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

The law to provide funds for destructive research in California having been held up by lawsuits brought by pro-lifers, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has promised $150 million for it from State funds.

“Deplorably, a minority of House members on July 18 blocked approval of a bill (S2754) which earlier had passed the senate unanimously, to encourage federal funding of research into methods of obtaining pluripotent stem cells without harming human embryos” (NRL News). National Right to Life’s Legislative Director Douglas Johnson commented “House members who blocked the alternatives bill are interested in funding only the type of stem research that kills human embryos. Any scientists that have ideas for alternatives need not apply. “And they call us ideologues”.

48% of Americans oppose federal funding of embryo-killing, while 39% support it.

“Every Woman First is sponsoring a campaign called ‘Hands Off Our Ovaries’ which is drawing on a wide range of people who don’t want to see women’s bodies used as research – environmentalists and minorities as well as feminists and religious persons,” an article in USA Today reported in March 2006. ‘Missourians Against Human Cloning’ is leading the battle against the Stem Cell Research and Cures initiative on which Missourians will vote on November 7th.

Wesley Smith reported in August that although the pro cloning campaign had already spent $16 million propagandizing the state the outcome remains in doubt.

In Britain, by contrast, women are to be offered cheaper IVF treatment if they donate some of their eggs for research (The Times, 28th July 2006). On 13th January 2006 The Times reported “British scientists are planning to create embryos that are part-human and part-rabbit…”

“Due to a last-minute compromise by Germany, Italy and Slovenia, the European Council approved funding July 24 for embryonic stem cell research on cell lines that have already been obtained”. NRL News also reported in August: “If the European Parliament approves the plan in November, the European Union will not use its $65 billion research budget on projects that will actually destroy the embryos, but will fund activities that make use of the lethally obtained cells.”

“Conservatives and ‘Progressives’ share a respect for human nature and a distrust of manipulative interventions that will enable certain men and women to reshape others. This puts the more radical progressives against those they thought were their friends, who want the freedom to do what they choose – and thereby ironically, the freedom to let big biotech business do what it chooses. And on the Conservative side, it puts those who treasure the sanctity of life against libertarians and others who uncritically favor business interests.” (Nigel M de S Cameron, Director of the Council for Biotechnology Policy, quoted in Labour Life Group News, Winter 2005).

“It’s hard to predict how this new found alliance between those divided by their several political philosophies and their view on issues like abortion will develop. What is clear is that the bio questions do not fit into our traditional policies and they therefore present us with special political challenges…”

“All information can be put across in easy words without losing any of its meaning so long as it means something to start with and is not just gloss or long words that have been used without real understanding. If policy makers wrote in easy read to start with it would save a lot of time and effort and money needed to make easy read copies. These would be more useful to many groups of people. Professionals can then make their own jargon versions if they find them quicker to use. This would stop the excuse of not having a budget to put information into easy read format.” (Annual Report for 2005 of PEOPLE FIRST, an organization run by and for people with learning difficulties.)

One could add: If the wording of an official document is intended to conceal the meaning an easy read version can be hilarious. The Department of Constitutional Affairs’ easy exposition of the Mental Capacity Bill was enough to make a cat laugh.

Premature babies who require months of expensive intensive care in neonatal units have been labelled “bed-blockers” by one of Britain’s Royal Colleges of Medicine, Sarah-Kate Templeton reported in The Sunday Times 26 March 2006.

In February the Journal of The American Medical Association (JAMA) reported Canadian research into the development of 166 premature babies born in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s (Washington Times, 8 February 2006). By early adulthood they had reached levels of education and employment that were similar to those of normal-weight children.

The JAMA editorial commented that most of the babies were white and from economically stable two-parent families, and their health care was assured by Canada’s National Health care system. A study in Cleveland, Ohio, had shown different outcomes for the premature babies.

The US Food and Drug Administration has proposed a rule for “emergency research” which scientists and doctors could conduct on unconscious or otherwise incapacitated patients, Richard Ackerman reports on World News Daily, 8 September 2006. Were they inspired by Britain’s legislation?

The proposed rules, known as “Guidance for Institutional Review Boards. Clinical Investigators, and Sponsors: Exception from informed consent for Emergency Research” are scheduled for a public hearing in October.

“Mengele Lives”, said Richard Ackerman, of the Pro Family Law Centre in California. There will be a sub-class of patients who can’t give consent themselves, or don’t have a representative.”

The American Life League commented on an article in Public Health News, 15 February 2006:

“The Government’s Centres for Disease Control has entered into a project with the ‘Centre for Practical Ethics’ for the purpose of developing an end-of-life model for public health departments nationwide. The director of the Centre for Practical Ethics, Myra Christopher, previously of the Midwest Bioethics Centre, supports euthanasia, commonly called a ‘right to die’ and was involved in the past with the Nancy Cruzan disease case. Christopher says her organization will help the Centres for Disease Control develop an end-of-life curriculum tailored for the public health community.”