He was a member of the ProLife Alliance right from its infancy, and he willingly funded the deposit of one of our candidates when we were registered as a political party.

His generous support continued throughout the years, not just financially but with cogent arguments and enthusiastic encouragement. He was a thoroughly likable man, whose presence at meetings was always a pleasure and of real assistance.

We have been asking members who knew him personally to reflect on their association with Tom, and everybody replies with the same enthusiasm, admiring not just his courteous manner but also his intellectual rigour and ceaseless engagement in the defence of human life. It was a rare month when a letter signed ‘Tom van der Linden’ did not appear in the press endorsing the issues he cared about so passionately.

Just weeks before he died, Tom rang the office to renew his membership, adding poignantly that he did not think he would bother with a bank standing order. That was the last time we heard from him, but it is typical of the Tom we knew and admired. He liked everything to be in order.

Those of us who share his religious beliefs are confident that he will continue to help us with his prayers in the next life. We extend our sympathy to his family, who had the enormous privilege of experiencing closely the example of a very good man.

For any who would like to do so, you may leave comments regarding Tom below.

Previously, this information had been readily available and the DoH was increasingly providing even greater detail in its annual abortion statistics, until one case for cleft palate abortion post 24 weeks became the focus of media interest and public outrage. Subsequently, yearly abortion statistics were published in reduced form.

It was this backtracking action on the part of the DoH which the PLA chose to react to, asking unsuccessfully for the missing information under the Freedom of Information Act. Eventually the PLA asked the Information Commissioner (IC) to intervene in the dispute and they successfully argued the case against the DoH in the Administrative Court this April.

Julia Millington, spokesperson for the ProLife Alliance says, this is a great victory for transparency and freedom of speech and we are delighted that full information about the justification for late abortions is now being made available in the same detail as it was in 2001.

The ProLife Alliance is opposed to all abortion at any stage in pregnancy, but terminating the lives of babies at gestational ages when they could survive is always particularly horrifying. We have always argued that if these abortions are permitted under law, there should be no attempt whatsoever to hide details of the numbers or justifications.

We take this opportunity to thank former MP Miss Ann Widdecombe and Prof Stuart Campbell, who gave expert evidence in the Tribunal Court on behalf of the ProLife Alliance.

In spite of the huge number who objected, BCAP has launched a new consultation dated 27.6.11 proposing to liberalise the rules for advertising post-conception services. The changes are:

- Removing the television rule preventing commercial services offering personal advice from advertising.

PLA says: This will have the effect of increasing the number of pregnancy advice services which will be allowed to advertise.

- Removing the radio rule permitting advertising only by those Family Planning Centres with local authority or NHS approval.

PLA says: As with the first change, this will open up advertising to a wider number of pro-choice organisations.

- Introducing a new rule applying to both television and radio requiring medical and health advice services to provide suitable credentials before being able to advertise.

PLA says: How likely is it that pro-life organisations will be accredited?

- Introducing a new rule to require services offering post-conception advice on pregnancy that do not directly refer women for a termination to make that fact clear in their advertisements.

PLA says: This is obviously directed at pro-life organisations who do not refer for abortion but offer serious pro-life alternatives and support to women

We urge you to submit to this consultation and register your complaints.

“Don’t publish photographs or suicide notes. Don’t report specific details of the method used. Don’t give simplistic reasons. Don’t glorify or sensationalize suicide. Refer to suicide as a completed suicide, not a successful one. Present only relevant data, on the inside pages. Highlight alternatives to suicide. Provide information on help lines and community resources. Publicize risk indicators and warning signs.”

The programme contained emotive music (a composer was named in the credits), beautiful Alpine scenery with only a passing mention that Dignitas had been banished to an industrial estate after previous neighbours complained, picturesque snow falling.

The documentary breached the BBC’s own guidelines which call for ‘great sensitivity’ about suicide: “Factual reporting and fictional portrayal of suicide, attempted suicide and self-harm have the potential to make such actions appear possible, and even appropriate, to the vulnerable.” It ignored, or did not care about, these well-known copycat suicide risks. It used words like “bravest”, “in the arms of his wife”, “he died singing” on the one side, and talked about unendurable suffering and “undignified ending” on the other. Even the taxi driver who had decided to go on living in a hospice was in favour of changing the law, though this is not at all representative of those in his condition. The whole programme was relentlessly pessimistic about the lives of those with debilitating conditions, which is as insulting to them as it is untruthful.

This was the fifth programme advertising suicide that the BBC has made recently: “I’ll Die When I Choose”, 8 December 2008; A Short Stay in Switzerland”, January 2009; “Shaking hands with death”, 1 February 2010; “Inside Out”, BBC West Midlands, 15 February 2010; these programmes are often shown more than once. Presenters consistently give a sympathetic platform to pro-suicide campaigners.

It was notable that the BBC, as the euthanasia activists want, used the term “assisted dying” instead of the accurate “suicide”. This reminds us of the Dutch habit of describing the unrequested intentional killing of patients, for which the ordinary word is “murder”, as “not necessarily voluntary end-of-life decisions”.

The other side of the picture was ignored. Where are the programmes showing the cogent arguments that have persuaded legislatures in the UK and internationally that the law cannot safely be changed? Where are the life-affirming stories of handicapped people who have battled suicidal thoughts and now live happy fulfilling lives? Recent research has shown that such stories have a positive influence.

This was a frightening programme for the vulnerable, and a shameful day for the BBC. Please complain via the BBC website, telephone BBC Audience Services on 03700 100 222 or write to BBC Complaints, PO Box 1922, Darlington, DL3 0UR.

The ProLife Alliance welcomes the promise that GPs and nurses will protect patients’ “independence, dignity and sense of personal control”, do their utmost to make patients’ remaining days comfortable, and see that they get “all the specialist care and emotional and spiritual support” needed.

Patients are to be encouraged to put their wishes in writing, a provision which will certainly be used by euthanasia campaigners to push them towards “living wills”, including “do not resuscitate” directions, which present several dangers. The recent case of Richard Rudd shows that no one can be sure how he or she will feel in the future. Neither can anyone allow for all possible eventualities or the advance of medical science. And in general the idea that some patients would be better off dead is the cornerstone of euthanasia.

Patients are invited to comment on the Charter and offer suggestions for improving it. The ProLife Alliance recommends a clear statement that no one’s life is futile and unworthy of protection, and that a request for help in committing suicide, or an attempt, should be regarded as an urgent call for better care, physically, mentally or spiritually.

We ask, who does the Advertising Standards Authority represent? Clearly it is not the viewing public.

Please see attached link to our previous comment after the original adjudication decision was released.

The same campaigners, using money from supporters including Terry Pratchett, to set up a private consultation headed by Lord Falconer, a known supporter of assisted dying. Although doctors and groups representing the disabled are overwhelmingly opposed to assisted dying, the members include an individual doctor and disabled person who are known to be in favour.

The Prolife Alliance, together with many other reputable organisations and experts, does not intend to take part in this charade. Please see attached link to Dr Peter Saunders‘ blog in which he goes into some detail regarding the format of the commission.

If tobacco manufacturers paid for a “commission” composed of smokers and people who advertised cigarettes or had tried to encourage smoking, would anyone think it possible that, whatever evidence was presented, there would be any chance of them recommending a smoking ban? We would laugh if they called themselves “an independent body” and boasted “an open mind”. If, in addition, a genuine Royal Commission, a Parliamentary Committee, and searching debates in UK legislative bodies had recently examined the subject in depth and decided against them, we would think their attempt impertinent as well as unnecessary. But this is just what Lord Falconer’s so-called Commission on Assisted Dying has done.

Even the name betrays their bias. They intend to discuss suicide and euthanasia, and are using a euphemism for intentional killing.

Above all, it is NOT good, as they allege, to keep talking about it. The constant suggestion frightens the vulnerable. Recent research by the disability group Scope, not a pro-life organisation, found that 77% of disabled people aged 18-24 and 71% of disabled people aged 25-34 are “concerned about pressure being placed on other disabled people to end their lives prematurely ….. if there were a change in the law on assisted suicide” and many were afraid for themselves.

Dignity in Dying, which used to be called the Voluntary Euthanasia Society, has launched a new website and “helpline” called “Compassion in Dying” to “make sure that people … can easily access information about their rights and choices for care and treatment at the end of life”. It is illegal to encourage suicide, while genuine care and treatment are given by palliative care doctors and hospice workers, who are strongly against a change in the law. The pro-euthanasiasts who are so determined to be in control of their own lives and deaths, do not seem very compassionate regarding the feelings of the disabled and chronically ill.

Fiona Beveridge writes:

Kate Smurthwaite, a pro-choice comedian, wrote a ‘Comment is Free’ piece in the Guardian last weekend about the Information Tribunal’s ruling on the disclosure of abortion statistics. This was in reaction to the unsuccessful attempt by the Department of Health on the 20 April 2011 to overturn the earlier ruling in favour of the ProLife Alliance, who had originally requested this statistical information no less than six years ago in 2005. How arduous is the road to truth!

Ms Smurthwaite’s piece contains a number of factual inaccuracies, in addition to her brushing under the carpet major issues of democracy and human rights. She seems to be somewhat unaware of principal ProLife Alliance activities over the past decade, whilst attributing to us other prolife initiatives (foetal models circulated in Parliament, witnessing outside abortion clinics, operating help lines), none of which is actually the responsibility of the ProLife Alliance. We do not wish to take credit for the work of other prolife groups.

What the ProLife Alliance has done for more than a decade, however, is to defend robustly freedom of speech – a democratic freedom which normally elicits flag-waving enthusiasm from the Guardian newspaper (most recently Wikileaks comes to mind).

When fielding candidates at the General Election in 1997, some will remember that the ProLife Alliance fought a protracted legal battle against the BBC and its censorship of abortion images in our planned election broadcast. The accurate depiction of abortion, a procedure which takes place some 200,000 times a year in the United Kingdom, was censored on grounds of taste and decency. We argued successfully – at least in the Court of Appeal – that showing images of abortion was fundamental to our political message that abortion is unacceptable in a civilised society. The broadcasters, in imposing censorship, were in fact ironically illustrating our point: if something is too terrible to look at, should we be tolerating it?

Following our successful Court of Appeal ruling, the BBC appealed to the House of Lords, who sadly ruled in favour of the BBC’s censorship.

But back to the current case.

In subtitling her piece ‘the decision to publish individual figures on late terminations will needlessly expose vulnerable women to public scrutiny’ Ms Smurthwaite seems to imply that the aim of the ProLife Alliance’s battle for transparency over the abortion statistics is to identify individuals. This is an absurd accusation. It is neither the aim, nor even a likely consequence, as has been reiterated throughout the various court hearings. Individual identities can be totally protected at the same time as precise statistics about abortion (i.e. numbers, gestational age of the baby, and reasons for abortion) are made available for public scrutiny. How can a proper democratic debate be conducted in the absence of these basic facts?

The ProLife Alliance takes a compassionate, non-judgmental attitude to any woman facing a crisis pregnancy or the aftermath of abortion. We want women to have every possible support to help them continue with the pregnancy, and we want the best medical care and support for babies with disabilities and their families.

We do not believe it is in anyone’s interest for the reality of abortion to be hidden from public view. Women considering abortion have the right to information, including on the gestational age of the baby, the reality of the abortion procedure, and alternative support and help available. And society has an absolute duty to provide support for the weakest members of society – which includes providing support for anyone affected by disability or those caring for someone with a disability.

Most importantly, we have a duty to uphold the human rights of those with disability from the very beginning of human life. This means that the discriminatory practice of aborting a child on the grounds of disability – potentially legal even up to the moment of birth – should not be allowed to continue. It is not a coincidence that disability rights campaigners supported the legal inquiry taken forward by the Rev Joanna Jepson over the baby who was aborted post-24 weeks on the grounds that he/she had a cleft palate. Anyone who genuinely supports equality rights should join the ProLife Alliance and disability campaigners in opposing abortion for disability.

The political left in the United Kingdom is almost automatically associated with endorsement of human rights. What about the right to life of disabled people and the public right to freedom of information on the practice of abortion? These are the questions Ms Smurthwaite should be addressing in her Guardian article, rather than scaremongering about the ProLife Alliance.

On Monday 18 April the legal battle continues in the High Court, as the Department of Health (DoH) challenges a ruling in October 2009 from the Information Tribunal (IT) in favour of the request of the ProLife Alliance (PLA) to the Information Commissioner (IC) for full disclosure of statistical information covering the provision of late abortions.

When attention was drawn to the original cleft palate case there was huge public outrage in the United Kingdom and not just from the pro-life movement. A relatively simple surgical intervention can repair this defect and many plastic surgeons currently offer their services free to children with cleft palates living in developing countries.

Subsequent to the publicity around the UK cleft palate case, a decision was taken by the DoH in 2003 to no longer reveal detailed information about the provision of abortion in the United Kingdom, where figures fell below 10 cases. They argued that where the number of cases was low, there was a risk of identification of the women involved.

The PLA considered this an unjust and unreasonable response and one contrary to Freedom of Information legislation. It initiated a series of requests and formal applications to reverse the new policy adopted by the DoH.

Abortion statistics do not identify individual patients, and with 200,000 abortions occurring annually in the United Kingdom it would be impossible to identify any single abortion even if there was only one incident of a particular kind recorded. The public however has a right to know exactly what is happening under our current Abortion Law, not least those who like ourselves are engaged in legitimate lobbying against abortion.

A summary of the legal dispute to date follows:

2003
Following cleft palate case the DoH significantly reduced the information available for abortions performed under ground E, which relates to abortion for disability.

2005
Feb: FOI request from PLA asking for full disclosure of 2003 stats.
April: Substantive reply from DoH denying request.
May: Application by PLA for internal review of DoH decision.

2006
April: Review completed upholding decision not to reveal information in question
May: PLA complained formally to the IC

2008
July: PLA complaint upheld by IC
August: DoH appealed against judgment.

2009
29 May-1/3 June: Appeal heard by IT
October: IT ruled in favour of disclosure to PLA
November DoH appealed

2011
April 18/19: Appeal Hearing
Court 73 at 10.30

Before Mr Justice Cranston
Appellant : Department of Health
and
Respondent : Information Commissioner
and
(Additional Party : ProLife Alliance)