament in the Mental Capacity Act. (The Doctors' Federation, also, was an Intervener in this case, with the Medical Ethics Alliance and ALERT.) Our solicitor's notes read: Mr. Sales: "In the light of the 2005 Act, we say it has superseded the [Munby] judgment. A patient has no right to demand a particular form of treatment, the Secretary of State has a question of resources, we say it is a remarkable feature that the Judge suppressed concerns re resources." Later: "Even if there are no resource concerns, there may still be contra-indications of application of ANH as treatment."(Emphasis ours) Our QC, Mr. Dingemans, made the point that the patient's best
interests and the resources of the NHS were separate issues.In
the Judgment handed down on 28th July 2005 which denied Leslie
Burke the right to food and water when he becomes unable to communicate,
resources were only mentioned once, and that was in quoting Judge
Munby (para 27). |
|
|
Apparently unaware of current hospital practice, the judges declared (para 34): "It seems to us that for a doctor deliberately to interrupt life-prolonging treatment in the face of a competent patient's expressed wish to be kept alive, with the "intention of thereby terminating the patient's life, would leave the doctor with no answer to a charge of murder." SOS-NHS - Patients in Danger has records of a number of variations on this scenario, sent by bereaved families, such as 'May 1 have a cup of tea?' followed only by sedation. Outside the Law Courts on 28th July one of their members, dressed as the Grim Reaper, held up a placard saying "SEDATE - DEHYDRATE - ELIMINATE." This part of the judgment, theoretically, gives them ground for recourse to the law. However, a very recent attempt to persuade the police to investigate a tragic death failed, like many previous ones, due to their deference to hospital doctors. "The Appeal Court decision has
created a dual system of justice, one for people who can speak
for themselves and another for those who can't." Wesley
J. Smith |
|
|
Lifesite News (22 Aug 05) reports: "Minutes from a meeting of the Portsmouth Trust board said 'The Trust would be prepared to go to the courts rather than send Charlotte to the intensive care unit. From past experience the court would agree with the doctors.'" On 25th August the Appeal Court duly backed the doctors, in spite of the evidence of Charlotte's recent progress. Judge Hedley will review his original decision in October. Fortunately Charlotte is now less likely to need ventilation. The Portsmouth Hospital Trust is the one criticised by the European Court in the case of David Glass. Baroness Warnock, mother of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, was quoted in the Daily Mail on 6 June 05 as stating that babies born prematurely should be allowed to die rather than risk growing up disabled. "Last year, she called for elderly people who are becoming a burden on their families or the state to 'sacrifice' themselves. "Julia Quenzler, of SOS-NHS - Patients
in Danger, said 'She wants the elderly to do the decent thing.
Now she is going to the other extreme and attacking our most
vulnerable children.'" |
|
|
"A landmine survivor has spoken out at a UN meeting against proposals to deny medical care to disabled people," SPUC reports in the Pro-Life Times, March 2005 "A new convention intended to enhance the rights of disabled people is being used by the EU to argue for a ban on 'forced medical interventions' which could include life-saving medical care for people who cannot consent to treatment because they are unconscious or disabled." This fits in well with the Judgment in
the Appeal Court is Leslie Burke's case. (He only has a right
to food and water as long as he is able to communicate.) |
|
|
One of the most inspiring stories of the past year was the magnificent, doomed effort by so many people in the USA to save the life of Terri Schindler-Schiavo, condemned to die of thirst - as many other patients are, behind closed doors. Her death in a 'Hospice' and the bias of much of the U.S. media, have shown how serious the challenge is to medical ethics at the present time. Our euthanasia action group, First Do No
Harm, is offering an Annual 'Schindler Prize' of £500,
in honour of Terri's faithful parents, for the best attempt by
a doctor of an attempt like theirs to save life, successful or
not. Dr. Richard Lamerton is a trustee of the fund, together
with Sir Adrian FitzGerald Bt, Dr. Mary Knowles; and Dr. Jane
Campbell, of the Disability Rights Commission, has agreed to
join us, which is a great honour. The prize will shortly be advertised. |
|
|
Lifenews reported on 1 Apr. 05: "Polls leading up to the death of Terri Schiavo made it appear Americans had formed a consensus in favour of ending her life. However, a new Zogby poll with fairer questions shows the nation clearly supporting Terri and her parents and wanting to protect the lives of other disabled patients. "The Zogby poll found that, if a person becomes incapacitated and has not expressed their preference for medical treatment, as in Terri's case, 43 per cent say "the law presumes that the person wants to live, even if the person is receiving food and water through a tube," while just 30 percent disagree. "Another Zogby question hits directly on Terri's circumstances: "If a disabled person is not terminally ill, is not in a coma, and not being kept alive on life support, and they have no written directive, should or should they not be denied food and water," the poll asked. "A whopping 79 per cent said the patients should not have food and water taken away, while just 9 per cent said yes." However on 20 June 05 the American Medical
Association adopted a resolution opposing any legislation that
would make sure disabled and incapacitated patients are not refused
life-saving medical care. |
 |
|
Dr. William Hammesfahr, once described by the Florida Dept of Health as "the first physician to restore deficits caused by stroke," examined Terri Schiavo for ten hours during her lifetime. After the autopsy, publication of the results, which were converted by the media into a vindication of Michael Schiavo's description of Terri, Dr. Hammesfahr issued a statement. "... I have had a chance to look at Dr. Nelson's analysis of the brain tissue, and essentially, as a clinician, these are my thoughts. "The autopsy results confirmed my
opinion and Dr. Maxfield's opinions, that the frontal areas of
the brain, the areas that deal with awareness and cognition were
relatively intact. To use Dr. Nelson's words, 'relatively preserved'.
In fact, the relay areas from the frontal and front temporal
areas of the brain, to the spinal cord and the brain stem, by
way of the basal ganglia, were preserved, thus the evident responses
which she was able to express to her family and to the clinicians
seeing her or viewing her videotape. The Spect scan confirmed
these areas were functional and not scar tissue, and that was
apparently also confirmed on Dr. Nelson's review of the slides.
Dr. Maxfield's estimates of retained brain weight were apparently
accurate, although there may have been some loss of brain weight
due to the last two weeks of dehydration." |
|
|
On 8 Feb. 05 the New York Times reported "Thousands of brain-damaged people who are treated as if they are completely unaware may in fact hear and register what is going on around them but be unable to respond, a new brain-imaging study suggests. "The findings, if repeated in follow-up
experiments, could have sweeping implications for how to care
best for these patients. Some experts said the study, which appeared
yesterday in the journal Neurology, could also have consequence
for legal cases in which parties dispute the mental state of
an unresponsive patients." (fMRI reveals large-scale network
activation in minimally conscious patients, Neurology
2005; 64: 514-523.) |
|
