|
|
Advanced Directives - "Caveat Emptor" |
|
|
|
|
Salford City Council is putting out a card for individuals to carry, refusing medical treatmet if they should be unable to speak for themselves (BBC News, 21 May 2008). Note: since the Leslie Burke case we have no legal right to request treatment, but only to refuse it.
Profess Peter Millard, FRIP, comments:
Advance directives have fatal flaws. As Cicely Saunders said 'The one thing we cannot do is speak to the dissatisfied dead'.
Organ Donor cards inform relatives and medical staff of our desire to bring life to others after our death. In contrast, Advance Directives state that under certain circumstances, we would prefer death to life.
There lies the fatal flaw. Written in health, what if, your plea "I don't want to be kept alive on a life support machine" led to your not having life support for an illness from which you may recover?
Think about it – "That's not what you meant". Perhaps what you really wanted to say is, 'If my death is inevitable and all efforts at intensive care are unsuccessful, I would not like you to continue life support."
Prof Peter Millard, Emeritus Professor of Geriatrics, St. George's University of London
|
|
|
Human Fertilization and Embryology Bill |
|
|
|
PRESS RELEASE FROM THE WORLD FEDERATION OF DOCTORS WHO RESPECT HUMAN LIFE
25 March 2008
An American perspective on the current Human Fertilization and Embryology Bill from noted bioethicist Wesley J. Smith.**
"The United Kingdom is in danger of becoming "Brave New Britain." Heedless of the intrinsic value of human life, swooning for the siren song of "CURES! CURES! CURES" the government apparently believes that scientists should have a blank check—both ethically and financially. But proper ethics are crucial to excellence in science. A science sector that treats human life—even at its nascent stages—as mere malleable clay or akin to a corn crop ripe for the harvest, will be likely to also lose respect for human life at other stages of existence. We tempt the whirl wind when we permit the creation of human/animal hybrid embryos. We objectify procreation when we accede to creating new babies to be used for body parts. Some might say, so what if the body part baby is also a wanted baby in his or her own right. But what if the baby is not wanted, but only created for his or her parts? What then?
"The crucial point upon which to focus is that we can progress as a world society into the biotech century without sacrificing human dignity. We can achieve proper treatments without instrumentalizing the most vulnerable among us or eschewing the equality of human life ethic for a dystopian utilitarianism. It is the wise government that promotes science, indeed lauds it—but wiser still is the government that also always ensures that proper checks and balances are placed around this most powerful enterprise.
"The current embryo bill utterly fails in this crucial task. It is my great hope that the government will agree to substantial amendments. If not, it should be defeated."
Wesley J. Smith
www.wesleyjsmith.com
----------------------------
**Notes for editors:
Award-winning author and lawyer Wesley J. Smith is a Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute, an attorney for the International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide, and a special consultant for the Center for Bioethics and Culture. He has authored books on issues such as cloning, stem cells, assisted suicide, euthanasia, and bioethics.
The World Federation of Doctors who Respect Human Life is an affiliation of doctors throughout the world who support the traditional medical ethic of sevice to life.
Contact:
The Administrator
PO Box 17317
London SW3 4WJ
This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it
+(44) 20 7730 3059 |
|
|
Abortion... Lest we forget! 1967-2007 Forty Terrible Years |
|
|
|
|
Oct 31, 2007
The Alive and Kicking campaign issued the following press release today:
On the 27 October, 1967, the Abortion Act was officially passed in the UK Parliament. As Big Ben struck midnight it was the beginning of a day which marks the 40th Anniversary of this Act, an Act which has resulted in the loss of 6.7 million unborn lives, a figure which is rapidly approaching the total figure of the population of London.
An alliance of pro-life groups, united under the name ‘Alive&Kicking’, commemorated this tragic moment by projecting onto the House of Parliament, beside Big Ben, a reminder to the world of the appalling death toll of this Act of Parliament.
This afternoon thousands gathered outside the House of Parliament to call for a change in law.
www.aliveandkickingcampaign.org |
|
News Release
An Inconvenient Analysis
New report discusses wide-ranging effects of abortion
The London-based Pension and Population Research Institute today (25 October) launched ‘Assessing the Damage’, a 32-page report by its Director of Research, Patrick Carroll, into the demographic impact on society, and the consequences for women’s health, of the 1967 Abortion Act.
Speaking at the launch, which took place at the Royal Society of Medicine in Wimpole Street, London, Mr Carroll said that the report discusses how national statistical data can be used to assess the effect of the 1967 Act.
“The 40th anniversary of the passing of the Abortion Act is a significant opportunity to re-access the such a politically correct age, for many my report is probably a rather inconvenient impact on society that has resulted from this legal and cultural change. Given that we live in analysis, but it could however be a first step towards a restoration of the situation that will benefit many,” Mr Carroll said.
Through statistical analysis and comparison Mr Carroll, who is an actuary and statistician by profession, looks at the impact of nearly seven million legally induced abortions over the last 40 years, abortion’s bearing on family structure and its adverse health consequences. |
|
Read more...
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Medical Ethics Alliance - Press Release on assisted suicide |
|
|
|
|
"The death of a person by their own hand is always a great sadness. It has wide repercussions and in the case of someone facing a disabling disease sends out a strong message to others that what life remains may not be worth living. It is but a short step from that to the view that they are no longer valued. "Those who live or work with the disabled know that if their needs are understood and met, they may continue to enjoy the love of their families and be deeply respected by those close to them. "The contrast between a woman walking into an anonymous building and dying shortly afterwards behind closed doors, that of the courageous, prayerful and inspirational death of pope John Paul II could hardly be greater. The first is cold and calculated. It does harm to society's attitude towards the disabled, but the other engendered an outbreak of respect and affection of historic proportions." 25/1/06 |
|
|