Pro-LIFE NEWS

Vol. 20 No.1 - Winter  2003                                                                                               Print Post Approved - 33L385/00042

Contents:

- Doctor-Assisted Suicide Legalised For Tube-Fed Patients
- Editorial
- Annual General Meeting
- Screen Goddess Rebukes 'Botched' Abortion
- Death by Little Steps
- Radical Feminists Takeover of UNICEF
- "All their Tomorrows depend on your love"
- Freedom March Melbourne
- Apology for a Life
- Los Angeles Times Editor Reportedly Upset About Abortion Bias
- Throwaway People?
- World View

The means of assisted suicide legalised in Victoria on 29 May 2003 is death by starvation and dehydration for patients dependent on tube feeding. This is not a means of suicide that even proponents of euthanasia seek. This was never intended by the Victorian Parliament. There is no limitation to patients with a terminal illness or any requirement that pain is unable to be relieved. The intended outcomes of actions has always been critical in homicide law but tube-feeding can be removed with the death of the patient being an outcome which is fully intended.

How did this happen?

ProLife Victoria Secretary Denise Cameron speaking with the Honourable Noel Pullen MLC at the July Right to Life Australia Conference.

No. Parliament did not address this issue this year. With relatively little publicity, a VCAT decision in the BWV case was confirmed on 29 May 2003 by a decision of the Victorian Supreme Court. The Medical Treatment Act 1989 now has a new interpretation denied by its proponents at the time it was introduced. The right to refuse "'palliative care" was previously understood not to include care upon which life is dependent. The Medical Treatment Act 1989 permitted patients to refuse "palliative care". Now the provision of food and water by tube-feeding has been determined to fall within the category of "palliative care". However, one of the risks of legislating within the realm of medical treatment was manifested in the failure to adequately define "palliative care".

Pro-Life Victoria aims to provide `Life Issues' quarterly specifically to help keep Members of Parliament informed on a range of issues.

In this issue, we are providing an article by Rev. Prof. Anthony Fisher, Director of the John Paul Institute for Marriage and Family, as published in the Herald-Sun, 2 June 2003. Rev. Prof. Anthony Fisher outlines some details of the BWV case and expresses concerns for the future care of elderly, handicapped and unconscious people. He notes that Dr. Syme of the Voluntary Euthanasia played a key role in the BWV case to legalise starvation and dehydration and then wrote in the Herald-Sun on the day after the Supreme Court decision that this was a cruel death for BWV and that she needs a lethal injection.

The Medical Treatment Act 1989 has failed us. When this Act was passed, suicide by starvation was not an intended outcome for anyone. This unintended outcome deserves urgent attention in the Parliament.

Pro-Life Victoria is a community organisation which seeks to provide reliable, up to date information and educational resources on life issues.

Peter Beriman

Top of Page

The right to be born alive is not a lost cause. Every now and then when we prolifers are tempted to succumb to the despair of believing that it just might be, notice how it is back in the headlines? The fact that this is due to someone outside the pro life movement, should be very encouraging to us. Most of us were brought up to believe the "truth will always out". Nowhere could this have been more apparent than in the lead story of the recent (August 3) Melbourne Herald Sun Magazine.

There it was on the front cover, full page, Grief, Guilt, and the Loss of an Unborn Child - One Family's Story. Unborn child, notice. Not foetus or product of conception as pro aborts and the media usually would have us believe. Inside the magazine, under the heading "The Hardest Thing I Have Ever Done" Emma Loach told us of how she and her husband decided to abort their unborn child at 23 weeks gestation after being told at 20 weeks, that their son had Down's Syndrome. No prolifer could have written a more damning indictment of the practice of abortion by doctors supposed to be dedicated to preserving life, to doing "no harm". "As soon as we arrived, we were shown into this little room. I noticed the box of tissues on the table. Not a good sign in a hospital consulting room" said the worried mother. When I read these words, I couldn't help but see the symbolism, some disposable tissues to wipe away the tears as the parents were assured by the doctors that they would dispose of their problem along with the disposable tissues. "There was silence during the scan. Elliot's face lit up seeing the baby for the first time. I thought if I was faced with the possibility of amnio (centesis) hours of discussion would follow but here I was, no discussion, no contemplation. Just doing it. It was horrible. All my instincts were to protect my belly, yet here I was allowing someone else to stick a huge needle into it. It felt so wrong" went the narrative. No mention was made of meeting with the parents of Down children, for an exchange of information, advice, support or encouragement. Only negative information from the consultant. "Life expectancy of 30 or 40 years. Never being able to look after himself. Likely to have serious medical problems all his life." And the disadvantageous effects of his life on his parents and older brother Samuel! A thoroughly bleak outlook. The parents were frightened into an abortion.

The narrative became more gut wrenching. Speaking of how she felt taking the tablet to end the pregnancy she said: 'I was disgusted that such a tablet existed, let alone that I should have to take it. I swallowed the tablet. The baby kicked, blissfully unaware of what I had done. The ultimate betrayal. All the time, the baby was kicking and I felt like a murderer waiting to strike her victim... Abortion has never raised any moral dilemmas for me and I am an atheist, so there are no religious issues. But I still don't want to be the one who stopped the baby's chance to live. Like many things the theory is very different from the reality."

The narrative got worse. Speaking of her baby's birth, the poor betrayed mother said: "The consultant had said it wouldn't be like a normal delivery. But he was wrong. It was exactly like the labour I had with Samuel. The same rush of excitement. The same anticipation. The same anxious wait for a little, pathetic cry. Only this time no cry came. Elliot watched the baby come out, and for a split second I saw a look of joy on his face. The same unique expression he had when he saw Samuel born. Our baby was beautiful. Looked exactly like Samuel as a baby. I loved him instantly and didn't want to let him go."

I finished reading this poor family's tragedy hoping fervently that they will somehow learn of one of the post abortion healing services provided by the prolife movement. "I have terrible thoughts. I think the whole experience has made me a pretty nasty person. As though I went power mad for a week, killing my innocent unborn child, and now I am tainted forever. I am a darker, harder version of myself. I give pregnant women dirty looks. I get terribly irritated by my close friends and family. No one else felt him kick. Sometimes I wish I had invited my whole family into the hospital room to see him. It has brought Elliot and me very close. At first the closeness came through a sense of guilt. Never lacking a sense of the dramatic, it felt as if we shared the responsibility for the terrible dirty act that we had committed. I felt as if we had gone underground, that we were part of the criminal fraternity. We are bound to each other because of the blood that was on both our hands. I want to be happy again. I want to be nice again. And I want to be pregnant." When I read this my fervent wish and prayer was that she would somehow hear of those concluding words of John Paul 1I's Gospel of Life. "I would now like to say a special word to women who have had an abortion. The Church is aware of the many factors which may have influenced your decision, and she does not doubt that in many cases it was a painful and even shattering decision. The wound in your heart may not yet have healed. Certainly what happened was and remains terribly wrong. But do not give in to discouragement and do not lose hope. Try rather to understand what happened and face it honestly. With the friendly and expert help and advice of other people, and as a result of your own painful experience, you can be among the most eloquent defenders of everyone's right to life"
 

Denise M Cameron, Editor
 

Top of Page

Saturday 1 November 2003 at 7.30pm following a Casserole Tea at 6.00 pm at the home of  Peter & Claire Beriman, 6 Madeline Street, Burwood (Glen Iris) Melways 60: E 8

Guest Speaker: Mr David Perrin Former State Member of Parliament and well known pro life/pro family activist speaking on "The Implications of the VCAT judgement for euthanasia in Victoria." This will be an important update on the challenges facing Victorian prolifers. David is well qualified to outline the actions we need to take to combat this threat hereafter.

New Members especially welcome. Come and get to know other prolifers.

Top of Page

I n a recent interview, Jane Russell, now 82, described her shock on finding herself pregnant to her boyfriend Robert Waterfield at 18: "The only solution was to find a quack and get an abortion. I had a botched abortion and it was terrible. Afterwards my own doctor said: 'What butcher did this to you?' I had to be taken to hospital. I was so ill I nearly died. I've never known pain like it. People should never, ever have an abortion. Don't talk to me about it being a woman's right to choose what she does with her own body. The choice is between life and death". The real tragedy didn't emerge until after she and Robert married and desperately wanted children. The abortion had left Russell sterile. 

Top of Page

She is not in pain. Not on a life-support machine. Not dying. That's the problem. `BWV suffers from progressive dementia (`Pick's disease') and is fed through a tube. Though awake, capable of following people around the room with her eyes and responsive to some stimuli, she is now uncommunicative. Experts told Victoria's Supreme Court that, though BWV will continue to decline, she has been stable for the past few months and were `nature left to take its course' she would likely live for a few more years. So now her food and water are to be stopped.

No one should judge the family. When people have slow degenerative illnesses it is often the bystanders who suffer most. They are understandably exhausted. They are sure BWV would not want to be in this situation. Who would?

The case has a long pre-history. A year ago Shawn Donnan wrote about Nancy Crick, who wrongly thought she had a terminal illness and committed suicide in front of 21 people (Christian Science Monitor 31 May 2002). He interviewed Drs Philip Nitschke and Rodney Syme, Australia's leading euthanasia campaigners, who were also prominent in the BWV case. Having comprehensively failed to get Australian parliaments to legalize euthanasia, they now have a new strategy: "to steer the issue toward the courts where... a precedent might be established that would lead to doctor-assisted suicides being treated much as abortion is in Australia."

Though technically illegal - like abortion - euthanasia would become available on demand through a series of court rulings interpreting the existing law `liberally' and decisions by authorities not to prosecute. "It offers a way around the politicians," Syme explained. "We could go further in little steps that might one day clear the way for doctors to legally administer drugs to patients to help them die."

Euthanasia campaigners are deadly serious about this new strategy. They now have a decision that will be read by some to condone hastening death by calculated omission. Once that is accepted by law and medicine, they hope, it will be `only a matter of time' before people see a lethal injection as kinder.

Dr Syme recently told Radio National's Law Report (4 March 2002) that `we'-the Voluntary Euthanasia Society - `guided' the family of BWV through approaches to the Public Advocate and that `we' eventually took the decision to approach VCAT to get her tube-feeding stopped. Dr Syme, though not BWV's doctor and no expert in her condition, also appeared at VCAT as principal medical expert.

Having worked so hard to get this decision, Dr Syme now writes in the Herald Sun (this page, 30 May) that what is proposed for BWV is a cruel death that we would not inflict upon a pet. What she needs is a lethal injection. And that of course was the VES strategy from the start.

Medical law and ethics have always recognized situations where treatments and even feeding should not be initiated or continued: if a patient's death is imminent, their body unable to absorb the food or medicine, or delivery imposes grave burdens. In such cases death should be accepted and the focus shifted to palliative and pastoral care. So why go to court?

Melbourne's Catholic Archbishop Denis Hart suggested that there was more at issue than one woman, her family and carers. "The way we care for and relate to elderly, handicapped and unconscious people for years to come" are on the line. It also opens the way for Catholic health and aged care providers, and doctors and nurses of all persuasions, to be pressured or even required to act in ways contrary to their principles.

The BWV case confronts us with the question not just of how we care for demented, unconscious or intellectually handicapped but, more essentially, why we care for them. Some, we hope, will regain consciousness and some independence. Many, we know, will not. By supporting them we affirm our respect for their humanity. We express our gratitude to them for the past, our love for them in the present, our hope for them in the future. When our leaders, carers and community demonstrate such reverence and love, they are not the `cowards' Dr Syme calls them.

BWV has Pick's disease, but she will not die of it. She will die of 'under-nutrition and renal failure' as medical experts told the court. "She will not die with dignity," says Dr Syme. No, it will be "death by dehydration and starvation". For once the Church agrees with him. May she rest in peace.

Top of Page

A major initiative to reform the UN Children's Fund (UNICEF) began today with the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute's (C-FAM) release of a comprehensive investigative report entitled 'UNICEF, Women or Children First?" The report, the third in a series of White Papers produced by CFAM's think tank, the International Organization Research Group, chronicles the growing influence of radical feminist ideology on the UN agency.

Top of Page

Prolifers do tend to be charitable, generous and loyal people, This is a great strength of our movement. Nonetheless, for most of us, the capacity to give each year when asked is limited. "Giving later" is another possibility. You may wish to consider a bequest to ProLife Victoria in your will as a means of "giving later" and ensuring that your support lives on. Making a will is a personal and private matter. It is easy to postpone until another day but it is important in that it ensures that your estate is distributed as you would wish. Enquiries: ProLife Victorla, 98786786 

 Top of Page

Top of Page

by Bruce Dawe, from Protest Poems
 

I'm sorry I turned up unwelcome, No, my father's not thoughtful I know, And he wouldn't take no for an answer, There was no point in telling him so.

So no doubt you were right not to tell him - There was no way that he'd understand, There'd be time for a child in the future - One that arrived when you planned.

And I know that you couldn't afford me; A child is a dreadful expense; You can't just ignore economics, In the long run it wouldn't make sense. Besides, your career is important, You've worked too hard to let it all go, It's not just a case of promotion, But you've earned recognition -

 I know. And adoption would be so traumatic - Social workers, red tape and all that, Nine months with an unasked-for burden, And you'd have to move out of the flat. And of course there's the feminist angle, "Safe, legal, and" - most of all - "free"; You've a right to control of your body, Although it was connected to me.

You've a right to control your own body, And absolute freedom of choice, Unhindered by law or by conscience - Or the cry of a small muffled voice. No, I'm sure on the whole you chose wisely, I would have been rather a pest, No, of course you weren't just being selfish, You just did what you thought was best.

So, I'm sorry I bled on your carpet, You see, there was part of me left, - Perhaps if the knife had been sharper, Or the doctor a little more deft.

For a short time life brought us together, But you had other futures to seek, Still, you were, for a little, my mother, - I'm sorry I ruined your week.
 

Published in2003 by:
Coalition for the Defence of Human Life, GPO Box S1505, Perth, Western Australia, 6845. Telephone: (08) 93212822 & Life Ministries, Suite 4/334 Wanneroo Road, Nollomora, Western Australia, 6061. Telephone: (08) 9344 7396.
 

Top of Page

Recently, a web site called the Los Angeles Observer ran a copy of an internal memorandum from an Los Angeles Times editor to a staff writer. If this is accurate, and no proof has been provided one way or the other at press time, this is an amazing admission by the mainstream media. The L.A. Observer website credits the memo to managing editor John Carroll. It appears below:

To: Section Eds

Subject: Credibility/abortion

I'm concerned about the perception - and the occasional reality - that The Times is a liberal, "politically correct" newspaper. Generally speaking, this is an inaccurate view, but occasionally we prove our critics right. We did so today with the front-page story on the bill in Texas that would require abortion doctors to counsel patients that they may be risking breast cancer.

The apparent bias of the writer and/or the desk reveals itself in the third paragraph, which characterizes such bills in Texas and elsewhere as requiring "so-called counselling of patients." I don't think people on the antiabortion side would consider it "so-called," a phrase that is loaded with derision.

The story makes a strong case that the link between abortion and breast cancer is widely discounted among researchers, but I wondered as I read it whether somewhere there might exist some credible scientist who believes in it.

Such a person makes no appearance in the story's lengthy passage about the scientific issue. We do quote one of the sponsors of the bill, noting that he "has a professional background in property management." Seldom will you read a cheaper shot than this. Why, if this is germane, wouldn't we point to legislators on the other side who are similarly bereft of scientific credentials?

It is not until the last three paragraphs of the story that we finally surface a professor of biology and endocrinology who believes the abortion/cancer connection is valid. But do we quote him as to why he believes this? No. We quote his political views.

Apparently the scientific argument for the anti-abortion side is so absurd that we don't need to waste our readers' time with it.

The reason I'm sending this note to all section editors is that I want everyone to understand how serious I am about purging all political bias from our coverage. We may happen to live in apolitical atmosphere that is suffused with liberal values (and is unreflective of the nation as a whole), but we are not going to push a liberal agenda in the news pages of The Times.

I'm no expert on abortion, but I know enough to believe that it presents a profound philosophical, religious and scientific question, and I respect people on both sides of the debate. A newspaper that is intelligent and fair-minded will do the same.

Let me know if you'd like to discuss this.
John

Top of Page

Top of Page

NEW ZEALAND - The New Zealand Parliament has narrowly rejected right to-die legislation. The Death With Dignity Bill, which would have allowed doctors to kill terminally ill patients if they were to ask for help, was defeated on its first reading by a vote of 60 to 58 with one abstention. If the bill had survived, there would have been a referendum to seek public support.

UNITED KINGDOM - Scientists at King's College, London, have grown human embryonic stem cells from an IVF embryo for the first time in the UK. Researchers claim that embryonic stem cells will eventually provide revolutionary treatments for Parkinson's and Alzheimer's but prolife groups have pointed out that the majority of medical advances are coming from adult stem cell research. [BBC, 13 August] SPUC political secretary Anthony Ozimic said: "The embryonic child from whom the stem cell line was developed had been handed over by his or her parents for experimentation after they had finished IVF treatment. Ethically this is no different to parents handing over a child into slavery. It is clear that IVF has led not only to the destruction, but also to the exploitation, of newly conceived human life. One of the ways prolifers can take action against destructive embryo research is by telling their friends, colleagues and relatives that, while great sympathy must be shown to infertile couples, IVF is wrong."

UNITED KINGDOM - A London GP has criticised the government for ignoring the success of abstinence programmes in cutting infection and pregnancy rates among teenagers. Dr Trevor Stammers wrote: "In the UK, sexual activity is one area in which encouraging abstinence in the under 16s is regarded as an unreasonable goal. We expect our children to abstain from stealing, bullying and a host of other activities but often imply that it is less important where sexual activity is concerned." Abstinence programmes in the US have helped to decrease the number of teenage pregnancies by equipping young people with skills such as self-worth, assertiveness and arguments for postponing sexual activity.

USA - After Thirty Years, We Know Abortion Harms Women After a three decade experiment initiated by Roe v Wade, the results clearly show that abortion harms women. America has polarized the abortion debate between the unborn child and the woman, but in reality abortion does not offer the best choice for either. A survey by the Alan Guttmacher Institute, research arm for Planned Parenthood, showed women primarily choose abortion because of lack of financial resources and lack of emotional support. Abortion appears to these women to be the only choice available. The false notion that abortion provides the best and easiest solution to an unwanted pregnancy deceptively misleads women.

CHINA - Beijing - International Planned Parenthood reports that the Beijing Municipality has eased its birth control policy to allow couples who fall within certain criteria to have a second child. The local birth control committee claim that the revision is for the protection of citizens and to ensure 'safe labour and health of mothers and children.' However, Dr John Aird, one of the world's leading experts on Chinese population control, pointed out that narrow exceptions to the one-child policy have been in place since 1979, affecting between 5⁰/o and 10% of the population. "As long as the basic one-child policy continues, the "rights of local citizens" under the family planning policy are still acutely restricted," he said.

from LifeNews.com August 2003.

from news-press.com August 2003.

USA - The US President's Council on Bioethics met recently to discuss working papers suggesting that IVF should be federally regulated. At present, the production of human embryos through IVF, their destruction or use in scientific experimentation, is not subject to any federal regulation, nor is there any oversight of egg donation, surrogate mothers or IVF children. Proposals to regulate IVF has caused debate among prolifers, some of whom see regulation as a sign of approval, whilst others believe that regulation of an objectionable practice may be preferable to the current situation.

from Catholic World News August 2003.

USA - A new political group, funded by billionaire George Soros and run by a former employee of a leading pro-abortion organization, plans to spend $75 million in grassroots activism to target prolife President George W. Bush for defeat in 2004. Soros, who, along with his family, donates hundreds of thousands of dollars to pro-abortion candidates every election, is fronting $10 million to put together the new political action committee called America Coming Together. The group will be headed by Ellen Malcolm, president of EMILY's List, a pro-abortion political action committee that funnels millions of dollars to pro-abortion women running for office. In addition to targeting Bush, the group will back congressional candidates in 17 key states, including: Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin.

USA - A study by researchers in Boston has become the latest to suggest that adult stem cells can be successfully used to regenerate heart muscle cells. Dr Victor Dzau and his team from Brigham and Women's Hospital injected rats who had suffered heart attacks with engineered bone marrow cells, restoring between 80% and 90% of the heart's volume.

from the BBC August 2003

Top of Page

Back to newsletter archive