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

A CORONER investigating the death of a woman allegedly starved and deprived of fluids in hospital has been asked to hold an inquest into the death of a patient on the same ward.

Relatives of Harold Speed believe that he died of dehydration, not pneumonia as his death certificate says. The 84-year-old former music teacher had been examined by the same doctor who treated Olive Nockels, who died after her drips were removed.

"The whole of my husband's stay in hospital was a nightmare," Kate Speed said.

Herald Sun, 3rd August 2006

One justification for Premier Bracks’ $250,000 expenditure on his luxury world tour earlier this year was that he had “secured a historic stem-cell agreement in the US....” (Herald-Sun 16/7/06). Taxpayers are entitled to details of this agreement because of Bracks’ well publicized ambition that Victoria break the states’ agreement with the Federal 2002 legislation banning human cloning. Bracks and Premier Beattie of Queensland, who harbours similar ambitions, are out of step with other state premiers and with Labor Party policy which bans cloning.

London, England (LifeNews.com) -- Two leading British scientists say that any potential cures from embryonic stem cell research are many years away, if they ever occur. They said that some of the hoopla created by the media and lawmakers who want to fund the controversial research has distorted the public view of it.

Professor Colin McGuckin, a specialist in regenerative medicine at the UK's Newcastle University, says the potential for embryonic stem cell research to cure diseases like Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease had been exaggerated.

(c) Copyright: LifeSiteNews.com.

WARSAW, Poland, July 24, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Polish parliament has issued a resolution against research using human embryos, in response to the European Union’s recent vote to provide funding for embryonic stem cell research.

Sejm, the lower chamber of the Polish parliament, issued the resolution, which passed with a strong majority of 341 votes in favour and only 47 against. 20 votes were withheld.

Original article available here.

JEFFERSON CITY - Feminists and Southern Baptists may seem like any unlikely alliance to some, but a growing number from both groups are joining forces in an effort to defeat a proposed amendment to the Missouri constitution that they see as a means of exploiting women.

Missourians Against Human Cloning (MAHC) is spearheading the battle against the "Stem Cell Research and Cures Initiative" on which Missourians will vote Nov. 7. Passage of the initiative would allow taxpayer funds to be used for embryonic stem cell research.

BMJ Rapid Response

By Dowager Marchioness of Salisbury,
Chair, CHOOSE LIFE
18 Chelsea Square, London SW3 6LF

One of the best-kept secrets of the past thirty-five years is that many women having abortions would actually prefer to give birth.

The recent survey of opinion carried out at the request of CHOOSE LIFE by Communication Research illustrated the part played by others in the decision to terminate a pregnancy, which is supposed to be the woman’s own choice.

An accepted belief, backed by successive Governments, has been that opting for abortion in difficult circumstances is the “responsible” decision. It is an unpleasant fact that most counsellors involved in the abortion business do not encourage the woman to keep her baby or offer help.

This attitude probably dates back to the Overpopulation scare of the 1960’s, and it is time for a change.

Eighty-five per cent of women want to see more help given to women who want to keep their baby, rather than further moves to make abortion easier. Eighty –seven percent think public funds should go to charities offering alternatives. Seventy-eight percent would like to see a compulsory cooling-off period between diagnosis of pregnancy and a termination, which is in direct opposition to the apparent official policy of “abort early and often,” with backing for RU 486 abortions at home.

Ninety-six percent of women want a right to be fully informed of the health risks involved in abortion. Eighty-four percent believe parents of girls under 16 should have the right to know if their daughter has been referred for a termination.

Present Government policy is inhumane, and is disliked by a large majority of women.

Baroness Williams of Crosby said in the House of Lords on 12 May 2006:

“… I have a letter from a distinguished nurse … saying that already under the terms of the Mental Capacity Act there has been a notable slip towards bringing the lives of some patients to an end. She writes from the hospital where she has worked for many years. ‘All of a sudden we nurses aren’t allowed to pass NG tubes unless the Consultant has approved it. This is just a new protocol since the Mental Capacity Act’. She goes on to say that she has been forbidden by consultants from sustaining life on the part of patients who have not asked to die. This is the slippery slope in practice, and is something we have to consider extremely seriously.”

SCHINDLER PRIZE

Robert and Mary Schindler, the parents of Terri Schiavo, fought for her life because they believed passionately in its infinite value. They stirred our memories of “Schindler’s List” in their unshakable respect for human life.

FIRST DO NO HARM, a doctors’ group who prefer care to killing, is offering an annual £500 prize to honour their name. It will be awarded to a doctor who provides the best account of any battle to save a life that has been dismissed as valueless.

Tell us about a patient who was unable to speak for himself or herself, a patient whose food and fluids were withdrawn, or who was suffering from dangerous neglect, and whose life someone tried to save. It does not matter whether the attempt was a success, provided that it was sustained and made in the belief in human value.

Of course the account would be anonymised before publication.

First Do No Harm, P.O. Box 17317, London SW3 4WJ.
Tel: 020 7730 3059
Fax: 020 7730 0818
e-mail This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it

Sir, It is not the right to die that is at issue (letter, June 29) as assisted suicide is illegal. What is disputed is whether anybody has the right to ask another person to kill them or assist in their suicide, and in particular whether the medical profession should be the agent of such deaths.

Reservations about the legalisation of euthanasia have some grounding in that there have been more than 200 cases of non-voluntary euthanasia in the Netherlands where there was no prior request. To put it in lay terms, people were killed without any request or consent either at the time or prior to the event, something which might be characterised as murder.

To suggest that those who cannot “do the things that make life enjoyable” should have a right to ask the medical profession to kill them or procure their deaths seems to me to be an unwarranted extension of respect for autonomy. In any event, why is it always assumed that euthanasia or assisted dying must be in the remit of the medical profession?

DR ANDREW LAWSON
Honorary Senior Lecturer, Medical Ethics
Imperial College

Copyright 2006 Western Mail and Echo Ltd
All Rights Reserved
Western Mail

June 30, 2006, Friday
First Edition

Campaigners have urged doctors not to take the first steps on a slippery slope which could see patients killed instead of treated.

Doctors against physician- assisted suicide and euthanasia have warned that a change in the law could see 'the final solution' being used as the only treatment option for sick and vulnerable patients.

The BMA's annual meeting yesterday voted in favour of changing the organisation's policy to oppose a change in the law - reversing last year's vote, which had seen the BMA take a more neutral stance.

Andrew Davies, a senior house officer working in oncology in Cardiff and the Vale of Glamorgan, said, 'My big concern is that a right to treat will be become a right to die and patients will feel they will have a duty to unburden their families.'

Copyright 2006 Associated Newspapers Ltd.
All Rights Reserved

DAILY MAIL (London)
June 30, 2006 Friday

By Jenny Hope

THE British Medical Association voted to oppose the legalisation of euthanasia yesterday after a revolt by its members.

Just a year after it was adopted, doctors overturned the controversial policy of a neutral approach to any change in the law.

The move followed claims by campaigners that the BMA was out of touch and isolated in the medical community.

Copyright 2006 Telegraph Group Limited
All Rights Reserved

The Daily Telegraph (LONDON)
June 30, 2006 Friday

Celia Hall Medical Editor

DOCTORS gave a clear message yesterday that they were opposed to all forms of assisted dying in a series of votes at the British Medical Association annual conference in Belfast.

The decision reversed the contentious BMA policy approved last year which had adopted a neutral position.

Original article available here.

For more information:
Stephen Drake,
708-209-1500, ext. 29

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

June 22, 2006 -- Today, sad and alarming news emerged from Tazewell County. The Peoria Journal-Star reported that Kellie Waremburg has been charged with the attempted murder of her daughter, who is four years old and has cerebral palsy. The police have released no details and have acted responsibly in limiting their comments to the press at this time.

We sincerely hope this allegation turns out to be untrue. And we are all hoping that the young girl pulls through this medical crisis.

But if it is true, it's time to demand that the media and parent "advocates" behave with more restraint and responsibility than they have in the coverage of the alleged murder of 3-year-old Katie McCarron by her mother.

Copyright 2006 Associated Newspapers Ltd. All Rights Reserved
Daily Mail (London)

MELANIE PHILLIPS

ONE OF the arguments against permitting mercy killing has always been the slippery slope scenario.

The fear is that if doctors were allowed to end people's lives at their request, we would quickly slide towards ending people's lives without their consent, a fearsome prospect for a civilised society.

Who could have foreseen that one of our most distinguished experts in medical ethics would himself not so much slide down that slippery slope but leap to the bottom in one go.

Len Doyal, formerly a professor of medical ethics and a member of the British Medical Association's ethics committee, actually called yesterday for doctors to be able actively to end patients' lives without their consent.

© Copyright 2006, News Corporation, Weekly Standard, All Rights Reserved.

Original here.

AT LAST A HIGH GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL in Europe got up the nerve to chastise the Dutch government for preparing to legalize infant euthanasia. Italy's Parliamentary Affairs minister, Carlo Giovanardi, said during a radio debate: "Nazi legislation and Hitler's ideas are reemerging in Europe via Dutch euthanasia laws and the debate on how to kill ill children."

Original article availabel here.

Op-Ed

Virtual Mentor. 2006; 8: 53-56.

On November 10, 2005, an article in The New England Journal of Medicine reported the increasing accuracy of first trimester screening for Down syndrome. The introduction of first trimester tests for the condition was heralded in 1998 by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHHD), as reducing complications for women who choose abortion. NICHHD reportedly spent $15 million on the study - presumably to fulfill its mission "to ensure that every person is born healthy and wanted." Of course, few children with trisomy 21 detected in the first trimester are likely to be born at all. NICHHD’s mission is also "to ensure that women suffer no harmful effects from reproductive processes," and that goal may also have provided a rationale for funding the research - many women might see the birth of a child with Down syndrome as a "harmful effect" of their pregnancy. We suggest that it is difficult to justify prenatal screening for disability on either of these grounds, as protecting the health of the fetus or child or as protecting women from harmful effects of reproduction.

By Jennifer Lahl

Today's LA Times is covering a story on four Japanese gang figures who received liver transplants at UCLA. The story raises all of the ethical issues surrounding organ donation and transplantation. How do we ethically share organs which are scarce and precious and needed for saving lives?

Access to organs has always raised ethical problems. Who is our neighbor, and how far do we need to open our borders and let people into the donor pool? The story states that these were Japanese bad dudes and one in particular, Tadamasa Goto, was allowed into the states in exchange for leads and information on Japanese criminal gangs. While here, he was in need of a liver transplant and the story goes that he "got a liver and was laughing back to where he came from." Laughing mainly because in exchange for useless information he got away with a life saving liver transplant. He took cuts and jumped the line.

Who's worthy of the much needed organ has also been part of the debate. Does the alcoholic in need of a liver transplant get put to the bottom of the list over a person who's had a chronic liver disease from birth? Or in this case, does the law abiding citizen get to move to the head of the line over the law breaker? The argument has often been that the system needs to be blind to criteria of worth because this is so subjective and slides us into suggesting people have a duty or obligation to die because their life is not worth living or their life is not worth saving. We certainly wouldn't suggest the converse. That we begin killing those on death row for their organs. Often blind lotteries are suggested after the medical criteria has been assessed. Does the organ match the recipient? When directly competing for the much needed organ, all things being equal, who needs the transplant most urgently?

And this debate often boils down to a discussion on the allocation of scarce resources. Fact is, we don't have enough organs to meet the needs of those waiting on lists for a transplant. This story states that 100 people died waiting on the list, while the bad guys got away with organs. So how do we divvy them up fairly?

What often makes people really queasy is just feeling that the current organ donation program isn't fair. Justice matters. One comment in the LA Times piece states what many people feel. They've chosen to opt out of the DMV pink dot organ donor program because the system is corrupt. The United Network of Organ Sharing should take notice that ethics do matter and that people do have an innate sense of injustice. Once the ethics are shored up, public confidence will be restored and people will probably be glad to put that pink dot back on their license.