Abortion in the news again!!!

I apologise for not having posted anything for ages. We have been busy finalising the purchase of a new house and all its attendant bits and pieces. And packing!! What a drag. And today is the beginning of the MOVE day. So all I have been doing is glancing through the news, keeping a close watch on the weather and running around like a headless chook.

Yesterday I noticed an article about the Abortion Act of 1967 and a High Court challenge to the interpretation of this piece of legislation. And I couldn’t let this slide.

I thought that finally a little more sense was creeping into the abortion debate. In fact, I thought the abortion issue should have been over. Over my life I have seen legislation changed and replaced from draconian and punitive law to a more humane understanding of the rights of women to control their own reproductive capacity.

The abortion issue should be over, finished, except for diehard fruitcakes. We need reproductive responsibility not unbridled population growth.

However, this week the newspapers are reporting on this High Court challenge on the interpretation and practice of the 1967 Abortion Act that has hitherto been interpreted to mean that women opting for early stage abortions involving oral medication had to attend a clinic twice. This should be an easy challenge sensibly resolved.

The British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS) is making a legal challenge to that interpretation. BPAS is the UK’s largest abortion provider. It has been joined in battle by the UK Department of Health insisting that the current interpretation should be upheld. Why? I can’t work it out. The Chief Executive of BPAS, Ann Furedi has a good, explanatory blog in The Independent.

There is another group, predictably so-called pro-life, called the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children vowing to intervene in the case because it thinks BPAS is “trivialising abortion and jeopardising women’s welfare”. Apparently some politicians, blowing hot and cold as is their wont, are demurring as well. Ah, well, maybe there is the reason!

This article is worth reading because it presents figures indicating that women would prefer to opt for taking the second set of pills – misoprostol – at home where they are close to bathrooms, have privacy, are comfortable and have family members with them. The very, very practical reason for being at home is that misoprostol induces cramping, bleeding and the miscarriage within a couple of hours, sometimes sooner.

So, why should there be a problem with women taking these second stage pills at home? Women who want to stay at the clinic are still able to do so even though 96% of BPAS clients appear to want to leave and go home.

The politician who was instrumental in the 1967 legislation has stated that “the development of these pills has long since overtaken the 1967 Act,”. Easy to make a court ruling, one would think, that takes account of further developments in medical and pharmaceutical technology, no?

So, I want to know why the Department of Health is so insistent about this when it is so unnecessary. One can understand the stupidity and cupidity of politicians who blow one way or the other depending on what they think the electorate wants.

But the Department of Health is not (or should not be) so politically controlled as to argue that an antiquated interpretation needs to be adhered to in the face of evidence and studies by the patients themselves indicating the opposite. The various nursing organisations appear to have no problems with the proposed change to the legislation. BPAS is a charity working in conjunction with NHS. So what is the problem?

In 2007, the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee reported that it would be “safe, effective and acceptable”. The fatality rate is one/100,000. Other developed countries allow this, even that strange religious country, the US, let alone secular countries like France and Sweden.

The clinical trials find no problem. So what is going on here? Has the growing stranglehold of religiosity on this island permeated the government departments? Surely, in this 21^st Century, commonsense and reason will triumph over the “fear of criticism from those who oppose abortion in principle”

Opposing something on principle is fine but don’t expect everyone to agree with peculiar and particular principles just for the sake of it.

Scotland, often able to set its own regulations, is hamstrung on this issue because abortion law is the province of Westminster. Damn!!

No WIBs but JY Simpson

I have a friend whose father wrote the forward for a biography of James Young Simpson. A fitting person to write such a forward to such a book, Ian Donald pioneered the introduction of ultra sound to midwifery in Glasgow. He was also a Professor of Midwifery, though at Glasgow. Simpson (1811 to 1870) was in Edinburgh in the century before. When I think about the remarkable rapidity with which new technology is expanded and overtaken by newer technology, I am full of awe. But that’s what happens!

Book Cover for Simpson’s biography

JY Simpson’s biography was written and published in 1972 by Myrtle Simpson who had married into the Simpson family. She was an intrepid person in her own right and has written some amazing travel books.

The biography is a fascinating story of the man who first introduced chloroform as an anaesthetic initially in both dentistry and midwifery. The first article written by Simpson seems to have been to the Lancet in 1847.

A major driving thrust was to try and reduce the pain experienced by anyone who had to undergo surgery of any sort. Sulphuric ether had been used but delivery of the ether was cumbersome, dangerous and complicated. Simpson had been actively looking for some other gas with easier properties to replace ether that had come into use in 1846.

A young James Young Simpson

He certainly was no slouch. Through 1847 he experimented (tested chloroform on himself, his colleagues and his dinner guests!!) and was satisfied that chloroform was the agent of anaesthesia he had been looking for. He produced a prodigious number of articles for the Monthly Journal of Medical Science and the London Medical Gazette during that year. The problem was always how much to give a patient.

There are some hilarious stories of eminent physicians in non-eminent straits after inhaling chloroform at Simpson’s home (and professional rooms) at 52 Queen Street, Edinburgh.

Simpson lived and practised at 52 Queen St

Simpson first used chloroform in obstetrics on 8 November 1847. He delivered Jane Carstairs of a baby girl 25 minutes after administering chloroform to Jane. When she woke up she mentioned having a restful sleep. She was unaware that she had given birth.

I often think that in the earlier times, fields of potential endeavour being wider open than now, the people who filled these fields with their inventions, their insights, their experiments and their conclusions on which later generations built, had very fulfilling and satisfying, if controversial lives.

Notwithstanding the lack of public health measures, no germ theory and a raft of other ‘didn’t haves’, people like JY Simpson forged through the accepted wisdom and was one of those who instead of asking why, asked why not. He was to all intents and purposes a practical man with an enormous energy. He wasn’t fearful of trying new things and so became well known early on in his career as a controversialist.

He lived in a time when cleanliness in hospitals came into being thus saving lives, when infant mortality dropped from 60% to 30% in the crowded cities, when silk was used for suturing rather than unclean animal tendon; it saw the end of scurvy and the idea that prevention was better than cure. Public Health initiatives started delivering clean water, air wasn’t as polluted and refuse collection and waste drainage in cities was becoming a proper urban practice.

He became Professor of Midwifery at Edinburgh University in 1840, Physician to Queen Victoria in 1847, President of the Royal College of Physicians in 1850 and Baronet in 1866.

He was an ebullient and very compassionate man given to innovation and testing and finding practical solutions to problems he came across in his everyday medical practice. He certainly had many patients and colleagues who revered him and, of course, the few colleagues whose noses were put out of joint as Simpson’s reputation grew. He locked horns with the religious on whether man should interfere with ‘god’s’ handiwork.

He had no time for religious dogma. He became a Christian but eschewed bible teachings.

“The Bible, however, as it always seems to me teaches us no kind of knowledge which the intellect of man is unable to discover. It is a revelation of religious truths, not a revelation of scientific truth; and when the Westminster divines insisted their opinion of the duration and age of the world, they took up a position in science which science has since entirely contradicted.” Simpson, p.248

My little post here is just a snippet. It serves to indicate my high regard for medical science and its pioneers. We women owe doctors like JY Simpson a lot.

The biography itself is absolutely un-put-downable. The images Myrtle creates are so evocative. The descriptions of Simpson’s Edinburgh in the 1800s made old Edinburgh come alive in my mind’s eye and I have a much better understanding of how the ‘auld toun’ was built and what a disease infested place it became during the Highland Clearances when so many, thrown off their lands, came to the towns.

What an interesting, albeit dangerous, time to have lived in over-crowded towns and cities. I don’t envy that age but am grateful for the innovative people who did live at that time. We have a lot to thank them for. They pioneered so much in the way of health and the management of a burgeoning urbanisation.

Simpson – Princes St., near St. John’s Church

AVN Charity Licence Revoked

Vaccines tend to eradicate awful diseases

Well the news is out by now. On 20 October the Office of Liquor Gaming and Racing (OLGR) in New South Wales revoked the charitable status of the small, nasty and dangerous organisation called the Australian Vaccination Network. It is an organisation that spreads fear of vaccinations and pretends not to encourage people to not vaccinate their kids. Whooping cough is on the rise, by the way. At least where the AVN hangs out.

This organisation hit the headlines in Australia and it quickly spread across the web and other news outlets across the world sometime in July of this year. The reason that AVN got into the news was because of the harassing campaign it launched after a wee baby girl died from whooping cough in northern NSW. I used to live in Mullumbimby and nearby there is a pretty little town called Bangalow which is where AVN has its dog box in the home of its head dog. The wee girl lived not far away. Anti-vaccination is growing steadily in the region.

For people who don’t know, the far north coastal region of NSW abounds with woo and there are healers of all stripes and religious sects, cults and churches everywhere. There are spiritual healers and layers on of hands coming out of every door. The local newspaper has pages and pages of advertisements (called Public Notices) offering anything from Reiki to how to change your DNA – all for a fee, of course.

Have a look at this link – http://www.echo.net.au/ and take your pick of healer for whatever you fancy. This region is quite an extraordinary place in Australia. There’s another place is on the west coast down near Margaret River, and another in the Daintree in Queensland. No wonder I came to Scotland! And to Edinburgh at that!

Anyway, The Health Care Complaints Commission in New South Wales investigated two complaints about the AVN. The complaints alleged that the AVN provides incorrect and misleading information about vaccination. The complaints came via a group called Stop the Australian Vaccination Network. Don’t you love itl! Orac at Respectful Insolence had a blog post about this on 12 July. It is a good read.

On 26 July the HCCC issued a Public Warning about the Australian Vaccination Network (AVN). I hadn’t noticed anything in The Sydney Morning Herald until PZ Meyers over at Pharyngula put up an article mid July. He included a video of a very good Australian Broadcasting Commission programme called Lateline.

I recommend anyone to click on the link to Pharyngula. Richard Dawkins’ website ran with the story as well. All of a sudden AVN was all over the news, exposed for what it is – an anti-vaccination disinformation network with a public warning from the HCCC against it..

And now, three months later, the OLGR has revoked the charitable status of the AVN and reason is restored – well a tiny bit. Over at Respectful Insolence, there is some celebration. Some commenter wag has said that if Schadenfreude is a … brand of German beer then … A very nice comment too.

One shadow on the horizon is from the quack Joe Mercola and a group called NVIC (National Vaccine Information Center) designating November 1 – 6 as Vaccine Awareness week. This is possibly why the head dog of the AVN is off to the good ol’ US of A. Maybe she needs to get a woo charge from the master of quackery during quack week?

NVIC‘s website looks like a more well funded version of the AVN and sounds like AVN’s alma mater (or should that be guru?)!! There’s an equivalent organisation in the UK known as JABS (Justice Awareness and Basic Support) – a group for ‘vaccine-damaged children’.

Now I know that this stupidity has been around for quite some time, but Andrew Wakefield gave it all one terrific shove in the direction of woo and tragedy. The damage to public health vaccination initiatives that man caused is immeasurable. Even though he has been de-registered and can no longer practice medicine in the UK he is still around spreading his nonsense about autism and the MMR vaccine.

Anyway, from her website announcement it seems Ms Dorey who runs the AVN is filing an appeal with the Administrative Decisions Tribunal in NSW so there will be more barking from the dog box. But for now, it is smiles all round.

Death and Why Not if that’s What He Wants

Tony Nicklinson - BBC photo

Here we go again. We have a man with locked-in syndrome who is physically unable to end his own life but has stated in absolute terms that he wants to die. He is lucid, determined and is seeking legal guidance regarding the consequences of ‘mercy killing’ and murder.

Why does he have to do this? Because he doesn’t want his wife to be indicted for murder and, of course, neither does she.

The one thing modern society seems able to do, is to raise philosophical issues of so-called ethics that have little to do with cases like this man’s wishes.

Apart from the crappy religite stance or the do-gooder hospice stance regarding the taking one’s own life or assisting someone to take his own life out of compassion, the law seems to throw up obstacles unnecessarily at every twist and turn.

There will never be one law that addresses every situation with cover all provisions. So there must be provision to shield cases like this one of Mr and Mrs Nicklinson against any possibility of criminal proceedings ensuing because of his death.

Of course, ideally there should not be any need to apply to the law seeking ‘guidance’ on whether someone will be charged with murder for aiding and abetting a suicide.

We are supposed to be living in a post-industrialised modern 21^st century secular society where we are free to live our lives as we see fit. We all know the laws by which we live in a society and by and large we adhere to sensible laws. We do tend to be vocal against silly laws and this is yet another one. If we, as a society and as law givers, cannot distinguish between murder and assisted suicide in an instance like the Nicklinsons, then we have a poverty-ridden sense of morality, empathy and compassion. And we need to take a position and let our legislators know.

Why is it that if we want to end our lives because of – whatever reason – we come up against an antiquated, religiously motivated, outmoded law that calls such an action criminal?

Mind you, if you succeed at ending your life, there isn’t much anyone can do. In the case of a terminally ill, competent person with a compassionate carer/relative Dignitas is still available; for how long no one really knows.  And you still have to fund your fares and your accommodation while in Switzerland.

The point is that no one should have to go to a foreign country in order to take advantage of a provision that should be accessible in one’s own country.

The interminable interference in private, personal lives and deaths by governments legislating against anything they think will help their cause to be elected next time around is becoming intolerable.

Dr Philip Nitschke

Philip Nitschke in Australia has taken the cause of euthanasia up with gusto. He has written a book called The Peaceful Pill An e-handbook for those who need assistance with organising their own deaths. He refuses to stop campaigning for End of Life Choices.

He is one of my heroes.