British Section of the World Federation of Doctors Who Respect Human Life

From C-fam.org

By Austin Rose

(C-FAM – WASHINGTON, DC) The pro-abortion law group the Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR) has already called for President-elect Barrack Obama to renew America’s commitment to “reproductive rights” which, according to CRR, prominently includes a right to abortion. It is likely the new president will work almost immediately to correct what his ideological allies like CRR view as multiple mistakes of the Bush administration with regard to international social policy.

By Wesley J. Smith

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 06, 2008

One of the most important services that medical professionals can offer to the people they serve, I think, is to declare their offices and facilities to be "assisted suicide free zones." Indeed, I hope that medical organizations create plaques and certificates to that doctors and health care facilities can mount on office walls.

Some hospitals are already on this bandwagon, declaring that assisted suicides will not be permitted on premises: From the story:

While Washington voters made it legal for doctors to help terminally ill residents end their lives, opponents of the assisted suicide measure indicated Wednesday they will continue to resist the practice...Eastern Washington's largest hospital system, Providence Health and Services, will forbid physicians from helping patients die at its hospitals, nursing homes and assisted care centers. "Providence will not support physician-assisted suicide within its ministries," the owner of Sacred Heart Medical Center and Holy Family Hospital said in a prepared statement. "This position is grounded in our basic values of respect for the sacredness of life, compassionate care of dying and vulnerable persons, and respect for the integrity of medical, nursing and allied health professions. We do not believe health care providers should ever be put in a position of aiding a patient in taking his or her own life."

This is important. Medical professionals must resist turning killing (which means to end life) into a medical treatment. None can be forced (yet) to participate. Such modeling may save lives of people who, thanks to the continued professionals of non participating medical professionals, will never ask for assisted suicide. And it will give courage to others to resist the culture of death that this way comes.

Of course, eventually the ideologues will try and force people to participate or be complicit in the killing, as I have written here at SHS. In the end, the culture of death brooks no dissent. But dissent we must, and resist we will.

Daniel James's death is a tragic end to his very sad story.

Suicide attempted in the months following an accident resulting in paralysis in a young man is far from unusual. The awful truth about his future can only be faced if there is adequate support from family and friends around the clock. Psychiatric help is essential with an on going commitment.

Suicide is not a punishable offence in law. Assisted suicide is different, it involves another person often a relative who is emotionally involved and may be blackmailed into believing that they are being compassionate and caring. The unfortunate victim has no chance of allowing second thoughts to change his mind.

Allowing assisted suicide is a pernicious ideology.

Mary Knowles

Daily Telegraph

Sir – As a Catholic, a Jew, and a humanist, with shared values in the area of medicine and ethics, we strongly support medical research using human tissue.

We encourage people, if they have the opportunity, to donate blood or tissue samples to “tissue banks”.

However, in 2008 it is an outmoded concept to expect people to allow blood or tissue to be used without consent.

Britain has led the way in promoting effective procedures to ensure this, via the Human Tissue Authority.

We believe that we should continue to show such leadership: so, if the research is itself controversial, then we expect that the right to “conscientious objection” – for both donor and doctor – should be respected.

We regret that this week the Commons did not amend the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill to incorporate a robust consent clause.

If this is not corrected, then we believe that prospective donors will be discouraged from donating to tissue banks.

We have differing perspectives on human-animal hybridisation, but share the concern: how can people trust in science if their tissue can be used in this way without their consent?

“Presumed consent” is no consent at all.

Professor David Albert Jones, St Mary’s University College, Twickenham

Professor David Katz, University College London Medical School; Dr David King Director, Human Genetics Alert

Sunday Telegraph

By Laura Donnelly, Health Correspondent

On Wednesday MPs will vote on a bill which would allow the creation of human/animal hybrid embryos to be used for stem cell research, change the conditions for granting IVF, and possibly liberalise the abortion laws.

The passage through Parliament of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill has been dogged by controversy. Failed attempts to outlaw late abortion have dominated the debate, while scientists, medical ethics experts and religious leaders have clashed over the hybrid embryo issue.

Defenders of the bill have repeatedly stressed the importance of gaining consent from anyone whose tissue is taken for the creation of human/animal hybrid embryos.

It can now be revealed that a Government amendment, agreed after the main parliamentary debates, would allow tissue to be used from people who lack the "mental capacity" to give consent, children whose parents give permission, and anyone who has previously donated samples to hospitals for medical research but can no longer be traced.

Medical ethics experts and religious leaders are furious that the provisions, which they say ride roughshod over basic human rights, have already been agreed by an all-party committee of 17 MPs charged with scrutinising the bill, without any public debate or discussion in the main chambers of Parliament.

Prof David Jones, director of the Centre for Bioethics and Emerging Technologies at St Mary's University College, London, said: "In May we had a public debate about whether or not it is a good thing to create hybrid embryos.

"Now it transpires that just weeks later, with no public debate at all, the Government inserted these amendments which cross a fundamental line in medical ethics by presuming consent in many cases. I think it is totally objectionable, and I really worry that this will create a backlash against medical research."

He said he feared that someone who had strong ethical concerns about the creation of embryos could have their original wishes overruled, if they developed a disease such as Alzheimers and decisions about consent were taken by someone who did not know them.

Prof John Haldane, director of the Centre for Philosophy and Public Affairs at the University of St Andrews, described the draft legislation as a "mess" which would sweep away 25 years of progress in medical ethics.

"The most intimate thing over which you have control is your body and its fate; and this is total violation of that basic right," he said.

Under the amendment, if a person was deemed unable to give consent their carer would make a decision on their behalf. If the person did not have a carer, researchers would nominate a person to make the judgement. If scientists wanted to use human tissues already donated for research, perhaps during a medical procedure, but were unable to trace the donors because the research had been anonymised or the person had moved house, the samples could also be used.

Labour MP Dr Ian Gibson, one of the members of the committee which passed the amendments proposed by public health minister Dawn Primarolo, said he feared that major changes were being made with little consideration by Parliament and almost no public debate.

"I am really worried that this whole debate has become hijacked by the issue of abortion, and that really significant issues like this have not had a good airing, and are unlikely to do so this week when the bill gets to its final stage, despite the fact this is a once-in-a-lifetime chance to make some fundamental decisions," he said.

Dr Gibson said he personally opposed any use of tissue without consent. "There has to be consent, there can be no substitution for it. If you are not sure it is what the person would have wanted, that is just not good enough," he said.

Jim McManus, from the Catholic Bishops Conference of England and Wales, described the changes to the bill as a "macabre" prospect. He said: "This is a reckless step backwards, and it rides roughshod over a basic human right."

Scientists say combining animal embryos with human cells would allow an expansion in research, which is currently limited by numbers of donations of human embryos.

Catherine Elliot, from the Medical Research Council, said such research could provide a "powerful tool" to examine the development and treatment of different diseases. She said research would "rarely" be carried out without consent, because under the amendment, ethics committees must be satisfied the same research could not have been carried out using tissue from patients who had granted permission.

Charities representing people with degenerative diseases and learning disabilities last night said they knew little about the changes to the bill, which have received almost no publicity.

Mencap and The Motor Neurone Disease Association said they would now be studying the amendment, while the Alzheimer's Society expressed some reservations, but said it was optimistic that ethics committees would take cautious decisions about the use of tissue if consent had not been obtained.

A counter-amendment, deleting the changes to consent, has been listed for the bill's final debate on Wednesday, but campaigners fear it is unlikely to be discussed, as it is one of dozens vying to be chosen for the bill's final debate before MPs vote.

The Department of Health said the amendment came in response to concerns raised in the House of Lords about the use of cells from children who were not able to give consent, and adults who lacked mental capacity to consent to research into serious illnesses from which they suffered.

A spokesman said ministers were satisfied that a case had been made which justified limited exceptions from the European Convention on Human Rights.

Although MPs have been given a free vote on some aspects of the bill, including the clauses governing the creation of hybrid embryos, Labour MPs will be under a three-line whip to support the changes on consent, which are dealt with in a separate part of the legislation.

By: Wesley J. Smith

The Swiss have overtaken the Dutch as the prime harbingers of things to come in the Culture of Death. As it grants individual intrinsic dignity to plants, its Supreme Court declared a constitutional right to assisted suicide for the mentally ill. Now, a debate is opening, the end point of which is to force all nursing homes and hospitals to permit assisted suicides to take place on premises. From the story:

In 2007 Exit carried out 245 assisted suicides by Swiss or foreign nationals living in Switzerland. Exit assists only Swiss residents and usually goes to them in their own homes.

But Lausanne and Geneva university hospitals and several nursing homes also allow assisted suicide on their premises. Out of the 66 assisted suicides in French-speaking Switzerland last year, five took place in old people's homes.

Jérôme Sobel, president of Exit for French-speaking Switzerland, told Swissinfo that the five cases "took place normally", but said some homes do not allow the practice at all or put up obstacles. The purpose of the initiative is to put pressure on them to ensure that terminally ill patients' full rights are respected. "We have encountered major difficulties on several occasions," he explained. "When we go to a nursing home to help someone there shouldn't be a stand-off each time with the directors."

Exit's initiative asks for nursing homes receiving state subsidies to allow elderly residents to receive assistance to suicide if they request it, in accordance with article 115 of the Swiss Penal Code and article 34 of Vaud's cantonal Penal Code. "When a nursing home stops us, they are contravening the law," said Sobel. Exit has until February 3, 2009 to collect 12,000 signatures in canton Vaud to force a local vote on the issue.

That would make dissenting facilities complicit in suicide, of course, which is the point.

The Swiss proposal is not an isolated incident. As I wrote here at SHS and elsewhere, the last assisted suicide legislation in California, that did not pass, would also have required all health care facilities but acute care hospitals to permit assisted suicide on premises, with no exemption for religious or moral objection allowed, meaning that Catholic nursing homes (as but one example) would have been forced to permit their patients to be helped in suicide.

As the Culture of Death gains strength, expect more of this kind of coercion, an approach already occurring in other issues, both to ensure that all are complicit and to stifle the silent message of dissent that non cooperation with the agenda sends. The Culture of Death demands that obeisance from all.

By: Wesley J. Smith

The Swiss have overtaken the Dutch as the prime harbingers of things to come in the Culture of Death. As it grants individual intrinsic dignity to plants, its Supreme Court declared a constitutional right to assisted suicide for the mentally ill. Now, a debate is opening, the end point of which is to force all nursing homes and hospitals to permit assisted suicides to take place on premises. From the story:

In 2007 Exit carried out 245 assisted suicides by Swiss or foreign nationals living in Switzerland. Exit assists only Swiss residents and usually goes to them in their own homes.

But Lausanne and Geneva university hospitals and several nursing homes also allow assisted suicide on their premises. Out of the 66 assisted suicides in French-speaking Switzerland last year, five took place in old people's homes.

Jérôme Sobel, president of Exit for French-speaking Switzerland, told Swissinfo that the five cases "took place normally", but said some homes do not allow the practice at all or put up obstacles. The purpose of the initiative is to put pressure on them to ensure that terminally ill patients' full rights are respected. "We have encountered major difficulties on several occasions," he explained. "When we go to a nursing home to help someone there shouldn't be a stand-off each time with the directors."

Exit's initiative asks for nursing homes receiving state subsidies to allow elderly residents to receive assistance to suicide if they request it, in accordance with article 115 of the Swiss Penal Code and article 34 of Vaud's cantonal Penal Code. "When a nursing home stops us, they are contravening the law," said Sobel. Exit has until February 3, 2009 to collect 12,000 signatures in canton Vaud to force a local vote on the issue.

That would make dissenting facilities complicit in suicide, of course, which is the point.

The Swiss proposal is not an isolated incident. As I wrote here at SHS and elsewhere, the last assisted suicide legislation in California, that did not pass, would also have required all health care facilities but acute care hospitals to permit assisted suicide on premises, with no exemption for religious or moral objection allowed, meaning that Catholic nursing homes (as but one example) would have been forced to permit their patients to be helped in suicide.

As the Culture of Death gains strength, expect more of this kind of coercion, an approach already occurring in other issues, both to ensure that all are complicit and to stifle the silent message of dissent that non cooperation with the agenda sends. The Culture of Death demands that obeisance from all.

Daily Telegraph

By Roger Highfield, Science Editor

A safer way to turn one kind of cell into another has been developed that could make it much easier to develop revolutionary new treatments based on stem cells.

By Wesley J. Smith

Barach Obama has been accused of opposing the Infant Born Alive Protection Act, which requires hospitals and doctors to treat the survivors of attempted abortion. He denies this despite having refused repeatedly to vote for the Illinois versions.

This 2001 transcript, pp.86-87, is telling. Expressing a hyper-legalism to avoid grappling with the issue, Obama argued against the legislation, stating:

The second reason that it would probably be found unconstitutional is that this essentially says that a doctor is required to provide treatment for a previable child or fetus, however way you want to describe it. Viability is the line that has been drawn by the Supreme Court to determine whether or not an abortion can or cannot take place. And if we place the burden on the doctor, that says you have to keep alive even a previable child as long as possible and give them as much medical attention--as is necessary to try to keep the child alive, then we're probably crossing the line in terms of unconstitutionality.

"A previable child or fetus, however way you want to describe it"? Once the child is delivered, he or she is an infant, not a fetus. And the requirement that a living baby be treated once delivered, has nothing to do with abortion or the woman's right to the same. So, it seems to me that the only way to read Obama's statement is that he doesn't believe that abortion survivors should have to be treated as fully human beings.

And how's this for leadership? After making his statement, after asserting that the bill is unconstitutional, Obama said:

I think that we will probably end up in court once again, as we often do on this issue. And as a consequence, I'll be voting Present.

The courage to lead!

By: Wesley J. Smith

This YouTube video demonstrates the garbage thrown by animal rights activists and those who make a quasi-religion out of the environment.

Governor Sarah Palin does indeed, support aerial hunting of wolves. But not for fun (and she has never done it). The point is predator control, as an article in Slate (http://www.slate.com/id/2199140) points out that aerial hunting is against federal law and is only permitted to control predators. Moreover, in Alaska permits are given only "in select areas" where moose and caribou populations are threatened. The article says this leaves more meat for human hunters. I don't doubt that, and I see nothing wrong with it. Subsistence hunting is a mainstay for some Alaskans' diets. But it would also seem that the hunts, which have controlled numbers of permitted kills, are also conducted as a matter of proper ecosystem management.

By: Wesley J. Smith

According to a UK study, the concerted drive to prenatally detect Down syndrome or other anomalies through genetic testing aimed at eugenic abortion is also causing the deaths of babies who have no disabling condition through miscarriage. From the story:

Two healthy babies are miscarried for every three Down's Syndrome babies that are detected and prevented from being born, research has suggested...

DSEI chief executive Frank Buckley and Professor Sue Buckley, who conducted their research using a database at London's Bart's Hospital, also point out that 95 per cent of women deemed to be high risk by the blood test will not be carrying a baby with the disorder, yet most go on to have the tests.

"The screening for Down's syndrome has consequences for every pregnant woman," they said. "You cannot look at it as just a search-and-destroy mission focused on babies with Down's alone."

Although they admit that their ratio is only an estimate, they are backed by a number of independent experts who fear inexperienced practitioners may also be to blame. Professor Kypros Nicolaides, head of the Harris Birthright Centre at King's College Hospital in south London, said the loss of healthy babies was "completely unacceptable"

"Search and destroy," yup that's a good description of an ugly process, with the unaffected babies apparently the collateral damage.

Here's an idea: How about not trying to destroy these babies in the first place and then the others will be safe, too.

By Rita L. Marker

Oregon seems to have found a surefire way to lower health care costs: Tell the patient you'll pay for drugs that will end her life, but not those that would extend her life.  Here's how it works:

• The oral requests, which must be separated by fifteen days, do not need to be witnessed. In fact, they don't even have to be made in person. They could be made by phone - even left on the physician's answering device. The written request must be witnessed, but it could be mailed or faxed to the doctor.

• The law states that the physician is to "recommend that the patient notify next of kin," but family notification is not required. It is entirely possible that the first time family members find out that a loved one was contemplating suicide could be after the death has occurred.

• Doctors can facilitate the suicides of mentally-ill or depressed patients without any prior counseling being provided. A psychiatric evaluation is required only if the physician believes that the mental illness or depression is causing impaired judgment. According to Oregon's latest official report, not one patient who died after taking the lethal drugs was referred for counseling prior to being given the prescription.

When all is said and done, it is not the intent of assisted-suicide supporters that matters.   Instead, it is the law's deadly content and the inevitable price that we would all pay for health care cost containment - Oregon style.

From the Daily Telegraph,

18 July 2008

A nurse has been cautioned but allowed to continue practising after she gave a chemical abortion to the wrong woman.

Ann Downer, 44, gave the drugs to a woman who had only gone into the clinic for an initial consultation following a mix-up over patient names.

She had not decided to have a termination when Downer gave her a dose of Misoprostol at the Calthorpe Clinic in Edgbaston, Birmingham.

Downer failed to check the patient's personal details to verify her identity before she administered the drug.

An NMC spokesman said the committee was told that the clinic's usual practice was to only call out first names of patients to protect their confidentiality while in the waiting room.

Once the patient was in a private room, other details, like their full name, date of birth and address, were checked to make sure they were the person the nurse was expecting.

The patient was only due to have an initial consultation, which would have involved a consultation with a doctor, blood tests and a scan.

The second stage - in which Misoprostol was administered - would only follow if the patient and doctor gave consent.

When staff realised what had happened the distraught woman, referred to as Patient A in the hearing, was called back to the clinic "in pain".

Doctors subsequently advised her to undergo a surgical abortion.

Downer should have given the drugs to a second patient, Patient B, who was in the later stages of a termination.

Patient A attended the clinic on October 13, 2006.

Patient B, who had the same first name, was due to have the drugs for the second stage of her medical abortion - only undertaken on women who have been pregnant for less than nine weeks.

Patients at the first stage are given a tablet of Mifepristone to swallow, which stops the growth of the foetus.

At the second stage, women are given Misoprostol to complete the abortion.

Nailah Mears, for the NMC, told the panel Downer was in charge of treating patients at the second stage when the mix-up was made.

She said: "During the course of the morning, it was discovered Miss Downer had mistakenly administered the second visit treatment to Patient A instead of Patient B.

"The registrant failed to carry out proper identity checks, and as such did not realise the treatment was being given to the wrong patient."

Miss Mears also told the panel that Patient A was over the nine week gestation period limit for giving such early abortion tablets.

She said: "Once the mistake came to light, Patient A was asked to return to the clinic and was later transferred to Birmingham Women's Hospital.

"She was given an ultrasound, and that ultrasound showed that Patient A was over the nine week gestation period.

"That is very significant in determining whether the early medical abortion was appropriate. It was not appropriate in this case."

Nurse manager Evlyn Mike told the hearing: "They telephoned Patient A and asked her to return to the clinic. She did return. Apparently she was in pain, and obviously very upset."

Downer, from Browns Green, Birmingham, was not present at the hearing.

She had admitted giving the abortion drug to the wrong patient but had denied failing to obtain Patient A's consent to give her the drug.

Downer will have a caution on her record for the next three years.

The Conduct and Competence Committee, which met in London, said she can continue to practise but will have to declare the caution if she applies for a different job.

From the Daily Telegraph

14 July 2008

Sir- Sam Leith's article (Comment, July 12) is another depressing example of the absolutism of so-called liberals. They are liberal only with beliefs similar to theirs.

Surely, the point at issue in the case of the Islington registrar is that of respect for conscience. Such respect has for long been the hallmark of civilised nations and has especially characterised British society. Conscientious objection has a recognised place in the context of war. People cannot be forced, against their conscience, to participate in armed conflict, although, of course, they must contribute to society in other ways. Would Mr Leith remove this right, especially if it is, as it often is, based on religious belief?

I see the future for legislation very differently from Mr Leith. There must be more, not less, recognition of conscience in public law, whether that is on questions of adoption and of government support for the excellent work done by faith-based adoption agencies, or of participation in recent innovations such as civil partnership ceremonies, or, indeed, in carrying out certain kinds of medical research or procedures which are contrary to people's beliefs about the sanctity of the human person - and the public good.

It is such respect for conscience that should be at the heart of government policy regarding faith communities, rather than ill-conceived and misguided notions about the recognition of the religious law of particular communities in terms of the law of the land.

Michael Nazir-Ali, Bishop of Rochester

You can find this online at: http://www.c-fam.org/publications/id.650/pub_detail.asp

By Susan Yoshihara, Ph.D.

Part I: Power, Money, and Science Unite to Exterminate the World's Poor

(NEW YORK - C-FAM) A book recently published by Harvard University Press explains how eugenics united some of the richest and most powerful elites of the twentieth century into a movement "to remake humanity by controlling the population of the world," answering to no one and bringing untold misery upon the world's poor. The book, "Fatal Misconception: The Struggle to Control World Population," was written by Columbia University historian Matthew Connelly and shows why today's reproductive rights advocates are "faithfully reciting a eugenic catechism without the faintest idea where it comes from or where it can lead."

In 1952, at a secret, invitation-only gathering in Colonial Williamsburg, John D. Rockefeller III brought together what would become the modern population control establishment. Setting the agenda for the following decades were the heads of the United States Atomic Energy Commission, National Academy of Sciences, and top scientists "from embryology to economics," including past and present Nobel Prize winners.

Catholic Medical Association spokesman says, "This would spell the death of the rights of conscience"

 By Hilary White
 
LONDON, July 4, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The British Medical Association's (BMA) policy-making body will consider a proposal to remove the rights of conscience that allow doctors to refuse to commit or refer women for abortions. The proposal will be considered at the BMA's upcoming Annual General Meeting, 7-10 July.
 
Dr. Tony Cole, of the Catholic Medical Association, said, "This would spell the death of the rights of conscience. This takes away the right of conscience already guaranteed by statute. This is open to legal challenge."
 
Dr. Cole's comments were supported by Dr. Majid Khatme of the Islamic Medical Association, who said Muslim doctors were "very unhappy" about the scheme. "You cannot force me, as a doctor, to do things against my conscience. Something very dangerous is going on," he said.
 
The motion was proposed for the BMA's forthcoming Annual General Meeting by Dr. Evan Harris, the Liberal Democrat MP and medical doctor who is known to colleagues as "Dr. Death" for his eager support of unlimited abortion and euthanasia. Dr. Harris is a member of the British Medical Association (BMA) Medical Ethics Committee.
 
Dr. Harris's motion proposes to change the rules so that doctors with conscientious objection to abortion may not see patients with unplanned pregnancies. The motion would force them to refer women wanting abortions to other doctors. To do this, it proposes to reinterpret the General Medical Council guidance on personal belief and clinical practice.
 
Catholic doctors said they will argue at the meeting that it would be unlawful to deny the right of conscientious objection that is enshrined in Section 4 of Britain's 1967 Abortion Act. Dr. Cole added, "A doctor whose conditions of service (were) affected by this might be able to seek redress through the courts."
 
Cardiff Archbishop Peter Smith, the head of the Department of Christian Responsibility and Citizenship of the Catholic Bishops' Conference of England and Wales, said, "The right of conscience is a fundamental human right. The doctor's right to act according to his conscience remains firmly embedded both in medical practice and in the law."
 
The British Medical Association is one of the most ardent supporters of abortion in the UK. At last year's conference, the membership at the annual conference voted 67 percent to 33 percent to remove the necessity for two doctors to sign approval for abortions.
 
Dr. Harris also tabled an amendment to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, that moves on to the final Report Stage in Parliament next week, to remove the need for two doctors to sign consent to an abortion.

By Hilary White

LONDON, July 3, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Doubtless in anticipation of the apparently imminent passage of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, the UK's embryo research authority has granted a license to scientists to begin work to create human/pig cloned hybrid embryos. The Labour government's proposed bill, however, would, if passed into law, do away with the necessity of researchers even asking for individual licenses.

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) granted the license to the Clinical Sciences Research Institute, University of Warwick, who want to make the embryos in order to produce embryonic stem cells.

Professor Justin St. John told the Daily Telegraph: "We will take skin cells from patients who have a mutation for certain kinds of heart disease...and put them into pig eggs after their chromosomes have been removed. We will then make embryos so that we can attempt to derive embryonic stem cells which will allow us to study some of the molecular mechanisms associated with these heart diseases."

The researchers say they hope to use the cells to learn the origins and workings of certain types of heart disease and provide models for drug testing. "We will effectively be creating and studying these diseases in a dish," Professor St. John said.

The initial stages of the research will be focused on learning to create human/animal hybrid clones more efficiently.

The Christian Legal Centre responded to the announcement with a warning that this was only a "foretaste of things to come." Andrea Minichiello Williams, Director of the Christian Legal Centre, also argued that the 1990 Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act does not give the HFEA the power to grant such licences.

"The HFEA has not met the 1990 Act's stringent standards for granting licences, in as much as these licences are neither 'necessary' nor 'desirable'," said Mrs Williams.

"No significant advances have been made in embryonic stem cell research, while great advances in disease treatment have been seen in research on adult stem cells and umbilical cord blood cells," she said.

"When other viable alternatives to such controversial research already exist, such as human induced pluripotent stem cells, then it cannot be claimed that such new research is either necessary or desirable."

The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC) have called on supporters to contact their MPs to defeat the HFE bill, currently moving into its final stages in Parliament.

Mrs. Williams added, "When we are talking about making human pig clones, we should lament our dulling of conscience as a society which permits such embryos to exist. This underscores the deplorable state of bioethics in which the UK now finds itself."

London, England (LifeNews.com) -- After medical associations in the United States caused headaches for pro-life doctors by potentially approving a policy requiring abortion referrals for accreditation, now pro-life physicians in England are concerned. Dr. Evan Harris, the pro-abortion MP and member of the British Medical Association Medical Ethics Committee, has tabled a motion for the BMA's forthcoming Annual General Meeting July 7-10. According to the leading British pro-life group SPUC, the Society for the Protection of the Unborn, Harris's motion would marginalize doctors with a conscientious objection to abortion, specifically by effectively barring them from seeing patients with unplanned pregnancies. The Christian Medical Fellowship led by Dr. Peter Saunders, has published a comprehensive analysis of Harris's motion and his parliamentary agenda for more abortion, according to SPUC director John Smeaton. Meanwhile, two medical students went skydiving on Saturday to raise awareness of the pressure on medical staff to take part in abortion against their consciences. Siobhan Fearon and Abigail Smith, both 19, did the jump parachute jump in Lancashire, England. Smith recently wrote, “I had to help a close friend deal with the after-effects of an abortion. Seeing first-hand the impact an abortion has on such a young life has really challenged my views on the procedure. It has made me more determined to help women make sure that they make the right decision for them and their unborn child when faced with crisis pregnancies in my career." The event will raise money for SPUC through sponsorship.

From Wesley J. Smith

Big money is out there for the brightest minds to shove utilitarianism and the goal of human enhancement down our throats. Australian Professor Julian Savulescu (now in the UK)--who I have seen debate and believe me he is one scary cat--has just picked up an 800 thousand pound grant to begin a eugenics, er neuroethics, center at Oxford. From Bioedge's report:

Professor Savulescu said: “Neuroscience studies the brain and mind, and thereby some of the most profound aspects of human existence. In the last decade, advances in imaging and manipulating the brain have raised ethical challenges, particularly about the moral limits of the use of such technology, leading to the new discipline of neuroethics.

Professor Savulescu has become notorious for arguing that we should genetically enhance the human species by improving IQ, behaviour, mood, character and morality. “Biological manipulation to increase opportunity is ethical,� he once said. If we have an obligation to treat and prevent disease, we have an obligation to try to manipulate these characteristics to give an individual the best opportunity of the best life.� He has even argued that parents have a moral responsibility to select the best children they could have. It will be interesting to see what sort of ideas about brain manipulation will emerge from the well-funded new centre

So, they make up a new field whole cloth dedicated to destroying universal human equality and the intrinsic worth of merely being human and the money comes pouring in. And with the money and the prestigious academic affiliation comes awesome power to influence young and bright minds who are society's leaders of tomorrow. And, being very bright, they see which way the financial winds are blowing and what they need to believe--or say they believe-in order to climb the ladder of success.

What chance do you think there would be for someone as bright as Savulescu, and with the same credentials, to receive such major funding and Oxford offices if he held opposite views? Good luck with that and don't call us, we'll call you.

But that's the high academy/foundation nexus today. And these folk are determined to tear down what they consider the ancien regime. And unless "the folk" stand up to it, the forces that be will bulldoze the very concept of universal human rights directly into a landfill--claiming as they go that they are the "enlightened" ones, the "brights."

This is exactly how it was with the first eugenics movement. The people who paid were not the connected but the powerless. And those who urged their sterilization and even killing were at the top of the social/academic/political/legal and even liberal religious heaps.

Bitter? A bit, I admit. Scared? A lot.