Diabetic dilemma?

I'm opposed to use of embryonic tissue/unborn babies (pick the description which expresses your ethical position) in scientific research. To put it simply I believe that every life is precious and that people are not means to an end.

However I also have a child with type 1 diabetes and was really pleased to hear the recent announcement of a major step forward in diabetes treatment. In diabetes, the immune system attacks the cells in the body which produce insulin, which in turn regulates blood sugar. Being able to create, and implant, replacement cells is the only possibility of a cure, short of a transplanted pancreas. Scientists have managed to create new cells which a) work in mice and b) in large enough quantities to promise a general cure, rather than a few lucky individuals.

There's still a long way to go, but it gives me hope that my child won't have to inject themselves 4 times a day and take their blood sugar on a regular basis.

But, part of the story of the research is the use of embryonic stem cells, i.e. cells harvested from partially-developed unborn humans.

So I have mixed feelings. And mixed thoughts. If I boycotted everything that had an ethically dodgy history to it, I'd have to leave the UK for a start, it being a country enriched through slavery, exploitation of the poor and of other countries. But I do boycott some things, and actively try to make decisions based on my faith and ethics, rather than on what's cheaper/most convenient/etc. How far does that go? I wouldn't dream of denying my child a treatment that could dramatically change her life. It would be easier if it was me that was the diabetic, then I'm the only victim/beneficiary of whatever moral sum has to be calculated.

And if use of embryonic tissue isn't a bridge too far, then what is? If a medical/scientific discovery is made, do we do the best we can with it, no matter how the breakthrough came (e.g. through creating & dropping a nuclear bomb, during an arms race, vivisection, sending a rocket into space rather than helping millions in poverty)? A discovery can't be un-discovered.

As you can tell, I'm a little confused.....

When liberals break cover: is an abortion debate possible?

Journalist Mehdi Hasan has written a fascinating piece for the Huffington Post on his views on abortion law:

What I would like is for my fellow lefties and liberals to try to understand and respect the views of those of us who are pro-life, rather than demonise us as right-wing reactionaries or medieval misogynists.

One of the biggest problems with the abortion debate is that it's asymmetric: the two sides are talking at cross-purposes. The pro-lifers speak about the right to life of the unborn baby; the pro-choicers speak about a woman's right to choose. The moral arguments, as the Scottish philosopher Alasdair Macintyre has said, are "incommensurable".

Another problem is that the debate forces people to choose sides: right against left, religious against secular. Some of us, however, refuse to be sliced and diced in such a simplistic and divisive manner. I consider abortion to be wrong because of, not in spite of, my progressive principles. That I am pro-life does not make me any less of a lefty.

Being both left wing, and 'pro-life', Hasan is rather unusual. Judging by his Twitter feed, the reaction from fellow liberals and left-wingers has been pretty nasty. In response, one of his tweets says ' am v disappointed that lefties have confirmed every rightwing prejudice today: we close down debate, we enforce orthodoxies etc' 

What kind of 'liberal democracy' are we, if certain debates are no longer possible? There are some issues I've decided to avoid blogging about, because the heat/light generation ratio is so dire. 

Double Standards

A couple of media stories:

Powerful piece on our double standards over abortion law, in the light of the paralympics.

Natalia Partyka was born without a right hand and forearm. She won her first international table tennis medal at the disabled world championship when she was 10. She has won more than 30 medals since. Steve Brown is Great Britain’s wheelchair rugby captain. Following an accident he broke his neck and trapped his spinal chord and is now paralysed from the chest down.

Both these individuals smash the convenient myth that aborting a disabled child is an act of mercy that cut shorts a miserable, undignified and frustrating life. This specious argument is incessantly advanced to justify Britain’s abortion law, which allows abortion up to birth if the child is “severely disabled” (but in practice covers easily corrected conditions such as cleft palates).

And a bizarre reaction to the latest retail sales figures. "The feel good factor from the Olympics failed to inspire spending" said the British Retail Consortium. It's a peculiar idea that automatically links feeling better to spending more. How many people, after watching Mo Farah win his second gold, immediately jumped off their sofas and though 'right, I'd better get down to Tesco and buy something' as an integral part of their celebrations? 

There's something insidious about the suggestion that our response to anything significant ought to be shopping. Is that all we are? The government thinks so: it's rumbling about making the Olympic extension to Sunday trading hour permanent. Good to see the boss of Sainsbury's speaking out against this last month. What a dismal Olympic legacy that would be.

Euthanasia - C of E Statement on new Guidelines

There's been an official response from the CofE to the guidelines on prosecution for those who help with assisted suicide earlier this week. To my mind the guidelines did very little to make things clearer, and left several grey areas. There was almost a tacit acceptance of euthanasia in some of the provision, despite the fact that it remains illegal. Here's the CofE statement:

"The Church of England has consistently argued - and Parliament has consistently voted - against any change in the law governing assisted suicide, even when this is motivated by compassion. Guidance from the DPP about the application of the present law to particular circumstances has the potential to provide greater clarity and is in principle to be welcomed, so long as there can be confidence that it will not in practice lead to an erosion of respect for the present law. There are serious moral, ethical and practical issues to consider - for example in relation to concepts such as 'encouragement' and the nature of 'informed decision making'. The Church of England is therefore reserving its position on the detail of the draft guidance at this stage. Its formal submission will be made public in due course."

National Secular Society: Foot, Aim, Fire

It was a surprise to discover earlier this week that the NSS accepted a key argument against euthanasia, give that they campaign in favour of it. But the heat is possibly getting to them. Consider this motion, of which parts 3-5 were rejected by the British Medical Association yesterday:

That this Meeting:
(i) recognises that the NHS is committed to providing spiritual care for patients;
(ii) notes the position on inappropriate discussion of faith matters in GMC Guidance on Personal Beliefs and Medical Practice;
(iii) while welcoming the constructive and necessary advice in the document "Religion or belief", is concerned that some paragraphs suggest that any discussion of spiritual matters with patients or colleagues could lead to disciplinary action;
(iv) believes that offering to pray for a patient should not be grounds for suspension;
(v) calls on Health Departments to allow appropriate consensual discussion of spiritual matters within the NHS, when done with respect for the views and sensitivities of individuals.

and this interpretation from the NSS (Ht Doug Chaplin)
Doctors have voted down a Christian motion at the BMA conference that would have given carte blanche for religious medical practitioners to “share their faith” without restraint.

Ok, read the motion again. "Consensual" "respect for the views and sensitivities of individuals", "offering to pray". As Mike Peatman points out, that's not carte blanche in any translation of the French. Either the NSS haven't read the motion that the BMA were debating, or they have chosen deliberately to misrepresent it.

Now this poses a couple of problems:
- One of the supposed assets of secularism is its application of reason to the facts. It doesn't reflect well that the most-quoted secularist organisation (though they're oddly secretive about total membership), neither has a grasp of the facts here, nor presents them in a reasonable way.

- The NSS prides itself on sending submissions to the government on various pieces of legislation. However their reputation for distorting/ignoring the facts must undermine the credibility of any of this. If the NSS wants to be taken seriously, it should try a bit harder to establish a reputation for truthfulness. Alternatively if they just want to play yah-boo rentaquote, then they shouldn't complain when faith groups arguments are taken more seriously than their own.

It's also nice, but surprising, to discover that the NSS recognises the reality of spiritual health:
“Sick people want doctors to take care of their physical health and a clergyman to take care of their spiritual health. Doctors and nurses have enough to do without burdening themselves with the need to pray with patients.” (Terry Sanderson).

That's really good news, as its a basis for discussing the best way of meeting the spiritual health needs without resorting to headline-grabbing stuff about hospital chaplains, which really doesn't lead to constructive debate.

Update: the National Secular Society has never published its membership figures - you might wonder why, I couldn't possibly comment. Starcourse however has done some maths and estimates that NSS membership is still around the 7,000 level quoted in 2007.

British Medical Association Conference: Votes on Prayer, Abortion Ads and Euthanasia

(see below for updates following the vote)
The following item was up for debate at the BMA meeting today:

(para 368) Motion by THE AGENDA COMMITTEE: That this Meeting:
(i) recognises that the NHS is committed to providing spiritual care for patients;
(ii) notes the position on inappropriate discussion of faith matters in GMC Guidance on
Personal Beliefs and Medical Practice;
(iii) while welcoming the constructive and necessary advice in the document "Religion or
belief", is concerned that some paragraphs suggest that any discussion of spiritual matters
with patients or colleagues could lead to disciplinary action;
(iv) believes that offering to pray for a patient should not be grounds for suspension;
(v) calls on Health Departments to allow appropriate consensual discussion of spiritual matters
within the NHS, when done with respect for the views and sensitivities of individuals.

It's scheduled for 10.25 this morning, and you can follow it live here. 15 minutes scheduled for the debate. I'd understood that it was the Christian Medical Association which was behind this debate, but from the agenda there are several motions put forward by regional BMA groups.

Ruth Gledhill following it on her blog today. There's other debates on stem cell research, euthanasia and medical ethics today, see the agenda (linked at the top of the post).

Update 2: The vote has just happened: in favour of parts 1 and 2, but against 3, 4, 5. Clear majority on all counts. So the BMA conference recognises that the NHS is committed to providing spiritual care for patients, but doesn't believe that medical staff should take the initiative in offering it. Mood seemed to be that it's the spiritual professionals (chaplains etc.) who can do this, but medical staff shouldn't, as that's not their job.

Update 3 The conference also voted against this motion:

That this Meeting believes that the proposed use of TV advertising for abortion services will continue to send the wrong message to young women; namely that sex is a values-free activity and that consequences have a quick medical fix. We call upon the
BMA to:
(i) oppose TV advertising for abortion;
(ii) continue to support values-based education on sex and relationships

and against this one:

That this Meeting would support a change in legislation to:
(i) ensure that those accompanying the patient at an assisted death, but not actively
participating, will not be subject to criminal prosecution;
(ii) allow the choice of an assisted death by patients who are terminally ill and who have mental
capacity.

Update: Doug Chaplin notes that the NSS now supports the '£40m' that the NHS spends on chaplaincy. They really are having a good week for U-turns. The NSS reporting is a typical piece of cobblers: "Doctors have voted down a Christian motion at the BMA conference that would have given carte blanche for religious medical practitioners to “share their faith” without restraint." They clearly haven't read the motion, or if they have are wilfully misrepresenting it. But that's another post.......