Pro-LIFE NEWS

Vol. 19 No.14 - Winter 2002                                                                                 Print Post Approved - 33L385/00042

Contents:

- Senator Harradine questions Department of Industry about $46 million gift to Trounson stem cell centre
- Editorial
- Pontifical Council for the Family
- Over to You
- Nancy Crick was not Dying
- ACT Feminists for Life Applaud the Australian Medical Association's Rejection of Euthanasia
- Right to Life Australia 2002 Dinner & Conference
- European Rightward Tilt May Affect UN Business
- UN Commission Asserts Low Asian Birth Rate Will Result in Poor Elderly
- World View

Senator Brian Harradine recently drew attention to the commercial and drug company links of members of the Government appointed "Biotechnology Centre of Excellence Panel of Experts" which recommended Professor Alan Trounson receive $46m to establish the Centre for Stem Cells and Tissue Repair in Melbourne.

Chairperson Dr Peter Jonson is professional company director and Chair of the Australian Institute for Commercialisation; Professor Denis Wade is Chairman and man­aging Director of Johnson & Johnson Research Pty Ltd and Ian Pitman, formerly Research Director of Fauldings Ltd.

"The composition of this panel reveals a strong commercial/drug company bent," Senator Harradine said after his questioning of the Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources during Estimates hearings on June 3.

"Drug companies stand to be among the major beneficiaries of ethically questionable stem cell research.

"The panel's composition was wholly inappropriate and imbalanced.

"There were no consumer representatives on the panel, no representatives of disability groups, no ethicists". Biotechnology Australia Executive General Manager, Ms Kerri Hartland, admitted during the hearing that she had not been aware of controversial comments of another panel member, Professor Grant Sutherland, who drew criticism from disability groups for comments made last year during an interview with the 7.30 Report. Professor Sutherland, said: "... if we can prevent the birth of handicapped individuals, then I think that society will be better off. I'm sure for example that Dr Shakespeare [a visiting disability rights activist from the UK who has dwarfism] would prefer not to be handicapped".  

Senator Harradine pointed out that Professor Trounson, who has been appointed CEO of the stem-cell centre, has stated his support for using cloning techniques to create and destroy 'fresh' human embryos purely for research purposes. He has made it clear he wants to cut short the moratorium which allows research only on so-called ‘spare’ IVF embyos.  

"Clearly this critical issue was not taken into account by the panel in assessing the Trounson application.

"We still know nothing about the consent process. Will IVF parents be told the end use of the stem cells derived from their donated embryos? Who owns the stem cell lines? Where is the duty of disclosure?" Senator Harradine asked.

"The $46 million gift to the embryo processing plant in Melbourne also preempts Parliamentary consideration of legislation on such experimentation due to be tabled this month.

"The Prime Minister's approach stands in contrast to that of US President George Bush who has appointed a presidential advisory committee specifically to advise him on matters relating to law and ethics regarding cloning and embryo stem cell/adult stem cell research.  

Senator Harradine, questions Department of Industry about $46 million gift to Trounson stem cell centre.

"Yet even before any legislation has been scrutinised by any parliament in this country, money has already been provided to pro-cloning scientists. So much for parliamentary scrutiny and accountability.

"And what happens if the COAG legislation does not pass? Money has already been handed out without any legislation in place to govern it".

 
Top of Page

In the face of the enormous challenge confronting the Australian pro life movement to halt the ever widening attacks on the most vulnerable members of the human family, as represented by the determination of a handful of human embryology technologists to have their way with "therapeutic cloning", ProLife Victoria has cooperated with Right To Life Australia in launching a massive post card campaign against human embryo stem cell research.

The postcard has been cleverly de­signed in triplicate to send a message to the Prime Minister John Howard, our respective State Premiers and Federal Members of Parliament. When you receive your postcards, all you are required to do is enter the name of your Premier and Federal Member, the date, your name and address, sign all three cards, place a stamp on each of the three cards and post off immediately. As a national organization, Right To Life Australia has been able to send these cards to 1,400 churches throughout Australia, as a means of giving as wide a range of people the opportunity of registering their appeal to the Prime Minister and respective Premiers and Federal Members to halt this slide into barbarism. Every prolife organization in Australia has been approached to include these postcards in their mailouts to ensure maximum effort by the entire Australian pro life movement. Victorians have and will continue to put a lot of work into this post card campaign, saving unnecessary duplication by other inter­state prolife groups, involved as they are in ever increasing threats of abortion and euthanasia legislation in their respective states. The postcards are not designed to replace the importance of letter writing to our M.P.'s but they do give the opportunity of wider involvement of prolife people. They give the opportunity of building on our own initial action. We can pass the cards around our family friends and work mates not normally disposed to letter writing. We can offer to collect the signed cards, put the stamps on and post them off. We can approach our local churches, community groups or societies sympathetic to the prolife cause and ask them to be distributed at churchs or through their mail outs. All that is required is a little initiative and the campaign will become infectious. Much more will have to be done to win this particular battle for life. A post card campaign such as this is simple but enthusiastically supported by all prolifers, sets the scene and provides a very good start.

Supplies of the postcards can be obtained by telephoning either ProLife Victoria on 03 98186 or Right To Life Australia on 03 9387 7098.

Denise M Cameron Editor

And another thing.

For a man so vocal in debating euthanasia and demanding legal change, Dr Philip Nitschke has been very quick to hide behind the law to go silent and protect himself

The Australian - 31 May 2002

Top of Page

Top of Page

It is better to have lobbied and lost, than to have never lobbied at all.

Federal and State Governments will consider legislation permitting destructive human embryonic stem cell research this year. It may be as early as June in Federal Parliament. These will be momentous decisions for the future direction of biotechnology in Australia. We urge all prolifers to act now! Please!

Specifically, dial the telephone and request an appointment to discuss "human embryo stem cell legislation" with your local Federal M.P.. Worry about the date and delegation (others to accompany you) after you have been granted an appointment. If you don't know of any other prolifers to accompany you, simply telephone ProLife Victoria on 03-9818 6186 or 03-9387 7065 and request help. LOBBY PACKS TO HELP PREPARE YOU FOR YOUR APPOINTMENT ARE AVAILABLE ON REQUEST BY PHONING THESE NUMBERS.

Remember this is not something the Executive of ProLife Victoria can do for you. This is where you, our "grass roots" come into play! Only you can go to your Federal M.P.. Do not be pessimistic about gaining an appointment. Phone calls to your M.P's. office requesting appointments to discuss the embryonic stem cell issue are in themselves effective.

To assist you we print the names, addresses and phone numbers of Victorian Federal M.P's. and Senators.

   
Top of Page

by Dr David van Gend MBBS, FRACGP, DPM Old Sec., World Federation of Doctors who Respect Human Life.  

Nancy Crick was not dying. She was not terminally ill, she did not have any trace of cancer, she was almost twice the body weight stated on her web site and gaining. And Nancy Crick did not die. She suicided, which avoids dying, avoids reading the final chapter of the human story for fear of what it might hold.  

That fear is the key to understanding the "right to die" movement; it is the "afraid to die" movement. It is the "life has no meaning" movement. In "Search for Meaning", Carolyn Jones accompanies a friend through her process of dying. "The disfigurement of her illness was pitiful; it would have shocked no one if she had asked for death. But patiently she lived through her last days, until one evening, calmly, she took her last breath! It was a moment of heightened significance, almost excitement, certainly sacred. The sense was of a rite of passage safely traversed." What a pitiful contrast to Mrs Crick's suicide. Family who could not bear to be present to witness the self-killing. Utterly alone even in company, since no one can look suicide in the eye. A moment of debased insignificance, except in the minds of Euthanasia Society activists triumphing ghoulishly over their media coup.

Nancy Crick with Dr. Philip nitschke - reproduces from the Herald-Sun

Yet Nancy Crick has not died in vain. She has exposed her doctor, Philip Nitschke, as being cynical enough to do whatever it takes to manipulate public opinion, including the calculated deceit over her "terminal cancer". And more significantly, she flushed out an admission of his true philosophical agenda - quite simply, death on demand - with his assertion that it didn't matter whether she had cancer or not. You don't need cancer, you don't need to be dying or even suffering pain, you only have to desire death. Another pro-euthanasia doctor reluctantly admitted to me that even a healthy teenager who persistently asked for assisted suicide, after full medical assessment, had that right to assistance.

Now at least the public better understands the total package they are buying from Dr Nitschke if they support the alleged right to death on demand.

The second good thing to come from the Crick debate is the opportunity to reflect on the laws prohibiting assisted suicide, and to see them anew as necessary and to be upheld. The principle of justice involved is that no vulnerable person is to be put under the influence of another to choose death. The law deters involvement in another's suicide, not to make suicide a lonely affair, but because the involvement of any other person raises the possibility of malicious pressure being brought to bear to choose suicide.

For those who cannot believe in such malicious pressure, consider a letter sent to one of my patients by her sister only last week, to which I refer with permission. It abuses my patient as a "no-hoper" who "should die", and blatantly demands all proceeds from her will. This is a patient not endowed with great selfesteem. Any debate on assisted suicide has to take into account the grim nature of some family relationships.

When the UK House of Lords rejected assisted suicide and euthanasia, they concluded: "We are concerned that vulnerable people - the elderly, lonely, sick or distressed - would feel pressure, whether real or imagined, to seek early death." Likewise the Canadian Supreme Court declared. "the responsibility of Government to protect vulnerable people from abuse outweighs any individual right to assisted suicide". That decision against assisted suicide was reaffirmed only last month by the highest courts in Britain and Europe. It is a just and necessary law. While Mrs Crick was alive, our association declined to comment on her predicament, feeling that the more highly publicised her case was, the less private freedom she had to rethink and choose supportive care instead of suicide.

Now that Mrs Crick is dead, however, her death is the proper subject of police investigation and public comment. Dr Nitschke has declared this to be only the start of a series of staged suicides, of a campaign of "civil disobedience" to our laws on assisted suicide. We feel that Dr Nitschke should be prosecuted for "counselling suicide", and made to learn that he, too, is under the rule of law. If his precedent of spectator suicide surrounded by family or friends or foes is tolerated, we will have made possible a new form of oppression of the weak by the malicious strong. That must be opposed, and the current restraining law up­held.

The Medical Board will no doubt be assessing whether Dr Nitschke has cared for his patient in a proper man­ner, which involves the duty to treat depression and strive to prevent sui­cide. At the very least the Board should compel him to undergo formal train­ing in palliative medicine, so he can be confident in easing the symptoms of advanced disease, not going with the death option through lack of medical experience.

Which raises the third and final good thing to come from the Nancy Crick debate.

It gives an opportunity for those of us who have trained in palliative medicine to remind people of the magnificent advances in the care of the dying, and encourage them away from the despair of suicide. An opportunity also to correct misconceptions like those in Crispin Hull's recent article, where he states: "Hitherto, euthanasia was usually a case of a doctor quite legally administering enough morphine to deal with pain that as an `unintended side effect' killed the patient."

The widespread superstitious notion that morphine kills patients must be corrected, as it undermines the confidence of patients and their families in palliative care. Properly used, morphine exactly balances pain, with negligible residue of drowsiness and no capacity to shorten life. It is thought indeed to prolong life by reducing physical stress and oxygen requirements - but then, the doctor has no interest in either prolonging or shortening the dying process. We aim only to ease suffering, accompanying the patient while they die in their own good time.

As for Nancy Crick, she should still be alive. And Philip Nitschke should be prosecuted. Bizarre suicide scenes like theirs make bad law, and the law against assisting suicide must not move even one step towards a situation which would expose the mass of vulnerable old people to malicious involvement by others.

Top of Page

"Feminists for Life applaud the AMA's resounding condemnation of the practice of euthanasia at their national conference in Canberra recently. The AMA's stand upholds much needed protection for vulnerable members of our society - especially olderwomen." said spokesperson, Lara Kirk.

Women live longer than men and are in the majority in most nursing homes. Older women are particularly vulnerable due to limited financial and social influence. Also, women have often been socialised into an inordinate sense of self-sacrifice and are more subject to depression than men. Not surprisingly, where euthanasia is tolerated, two thirds of those killed by lethal injection are women.

Euthanasia advocates argue that it is 'compassionate' to allow the terminally ill to 'unburden them­selves' of life. But in offering the old and infirm (most often women) the 'choice' to end their lives, we simultaneously load them up with the cruel burden of having to justify why they should go on living.

Socially approved 'mercy killing' can also create enormous stress for family, friends and health workers. Instead of being free to concentrate single­mindedly on providing care and comfort, they may find themselves conscripted into the harrowing task of having to decide when and whether their loved one/patient really wants to die. The potential for such deliberations to introduce division in families and distrust in the doctor-patient relationship is unbounded.

To single out some members of society as 'eligible' for legalised killing based on their health status will impact most adversely on women and is inconsistent with the core feminist principles of justice, non-violence and non-discrimination.  

Top of Page

 Top of Page

Although the rise of far-right European political parties as garnered worldwide attention, the more quiet resurgence of center-right and Christian Democratic parties in country after country has potentially far greater significance for European social policy, as well as for European activities at the United Nations.

Centre-right parties are currently ruling in Spain, Italy, Denmark and Portugal. Centre-right candidates have recently won elections in France and the Netherlands, and lead in the polls in Germany. Although local political concerns vary, some observers tie this new success to widespread dissatisfaction with the radical social policies of leftist governments ruling in Europe through­out most of the 1990s.

According to a May 16 article in the Washington Post, even though liberal Dutch Prime Minister Wim Kok "presided over a period of economic growth and low unemployment, an achievement that was called 'the Dutch miracle,' "voters rejected his re-election bid Affect U N in May in part because he "pushed through a large collection of social policy laws, legalizing brothels and euthanasia and making the Netherlands the world's first country to fully recognize homosexual marriages."

In response, Christian Democratic parties have embraced law-and-order polices as well as some conservative social policies. Jan Peter Balkenende, the Christian Democratic victor of the recent election in the Netherlands, does not support his country's euthanasia laws. Edmund Stoiber, the leader of the Christian Social Union and the chief opponent of German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder in upcoming elections, is opposed to the legalization of gay marriage and is against abortion.

Germany has led EU efforts at the UN to create a partial ban on human cloning, one that would allow for the creation and destruction of cloned human embryos for research. It is therefore possible that a centre-right victory in German elections would affect the overall EU negotiating position on cloning. The next round of UN meetings on cloning begins on September 23rd, one day after the German election. According to Theo Brinkel, a member of the Christian Democratic Appeal of the Netherlands, a recent conference of European centre-right parties affirmed "respect for the right to life and the uniqueness of each human being from the moment of conception." The group also concluded that "experiments on human embryos should only be permitted if they are designed to protect the life and health of the specific embryo that is the subject of the experiment."

Perhaps in response to this seeming rising tide of conservatism, some Socialist members of the European Parliament have drafted a resolution calling for all current and prospective EU member states to legalize abortion. The resolution declares that "the voluntary interruption of pregnancy should be legal, safe and universally accessible" in all EU countries. A vote on the resolution is set for Monday, June 3.  

... from C-FAM (Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute) - May 31, 2002. E-mail: "mailto:c-fam@c-fam.org" Website: "http: / /www.c-fam.org" 
 

Top of Page

The United Nations continues to voice concern over the dual demographic trends of declining births and an increasingly elderly population, this time focusing its attention on what it considers the increasingly worrisome situation in Asia. According to a UN press release, delegates meeting at the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UN/ESCAP), being held in Bangkok, concluded that this combination of fertility decline and ageing "could result in future destitution for many people, especially women," throughout the continent.

The press release claims that "the clock is ticking" on "Asia's ageing population," and that the elderly now face the prospect of "no golden years," since there will not be enough young workers to maintain social security systems.

The UN/ESCAP report is a notable development because it highlights that these demographic concerns are no longer restricted to Europe, where fertility decline and population "graying" have long been apparent. In fact, UN/ESCAP anticipates that the nations of Asia will face even more daunting challenges than those of Europe. According to the United Nations Information Services, "It's been known for many years that the 'graying population' of developed countries would create socio-economic problems in the not so distant future. But UN/ESCAP population forecasts for Asia and the Pacific predict an even greater social upheaval, since, compared to more developed nations, many developing countries in this region have far fewer social programs in place to care for their rapidly graying populations."

What is more, the UN/ESCAP meeting concluded that the effects of this demographic shift are already taking hold in Asia. As the press release states, "a declining birth rate means fewer offspring to provide direct support, financial and otherwise, to parents who rely on their off spring to care for them in their old age. And the impact is already being felt." For instance, many Asian elderly were thrown into poverty when children were unable to continue supporting them during the financial crisis of 1997.

The UN/ESCAP meeting follows on the heels of a March, 2002 meeting of demographers, convened by the United Nations Population Division, to discuss whether the fertility of developing countries - including those in Asia - will continue to fall, perhaps even reaching the extremely low fertility rates found in many developed nations. The general consensus that emerged from this meeting was that it was impossible to tell "how low fertility will go."

On Tuesday, Japan's Health Minister stated that "the Japanese race will become extinct" if fertility decline is not reversed. In 2000, the UN predicted that Japan would need to import 600,000 workers a year in order to keep its working population stable.

This new emphasis on fertility decline would seem to isolate the United Nations Population Fund, which continues to promote the need for population control. 

... from C-F" (Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute) - May 31, 2002,

Top of Page

CANADA - A prominent Jewish Orthodox rabbi in Ottawa, Canada, has spoken out strongly against abortion. Rabbi Reuven P. Bulka, founder of Clergy for a United Canada and a noted scholar, author and broadcaster, wrote in a local newspaper: "...abortion is nothing less than the murder of a child in utero. This is not a women's-rights issue: This is a fetal-rights issue."

from LifeSite May 2002
 

UNITED KINGDOM - A well-known columnist in a British national newspaper has suggested that Cherie Blair, the Prime Minister's wife, should have aborted her youngest child to prove her feminist credentials. Julie Burchill, who has had five abortions, writes in The Guardian: "Cherie Blair can call herself a feminist all she likes, but any feminist worth her salt would have made a point of having a termination - on the NHS, naturally - when she got knocked up the last time. Wantonly giving birth to a fourth child on a planet buckling under the strain of overpopulation certainly isn't any sort of example to set for gymslip mums, who can at least plead ignorance and rampant fertility."

A spokesman for SPUC commented: "This was a gratuitous and misplaced attack. Mrs Blair has done nothing to embarrass her husband over his strong pro-abortion stance, other than by giving birth. Moreover, the overpopulation myth has been rejected even by the United Nations, and Britain's birth rate is now way below replacement level."

from The Guardian May 2002

UNITED STATES - A US federal jury in California has found that a health centre violated the constitutional rights of a nurse by dismissing her for refusing to dispense the abortifacient morning-after pill. The jury found the Riverside Neighbourhood Health Centre guilty of violating the rights to free speech and to freedom of religion of former nurse Michelle Diaz, and awarded her more than $47,000 in compensation.

from LifeSite May 2002

UNITED NATIONS -The United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) has criticised the United Kingdom for making little progress in combating teenage pregnancy. AUNICEF survey has found that the UK's teenage pregnancy rate is second only to that of the United States. A UNICEF report claims that significant reasons for Britain's high teenage pregnancy rate include inadequate sex education and the fact that "contraceptive advice and services" are only available "in a closed atmosphere of embarrassment and secrecy".

A spokesman for SPUC pointed out that UNICEF had a record of promoting abortion and abortifacient "contraceptive services" around the world, and rejected UNICEF's analysis of the reasons for Britain's high teenage pregnancy rate. An intensive sex education programme in British schools over the past 20 years and incentive payments to doctors for contraceptive advice have had no measurable impact in reducing the teenage pregnancy figures. Members of the European parliament's Commission for the Rights of Women and Equality of Opportunities voted on a pro-abortion report on the 3 June. The report on sexual and reproductive rights has been written by Anne E. M. Van Lancker, a Socialist member of the European parliament from Belgium. It begins by affirming that women have fundamental sexual and reproductive rights which require special protection, and then proposes that all European Union member states and candidate countries should ensure that abortion is legal, accessible and free to all women. It also proposes that sex education and access to contraception, including so-called emergency contraception, should be made available to adolescents without the knowledge of their parents.

from Euro-Fam May 2002

UNITED KINGDOM - The cloning expert who directed a project in California aimed at creating human clones for research purposes has been challenged to explain why he has relocated to Britain. Josephine Quintavalle, director of Comment on Reproductive Ethics, wants to know why Dr Roger Pedersen has moved from the University of California - San Francisco to Cambridge University in England. She asked: "Is it because of the looser laws over here? I also want to know to what extent officials know what is actually going on in these research institutions."

from CNS News May 2002

UNITED STATES - A woman has been arrested in Colorado accused of illegally selling abortion-inducing drugs by mail order. Lishan He, aged 46, was charged by police in Denver last week with distributing abortifacients and practising medicine without a licence. Police were first alerted to the operation last year by a flier. When they responded to it, enclosing a money order, they received drugs similar to RU-486 10 days later by express mail. It is unknown how many doses had been sold already.

from Denver Post May 2002

DENMARK - An opinion poll carried out in Denmark has suggested that a large majority support the legalisation of euthanasia. A survey conducted by PLS Ramboell and published in the Jyllands-Posten newspaper indicates that 68% support the legalisation of euthanasia generally, while 93% support it to end the suffering of terminally ill patients and 82% support it for those with incurable illnesses. Lars Loekke Rasmussen, the Danish health minister, said that he was shocked by the findings, "especially by the numbers of people who would like to end the lives of the aged, mentally ill and handicapped people".

from AFP via Pro-Life Internet May 2002.

UNITED KINGDOM - Britain's national broadcasting organisation has been accused of being scared of the abortion debate. Mr Daniel Johnson made the assertion in the Daily Telegraph after the BBC chose to begin a television drama series about the secret services with a programme featuring murderous British prolife activists led by an American woman. Mr Johnson says that the BBC's corporate culture defends the shibboleths of the 1960s, including the 1967 Abortion Act, and alleges that there's a conspiracy to stop the public from seeing the reality of the most widely-performed procedure in the British health service. He points out that "Spooks" failed to distinguish between the peaceful campaigning of the real pro­life movement and the activities of the fictional terrorists. A pro-lifer was portrayed as caring only about the unborn. The violent organisation in the programme had a name which combined words from the titles of two genuine pro-life groups, and another militant organisation was mentioned whose name included the title of another such group.

from Telegraph May 2002

UNITED KINGDOM - In a debate on euthanasia yesterday, members of the UK parliament warned that a pro­euthanasia agenda was being advanced in the medico-legal world without proper parliamentary scrutiny. David Amess, a pro-life Conservative MP, condemned the General Medical Council's guidance in "Withholding and Withdrawing Life-Prolonging Treatment: Good Practice in Decision Making" because it endorsed euthanasia by omission. Dr Brian Iddon, a Labour MP, warned that so­called advanced directives put patients in a more vulnerable position, and Tim Loughton, the opposition spokesman for health, said that the problem of patients "being made to feel that they are too much of a burden on their families .... is increasing with the ageing of the population. "[House of Commons Hansard, 22 May] Anthony Ozimic, SPUC's political spokesman, commented: "We hope that such perceptive criticisms by parliamentarians make the government realise that it will have a real fight on its hands if it tries to pass pro-euthanasia legislation."

from AFP via Pro-Life Internet May 2002.

UNITED STATES - An American pro-life organisation has claimed that the abortion industry in the US is consistently failing to adhere to state and federal laws on the reporting of child sexual abuse and parental notification. Mark Crutcher, president of Life Dynamics Inc., will present the findings of his organisation's investigation next Saturday. The report, entitled "Child Predators", claims that between 60 and 80 percent of girls aged 15 or younger who become pregnant were impregnated by adult men, but that abortion providers often conceal these crimes when an underage girl requests an abortion.

from LifeSite May 2002

UNITED STATES - A majority of Americans now believe that abortion is "morally wrong", according to a nationwide opinion poll. The poll conducted by Gallup found that 53% of the population believed that abortion was "morally wrong", up from 45% last year. Only 38% of respondents thought that abortion was "morally acceptable". While 90% of respondents opposed human cloning, only 52% said that embryonic stem cell research was morally incorrect. However, the respondents were not told that such research entails the destruction of a unique human bring. Another poll conducted last month found that 68% of Americans supported President Bush's opposition to all human cloning, including so-called therapeutic purposes.

from Pro-Life Internet May 2002.

Top of Page

Back to newsletter archive