Pro-Life Times: March 2004

Coroner demands public inquiry into euthanasia cases

Amanda Logan

Derby city coroner is demanding a full public inquiry into what he describes as Britain's first case of "mass euthanasia". The families of 11 elderly male patients who died in a psycho-geriatric ward at the Kingsway Hospital, Derby, are claiming that their relatives died due to deliberate starvation. The allegations date back to 1997 when a healthcare assistant first alerted hospital managers.

However, Paul Tully of SPUC has warned that this could be the last time that a case of this kind even warrants an inquest. "If the government goes ahead with its draft Mental Incapacity Bill, the kind of treatment these patients received may become routine," he said. "The ward where these deaths occurred looked after elderly patients with illnesses such as dementia, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease. These are just the kind of people who will be affected by the bill."

An inquest doctor reviewed the cases of the dead men, aged between 65 and 93, and concluded that their deaths may have been hastened by withholding food. Andrew Hughson has described how distressing it was to see his 75 year-old father vainly stretching out his hands towards meals being taken to other patients.

"The families of these victims must still be suffering at the thought of their loved ones being starved to death," said Mr Tully. "We welcome the coroner's request for an inquiry with powers to investigate practices at the Kingsway hospital. But this kind of abuse is no longer rare. It is happening widely because good care, and good medical ethics, have been undermined by our top legal and medical bodies. This tragic episode is no surprise to us."

Ann Alexander, the solicitor acting for the families said, "These cases raise issues of the utmost importance relating to how the elderly are treated in hospital."

Baby Hope - witness to love

Baby Hope only had a very short life. She lived for 28 weeks in her mother's womb and for one week after she was born. Throughout her life she was loved by her parents, her seven brothers and sisters and many, many other friends who knew she was a very sick baby. In a culture which questions the humanity and value of such babies, Hope was a witness to the love and respect that every human being is entitled to.

Hope's parents and brothers and sisters said, "We all wanted to have Hope with us for longer, but the short time we had her was so special. She was a little girl who gave so much to others. Even when we knew she would die, sitting beside her incubator was wonderful. Her presence radiated a calming sense of peace, happiness and hope."

Comment

Wilfred Wong

As an Evangelical Christian I am disturbed that despite some wonderful exceptions, the majority of British Evangelicals are not doing much to oppose abortion or other pro-death measures.

The situation on pro-life issues is not going to remain static. Those who reject the sanctity of life will keep pushing the boundaries of legalised killing. One example is the recent suggestion by the British academic, John Harris, that disabled newborn babies can be killed. His logic is: if it's alright to kill babies in the womb, why not kill newborn babies for the same reasons? Harris isn't some fringe fanatic. He is professor of bioethics, a member of the BMA's ethics committee and a Government adviser on genetics.

The threat to life is only going to get much worse unless there is stronger opposition to pro-death values. Sadly, many Evangelicals underestimate the importance of pro-life issues. Several express pro-life sentiments but do little about it. Only about one in 15 of SPUC's members is an Evangelical. There must be many thousands more who share our beliefs and our concern for vulnerable lives. This "sleeping giant", which is the Evangelical community in this country, must be aroused, for it will give much-needed support to the pro-life cause.

Prayer

Father, in Proverbs 24 you command us to rescue those being led away to death. Forgive us for not doing more to save the hundreds of unborn children who are slaughtered every day in Britain. Lord, you must be so angry at this relentless massacre of the innocents. Have mercy on this nation. Help all your Church to wake up to the urgency of defending life and to strongly challenge the pro-death values we see all around us. In Jesus' name I pray. Amen.

Wilfred Wong trained as a lawyer and also in philosophy and has been working as a full time human rights campaigner for the past 11 years. Wilfred lobbies parliamentarians and governments on human rights issues. He has a regular column in Prophecy Today magazine, where he often writes about pro-life issues. He is also a trustee of International China Concern, a charity which helps orphans in China.

Human cloning threatens future of humanity

Antonia Tully

Research by South Korean scientists, who are believed to have created and pulled apart cloned human embryos, has been condemned by the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children as a "threat to humanity".

Professor Hwang Woo Suk, who led the research, has said that there is no difference in the techniques used for "therapeutic cloning" and those used for "reproductive cloning". He was reported as saying, "Our goal is not to clone humans, but to understand causes of diseases."

SPUC national director, John Smeaton said, "He is naïve to think that this will not lead to reproductive cloning. Once the technique is there, someone will do it."

The development is being hailed as a breakthrough for treatment of degenerative diseases. "The fact is that the South Korean team only succeeded in extracting stem cells from one of the 30 embryos. The stem cells would be used for creating spare part cells for treating Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and diabetes. It appears that all 30 tiny human beings perished in this experiment," said Mr Smeaton.

"We have had more than two decades of destructive research on human embryos created by IVF. Where are the benefits for disabled people? These very arguments were used to convince politicians that IVF should be allowed for creating embryos for research as well as for fertility treatment."

Sinn Féin charter will bring abortion on demand

Liam Gibson

Although the party denies supporting liberal abortion, Sinn Féin has launched a charter of rights which would effectively mean abortion on demand in Ireland.

"Rights for All" sets out the party's demands for political, social and economic freedom, and recognises "the right to bodily and psychological integrity, which includes the right 'To make decisions concerning reproduction...'" In a section entitled "Social and Economic Rights for All" it states: "Everyone shall have equal and free access to sexual and reproductive healthcare and to information and education relating to sexual and reproductive matters at all levels, free of coercion, discrimination or violence."

In 1998, Sinn Féin's policy document "Women In Ireland" endorsed the International Planned Parenthood Federation Charter on Sexual and Reproductive Rights. IPPF considers abortion on demand a basic reproductive right.

The party's former Health Minister, Bairbre de Brún, who made the abortion-causing 'morning-after' pill available without prescription, will be a candidate in June's European election.

A spokesperson for SPUC said, "Sinn Féin's idea of rights for all seems to exclude unborn children who are currently recognised and protected in Ireland."

New SPUC helpline

John Smeaton

In the last issue of the Pro-Life Times, we published the diary of the events leading to my father's death in May 2003. Following a stroke, the doctors originally suggested that he should be allowed to starve to death. The doctor concerned went as far as to say that he was under no legal obligation to feed him. He even continued to say this when he knew my wishes and those of the rest of my family. It was only through our insistence and the help of a doctor friend that my father was allowed a peaceful, natural death.

I am very aware that my father's case is not rare and that vulnerable and incapacitated people are routinely denied food and fluids in British hospitals. Due to the coverage of my father's case in the Pro-Life Times and also The Universe newspaper, SPUC has been receiving calls from people in similarly distressing situations, asking for help and advice. As a result, we have launched a new helpline for anyone concerned about the medical treatment of family or friends. The number to call is: 07952 245421

News in brief

· Italy - The Italian parliament has given final approval to a new law restricting IVF and cloning. Under the new law, the use of donor gametes, surrogate mothers and embryo freezing is banned and IVF has been restricted to stable heterosexual couples. Embryo research and cloning are illegal.

· UK - A 16-year-old schoolgirl who was raped and who kept her baby has spoken about her experience. Lisa Askew, now 20, described how she initially rejected the baby and could not be left alone with him, but eventually bonded with him. "I know he has his father's eyes and hair but when I look at him, all I see is my beautiful son," she said, "It never ceases to amaze me that something so precious and wonderful came from something so terrible. He's my beautiful boy and I wouldn't change him for the world."

Nepal - The UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women has put pressure on the Nepalese government to ensure access to abortion. Having pressurised Nepal to legalise abortion in 2001, the Committee has demanded to know if convicted abortionists remain in prison and has urged the government to 'reinforce reproductive and sexual health programmes, in particular in rural areas'.

· USA - Parents reportedly exert the greatest influence on teenagers' decisions about sexual activity, yet they do not think they do. A telephone survey of 1,000 teenagers and 1,000 adults in the US found that 45% of young people listened most to their parents, while just 31% were chiefly influenced by friends. The National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancies research found that parents thought they had little influence on teenage sexual behaviour.

Bill set to spread euthanasia blight

Antonia Tully

If the Mental Incapacity Bill (MIB) becomes law, euthanasia will sweep through hospitals within six months, a senior consultant has warned the Pro-Life Times.

The bill threatens to force doctors in charge of elderly and infirm patients to practise "euthanasia by neglect".

The doctor, who prefers not to be named, has said that he would rather leave England if the bill, as it stands, becomes law and he was required to take the life of even one of his patients.

He pointed out that the bill represents a huge shift in the relationships between doctors, patients and relatives. Many patients would have decisions made for them by attorneys, or proxy decision makers. These attorneys would have the final say on a whole range of medical issues that are currently made by doctors in conjunction with nurses and after the appropriate consultation with relatives and nurses. There is already an adequate ethical and legal framework for making such decisions.

"Take the example of a person who suffers serious head injury and other trauma in a road or rail accident. A relative or friend, who has power of attorney, would suddenly be called upon to make decisions about whether the victim should be resuscitated or not and, if resuscitated, should the victim then go into intensive care.

"Once in intensive care, doctors may be making critical decisions about the treatment of the patient two or three times a day. Some of the treatment decisions made for patients, for example with severe head injuries, can have permanent consequences." He went on to explain how things would work out in the real world of busy hospitals.

"The reality for consultants is that they may be looking after four to six patients in intensive care, making two ward rounds a day and taking any number of other decisions about those in their care, often at short notice as circumstances change. Under the terms of the bill every significant change that the doctor wants to make will have to be done in conjunction with the attorney.

"The reality for the patient is that a non-medical person will have to try to understand complex medical situations in order to make frequent and profound decisions on their behalf."

He questioned the effect these proposed changes in the law would have on medical practice:

"As things are now, a common law principle of necessity operates. Of course, doctors aim to keep relatives well informed and are at pains to explain the nature and purpose of their treatment. However, they are legally enabled to act without consent for the benefit of the patient in cases of necessity where it is not possible to obtain consent from the patient. This arrangement works well in practice. Indeed at times of severe emotional strain most relatives will want to be involved and kept abreast of events. However, this is very different from having the additional burden of being responsible for the medical decisions that are made. This is particularly true where the prospects for survival are slim or the risks of residual disability are high. However, under the bill the doctor would have to obtain consent whenever possible before he is allowed to do anything."

He gave some examples of the kind of chaos that can be expected if these common sense procedures are exchanged for the new law:

"Under the terms of the MIB , as long as the doctor and the attorney are in agreement, there would be no problem. The attorney may be happy to make decisions in accordance with the doctor's advice.

"However, under the Mental Incapacity Bill, the attorney can accept or refuse the treatment proposed by the doctor. The attorney, who is standing in the shoes of the patient, may have to make very serious decisions without any medical training. Doctors or relatives could easily blame the attorney if something goes wrong because the wrong decision was made. Indeed, the patient, on recovery, might also complain if the appropriate treatment had been refused by the attorney, leaving them with pain or disability which might have otherwise been avoided."

He then described a scenario where a doctor and attorney could work against the interests of the patient.

"For example, a frail, elderly person comes into hospital after a stroke. Such a person may well have multiple health problems. The attorney and the doctor may decide that it would be undesirable for the patient to survive.

"A stroke is one of the commonest reasons for a person being unable to swallow. Standard treatment would be to set up a drip or place a naso-gastric tube to provide hydration and nutrition whilst the swallowing is impaired. Swallowing usually returns within a few days or weeks. It is only in a minority of patients that the patient is unable to swallow after six weeks.

"However, it would be relatively simple to remove artificial hydration and nutrition and effectively starve the patient to death. This is a barbaric and painful way to die. In fact it is so distressing for nurses and relatives to see a patient dying of dehydration that morphine and sedatives would usually be given - a process known as 'terminal sedation'. According to the draft Bill, the provision of hydration and nutrition is regarded as medical treatment and can therefore be withdrawn.

He ended with this stark warning to anybody who imagines that euthanasia would rarely be resorted to by medical staff;

"Euthanasia affects everyone. The effect on the medical profession will be catastrophic. Death will be seen as a quick, cheap, therapeutic option. Nursing will become an even more unattractive career and doctors will become increasingly hardened towards their patients. Doctors and nurses seldom, if ever, kill out of compassion."

From the desk of Joanna Bogle

SAYING NO...... Pro-life campaigners in the Channel Islands have produced some good-quality car bumper-stickers which say simply "Say NO to Euthanasia". Send a strong envelope with a £1 stamp for a good supply, and pass them round to your friends: write to Mrs A. Meadowcroft, Fairfield, Les Maresquet, Vale, Guernsey, GY3 5RF

KEEP THIS DATE

Note the date: October 10th. That's the 2004 "Celebrate Life!" rally in London. Speakers include John Smeaton of SPUC, and Nuala Scarisbrick of LIFE - and there'll be a team of young people each giving their own personal pro-life witness.

The event is designed as a family day - as in 2003, there'll be balloons, music, and plenty of children. The idea is to give positive witness to the message that human life is precious, and to spread a message of encouragement and hope among all who uphold this fundamental truth. For details, send SAE to: Celebrate Life, Hatfield House, Hatfield, AL9 5NQ.

HONOURING HEROINES Nuala Scarisbrick is also guest speaker at this year's Catholic Women of the Year Luncheon, to be held in the Autumn. The event aims to honour some of Britain's "unsung heroines" - women whose work for Church and community, family and faith, really makes a difference to people's lives. Want to nominate some one? Write to: Mrs A. Gracey, Queenswood, Cross Road, Sunningdale, Berks. SL5 9RX.

THE FUTURE

Recently, after a cheerful family supper with friends, with their daughter tucked up in bed, we fell to talking about the Britain this little girl would inherit. Easy to be gloomy - rising rates of abortion, divorce and family break-up, crime, vandalism, graffiti and urban decay, a culture featuring pornographic images and the destruction of innocence... But we decided instead to look at the better alternative. Imagine a time when young people talk to a 95-year-old Great Aunt Joanna and say "Was abortion actually supported by public authorities? How gross!" and "Do you mean to say that you had to march about with pictures of unborn babies, just to stop people from killing them?" and "Tell us again how the pro-life groups worked to fight euthanasia". But things changed in the end. It will happen. Communism fell, and other evils will fall in their time too.

Euthanasia: what you need to know ...

Compiled by SPUC staff and edited by Anthony Ozimic

Euthanasia is already being powerfully promoted through:

unethical guidance given to doctors which results in patients being allowed to die of starvation and thirst in British hospitals;
the Government's draft Mental Incapacity Bill which threatens to deny mentally incapacitated patients basic care and reasonable life-saving treatment;
Lord Joffe's private member's bill to legalise assisted suicide and euthanasia;
pro-euthanasia publicity in the media and by the Voluntary Euthanasia Society (VES).

...therefore you need to be able to tell fact from fiction in any debate on these vital issues.

What euthanasia IS

Euthanasia is the deliberate ending of the life of a person, either by act (e.g. lethal injection) or omission (e.g. dehydration), usually out of a motive of compassion. It is often suggested that euthanasia should be performed when a person's life is considered to be no longer worth living.

What euthanasia IS NOT

Doctors may withdraw or withhold treatment that is no longer of benefit to the patient and which is overly burdensome. This is not euthanasia, provided the doctor's intention is not to kill the patient.

Opposing euthanasia does NOT mean prolonging life indefinitely

It does not mean keeping dying people alive using every technological means available. Being opposed to euthanasia, we still recognise that life has a natural end point.

Euthanasia is NOT compassionate

On the contrary; euthanasia is an "easy way out" which effectively responds to sickness by simply abandoning patients to their pain and despair. The availability of euthanasia also sends a message to bewildered people that death might be a better choice than life. Hospice doctors can completely relieve 95% of pain and can help 100% of terminally ill patients. So why dismiss humane and effective responses to human suffering?

"Voluntary" euthanasia is NEVER ethical

Euthanasia is always unethical, whether or not there has been consent to the killing, as it undermines the value and dignity of every human life. There can be no way of ensuring that this "choice" is truly voluntary and free from the influence of depression, of feeling oneself to be a burden, or from family pressure, or even because of a lack of adequate palliative care services. Legalised euthanasia harms trust between doctors and patients. It may lead to vulnerable people feeling threatened or obliged to "choose" euthanasia in order to relieve the burden on carers and resources despite a natural instinct to survive.

Is there ever a "right to die"?

No. Death is a natural event that happens to us all. When euthanasia campaigners talk about a "right to die" what they really mean is a "right to be killed" or a right to "assisted suicide". There is no such right, but euthanasia can impose a duty on others to carry out such killings. To create a right to die would send a chilling message to the sick and disabled.

What is the difference between assisted suicide and euthanasia?

Assisted suicide is where people who "want to die" are helped to kill themselves in some way by another person. In reality so-called assisted suicide often amounts to direct euthanasia because frail people would need someone to help kill them. It must not be forgotten that incontrovertible assent to assisted suicide from a person in pain or depression is extremely difficult to ascertain. Suicide of any kind is a tragic failure in our response to human dignity and, if legalised, invites the subordination of the most basic of all our rights - our personal right to life.