|
Letter sent via email to the
Telegraph on January 22nd 2012
Dear Sir,
You report that the Government is considering plans to give women contemplating abortion “a right to independent counselling” (‘Quiet plans to reform abortion law gather pace’, Sunday Telegraph, January 22, 2012), but that abortion providers have claimed that this will lead to more late abortions - or even that “a decision to end a pregnancy could come too late”. The clinics have never had a problem with late abortions, but their response makes clear that giving women a chance to think for even a few minutes about the reality of their ‘choice’ rather than being rushed through a life-and-death decision will mean fewer abortions.
NHS guidance from the 1990’s does not mention abortion but insists: ‘Patients are entitled to receive sufficient information in a way that they can understand about the proposed treatments, the possible alternatives and any substantial risks, so that they can make a balanced judgement’.[i] A Guide to Consent for Examination or Treatment (NHS, n.d. (c.1991)). [i] Some clinics charge A380 for telephone online ‘counselling’ before an abortion,
[ii] and no clinic will allude to the ‘possible alternatives’ and ‘substantial risks’, physical, mental and emotional, of abortion. With extreme emotional pressure to obtain an abortion from the very people - including the child’s father - who should provide support to continue the pregnancy, how can women reach this ‘balanced judgement’?
Abortion providers will no doubt argue that pro-life counselling be excluded from any mandatory provision on the grounds that it is biased - but their own ‘charitable’ status is a significant factor in reassuring women that they have no vested interests, despite the huge public subsidies they receive for carrying out abortions. Perhaps their real fear is that women will learn of the well-documented physical and mental health risks of what clinics refer to as a ‘treatment’, leading to a loss of business for the abortion industry.
Yours faithfully,
Ann Farmer (Mrs)
Essex
Letter sent via email to the
Telegraph on January 28th 2012
Dear Sir,
You report that the Government is considering plans to give women contemplating abortion “a right to independent counselling” (‘Quiet plans to reform abortion law gather pace’, Sunday Telegraph, January 22, 2012), but that abortion providers have claimed that this will lead to more late abortions - or even that “a decision to end a pregnancy could come too late”. The clinics have never had a problem with late abortions, but their response makes clear that giving women a chance to think for even a few minutes about the reality of their ‘choice’ rather than being rushed through a life-and-death decision will mean fewer abortions.
NHS guidance from the 1990s does not mention abortion but insists: ‘Patients are entitled to receive sufficient information in a way that they can understand about the proposed treatments, the possible alternatives and any substantial risks, so that they can make a balanced judgement’.[i] A Guide to Consent for Examination or Treatment (NHS, n.d. (c.1991)). [i] Some clinics charge A380 for telephone online ‘counselling’ before an abortion,
[ii] and no clinic will allude to the ‘possible alternatives’ and ‘substantial risks’, physical, mental and emotional, of abortion. With extreme emotional pressure to obtain an abortion from the very people - including the child’s father - who should provide support to continue the pregnancy, how can women reach this ‘balanced judgement’?
Abortion providers will no doubt argue that pro-life counselling be excluded from any mandatory provision on the grounds that it is biased - but their own ‘charitable’ status is a significant factor in reassuring women that they have no vested interests, despite the huge public subsidies they receive for carrying out abortions. Perhaps their real fear is that women will learn of the well-documented physical and mental health risks of what clinics refer to as a ‘treatment’, leading to a loss of business for the abortion industry.
Yours faithfully,
Ann Farmer (Mrs)
Essex
Letter to
The Daily Telegraph
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2011 10:27 AM
Subject: Fox in charge of hen house shock: Department of Health social care expert recommends helping elderly and frail to be killed
Dear Sir,
It is chilling to think that a government advisor on caring for the elderly, Martin Green, has voiced his support for the legalisation of ‘assisted suicide’, and disturbing that his grasp of medical ethics is so slack as to believe that it is “wholly consistent” with giving people ‘”choice”’ that it
should ‘”extend to whether or not they want to die”’ (‘Call to legalise assisted suicide’, Telegraph, August 29, 2011). Indeed he argues, because equality laws mean the disabled are “entitled to support” that this “support should extend to assistance from medical or legal professionals to die”. Should it really be
necessary to point out to someone in Mr. Green’s position that helping someone in a wheelchair up a steep incline is not the same as pushing them off a cliff?
Has he really not considered the potential for widespread abuse in advocating that “’those too frail to take their own lives”’ should be killed?
Those who are too frail to kill themselves are in even greater need of help,
and doubtless an elderly person with a chronic disease with little prospect of recovery could be seen as terminally ill. From the perspective of a Health Service beset by the problem of not caring, it would certainly be a neat and swift end to a great many problems: as your report elsewhere shows, in some
hospitals nurses are wearing red tabards with ‘Do not disturb’ written on them to prevent patients and others speaking to them while they are doing their drugs rounds. As Christina Odone notes in ‘Nursing is no longer the caring profession’, it was family members that helped her elderly mother to eat and drink and use the commode while in hospital, because it was so difficult to attract a nurse’s attention.
Will it be easier to summon a ‘euthanasor’ nurse bearing a lethal hypodermic and wearing a black tabard emblazoned with the words ‘Do not resuscitate’?
Yours faithfully,
Ann Farmer (Mrs)
Woodford Green
Essex
Letter to the Times
August 2010
The Letters Editor
The Times
Dear Sir
While Jill Kirby (30 July) has no fear of pensioners “sitting tight, denying jobs for the young”, she ignores the growing numbers of unemployed graduates. And when she says “increasing the supply of labour improves the rate of economic growth” she misses the difference in consumption patterns between pensioners and younger employees. Advertisers will pay much more for a younger audience. We can see from the example of Japan that is is very difficult to recover from a recession when the population is ageing and fewer young consumers are in prospect.
The contributions paid by younger employees are needed now more than ever to improve the finances of both the national insurance scheme and of private schemes.
Indeed we are living longer. Some of us can work to a more advanced age. Older drivers can drive trucks and buses perhaps more safely than younger drivers. But is this a good idea? Those who are capable of working in older age are often doing tasks that would be better done by younger people. . .
Yours faithfully
Patrick Carroll
Pension And Population Research Institute (PAPRI)
35 Canonbury Road
London N1 2DG, UK
Tel +44 (0) 20 7354 5667 Fax +44 (0) 20 7226 6601
Web site www.papriresearch.org
PAPRI is registered as charity number 327942 in England
Letter to the 'The Telegraph' 30th. March.
With the recent uproar surrounding comments made by Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor relating to Abortion and Eugenics, Labour Life Group wishes to clarify our position onthis matter.
The Abortion issue will always be considered a political issue by many groups and organizations, including the L.L.G. We exist as a pro-life lobby group working from within New Labour, covering the deliberate termination of any human life. L.L.G. exists as a political entity standing on a Human Rights platform and on Socialist principlesof the strong supporting the weakest in society.
Thank you!
E. Halton, Hon. Sec. Labour Life Group,
Letter to 'The Independent' March 30th.
The Pro-Life lobby in this country comes from a wide spectrum of political opinion. It's a sad fact that it would not matter which of the three main parties were elected at the next General Election, the Abortion Law would not be amended to any great degree. Although any move to shorten the time of the gestation that an abortion could be perfomed would be very welcome indeed.
There are many, but sadly not enough, politically active Pro-Life people in our main parties, who when the ocassion arises articulate the Pro-Life view. Our members in the 'Labour Life Group' mainly work at Ward and Constituency levels to express their Pro-Life views and also support our Pro-Life M.P.s.
We, as a group, are very proud of our Por-Life M.P.s -- Jim Dobbin is Chair of the All Party Parliamentary Prolife Group (A.P.P.P.L.G.) AND HE HAS WORKED TIRELESSLY ON MANY ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT BEFORE THAT GROUP. Our Labour Pro-Life M.P.s have had the courage to put their heads above the parapet and be shot at within and outside the Political arena. Clare Curtis-Thomas deserves a huge vote of thanks for her contribution to the second reading of the 'Mental Capacity Bill'.
The abortion debate will not be won or lost in the House of Commons. We have to change public opinion, attitude, perception, call it what you want, that a baby inside the womb deserves all the rights that a baby outside the womb enjoys. The Professor Thomas video footage of a twelve week old baby in the womb, had a truly wonderful impact on public opinion; we need to build on this scientific evidence of sentience within the womb.
Peter Garrett was a very valued member of the Labour Life Group, but has moved on now. We wish him well in his future plans, but wish to rebut some of the statements made by him in a recent interview he gave. The 'Labour Life Group' has organized a Fringe Meeting at every Labour Party Conference for the past 15 years -- except for one year when we cancelled it. The Fringe Meetings for L.L.G. are always advertised in the Fringe Listing Guide . Lastly, we have been offered a stall at the Party Conferences, but unfortunately we could not afford the fee that was being asked.
Sincerely,
Elaine Halton, Hon. Sec. Labour Life Group.
|
