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

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 and abortion services was a significant barrier to the Government's aim of reducing teenage pregnancy rates.

"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.

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).

"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.)

Soon after the British Medical Association at its Annual Representative Meeting on 30 June 05 opted for neutrality on the question of assisted suicide (after a manipulated vote), the New Zealand Medical Association voted to maintain its opposition.

Family Life International said in a press release on 1 Aug. 05:

"As New Zealanders we are renowned for celebrating those who fight against the odds and battle adversity with courage. The NZ Medical Association's decision to oppose euthanasia affirms that it would be detrimental to our country if we were to legalise any act that would allow people simply to give up on life without even so much as a struggle."

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.)

Nancy Valko quotes the Post of 31 Aug 05:

"Feeding tubes and nutritional formula aren't optional for thousands of Missourians with severe brain damage or disabilities. Without them, people can't eat.

"But beginning tomorrow, Missouri Medicaid no longer will pay for them. Nor will it pay for breathing machines for people with respiratory failure; for canes, crutches and walkers; for cushions to prevent life-threatening bedsores; or for wheelchair batteries....

"Patients who are losing feeding tubes and other equipment have been told they can file appeals. As of last Wednesday, 1,048 people had filed appeals. Of the 427 appeal hearings held, the patient lost in 396 of them."

Stephen Drake, research analyst for Not Dead Yet, has said: "People on the right are killing us slowly with cuts to the budget and Medicaid while people on the left kill us quickly and call it 'compassion' - either way we end up dead - AND WE OBJECT."

"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."

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."