*HOME-PT 2

A PEACEFUL ENGLISH REVOLUTION IS ON THE WAY-ALERT-1

www.christianvoice.org.uk

[The following articles contain much that has been shown in many quarters of the Press by those concerned individuals -whether Doctors -Solicitors-Members of Parliament in fact almost everyone who believes in the ancient Hippocratic Oath on the one hand and in the case of the great danger to our

DEMOCRACY

by the

ABOLITION OF PARLIAMENT BILL

-what is left of it after nine years of the man who in justification for the

War in Iraq

talks of GOD but somehow nobody seems to believe him.

We will also comment on the activities of our Man of Straw in his secret talks with a Egyptian Muslim secret society in defiance of the wishes of

President Mubarrak,

according to the

Martin Bright

writing in the

New Statesman magazine last month]

*

Pro-life doctors will face jail if they refuse to let patients die in accordance

With ‘living wills’, under a Government Code of Practice published last week.

The Code of Practice gives effect to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and will require doctors to follow a patient’s prior instructions to discontinue medical treatment and even to compel them to remove tubes carrying food and water.

It says:

‘Anyone who provides treatment contrary to the advance decision may be liable to a claim for damages for battery or possibly face criminal liability for assault.’

(Mental Capacity Act 2005 - Draft Code of Practice for Consultation, Paragraph 8:51)

If charged and convicted with common assault, a doctor could face six months in prison, but if ‘actual bodily harm’ could be proved, the maximum penalty is five years.

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 enacted the making of advance directives, so-called ‘living wills’, and brought in a

‘Lasting Power of Attorney.’

to replace the existing

‘Enduring Power of Attorney’.

Fears were raised when the Act was passing through Parliament that doctors could become licensed contract killers for those holding power of attorney who had something to gain by the patient’s decease.

Jim Dobbin MP said during the debates:

‘The Bill would allow proxies and decision -makers to withhold life-sustaining treatment, including food and fluid…. we know that in some cases the motives of the proxies may be their own self-interest. Who then is going to protect the patient?. It is up to us to make sure the wording of this Bill is not to the detriment of those we are trying to protect.’

Pro-life consultant Philip Howard said of the Code of Practice:

‘We are going to be criminalized if we try to save a patient. Can you imagine it?

Doctors and nurses will go to jail and be struck off for trying to treat their patients. It is extraordinary.

My own position is that I would not withdraw treatment. I will risk prison.’

Dr Howard added:

‘Someone deprived of water will die in ten to 14 days. It is a very horrible death.’

Although the Draft Code does allow a doctor to refuse to withdraw treatment on grounds of conscience, in such a case it requires the doctor to make arrangements for the management of the patients care to be transferred to another health professional with no such scruples.

[In other words if you won’t kill your patient then you must pass them to another doctor who will.]

However, Doctor Howard said:

‘I do not think passing patients on is practical even if you regard it as the right thing to do, which I don’t. At my hospital, all my colleagues take my view.

Sometimes, medical decisions in life-threatening situations have to made quickly, and a Pro-life doctor would be placed in the position of going against all his religious and moral convictions by standing back and watching a patient die if he wished to avoid legal or criminal action against him. Such persecution of Christian doctors would have been unthinkable just a few years ago.

Not even the British Medical Association will support doctors whose conscience will not allow them to allow a patient to die. A spokesman said:

‘Where a health professional deliberately attempted to frustrate the terms of a valid and applicable advance directive, he or she would be acting outside the law and the BMA could not support them.’

Those doctors who agree to carry out advance directives to cease treatment would appear to be in conflict with the ancient Hippocratic Oath, which stresses that doctors must do no harm. If we follow Jesus Christ’s teaching in the case of the man with a withered hand, to withhold treatment is to do harm.

BUT the Hippocratic Oath is constantly being watered down and ONLY half of Britain’s medical schools now administer it.

One new version now urges doctors to treat patients ‘with dignity’. If a doctor believes euthanasia is ‘dying with dignity’ then that version empowers him to carry out deliberate killing.

Mental Health Charities rushed to welcome the Draft Code of Practice. Mencap welcomed its publication. Jo Williams, its chief executive, said:

‘We strongly support the principles behind the Mental Capacity Act, which say that wherever possible people should be able to make important decisions for themselves.’

Clive Evers, Director of information at the Alzheimer’s Society, said:

Making decisions is something we do everyday, and take for granted. People should have the right to make advance decisions about their future care and treatment in case they lose the capacity to do so. We campaigned as part of the Making Decision Alliance for this legislation.’

Other organisations supporting the Code include Age Concern, Mencap and the Mental health Foundation. The charities have denied the charge that it is a step towards legalising euthanasia, but Dr Brian Iddon, Labour MP for Bolton South East, who called in the debates for “living wills” to be excluded from the Mental capacity Act said:

‘If people don’t believe those who are now pushing living wills are not going to push assisted suicide or voluntary euthanasia next they are living in cloud -cuckoo-land’.

Meanwhile, as if to validate Dr Iddon’s words, Lord Joffe’s Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill has resurfaced in the House of Lords. The Bill has had a rough ride in the Upper House, and was referred to a Select Committee in 2004.

The Committee reported on 4^th April 2005, saying it could not make up its mind and that what it described as significant issues and gaps in evidence needed to be addressed before any change of law was contemplated.

The Report was debated in the House of Lords on 10^th October 2005. Unabashed, Lord Joffe reintroduced the Bill on 9^th November and it once more awaits a date for a Second Reading.

Responses to the Draft Code of Practice should be sent by b2rd June 2006 to:

Communications Team

Mental Capacity Implementation Programme

Department for Constitutional Affairs

5th Floor, Steel House

11 Tothill Street

London, SW1H 9LH

Tel 020 7210 0025/37, Fax 020 7210 0007

Email: making decisions@dca.gsi.gov.uk

Postscript:

Let us be under no illusions. The Mental Capacity Act is EUTHANASIA by the back door even without Lord Joffe’s evil Bill.

Killing by deliberate neglect is a world away from those sad occasions where a doctor prescribes powerful pain-killers, half-knowing these will hasten the end. It is even further from the wonderful palliative care offered by the Hospice Movement, where people really do die with dignity.

Add powers of Attorney to advance directives and the representatives of the terminally-ill have power over life and death itself.

To cap it all, New Labour forced the Mental Capacity Act through the \House of Commons on a three-line whip instead of treating it as a conscience issue. Pro-life Labour MPs rebelled - Frank Field even said the Bill would allow doctors to ‘bop people off’ - but with Labour’s massive pre-election majority, the Party’s elite didn’t care.

As the Daily Mail put it:

‘So it is, in the sixth year of the 21^st century, that Britain finally abandons the most fundamental principle of civilisation: the sanctity of human life.’

We could argue we did that in 1967 with [David Steel’s]

THE ABORTION ACT

-but what is certain is that the prediction of its opponents at the time, that fully-legalised euthanasia would eventually follow, will, barring a miracle, come true in our lifetime.

* * *

[Font altered-bolding & underlining used -comments in brackets]

ISLAM WATCH

[OUR MAN OF STRAW] TALKS TO TERRORISTS.

The Foreign office of the British Government has been in secret talks with an Egyptian Muslim secret society in defiance of the wishes of President Mubarrak, according to Martin Bright writing in the New Statesman magazine last month.

A channel has been opened up for Foreign Secretary Jack Straw’s men to have discussions with the

MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD

-the Muslim terrorist think-tank which spawned Al-Qaeda.

Formed in the 1920’s, the shadowy organisation is outlawed in Egypt mainly for terrorist assassinations. One of its more permanent members was Sayd Qutb, who was executed by the Eyptians in 1966, and whose books and ideas provided inspiration for, among others, Ayman al Zawahiri, Osama Bin Laden’s deputy.

When the Palestinian terrorist party Hamas was founded in Gaza, its founding charter described it as

‘one of the wings of the Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine’.

The Foreign Office admits that Hamas is the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood in all but name. The Muslim Brotherhood is certainly more in tune with ordinary Muslims, when it calls for Shara Law for example, than Arab socialist or nationalist groups. The notion of the ‘Ummah’ or Muslim ‘ believers’ worldwide is a powerful concept, which intersects with that of the ‘ikhwan’ or ‘brotherhood’.

The Foreign Office believes that they will be better able to influence the direction radical Islam takes if they develop a dialogue.

‘Engaging with movements such as the Muslim Brotherhood will help increase our understanding of ‘political Islam’ generally, as well as in the specific Egyptian context’. Says a memo dated 17^th January leaked to the

New Statesman.

‘Incremental enhancement of contacts may help in discouraging radicalisation. Interacting with ‘political Islam’ is an important element of our Engaging with the Islamic World Strategy and we should be trying to influence these groups, who often have significant reach with ‘grass roots’. It also gives us the opportunity to challenge their perception of the WEST, including of the UK, and on their prescriptions for solving the challenges facing Egypt and the region [sic].’

However, the British Ambassador to Egypt, the highly- respected mandarin Sir Derek Plumbly, poured scorn in June last year on the idea that engagement by the British Government would be likely to affect the future direction of the movement:

‘I suspect that there will be relatively few contexts in which we are able significantly to influence the Islamists’ agenda,’ he wrote.

The Foreign Office has convinced itself while the Muslim Brotherhood’s aim is ti institute Shariah law in Egypt, that it intends to do so through democratic means.

AT THE SAME TIME, the Muslim Brotherhood has called for Jihad against the WEST and is growing in strength in Egypt, its front candidates winning 88 seats in the 454-strong People’s Assembly to become the largest Opposition group.

Plumbly’s letter warned:

‘I detect a tendency for us to be drawn towards engagement for its own sake; to confuse “engaging with the Islamic World” with “engaging with Islamism”; and to play down the very real downsides for us in terms of the Islamists’ likely foreign and social policies, should they actually achieve power in countries such as Egypt.’

(www.newstatesman.com/2000602200006)

[The same appeasement was carried on by the FOREIGN OFFICE and Government in the 1930’s with Hitler and his cronies. There were plenty of people in Britain who wanted to understand Germany but failed to realise in time that there can be great danger when you mix up different messages in the hope of sitting on the fence and we all know what that cost in 6,000,000 Jews murdered and tens of millions from other nations who were butchered because of the failure of Governments to say what they mean so that there is no misunderstanding in the future.

Unfortunately our Man of Straw has no idea of what trouble he is brewing up for the future by ignoring the warnings from experienced diplomats abroad as occurred before the Iraq War which will lead to further endangering the security of the people of our Nation.]

* * *

[Font altered-bolding & underlining used-comments in brackets]

MARCH/06

*