Best Of

"Charity says it’s not illegal to abort babies because they are girls

Organisation criticised over its advice on ‘sex-selective’ terminations amid fears they are on the rise in Britain’s Indian community" (£)

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/healthcare/article/abortion-sex-selective-terminations-p9xq5tj3s

What is your point in posting this article on here? To trigger those who don't like a particular level of melatonin in the skin or for some other reason related to how this might affect the result of the next General Election?

Genuine question.

To be fair to @Andy_JS my understanding was that it was illegal (or possibly against official regulations not law). If charities are giving guidance that is outside the *intention* of the lawmakers which (IIRC was clear at the time) then that should be highlighted.

It’s nothing to do with skin colour (although the Tomes mentions a specific community) but a general issue of charities usurping the role of official bodies to push their own agenda

IIRC the law says that sex is not a lawful grounds for termination. But that doctors get round that by using the patient mental wellbeing grounds.

The patient mental wellbeing grounds are used by most doctors as a catch-all to allow abortion on demand. It's an example of how the implementation of a law regulating a medical procedure can differ markedly in practice from that (probably) intended by Parliament when the law was passed.

It doesn't receive much attention because most people are fine with how the abortion law operates in practice (though it does mean that sometimes a pregnant woman who wants a termination can face extra difficulty if they encounter one of the small number of doctors who don't follow the common practice, which is why BPAS and others have called for the law to be updated).

It's an example much on my mind in relation to the supposed safeguards for assisted dying. How might those actually operate in practice?

You don’t need to worry about that.

The zealots have eliminated most of the safeguards anyway

'The incoming Archbishop of Canterbury has been urged to scrap plans to spend £100m over the Church of England's historical links to slavery.

In a letter seen by the Sunday Times, external, a group of Conservative MPs and peers has urged Dame Sarah Mullally to stop the Church from spending the money.

They claim the funds can only legally be spent on churches and the payment of clergy wages.

In a statement to the paper, the Church Commissioners said that arrangements for the fund were being "developed transparently - in line with charity law".

Mullally, who currently serves as the Bishop of London, will take up her new role as the first-ever female Archbishop of Canterbury next month.

The Church of England's slavery links proposal was announced in January 2023, external following the publication of a report into the Church's historical links to transatlantic slavery.

The report, external, requested by the Church's financing arm - the Church Commissioners - found that a fund established by Queen Anne in 1704 to help poor Anglican clergy was used to finance "great evil".

According to the report, the fund, known as Queen Anne's Bounty, invested in African chattel enslavement and took donations derived from it.

After the report's publication, the then-Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, said he was "deeply sorry" for the links and said action would be taken to address the Church's "shameful past".

The Church Commissioners announced a new £100m fund, committed over a nine-year period, to be spent on "a programme of investment, research and engagement" in communities damaged by the enslavement of African people during the transatlantic slave trade.

However, in their letter to Mullally, MPs and peers have urged the Church to focus on "strengthening parishes" rather than on pursuing what they describe as "high-profile and legally dubious vanity projects".'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2e7w03067o

There are a couple of things going on here. I'm not at all sure there is a viable legal case - there will be various precedents in a period since 1704, but I doubt they will try it.

There's obviously populist right politics, with a seach for attention - this is people like Lam, Philp and Lord Biggar (Regent College Vancouver, and Latimer House, Cambridge, amongst others).

But politically it will be interesting, and for pressure they will leverage Parliamentary on normally non-contentious Church of England legislation in the Ecclesiastical Committee, and gum up the works.

That was a game Danny Kruger was playing last autumn.

Indeed, this is populism.

While sympathetic though to the MPs and peers pushing more funds for Parishes, if any income from the 1704 bounty can be directly linked to investments in slave trading companies I can see why the C of E commissioners are doing what they are proposing. That income, only that income mind, should be used to fund projects in Africa and the Caribbean and maybe support churches with large Black British congregations England.

I know a few aristocratic families maybe even the King are also looking at their assets to see if they can make reparations for any income from slavery. Older companies like Barclays and Greene King and Lloyds of London and RBS (now Natwest) are also potentially affected. Greene King is looking into reparations and Lloyds of London invests in BAME projects as a result, as did RBS. Oxbridge colleges and some of the oldest public schools too could be implicated, some colleges increasing scholarships for black students from the Caribbean and Africa
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/jun/18/barclays-hsbc-and-lloyds-among-uk-banks-that-had-links-to-slavery

IMHO, if money is being used for good purposes, 2-300 years down the line, it has lost its taint. More than a few people who have created fortunes did so by unethical means.

I'm intrigued. Who do you have in mind that made their fortunes by ethical means?

A minority really, mostly nonconformists.

The Rowntrees and Cadburys might be your best bets.

Two families who come over as virtual saints, by comparison to many contemporaries.

And, while it is counter-intuitive, acting fairly and honestly, towards others, served them well, financially.

Apparently Quakers succeeded in business because for them a handshake was enough to seal a deal, and they didn't get bogged down in over-legalistic interpretation of contracts.

Also, they weren't allowed into the universities, armed forces, C of E, and law because they'd have to sign up to the C of E, etc. etc. So they focussed laserlike on business.

Also, their family networks - distributed but highly functional when combinedf with their hierarchy of Meetings (=congregations/presbyteries) and regular local, district and national get togethers.

Finally they were so worried about business cred that if one of them was going bust the others would intervene and at least make sure the debts were paid afap. Or if someone was wilfully dishonest or bankrupt he'd be thrown out, just as if he'd committed a serious moral opprobrium like adultery or theft - which last, in their view, he had. Which is completely alien to the US business ethos and the average UK dodgy double glazing sequentially bankrupt* as much complained about on here.

Very interesting folk, the Society of Friends, once they'd settled dowm from their charismatic beginnings.

Though there was a big problem with the arms trade in the C18 and early C19 once they sat down and tdhought about it. Just been reading an interesting book on this issue and the Birmingham Quakers.

*Other d.g. businesses are, I stress, available.

Sir Richard Body came, unusually, from a family of Quaker gunmakers.

"Charity says it’s not illegal to abort babies because they are girls

Organisation criticised over its advice on ‘sex-selective’ terminations amid fears they are on the rise in Britain’s Indian community" (£)

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/healthcare/article/abortion-sex-selective-terminations-p9xq5tj3s

What is your point in posting this article on here? To trigger those who don't like a particular level of melatonin in the skin or for some other reason related to how this might affect the result of the next General Election?

Genuine question.

To be fair to @Andy_JS my understanding was that it was illegal (or possibly against official regulations not law). If charities are giving guidance that is outside the *intention* of the lawmakers which (IIRC was clear at the time) then that should be highlighted.

It’s nothing to do with skin colour (although the Tomes mentions a specific community) but a general issue of charities usurping the role of official bodies to push their own agenda

IIRC the law says that sex is not a lawful grounds for termination. But that doctors get round that by using the patient mental wellbeing grounds.

The patient mental wellbeing grounds are used by most doctors as a catch-all to allow abortion on demand. It's an example of how the implementation of a law regulating a medical procedure can differ markedly in practice from that (probably) intended by Parliament when the law was passed.

It doesn't receive much attention because most people are fine with how the abortion law operates in practice (though it does mean that sometimes a pregnant woman who wants a termination can face extra difficulty if they encounter one of the small number of doctors who don't follow the common practice, which is why BPAS and others have called for the law to be updated).

It's an example much on my mind in relation to the supposed safeguards for assisted dying. How might those actually operate in practice?

You don’t need to worry about that.

The zealots have eliminated most of the safeguards anyway

Far too many still exist like the preposterous six month rule.

The only safeguard that should exist is "do you want to die?"

If no, then don't kill the person. If yes, then do so.

A potential second sensible safeguard could be a cooling off period after which the question is repeated. However again, all that should matter is the patients choice. Nobody else's.

The problem is that, once you are dead, no-one can check with you that it really was your choice to die. So on whose word are you relying that a murder was not committed?

That's why there would have to be safeguards, and why I am concerned about whether those safeguards are implemented as intended.

CCTV is not exactly unheard of.

"Do you wish to die" with a clear and unambiguous "yes" response recorded.

Why do we need any of this six month bullshit? If someone has years of suffering ahead and wishes to end it, then their choice should be respected, not be told to wait through years of suffering until their case is terminal.

Because the rules are established to protect the vulnerable. Yes they may seem clunky to someone like you in good health and of soundish mind but they aren’t there for you

I feel the rules are there to attempt to placate people who oppose the concept in general, more than to protect anyone.

If someone has years of suffering ahead of them and clearly and unambiguously wishes to have their life be terminated in a safe and dignified manner, then should their wish be respected, or should the objections of third parties who oppose free choice be respected instead?

I genuinely do not have an answer on this topic.

I recognise that it is cruel and degrading to prevent someone from ending their life when they wish to do so because they find their life intolerable, and there is no prospect of it becoming less intolerable.

And yet, as someone being treated for depression, and who has experienced several periods of disturbing suicidal ideation, I worry about what the consequences might be to make suicide a more easily achieved option. I worry about people being, or feeling, coerced due to being, or at least feeling that they are being, a burden on others. Particularly at a time when social and hospice care is so badly underfunded. And then, of course, there is the risk of a Harold Shipman exploiting the law.

I think that a lot of the more strident advocates for the change cannot see beyond the exercise of their personal choice and are dismissive of the effects that the law change might have on others.

I don't know where the balance should lie. I can only hope that Parliament will come to a careful, considered, compromise.

Your simplistic arguments are not at all convincing.

Suicide is the number one cause of death of males under 50 in the UK today.

Not under my proposed law, with safeguards, and cooling off periods. Today. Now.

Would I have a suicide option for those with suicidal tendencies that have met the safeguards and conditions such as cooling off period and clearly and unambiguously communicating their desires? Yes.

Would I think it sad if someone makes that choice? Yes.

Would I prefer that choice, if made, be respected safely and humanely rather than via undignified and dangerous means such as stepping in front of a train or jumping off a bridge? Also yes.

If you make something easier it will generally happen more often.

I might not be alive to argue the point with you today. I would not have enjoyed the dinner that I cooked today. I would not have felt the joy of making my wife laugh this evening.

I have told medical professionals in the past that I wanted to die. What might have happened to me if they could make that happen?

This, also, applies to the Dignitas option. Perhaps having to travel to another country is just enough of a barrier to create a safeguard. It makes it just hard enough that someone has to genuinely want it enough. Perhaps a better option would be to pay travel costs and Dignitas fees?

Its swings and roundabouts.

How many people might be alive today if they'd gone and spoken to a medical professional instead of going to step in front of trains?

Fatal crash risk ‘three times higher’ in hybrid cars than petrol

Experts believe the higher death rates could be explained by hybrid cars’ combination of petrol engines and electric motors, which can be more prone to fires

https://www.thetimes.com/article/3b70bbfa-f0b8-4e80-a7cb-86c693cea78f?shareToken=6986ec0a25dad08e80b2790d44978a4a

Number of vehicles might be the wrong measure. Hybrids are very popular with cab drivers so will be used several hours a day rather than a short commute or weekly trip to the supermarket.