For this reason the Falconer commission was boycotted by many of the organisations who want to protect the vulnerable, disabled and elderly from feeling that they are a burden on society and that their lives are less worthwhile than other people’s. Notably these include the BMA, and the major disability rights organisations RADAR, UKDPC, NCIL, SCOPE and Not Dead Yet. Consequently, it is no surprise that the commission has found an overwhelmingly positive response to its questions. The verdict was entirely predictable because the jury was fixed.

The reality is that the disabled are overwhelmingly against any change in the laws which at present protect them. Many legislatures have rejected such propositions, because the more closely people study the subject, the more they see the dangers. In his submission to the commission, Peter Bailey, disabled for 35 years following an accident and a trustee of Leonard Cheshire Disability, expressed this clearly:

“Why is it that suicidal tendencies in non-disabled people trigger the possibility of being sectioned for your own good, but when we look at disabled people it’s somehow expected and understood that you might want to kill yourself?”

In every country where assisted suicide is legal there have been abuses, and its legalisation would put all vulnerable people in the UK at risk. The moment we start judging the value of other people’s lives,  we stop making their protection and quality of life our priority.

For media enquiries, please contact Dominica Roberts on 01344 422902 or 079 037 69314. 

For a more detailed discussion of the Falconer Commission click here.

A spokesperson for the ProLife Alliance comments:

Once again the politics of abortion blinds those who should be rigorously objective in assessing epidemiological evidence.  This is a pick and mix report trying to minimize the psychological effects of termination of pregnancy in a way which does our so-called medical experts little credit.  

Robust evidence, such as that of Professor Priscilla Coleman, which conflicts with pro-abortion political ideology, is dismissed.  They conclude that there are no significant different mental health outcomes in the continuation of an unplanned pregnancy or termination.  They do, however, at least accept that women with prior mental health problems are at greater risk of problems after abortion, so the idea that abortion solves those initial psychiatric problems is not tenable.  

UK Abortion Statistics in recent years indicate that the vast majority (roughly 95%) are performed for the mental health of the mothers involved.  Given that there are nearly 200,000 terminations a year this represents a massive number of women undergoing abortion for mental health reasons.  How many of these patients – if any – had their mental health assessed properly?  

Psychiatric assessment is not even required under abortion law, just the consent of two medical doctors.  How could any report on induced abortion and mental health have any real value, certainly in the United Kingdom, when we have no idea what specific mental health problems the women were suffering from?

In a heavily biased article in the Guardian (18/7/11) Dr Strickland says her findings are worrying in the light of increasing demand for abortion. She also notes that the majority of those who object on conscience grounds are Muslim.

The ProLife Alliance would like to remind Dr Strickland that the vast majority (96.96%) of abortions are carried out for so-called mental health reasons, which is a catch-all term for ‘social reasons’. It is hardly surprising that this will be abhorrent to many people, including doctors of whatever religious belief system.

The Department of Health is quoted as saying that “patients’ clinical needs always come first and it is unlawful to discriminate on the grounds of religion or belief.” As the Department of Health is responsible for producing statistics on abortion, they should be aware that it is rare for there to be a clinical need for abortion. Also, as it is unlawful to discriminate on the grounds of religion or belief, surely this should include the religion or beliefs of doctors, including Muslim doctors, who are particularly singled out in Dr Strickland’s comments.

From their comments, both Dr Strickland and the Department of Health appear to be under the impression that abortion is ‘subject to demand’ rather than regulation under the Abortion Act. The fact that abortion rates are increasing is a cause for concern, not that the next generation of doctors is less willing to condone them. Abortion, which ends the lives of around 200,000 unborn children each year in England and Wales, should never be treated as a consumer product.

The ProLife Alliance upholds the right to freedom of conscience for all involved in abortion, whether on religious or humanitarian grounds. It is worth noting that freedom of conscience is taken into account in the political field, where abortion is subject to a free vote. This is a major disparity which should be remedied.

A spokesman for the ProLife Alliance says “we are delighted that our future doctors are far more aware than the previous generation of the true nature of abortion, and more inclined to act accordingly. This is a real sign of hope for the future.”

What appears to be a condition with no light at the end of the tunnel, can sometimes reverse as is shown to two stories which the Sunday Times published on 17/7/11. The stories highlight how little medical understanding of minimal consciousness there is.

The newspaper reported the very moving story of Martin Pitorius, who was considered without hope of recovery. He was subjected to terrible abuse from his carers. He was fully aware but unable to communicate. Then, with the help of a very enlightened physiotherapist, he started to improve and learn to communicate again. Mr Pitorius has written a book about his experience called ‘Ghost Boy’. He remains very optimistic about life. He married two years ago, which is surely a sign of that positive attitude.

In the same issue, the Sunday Times reported the story of Nikki Kenward, who has also made a remarkable recovery from near total paralysis in which all she could do was wink one eye. Ms Kenward has decided to protest outside the court at today’s hearing. She feels strongly that if the court decides that M should be killed, it will open the flood gates and will people who are fully conscious but unable to communicate will be at great risk. The ProLife Alliance agrees.

By contrast, in today’s Times (19/7/11), Tony Nicklinson says ‘For pity’s sake let my wife kill me’. The tone of the article is that his life is worthless. Mr Nicklinson’s case is different from M, Nikki Kenward and Martin Pitorius as he has always been able to communicate, even though with the aid of electronic devices. Mr Nicklinson is clearly in a very depressed state.

It is interesting to contrast the attitudes of Mr Nicklinson and Mr Pitorius. One seeks help to die, the other communicates far and wide, starts his own business, gets a dog and finds a wife. The ProLife Alliance agrees that Mr Nicklinson seriously needs help, but he appears to be looking in all the wrong places and finding only those will reinforce his negative state of mind, such as the pessimistic proponents of euthanasia and assisted suicide.

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.

The latest statistics (*), completing the first decade of the Millennium, present an extremely sad picture for England and Wales, with abortion figures averaging over 195,000 a year, and in 2010 a recorded 196,109 which is slightly up on the previous year. Whatever is being done in the UK in the way of sexual health education, at whatever age, it is clearly not impacting significantly on unplanned pregnancies.

If there is any good news in these tragic lists of abortion figures published by the DoH it is possibly that underage abortions are slightly lower than last year, but in every other respect the statistics show increases across the board, including repeat abortions which reveal sad details such as that 85 patients had had 7 or more.

Any abortion at whatever stage in pregnancy and for whatever reason represents the ending of the life of a developing pre-born child, and the ProLife Alliance is adamant that there have to be answers to crisis pregnancy situations which do not go down this pathway.

However, for those not moved by human rights arguments and the humanity of the unborn child, but who are concerned about public healthcare costs it should be noted that 96% of abortions are now funded from the NHS purse, whether subcontracted to private clinics or provided by the NHS directly. This compares to approximately 47% public funding of abortions in the years prior to 1990 (see Figure 3: p.8 in above DoH publication). Indeed if one excludes non-residents and those not registered with the NHS this means that the government is now funding practically all abortions in England and Wales. Whatever policy lies behind this funding decision, in the light of current statistics it is difficult to accept that there is serious focus at government level on reducing abortion numbers.

For the ProLife Alliance the most significant statement in today’s statistics, is that 99.96% of ground C only terminations (representing 185,291 of all abortions) were performed because of risk to the woman’s mental health. This is, we believe, the first time such a statement has been printed. Usually ground C terminations do not distinguish between the mental or physical health of the woman. On this basis, looking back over the decades since 1967, millions of abortions have been carried out in the UK, not because of life-threatening conditions involving the baby, not because of serious physical conditions involving the mother, but to ensure the mental health of the mother.

Are there honestly such colossal maternal mental health problems in the United Kingdom, or is it the case that abortion is now virtually on demand?

End

(*) For anybody expecting the missing details on late abortions as requested by the ProLife Alliance under the Freedom of Information Act these are still not included in the new statistics, despite the Department of Health’s failure to reverse the Information Tribunal’s decision that they should be revealed. Currently the DoH is still within the timescale where it could appeal against the April High Court Judgment.
The ProLife Alliance has been waiting since 2003 for this information.

For further inquiries:

ProLife Alliance
PO Box 13395
London
SW3 6XE

Tel: 020 7581 6939
Fax: 020 7581 3868
E-mail: info@prolife.org.uk
Website: www.prolife.org.uk

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)