Catholic Health Care Advocates Papers
Where now in the fight for life?
Dr Adrian Treloar MRCP, MRCGP, MRCPsych
Dr Adrian Treloar, a Consultant and Senior Lecturer in South East London assesses the recent developments in UK medical ethics and suggests that action is needed from the whole Church, and that the work cannot just be left to a few organisations.
June was an horrific month for those who campaign for life in the United Kingdom. In the space of ten days four major developments showed how poorly the battle is going. The Social Exclusion Units report on teenage pregnancy opened the way for the provision of morning after contraception in schools and a continuation of the present, already failing policies on teenage sexuality. The publication of a report by the Marie Stopes organisation claiming that most GP’s were in favour of abortion was reported widely in the press but with only a ten word comment from a pro life viewpoint. Those of us who had seen their questionaire knew how carefully the questions appeared to have been written in order to produce the wanted answers. For this and other reasons the report was therefore highly suspect. Although the Government rejected human cloning for the time being, it remains likely that cloning will ultimately be allowed for experimentation at least. The effect of this will be to create large numbers of human being purely to be used for research and to impose upon those lives a mandatory requirement of death by the age of two weeks.
Finally in June the British Medical Association published guidelines which, aim to make the killing of demented and stroke affected patients (as well as anyone one else with similarly "severe disease") legal. Such patients are now allowed to be killed by starvation, normally after removing a tube through which food and fluid could be simply given. Worse still the authority needed to do this would only be the agreement of a colleague (buddy). So although euthanasia is not yet quite here (technically), compulsory killing of the most disadvantaged and vulnerable patients is now accepted by the largest medical association in the UK. Now, in July, the BMA have announced that it is to consult on assisted suicide, the latest term for euthanasia. Those of us who responded to their last consultation must fear that we will not be much heard.
What reactions did the guidelines on withdrawing and withholding treatment produce? There was quite a lot of concern from patient groups and others who felt that the BMA was clearly giving doctors power over life and death and that that was not right. Even David Starkey, who is not usually our ally, spoke on the Moral Maze (Radio 4) against the guidelines. From the Church Cardinal Winning strenuously expressed his concern at the new guidelines and members of the Guild of Catholic Doctors, senior lawyers and colleagues from the Christian Medical Fellowship wrote to the Times. I and others spoke to the Catholic press but few could have read the papers and felt that much serious had happened. It seems as though members of the Church are sleeping while euthanasia and the killing of patients is introduced. Unless something quite remarkable can be done, these guidelines look set to become accepted. The BMA have, perhaps been astute in opening the assisted suicide debate so soon, as this will help to stifle debate on last weeks news.
Members of the Pro-life movement have, at times, been utterly heroic in their pursuit of the cause. Individuals have been willing to embrace financial ruin for the cause, and many more have given up evenings, weekends, money and much prayer to the cause. Offices have been attacked and individuals abused. Doctors and nurses have been threatened with dismissal and loss of careers as a result of refusing to do abortions. SPUC have been highly successful in many political campaigns and Life’s pregnancy care centres and now their new hospitals are true achievements. And yet, although we may have slowed down the rate of moral slippage, we are not winning the battle. Indeed if the BMA manage to introduce "assisted suicide" in a years time, there may be very little legal progress left to fight.
None of this would matter if it were not for the fact that all of these decisions affect individuals. We frequently hear of women who are told they will have a deformed or handicapped baby and who, on refusing termination have a normal child. We hear of women who are bullied and told they are irresponsible by doctors when they refuse antenatal tests when only solution offered to the problem would be abortion. We hear of more, good Christian women who, with no one around to support them, succumb to the pressure from doctors to abort. We also, often hear of patients and relatives who feel that treatment is stopped too soon, and that doctors seem to want to end the life of a "clinical problem" as soon as possible. In short, people are losing their trust of doctors, primarily as a result of the anti-life developments in the medical profession. And yet they find it almost impossible to get the help and advice they need. These people come from both the Church and also the wider community. So the Church has a crucial responsibility to support these people.
How could this be done? We must not give up on the political fight. Wider support for this fight would be welcome, and it is sad that at present such heavy reliance is placed upon relatively few individuals and organisations. Many in the pro-life movement do feel that the political work would benefit from more determination and active support from the wider Church. Certainly, last week’s developments deserve an intense campaign from the Church and the media and far more than has been seen so far.
Secondly it is time that those who feel they can no longer trust doctors, have the opportunity for a second opinion from someone they can trust. Throughout its history the Church has cared for the most disadvantaged members of its societies. Mother Theresa showed powerfully how the example of making children "wanted and valued" (her words) can change the views of the world, as well as saving the lives of the innocent. As Western medicine moves further and further to both accepting and imposing the killing of its most vulnerable members, the Church can take the opportunity to love and protect those members. Even Germaine Greer has applauded Cardinal Winning’s initiative to help pregnant mothers who are considering abortion.
Action could be taken in several ways. Firstly by supporting a mechanism whereby doctors whom patients feel they can trust can be found, the Church could show that it truly wants to help its distressed members. Parish priests and others should know how to call upon doctors who will sympathetically support patients at times of crisis. Secondly, the Church could provide care and refuge for these vulnerable people. Although the Church already does this in lots of ways, focussing on and enhancing provision that show that the Church truly wants and values the most vulnerable people would seem desirable. Thirdly, by better highlighting the issues and informing its faithful, it would help to prepare them better for the ethical and moral crises that so many of them will face.
All of this requires a lot of co-ordinated effort, from Bishops, Clergy, Doctors, Nurses and many more. If it could be done, however, the Church would really be able to show that it cared, and that our faith in Christ’s love, has meaning. If we do not do anything, the Church’s moral and ethical teachings will be lost in this country by default, and future generations will not be able to look favourably upon us. Moreover, there will probably be no Catholic doctors or nurses able to train or remain in post. I know that I and others look forward to working together with the Church as we take forward the work of caring for society’s most vulnerable members.
Dr Adrian Treloar MRCP, MRCGP, MRCPsych Consultant and Senior Lecturer in Old Age Psychiatry, South East London.
