Peter Saunders

BBC program highlights liberal interpretation of abortion law by British doctors

Peter Saunders
Image

Last Monday I took part in the BBC Panorama programme ‘The Great Abortion Divide’ (watch it on I-Player). 

It was presented by Victoria Derbyshire (pictured) and produced by Elizabeth Byrne. 

Although extremely controversial it has had very little coverage in the media with only the BBCGuardian and Times (£) so far reporting on it. 

The programme was billed as follows

‘Abortion is more controversial than ever, with pro-life activists challenging pregnant women as they try to enter clinics. Doctors in most of the UK are signing off terminations on questionable mental health grounds, while in Northern Ireland women and doctors risk life in prison over abortion. So is our legislation hopelessly outdated?’ 

Victoria Derbyshire, in an article for the Times, (£) asked how it can be so easy to terminate a pregnancy in Croydon, but criminal to do so in Belfast. 

This highlights the little known fact that abortion is still effectively illegal in Northern Ireland but there is a situation tantamount to abortion on demand in the rest of the UK where there were over 200,000 abortions last year, 98% on mental health grounds.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

I was filmed for an hour last autumn from which they used four sound bites for this programme, but I was happy with what they took and felt they put my case well. 

The programme was originally due to be screened last December but was held over due to other priorities and I suspect because they also wanted to make reference to the Savita case.

The main point I made in the programme, which I had made previously on the Radio Four Today Programme, is that 98% of abortions in Britain are technically illegal

This is because they are carried out on grounds that continuing with the pregnancy constitutes a greater risk to a mother’s mental health than having an abortion does.

But in fact a comprehensive study carried out in 2011 by the Royal College of Psychiatrists found that there was no evidence to show that having an abortion posed less risk to mental health than continuing with an unwanted pregnancy. 

So when doctors sign an abortion authorisation form (a statutory document) saying that it does I believe they are in effect committing a form of perjury

Dr Clare Gerada, chairwoman of the Royal College of General Practitioners, said in response to this on the programme however that the current interpretation was realistic as there is no way to predict the impact of continuing a pregnancy on a woman's mental health. She was in effect giving the benefit of any doubt to the mother. Here words were as follows:

‘What we have is what the woman tells us. It is not for me to judge her or be moralistic, it is for me to explore potential other options, but to take her at face value.’

So in other words if the mother thinks that continuing with the pregnancy poses a greater risk to her mental health than having an abortion then she is right, regardless of what the medical evidence actually shows. I wonder if Gerada applies this same diagnostic principle to conditions other than mental health problems.

In saying this I believe Gerada is actually misinterpreting the law. In signing an abortion authorisation she is making a statement that as a doctor she believes in good faith ‘that the pregnancy has not exceeded its twenty-fourth week and that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the mental health of the pregnant woman’.

She is not actually being asked to make a moral judgement but a medical judgement. 

Imagine if we were to substitute another condition for ‘mental health’:

‘I believe that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of (ovarian cancer, schizophrenia, heart disease) to the pregnant woman.’

This would be a medical opinion subject to a test of evidence – as is also danger to mental health.

I see that BPAS (£), Britain’s leading abortion provider, has since leapt to Gerada’s defence. BPAS has since said that doctors are 'not circumventing or breaking the law; they are complying with the law, exercising their clinical judgment and caring for their patients'. Well that is not actually for BPAS to decide. 

And if authorising the deaths of 196,000 living human beings is 'caring for their patients' then doctors have moved some distance from the Hippocratic Oath and Declaration of Geneva which actually forbid them performing abortion. 

Will the fact that 196,000 abortions are being carried out in the UK every year on these spurious grounds (98% of the total) be at any point the subject of a court case, a police investigation, a GMC inquiry, a parliamentary inquiry, or perhaps even a parliamentary question? We will have to wait and see.

To carry out an abortion on grounds outside those listed in the Abortion Act is still a crime in Britain – and a crime subject to a custodial sentence. 

So is perjury – and knowingly making false claims on a statutory document (like an abortion authorisation form) is a form of perjury under the Perjury Act of 1911. 

These acts are crimes because abortion is a serious matter, involving as it does the ending of a human life. And as I said on the programme, no one is more innocent, more vulnerable and killed in greater numbers that the preborn baby. Abortion now accounts for 27%, over one in four, of all human deaths in Britain.

One more thing - the programme claimed, without supplying any evidence, that hundreds of women died every year in Britain from illegal abortions prior to the introduction of the Abortion Act. This is patently false as I have argued previously on this blog

It was good to see the issues around abortion aired again but deep questions still remain, mostly about the abuses by doctors of the current law. 

I wonder if anything will be done about this practice which has now been defended on national television by the chair of the Royal College of General Practitioners. 

I am not holding my breath.

Truth. Delivered daily.

Get FREE pro-life, pro-family news delivered straight to your inbox. 

Select Your Edition:


Share this article

Advertisement

Therapists to offer sex change drugs to nine-year-olds

Peter Saunders
Peter Saunders
Image

Children as young as nine are to be prescribed drugs which delay the onset of puberty as the first step towards a sex change operation (Mail on Sunday and Daily Telegraph).

Doctors at the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust said a trial of the treatment on ‘gender dysphoria’ patients aged 12 to 14 had been successful and it could now be offered even earlier.

Monthly injections of the drugs, known as hypothalamic blockers, are used to slow the development of the children’s sexual organs by blocking the production of the hormones testosterone and oestrogen.

The rationale is that by delaying the onset of sexual maturation this gives more time for gender conflicted youngsters to decide whether they wish to embark on hormone treatment and surgery aimed at changing their gender. 

Most people will be shocked at this news but it is actually a logical consequence of accepting four prior ideological presuppositions – that gender is a social construct, that personal autonomy should trump other considerations, that emotional suffering should be avoided at all costs and that technology should be used to achieve these ends. 

There are obvious safety concerns - although the gender treatment is reversible, the long-term effects on brain development, bone growth and fertility have not yet been fully evaluated.

But safety considerations aside, using hormones to suppress puberty in transgender children is highly controversial, not least because of deep societal disagreements about the causes and nature of transsexuality and the effectiveness and appropriateness of transgender therapies per se.  This means that therapists remain strongly divided about the best way of handling the issue.

Transgender people are born with the anatomy and physiology of one sex but believe that they belong to the opposite sex.  Should therapy therefore be aimed at changing bodies (using hormones and surgery) to match a person’s beliefs or should it rather be aimed at helping people to adjust mentally to accepting the bodies they were born with? Even more fundamentally, is ‘gender dsyphoria’ a mental disorder or is it just a normal variant like eye or skin colour?

Up until recently ‘gender identity disorder’ was classified as a mental disorder (in the Psychiatric diagnostic inventory DSM-IV) but it has now been reclassified and renamed ‘gender dysphoria’ (in the DSM-V).  This change was strongly ideologically driven and many psychologists and psychiatrists dispute the reclassification. They still see ‘gender identity disorder’ as a kind of body dysphoria, whereby a person has an unshakeable false belief that they are one sex when in fact they are the other. It has been likened to anorexia nervosa, where the affected individual is convinced she is fat whilst being grossly underweight.

Those who supported the reclassification however, take the view that gender identity is biologically fixed and determined and that it is harmful to affected individuals to deny them sex change therapy or to 'force' them to live with the body they were born with. Some even hold to the strongly postmodern view that gender, regardless of what one’s genes or hormones suggest, is simply a social construct, even a matter of choice. If you wish to appreciate how passionately these views are held, then try expressing a traditional understanding on twitter using the hashtag #lgbt!  

Click "like" if you support TRADITIONAL marriage.

Is gender identity fixed as male or female or is it more of a spectrum or continuum? Can it change over time? How effective is therapy in changing the strength and orientation of one’s beliefs? How might suppression of puberty using hormonal treatment affect bone, brain and sexual development?

Research is still at an early stage with many of these questions and strong ideological convictions one way or the other mean that scientific objectivity about the real effects of sex change therapy may always be a matter of contention.  It is perhaps not surprising that both opinion and research in this whole area is often driven by powerful ideological vested interests.

Complicating this is the fact that gender identity may change in an individual over time, and that it may be very difficult to predict the outcome of for any particular person. Some children are much more appropriately described as ‘gender nonconforming’ or ‘gender-fluid’ rather than transgender. In many others gender identity may change with time.

Toronto specialist Ken Zucker, who opposes the use of sex change therapies, claims that only about 12% of boys and girls with gender dysphoria will still have persistent dysphoria as adults. This fact alone should lead even the most committed supporters of early intervention to err strongly on the side of caution.

The CMF File ‘Gender Identity Disorder’ goes into the issue in more detail and also looks at biblical principles which can be applied.

The Bible teaches that human beings are created in God's image and of two sexes – male and female (Genesis 1:27). Jesus drew on this when he commented, 'haven't you read, that at the beginning the Creator “made them male and female”, and said, “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh” (Matthew 19:4-5).

The Old Testament command 'you shall not commit adultery' also indicates that sexual intercourse should only occur within the framework of marriage (Exodus 20:14). Sex outside the marriage bond is wrong, whether with someone of the same or opposite sex (Leviticus 18:22, 20:10).

The ideal pattern for existence was spoilt at the Fall when mankind rebelled against God's rules. One consequence of this is that moral values, sexual patterns and also biology (genes and hormones) have become distorted.

The good news at the centre of Christianity is that Jesus, through his death and resurrection, gives people new life and power to change. On top of this, there will be a time in the future when all rebellion against God's plans will come to an end and a perfect relationship with God can be fully restored. This brings the hope that transsexual people may find support as they seek to live in ways that are honest to the way God made them, and open to God's ideals.

It's worth noting that the Bible regards celibacy as a high calling. Jesus was fully human and male, but never married nor had sexual intercourse. He also taught that marriage is not for everyone (Matthew 19:12).  It is important to acknowledge this, as for some people, battling with gender conflict may be a life long process.

Reprinted with permission from PJ Saunders

Share this article

Advertisement

Why assisted suicide should not be legalised in Britain

Peter Saunders
Peter Saunders
Image

I have recently been published in a head to head with Sir Terence English in the Oxford Mail on whether assisted suicide should be legalised in Britain. My contribution to the debate is reproduced below. Perhaps not surprisingly I have said ‘no’.

Any change in the law to allow assisted suicide or euthanasia would inevitably place pressure on vulnerable people to end their lives for fear of being a financial, emotional or care burden upon others.
 
The ‘right to die’ would so easily become the ‘duty to die’. This would especially affect people who are disabled, elderly, sick or depressed and would be greatly accentuated at this time of economic recession with families and health budgets under pressure.
 
Elder abuse and neglect by families, carers and institutions are already real and dangerous and would be made worse.
 
Any so-called ‘safeguards’ against abuse, such as limiting it to certain categories of people, will not work.
 
This is because exactly the same arguments – autonomy and compassion – would apply to people outside the categories decided upon and so any law allowing it for some would immediately be challenged under equality legislation.
 
If for terminally ill people, why not for those who have chronic illnesses but are ‘suffering unbearably’?
 
If for adults why not for ‘Gillick competent’ children? If for the mentally competent why not for people with dementia who ‘would have wanted it’?
 
The news coming from other jurisdictions which have gone down this route, particularly Belgium and the Netherlands, shows a pattern of incremental extension and pushing of the boundaries – an increase in cases year on year, a widening of categories of people to be included and people being killed without their consent.
 
Belgium has recently legalised euthanasia for children and in the Netherlands babies with spina bifida and people with dementia are already put to death.
 
This is why British parliaments have rightly rejected the legalisation of assisted suicide in Britain three times in the last seven years and why the vast majority of UK doctors, almost all medical groups including the British Medication Association (BMA), Royal College of Physicians (RCP) and Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP), and all major disabled people’s advocacy groups are also opposed.
 
Persistent requests for euthanasia are extremely rare if people are properly cared for, so our real priority must be to ensure that good care addressing people’s physical, psychological, social and spiritual needs is accessible to all.
 
This issue is understandably an emotive one but hard cases make bad law and even in a free democratic society there are limits to human freedom. Our present law with its blanket prohibition on all medical killing does not need changing.
 
The penalties it holds in reserve act as a strong deterrent to exploitation and abuse whilst giving discretion to prosecutors and judges to temper justice with mercy.
 
Reprinted with permission from PJ Saunders

Share this article

Advertisement

Royal College of Ob/Gyn bars pro-life doctors from receiving its degrees and diplomas

Peter Saunders
Peter Saunders
Image

Doctors and nurses who have a moral objection to prescribing ‘contraceptives’ which act by killing human embryos are to be barred from receiving diplomas in sexual and reproductive health even if they undertake the necessary training according to new guidelines.

Under new rules issued by the Faculty of Sexual and Reproductive Health (FSRH) earlier this year these doctors and nurses are also to be barred from membership of the faculty and from specialty training.

The FSRH is a faculty of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists established on the 26th March 1993 as the Faculty of Family Planning and Reproductive Health Care. In 2007 it changed its name to the Faculty of Sexual and Reproductive Healthcare.

Whilst many contraceptives act by preventing the union of sperm and egg, some, including most IUCDs (intrauterine contraceptive devices) and the morning-after pill EllaOne (ulipristal acetate), also act by preventing the implantation of an early embryo. In other words they are embryocidal or abortifacient, rather than truly contra-ceptive.

Many doctors, of all faiths and none, have a moral objection to destroying human life and wish therefore to avoid using drugs or methods which act after fertilisation.

In fact this position was once held by the British Medical Association (BMA) when it adopted the Declaration of Geneva in 1948. This states, ‘I will maintain the utmost respect for human life from the time of conception even against threat’.

But in 1983 the words ‘from the time of conception’ were amended to ‘from its beginning’ due to sensitivities about increasing medical involvement in abortion. The word 'beginning' was left undefined, giving doctors the opportunity to argue, contrary to the biological reality, that early human life was not actually human life at all.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

Now it seems that doctors who wish to abide by the original wording of the Declaration of Geneva are to be barred from practising in certain medical specialties. This is an extraordinary about face.

The Faculty may argue that they are not barring doctors and nurses from practising, but simply from obtaining certain qualifications. But as many job appointments will be conditional on applicants having these qualifications this is effectively also a bar on practice.

Interestingly doctors who have a moral objection to abortion are still able to complete the Faculty’s qualifications because the Abortion Act 1967 contains a conscience clause which protects them. But there is no law protecting those who object to destroying human embryos.

Many Christians believe that every human life, regardless of age, sex, race, degree of disability or any other biological characteristic, is worthy of the utmost respect, wonder, empathy and protection.

This is based on the idea, taught in the Bible, that human beings are made in the image of God. In a society which is becoming more hostile to Christian faith and values it is perhaps not surprising that we are seeing institutional discrimination of this kind.

Perhaps it is time for Christian doctors and nurses, and others who share their prolife views, to set up an alternative training programme.

Reprinted with permission from PJ Saunders

Share this article

Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook