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

Read the original at news.com.au.

CHINA'S military is harvesting organs from unwilling live prison inmates, mostly Falungong practitioners, for transplants on a large scale - including to foreign recipients- according to a study.

The report's authors - Canada's former secretary of state for the Asia Pacific region David Kilgour and human rights lawyer David Matas - implicated dozens of hospitals and jails throughout China in July, after a two-month investigation.

Chinese officials denied those allegations.

Steven Ertelt

LifeNews.com Editor

January 30, 2007

London, England (LifeNews.com) -- Christians and Muslims came together for a pro-life conference on Saturday, proving that pro-life values extend beyond religious boundaries. The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, a leading British pro-life group, brought together the Bishop of Pontefract and members of the Indian Muslim Welfare Society.

The conference was held at the Al-Hickmah Centre and featured John Smeaton, national director of SPUC and Dr. A Majid Katme of the Islamic Medical Association in the UK.

The Times (London)

January 8, 2007, Monday

Scientists believe that they have found a way of gathering embryonic stem cells that does not harm the unborn child and may end the ethical storm surrounding the procedure.

Stem cells, which can grow into different types of tissue that can be used to regenerate damaged body parts, are usually harvested from embryos.

A breakthrough in the United States has shown that by using ammiotic fluid human stem cells could be harvested without killing the unborn foetus.

Daily Mail (London)

December 16, 2006 Saturday

It sounds beyond belief . . . newborn babies killed for their stem cells to create beauty products. But as this Special Report reveals, the evidence is both compelling and deeply distressing

THE PLASTIC bag looks as if it contains meat. But then a right leg is taken from it and placed surgically on the morgue table, followed by the left one. Then the torso. The head follows, a gaping cavity where the brain used to be.

But it is only when the gloved hand of the pathologist examines the tiny fingers of a baby aged about 30 weeks that the full horror of what I am witnessing sinks in.

Read the original at WorldNetDaily.com

A nurse practitioner whose license was suspended by the state of Alabama earlier after she was accused of illegally giving medical abortions without a doctor's supervision now is facing the possibility of time in jail and fines if convicted on three specific counts.

Janet F. Onthank King, 58, whose license was suspended along with that of abortionist Deborah Lyn Levich early in 2006, has been arrested by authorities in Jefferson County, Ala., on two counts of "knowingly or recklessly performing abortions as a non-physician."

From SPUC.

London, 28 November 2006 - The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC) has criticised the assertion, described in The Times newspaper as having been made by Ms Ann Furedi of BPAS, that having sex without repercussions is a right.

Paul Tully, SPUC general secretary, said: "The so-called right to have sex - and then to kill unborn children if they result - is a disturbing and sickening new argument from the pro-abortion lobby. It not only violates all sense of respect for the unborn child, but also demeans women, for whom abortion is often undertaken with huge reluctance because they feel they have no choice.

From SPUC.

London, 27 November 2006 - The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC) has responded to BPAS's call for abortion to be made more easily available.

Paul Tully, SPUC general secretary, said: "The BPAS, for its own ideological reasons, is pushing for abortion to become even more prevalent, and that is why they are calling for changes in the law. However, when 1,046 women were asked whether they supported either easier access to abortion or more support for women who wanted to keep their baby, only eight percent wanted easier abortion but 85% wanted more help for mums." (Six percent either did not know or declined to answer.)

LifeSiteNews.com

Tuesday November 21, 2006

Read the original here.

LONDON, November 20, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – In a statement yesterday Lord Falconer, the Lord Chancellor of England has warned doctors that they may face prison sentences if they refuse to starve and dehydrate patients to death. Criminal charges of assault could be laid against doctors or nurses who refuse to allow patients to die, even by removal of food and hydration tube.

LifeSiteNews.com

Tuesday November 21, 2006

Read the original here.

LONDON, November 20, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – In a statement yesterday Lord Falconer, the Lord Chancellor of England has warned doctors that they may face prison sentences if they refuse to starve and dehydrate patients to death. Criminal charges of assault could be laid against doctors or nurses who refuse to allow patients to die, even by removal of food and hydration tube.

Story from BBC NEWS

The 53-year-old, who has not been named, will be given zolpidem which early research has shown can bring people out of a vegetative state.

Her family do not want the test to go ahead, preferring to let her die, as she may be left seriously disabled.

But Sir Mark Potter, head of the High Court's family division, ruled against their wishes earlier this month.

From Herald Sun, 17 November 2006

A RIGHT to life group has attacked SBS for its plans to air a euthanasia documentary.

Do Not Resuscitate is a film about three Victorians with terminal or incurable illnesses who want to take their own lives.

But Right to Life Australia spokeswoman Margaret Tighe said SBS should not televise it.

"A Licence to Kill would be a more appropriate title for this film," Ms Tighe said. "I think this documentary is very dangerous and harmful and it will unfortunately encourage some people watching it to take steps to end their lifes."

If only medicine were this simple in practice. If only our moral responsibility towards premature babies - and their parents for that matter - was this easily satisfied. Born on Day X, we will allow you to live. Born on Day Y, and I'm afraid not. Decision from above, you see; it's in the book - and we have to go by the book.

THE full extent of the legal chaos surrounding the rights of the unborn was laid bare last night.

This followed a ruling in which a Dublin mother lost her High Court battle to have three embryos implanted in her womb against the wishes of her estranged husband.

The ruling highlights the Government's failure to:

* Define what unborn means.

* Regulate the assisted-pregnancy industry.

* Legislate on abortion.

* Cope with the massive implications of stem cell research, cloning, genetic screening and selection.

The legal and political faultlines were exposed by the High Court judge who handed down yesterday's ruling over the fate of the frozen embryos.

A sixth attempt will be made to introduce voluntary euthanasia legislation in South Australia, with independent MP Bob Such finalising a bill to go before state parliament.

Mr Such revealed his move on Tuesday, promising tighter safeguards in a bid to secure support from both Liberal and Labor MPs.

His attempt will be the sixth to pass right-to-die legislation since the first bill was introduced in 1995.

Read the original article here.

October 29, 2006

The political strategy of pro-cloners and pro ESCR advocates to conflate “stem cell research” with “embryonic stem cell research”–as Michael J. Fox did in his deceptive ads–may be causing very real, if unintended, harm to human patients. Apparently some people confuse embryonic stem cell research from bone marrow stem cells, to the point that those seeking to add names to the bone marrow donation registry are having trouble meeting their recruitment goals. From the story:

‘Our need is so much larger than the transplants that we do,’ [Julie] Tilbury [coordinator of the National Marrow Donor Program for the Rock River Valley Blood Center] said. ‘The biggest challenge is we just don’t have the donors.’ Tilbury said confusion about the difference between adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells is one barrier to convincing people to join the registry. ‘Often times, when you hear stem cells, there’s a belief that there’s only one type of stem cells–those that come from embryos,’ she said. ‘The reality is that there are so many different sources of stem cells. Our marrow is one source.’

The sowing of confusion to win a political debate, so that “stem cell research” is used as a synonym for “embryonic stem cell research” is not only dishonest, but it could be dangerous to sick people’s health.

Posted by Wesley J. Smith

The Big Stem-Cell Breakthrough
That you're not hearing about . . .
by Wesley J. Smith
10/31/2006 12:12:00 PM

DID YOU SEE THE SIZE OF THOSE HEADLINES? "Stem Cells Used to Create Artificial Liver," the New York Times screamed on its front page. "Breakthrough! Stem Cells to One Day Create Organ for Liver Transplant," was how the Washington Post put it. "Stem Cell Breakthrough Demonstrates Viability of New Science," yelled the Los Angeles Times. "Stem Cell Hope for People with Liver Disease," agreed USA Today. The story was so big that Katie Couric narrated a special report, expressing her profound gratitude for the hope these dedicated stem-cell scientists had brought to suffering humanity.

What's that? You didn't see those headlines? You say you somehow missed the story? Well, don't blame yourself. You are not out of touch. The above headlines never appeared, the stories have not been written.

From issue 2574 of New Scientist magazine, 21 October 2006, page 7. Original here

Don't say cloning, say somatic cell nuclear transfer. That at least is the view of biologists who want the term to be used instead of "therapeutic cloning" to describe the technique that produces cloned embryos from which stem cells can then be isolated. This, they argue, will help to distinguish it from attempts to clone a human being.

But will it? Kathy Hudson and her colleagues at the Genetics and Public Policy Center in Washington DC asked more than 2000 Americans whether they approved of deriving stem cells from embryos produced by cloning. For half of the sample they used the term "SCNT" instead of "cloning", and this raised approval ratings from 29 per cent to 46 per cent, Hudson told a meeting of the American Society of Human Genetics in New Orleans last week.

SCNT would also be used in any attempt to clone a human being, so Hudson also asked about creating babies using SCNT. This too raised the approval rate from 10 per cent to 24 per cent - which is not what scientists had in mind.