Dangerous Medical Proposals
The spectre of euthanasia is rearing its head once again under recent draft guidelines, for England and Wales, published by the British Medical Association (BMA). Peter Saunders, who is Chief Executive of the Christian Medical Fellowship, has expressed serious concerns about the plans. He says the question is put by the BMA, “Is it justifiable to withdraw food and fluids from patients with dementia, stroke and brain injury who are not imminently dying?” The BMA’s answer is, “Yes”, provided a doctor believes it is in the patient’s “best interests”.
Dr Saunders explains, “The draft guidance builds on case and statute law
and on previous practice guidelines and has huge implications for the care of some of the most vulnerable people in England and Wales. This whole process has transpired by a small series of steps – each following logically from the one before and endorsed in case law, statute law, regulations and guidelines going back to the Law Lord’s decision on Hillsborough victim Tony Bland, who was the first to die in this way.” That case established a legal precedent that Clinically Assisted Nutrition and Hydration (CANH) – the patient being fed food and fluids by tube – is considered to be a “medical treatment” not “basic care”. Dr Saunders contends that once we accept that definition, and agree that “providing this basic sustenance to someone with a medical condition they would not find ‘acceptable’ is not in their ‘best interests’, then we are inviting professionals to devise a simple scheme whereby the starvation of large numbers of non-dying but expensive and ‘burdensome’ patients can be achieved simply and efficiently, and largely undetected, without involving the courts”.
The BMA proposals focus on three categories of patients where CANH is the “primary life-sustaining treatment being provided” and who “lack the capacity to make the decision for themselves”. Firstly, those with degenerative conditions such as dementia. Secondly, those who have suffered a sudden, or rapidly progressing brain injury and have numerous comorbidities – diseases – or frailty (for example, stroke). Thirdly, people who were previously healthy but are now in a vegetative state or minimally conscious state (MCS) owing to a brain injury. Crucially, the discussion is not about patients who are expected to die within hours or days but about those who could go on living for some time – even decades – if they were being fed. It is euthanasia via the back door as, to quote Dr Saunders, “the guidance decrees that dementia, stroke and brain-injured patients who lack mental capacity, but are not imminently dying, can be starved and dehydrated to death in their supposed best interests”.
Who makes the decision to stop feeding? Dr Saunders goes on to explain that, “if there is an advance directive for refusal of treatment then the patient does (or at least has). If there is an appointed health and welfare attorney then they do, and if it’s not the case that ‘all parties agree’ then it falls to the Court of Protection.” However, Dr Saunders says that in the vast majority of cases it is “usually a consultant or general practitioner”.
No second opinion is legally required, it seems, “unless there is ‘reasonable doubt about the diagnosis or prognosis, or where the healthcare team has limited experience of the condition in question’ and, even if the patient is suffering from a persistent vegetative state (PVS) or MCS, ‘it is not necessary to wait until [investigations] have been completed’ if there is not ‘sufficient
evidence’ that they will affect the outcome of the best-interests assessment”. He adds, “In other words, the diagnosis and prognosis are irrelevant if the decision is made that death is in the patient’s ‘best interests’. This is especially disturbing, given that PVS and MCS are extremely difficult to diagnose, many patients have some degree of awareness and some later wake up.”
In spite of persistent efforts by pro-euthanasia groups, Britain has so far, mercifully, refused to legalise euthanasia or assisted suicide. However, in the new guidelines, the BMA is suggesting that to kill these patients by starvation and dehydration is perfectly acceptable. Peter Saunders warns that “a decision is made by a GP or hospital consultant, on the basis of information about the patient gathered from relatives or carers”. He adds. “A simple tick-box form is completed, the tube is removed and the patient in question is dehydrated, starved and sedated to death. The true cause of death is not recorded in the death certificate.” Apparently doctors are directed to certify the original brain injury or medical condition as the cause of death – not that the patient died of starvation and dehydration due to the removal of a feeding tube. He fears that what began as a trickle will become a flood.
There was an outcry when it was discovered how previous guidelines, in the palliative care plan known as the Liverpool Pathway, had been abused. Now it appears that subsequent planned pathways are just as dangerous. Professor Pullicino, who helped to expose the abuses of the Liverpool Pathway, comments on the BMA guidelines: “It facilitates the extension of end-of-life pathways to people with neurological diseases who are not dying, which is a very negative thing because there are a lot of disabled neurological patients [and] it perpetuates the myth of ‘best interests’, which has been shown to be erroneous and reflective of members’ views and not of the real best interests of the patients”.
How solemn it is to die and how very solemn to be responsible for hastening another soul into the great eternity. As The Shorter Catechism (Ans 68) tells us, on the basis of Scripture, “The Sixth Commandment requireth all lawful endeavours to preserve our own life, and the life of others”. KHM
Dangerous Proposals for Schools
The Scottish Government recently accepted in full the recommendations of a report which calls for the mandatory introduction of “inclusive education” for all Scottish primary schools, so that sodomite “rights” are universally promoted across the curriculum and across subjects. State schools “will be required to teach pupils about the history of LGBTI equalities and movements, as well as tackling homophobia and transphobia and exploring LGBTI identity”. John Swinney, the Deputy First Minister, was proud to announce
that “we will be the first country in the world to have LGBTI-inclusive education embedded within the curriculum”. No opt-outs will be permitted, so, once the recommendations are implemented, every Scottish schoolchild will be exposed to this most insidiously evil propaganda. Indeed, it may only be a matter of time until even Christian schools will be required to comply.
In the refusal here to allow an opt-out, we see once more that the homosexual lobby continually belies its mantra of toleration by showing itself to be most deeply intolerant of all opposition to its wicked agenda. The driving motivation here plainly is not so much to provide “inclusive” education at all, but rather the complete exclusion of Christian morality from our schools and national life. Indeed, there seems to be no end to the demands of the sodomite lobby in our generation. They are like the insatiable daughters of the horse-leech, crying “Give, give” (Prov 30:15). Undoubtedly, the ultimate end in view is the overthrow of the family as the foundation of society and the obliteration of the God-given distinction between male and female as far as possible. But the hidden power behind this dreadful movement, of course, is none other than Satan himself.
The implications of this particular development for pupils, parents, teachers and others who are involved in the field of education are extremely serious and such prospects should drive us to a throne of grace. It may not be long before it becomes extremely difficult to obtain, for example, a teaching post or even a professional qualification without giving one’s agreement to teach such material. The Lord is permitting the enemy to come in like a flood and this is one further and very serious indication of His displeasure with our nation. “O our God, wilt Thou not judge them? For we have no might against this great company that cometh against us; neither know we what to do; but our eyes are upon Thee” (2 Chr 20:12). AWM
Justice in Islamic Countries
The recent case of Matthew Hedges in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) highlights concerns over justice in Islamic countries. Mr Hedges, aged 31, a PhD student from Durham University, was arrested in May at the airport when leaving the UAE; was charged with spying; was kept in solitary confinement for six months; and, in a trial in November reportedly lasting five minutes, was sentenced to life imprisonment, on the basis of a supposed confession. His lawyer was not present in the court, and Mr Hedges is unable to speak Arabic. A few days later, after a diplomatic outcry, he received a government pardon (although the spying conviction still stands) and was released.
A somewhat similar case is that of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, a British-
Iranian dual citizen who was working for a news agency in Iran. She was detained in April 2016, and in September 2016 was sentenced to five years imprisonment after a trial at which she was allowed very limited contact with her lawyer. The charges against her remain undisclosed, but allegedly she was “plotting to topple the Iranian regime”. She is still in prison, where she has endured great hardship, including eight months’ solitary confinement. Her lawyer does not dare to speak to anyone outside Iran for fear of his own safety.
A third case is that of Andrew Brunson, an American pastor who was imprisoned in Turkey in October 2016; held in a small cell for over a year; and charged with various subversive activities including espionage. At his trial in May 2018 his defence witnesses were not heard at all while the prosecution witnesses testified secretly by video with face and voice distortion so that he could not know who they were. He was finally released after a third trial in October – and much diplomatic pressure from the US, including sanctions – when several of the prosecution witnesses retracted their testimony.
A fourth case is that of Asia Bibi, a Roman Catholic who was living in the Punjab in Pakistan, who was accused of blasphemy in June 2009 after an argument with co-workers while harvesting berries. She was arrested, imprisoned, tried, and in November 2010 sentenced to death by hanging. After many delays, the verdict was upheld by Lahore High Court in October 2014; but after many further delays it was overturned in October 2018 by the Supreme Court of Pakistan on the ground of insufficient evidence. In the meantime, two Pakistani politicians, one the Governor of Punjab, have been assassinated for expressing support for Asia Bibi and for opposing the blasphemy laws of Pakistan. The decision of the Supreme Court was greeted with such an outcry from Muslim extremists that the Government has decided to review the verdict and to detain Asia Bibi in Pakistan in the meantime. One can only admire the courage of the Supreme Court judges, whose own lives are now in danger.
We do not know the details of any of these cases, but they raise grave concerns over the legal and judicial systems of the countries involved. Doubtless every country has its problems in this direction, but these four countries are all strongly Islamic, and some general features emerge from the cases which would seem to be Islamic in nature. One is the prevailing lack of trust in the society of these countries, which gives a charge of espionage a plausibility that it does not have in the West. The murderer of the Governor of Punjab mentioned above was his own bodyguard, and such a gross betrayal of trust is far from unique. A second is the lack of fairness, which appears in the way in which the trials are conducted and in the whole process against
the defendants. A third is the cruel way in which the prisoners are treated. A fourth, which appears in the Brunson and Asia Bibi cases, is the hatred of anything remotely Christian.
With the rising Muslim population in Britain, and the readiness of the Government to advance Muslims to positions of power, we fear that our own legal and judicial system may increasingly reflect these tendencies. Only the Spirit of Christ can enable men to “judge righteous judgement” (Jn 7:24). “By Me kings reign, and princes decree justice” (Prov 8:15). DWBS