I posted earlier this week about a draft motion for the forthcoming TUC Congress.
In that post I suggested that the motion could only be understood as an attempt by those with an interest in abortion to promote abortion, regardless of any other considerations. The TUC motion will have been submitted to a time scale that means it pre-dates the pro-abortion amendments that have now been tabled for the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill.
John Smeaton has posted on these amendments. As I read his post, the feeling that this was a "promote abortion at all costs" agenda was reinforced.
Showing posts with label union conference. Show all posts
Showing posts with label union conference. Show all posts
Saturday, 16 August 2008
Wednesday, 13 August 2008
TUC .... again ....
The draft agenda contains a second motion (motion P19) that will be of concern to Catholics. No need to be too concerned - abortion has been round before at the TUC, and, whatever "Congress believes", it is not binding on the policy making of affiliated unions! Again, the motion does not come from an affiliated union but from the TUC Women's Conference ... which, in all likelihood, is a caucus of activists of a particular frame of mind.
Like the motion from the TUC LGBT Conference, this motion too has an element of deception to it, though I am not in a position to know whether that is deliberate or not.
These two sentences make a huge assumption about the nature of the decisions made by doctors, and therefore about the nature of the practice of medicine. Unless I have misunderstood the nature of the medical profession, a patient consents to a procedure or course of treatment that has (1) been proposed to them by a medical professional, who has used the skill, knowledge and experience that is proper to them as a result of their training, and who has proposed this procedure or treatment (2) in response to a clinical condition arising from illness or injury that represents an impairment of their physical functioning. In some situations, the medical professional might be able to propose alternative courses of treatment, and in others only one.
It has always struck me that the availability of legal abortion and contraceptives (and perhaps some forms of cosmetic treatment) represents a departure from this understanding of the medical profession. This is because they are treatments that can be offered to a patient who presents without a clinical condition representing impairment of their physical functioning; they are treatments that can be offered to patients who are not actually ill or injured in any way. Not surprisingly, this alters significantly the nature of the patient-doctor relationship.
If I have understood it correctly, the 1967 Abortion Act does not consider the two doctors as "agreeing to the woman's decision". Instead, it refers to an abortion being lawful if it is undertaken on the advice of two medical practitioners. This does respect the nature of the medical profession as suggested at (1) and (2) above; though in practice (2) is undermined by the loose interpretation of the grounds for termination. (2) has also been undermined by the widening grounds on which termination can be lawful - it allows that the treatment proposed (1) does not have to be directed towards the clinical condition (2), creating a separation between the two. So, instead of treating the disabled child - which involves (1) and (2) being closely connected - an abortion is offered instead.
It is interesting, but not altogether surprising, to see how aspect (1) of the nature of medicine is being eroded as well in these contexts. This can be seen in the availability of hormonal contraceptives without a prescription, even free in some situations. It can be seen in the availability of the morning after pill without prescription, and, again, even free in some circumstances.
A particularly misleading aspect of the TUC motion is that it gives the impression that this derogation from the integrity of medical practice is true across the whole range of medicine: "..like every other medical procedure". This seems to me to be blatantly not the case. I suspect that the areas of contraceptives and abortion are just about the only areas where a doctor simply aquiesces to the wishes of a patient, without a medical indication. In most other situations, a medical professional who prescribed treatments simply on request without a relevant clinical indication would be struck off.
Another part of the TUC motion that I noticed is the following:
In other areas of life, cooling off periods and a requirement for proper advice are accepted as necessary to prevent the exploitation of clients or to ensure that a duty of care towards them is properly met. It is quite incomprehensible - to me, at least - that similar standards of care should not be applied in connection with abortion. And doubly incomprehensible that they can be considered as having "apalling consequences for women". I would have expected supporters of abortion, in fact, to welcome provisions such as these, because they represent the fulfilling of a duty of care towards women. Given that the rest of the motion calls for all the points of the pro-abortion agenda around the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, I ask myself what the agenda underlying this motion (and, by implication, the pro-abortion lobby as whole) really is.
Since abortion is a procedure that is available to patients who do not suffer from a clinical condition, it can be marketed or promoted to the potential patients themselves (most other medicines are marketed to the medical profession, who make the decisions about their use, and not to the patients). So it becomes important, for those with an interest in abortion, that nothing comes in the way of this promotion .... not even a duty of care towards women.
Sorry, I really cannot understand this motion in any other way.
PS. Full text of the draft agenda for the TUC Congress can be found on the TUC website. For those outside the UK, the TUC is the Trades Union Congress. Many trades unions affiliate to the TUC.
PPS. Luke Gormally has a good account of the nature of health and of medicine as a profession in a chapter of "Issues for a Catholic Bioethic".
Like the motion from the TUC LGBT Conference, this motion too has an element of deception to it, though I am not in a position to know whether that is deliberate or not.
Congress believes abortion should be legally available at the request of the woman and the requirement that two doctors agree to her decision should be ended ....
Congress believes the law should be modernised to allow women, not doctors, to make the abortion decision, like every other medical procedure.
These two sentences make a huge assumption about the nature of the decisions made by doctors, and therefore about the nature of the practice of medicine. Unless I have misunderstood the nature of the medical profession, a patient consents to a procedure or course of treatment that has (1) been proposed to them by a medical professional, who has used the skill, knowledge and experience that is proper to them as a result of their training, and who has proposed this procedure or treatment (2) in response to a clinical condition arising from illness or injury that represents an impairment of their physical functioning. In some situations, the medical professional might be able to propose alternative courses of treatment, and in others only one.
It has always struck me that the availability of legal abortion and contraceptives (and perhaps some forms of cosmetic treatment) represents a departure from this understanding of the medical profession. This is because they are treatments that can be offered to a patient who presents without a clinical condition representing impairment of their physical functioning; they are treatments that can be offered to patients who are not actually ill or injured in any way. Not surprisingly, this alters significantly the nature of the patient-doctor relationship.
If I have understood it correctly, the 1967 Abortion Act does not consider the two doctors as "agreeing to the woman's decision". Instead, it refers to an abortion being lawful if it is undertaken on the advice of two medical practitioners. This does respect the nature of the medical profession as suggested at (1) and (2) above; though in practice (2) is undermined by the loose interpretation of the grounds for termination. (2) has also been undermined by the widening grounds on which termination can be lawful - it allows that the treatment proposed (1) does not have to be directed towards the clinical condition (2), creating a separation between the two. So, instead of treating the disabled child - which involves (1) and (2) being closely connected - an abortion is offered instead.
It is interesting, but not altogether surprising, to see how aspect (1) of the nature of medicine is being eroded as well in these contexts. This can be seen in the availability of hormonal contraceptives without a prescription, even free in some situations. It can be seen in the availability of the morning after pill without prescription, and, again, even free in some circumstances.
A particularly misleading aspect of the TUC motion is that it gives the impression that this derogation from the integrity of medical practice is true across the whole range of medicine: "..like every other medical procedure". This seems to me to be blatantly not the case. I suspect that the areas of contraceptives and abortion are just about the only areas where a doctor simply aquiesces to the wishes of a patient, without a medical indication. In most other situations, a medical professional who prescribed treatments simply on request without a relevant clinical indication would be struck off.
Another part of the TUC motion that I noticed is the following:
Congress also notes that the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill currently in Parliament is subject to anti-abortion amendments to reduce the abortion time limit form 24 weeks and impose a "cooling off" period and compulsory counselling. Congress believes such measures would have appalling consequences for women seeking abortion and assume women are not capable of making their own decision.
In other areas of life, cooling off periods and a requirement for proper advice are accepted as necessary to prevent the exploitation of clients or to ensure that a duty of care towards them is properly met. It is quite incomprehensible - to me, at least - that similar standards of care should not be applied in connection with abortion. And doubly incomprehensible that they can be considered as having "apalling consequences for women". I would have expected supporters of abortion, in fact, to welcome provisions such as these, because they represent the fulfilling of a duty of care towards women. Given that the rest of the motion calls for all the points of the pro-abortion agenda around the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, I ask myself what the agenda underlying this motion (and, by implication, the pro-abortion lobby as whole) really is.
Since abortion is a procedure that is available to patients who do not suffer from a clinical condition, it can be marketed or promoted to the potential patients themselves (most other medicines are marketed to the medical profession, who make the decisions about their use, and not to the patients). So it becomes important, for those with an interest in abortion, that nothing comes in the way of this promotion .... not even a duty of care towards women.
Sorry, I really cannot understand this motion in any other way.
UPDATE: see also John Smeaton's post here.
PS. Full text of the draft agenda for the TUC Congress can be found on the TUC website. For those outside the UK, the TUC is the Trades Union Congress. Many trades unions affiliate to the TUC.
PPS. Luke Gormally has a good account of the nature of health and of medicine as a profession in a chapter of "Issues for a Catholic Bioethic".
Tuesday, 12 August 2008
Conned into it ....
On the 3rd April 2008, Stonewall, an organisation dedicated to promoting the gay agenda in Britain, held a fund raising dinner. Their own news release on the occasion included the following sentence:
So it appears that New Labour's pro-gay agenda was foisted on to them by an unrepresentative interest group. The language of "demands" is quite revealing, too.
My own trade union was conned as well. The first policy paper they adopted on the issue was not written by them at all. It was written by gay activists in another union; it was first brought to my union's executive by a paid member of staff of the union; and, after nearly a year of its being referred from committee to committee, it was finally driven through at a poorly attended meeting. I received a letter from the then President of the union warning me off opposing this policy if I had ambitions to be President at some point (the rumour machine at the time had me lining myself up to stand - all rather hilarious in retrospect, since I resigned from the executive soon after on precisely this issue)... Looking at that policy paper, it contains recognisable Stonewall-speak, so the ultimate origin of its content is not hard to guess. The association continues to be conned by the Stonewall agenda.
The draft agenda for the forthcoming TUC Congress contains a motion that is another example of the Stonewall con. It does not come from any of the affiliated unions; it is proposed by the "TUC Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Conference" - that is, by a caucus of pro-gay activists. The con this time is to re-define the meaning of the word "homophobic" to refer to any expression of a view that disagrees with Stonewall's attempt to have gay behaviour viewed universally as morally right. Draft motion P17 calls on Congress to condemn the appointment of Joel Edwards, present General Director of the Evangelical Alliance, as a commisioner for the Equality and Human Rights Commission on the grounds that he "has made homophobic statements and continues to do so". The examples cited in the motion are essentially statements of orthodox Christian teaching that homosexual practice is morally wrong. Not one example is given of promotion of hatred against gay people - the ordinary understanding of the word "homophobic".
The problem is that it takes, first, a bit of intelligent awareness and then, second, a bit of courage to stand against this con trick. And in a committee meeting or a congress hall, where the "top table" are telling them that this is the thing to do, few will stand against it.
I am tempted to reverse a recent slogan and say: A lot of us are straight; get over it.
[Sir Ian McKellen] shared with the 540 guests that he had visited Tony Blair on behalf of Stonewall three months before his election as Prime Minister. 'I reeled off Stonewall's demands, and he nodded, wrote them down and put a tick by them all. Then he said we will do all that.'
So it appears that New Labour's pro-gay agenda was foisted on to them by an unrepresentative interest group. The language of "demands" is quite revealing, too.
My own trade union was conned as well. The first policy paper they adopted on the issue was not written by them at all. It was written by gay activists in another union; it was first brought to my union's executive by a paid member of staff of the union; and, after nearly a year of its being referred from committee to committee, it was finally driven through at a poorly attended meeting. I received a letter from the then President of the union warning me off opposing this policy if I had ambitions to be President at some point (the rumour machine at the time had me lining myself up to stand - all rather hilarious in retrospect, since I resigned from the executive soon after on precisely this issue)... Looking at that policy paper, it contains recognisable Stonewall-speak, so the ultimate origin of its content is not hard to guess. The association continues to be conned by the Stonewall agenda.
The draft agenda for the forthcoming TUC Congress contains a motion that is another example of the Stonewall con. It does not come from any of the affiliated unions; it is proposed by the "TUC Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Conference" - that is, by a caucus of pro-gay activists. The con this time is to re-define the meaning of the word "homophobic" to refer to any expression of a view that disagrees with Stonewall's attempt to have gay behaviour viewed universally as morally right. Draft motion P17 calls on Congress to condemn the appointment of Joel Edwards, present General Director of the Evangelical Alliance, as a commisioner for the Equality and Human Rights Commission on the grounds that he "has made homophobic statements and continues to do so". The examples cited in the motion are essentially statements of orthodox Christian teaching that homosexual practice is morally wrong. Not one example is given of promotion of hatred against gay people - the ordinary understanding of the word "homophobic".
The problem is that it takes, first, a bit of intelligent awareness and then, second, a bit of courage to stand against this con trick. And in a committee meeting or a congress hall, where the "top table" are telling them that this is the thing to do, few will stand against it.
I am tempted to reverse a recent slogan and say: A lot of us are straight; get over it.
Saturday, 22 March 2008
An exercise in "stonewall-speak"
Since returning from Torquay, I have had a chance to read a recently produced position statement from the union about LGBT issues. Some excerpts, not in order of appearance. My comments in red.
"This position statement is based on existing research and educational thinking aruond these issues in the UK and elsewhere".
At conference, we were repeatedly told that ATL is a democratic, member led organisation. Surely a position statement should be based on members views, yes, informed by relevant research, but based on members views.
"Boys' and girls' sex/gender identities are developed under constant pressure and surveillance between and within male and female peer groups".
If one grants the legitimacy of the "are developed" in this sentence, there is one factor clearly missing. That is the physiology of the boys' and girl's bodies, which surely has a part to play in any development of identity. One should note the exclusion, rather selective it seems to me, of this factor in sex/gender identity. The "are developed" is, of course, quite questionable in any case.
"Heterosexism includes attitudes, behaviour and practices that constitute heterosexuality as the norm."
As I understand the statistics, even the figures most favourable to LGBT lobbyists indicate the proportion of people in society who identify as LGBT as being about 10%. This does appear to me to make heterosexuality the "norm" in the every day, statistical, and dare I say it, sociological, sense of that word. There is also the case to be made for the "norm" status of heterosexuality from the study of the natural sciences, which shows a clear move towards sexual reproduction in the higher living things.
"[cultural prejudice against lesbian, gay and bisexual people] is firmly tied to dominant male and female identities that rely on heterosexuality as the norm."
By all means recognise the danger that a minority might be subject to unfair prejudice and discrimination - but it seems rather less than honest to do that by trying to re-define what is meant by "norm". And please recognise that not all people who hold heterosexuality as the norm are guilty of discriminatory behaviour.
Among the definitions of terms at the end of the statement:
"Gender generally refers to the social and cultural constructions of masculinity and femininity and indicates that a man or a woman's position is not dictated by nature, biology or sex, but is a matter of social and political convention."
So biology has nothing to do with being male or female? A person's position in society may not be dictated by nature, biology or sex - it can be affected by their activity, their opportunities, where they live, the help of others etc. Whether they are male or female can affect this position, for good or for ill, and, in some cases quite unfairly. But none of this is the same as suggesting that "gender" has nothing to do with "nature, biology and sex". This suggestion, which seems to be really what is going on here, completely re-defines the meaning of the word "gender".
"Sex refers more specifically to male or female physiology as biological constructs of the body".
The word "constructs" is completely loaded. It is a language of sociology or epistemology ("constructivism") - but it would be almost unknown in the field of the physical or biological sciences. To the scientist, male or female physiology is a "given" that is studied not something that is "constructed".
"In this document, we have used the term sex/gender to indicate that even the depiction of male and female physiognomy has depended on the social and political significance accorded to gendered notions of masculinity and femininity. Physiological difference as the 'natural' basis for gender difference therefore cannot be separated from social and cultural constructions of manhood and womanhood."
As it stands, I think this is complete gobbledygook [which is "pompous or unintelligible official, or professional, jargon" according to my dictionary]. Is the statement trying to say that sexual orientation (heterosexual, or LGBT) has nothing to do with the physiology of the human body? The first sentence, referring to "physiognomy" and not the totality of male or female physiology, may or may not be correct - I am sure there is an argument to be had both in favour of it and against it ("has depended on .." is not the same as "is determined by .."). However, the following sentence generalises the specific reference to "physiognomy" of the first sentence to the whole of "physiology" - a complete non sequitur.
This position statement takes part in a complete re-defining of language that is being undertaken by the LGBT lobby. This makes many of their statements pretty meaningless, unless you actually write in "stonewall-speak" yourself. One can see the LGBT lobby getting a little bit tangled in their own language. The attempt to divorce any idea of gender/sex from the physiology of the human body logically leads to saying that sexual orientation has no relation to the physiology of the human body either....
Thursday, 20 March 2008
The Torquay Conference: Day 3
At conference today (ie Wednesday - posting has been delayed by a temperamental wireless connection), I had an interesting conversation with a colleague who works at a Catholic School in Lancaster Diocese. My question was about how Bishop O’Donoghue’s recent initiative on Catholic schools was being received by a school in the diocese. My colleague characterised it as being “90% positives, 10% negatives”. He spoke positively about the involvement of parents, governors, and the general context of the “Fit for Mission” process.
Aspects identified as difficulties were as follows. The stance against Amnesty International is awkward for schools where the AI group is largely student run. It is quite difficult to suddenly say that they cannot do something that is an activity over which they have had a genuine ownership. Similarly, an initiative encouraging pupil reading, whereby pupils choose and draw down their books from the library, faced difficulties if the books the pupils are choosing were not approved of. Again, the question is one of pupil ownership.
During our conversation, what struck me was that these were difficulties that could be managed in a way that was fair to the students and faithful to Bishop O’Donoghue’s wishes for the schools in his diocese. The AI group, for example, could adopt a clear position that it did not support any campaigns relating to AI’s recently adopted policy with regard to abortion. AI’s rules do allow this, and it could be published to AI itself, and to the school community. Affiliation to Christian Solidarity Worldwide or Aid to the Church in Need might also be alternative approaches.
Aspects identified as difficulties were as follows. The stance against Amnesty International is awkward for schools where the AI group is largely student run. It is quite difficult to suddenly say that they cannot do something that is an activity over which they have had a genuine ownership. Similarly, an initiative encouraging pupil reading, whereby pupils choose and draw down their books from the library, faced difficulties if the books the pupils are choosing were not approved of. Again, the question is one of pupil ownership.
During our conversation, what struck me was that these were difficulties that could be managed in a way that was fair to the students and faithful to Bishop O’Donoghue’s wishes for the schools in his diocese. The AI group, for example, could adopt a clear position that it did not support any campaigns relating to AI’s recently adopted policy with regard to abortion. AI’s rules do allow this, and it could be published to AI itself, and to the school community. Affiliation to Christian Solidarity Worldwide or Aid to the Church in Need might also be alternative approaches.
Monday, 25 February 2008
Teacher union conference motion on "social dysfunction"
The following motion appears in the agenda of my trade union's annual conference, due to take place in the week before Easter:
I suspect that the concern lying behind this motion is that schools and teachers are being marked down during inspections/self evaluation processes when the real cause of the underachievement of pupils does not lie with the work of the schools and teachers themselves. But it will be interesting to see what definitions of "social dysfunction" and "family" are used in the debate. What the union will expect Government to do in order to deliver the "recognising" called for in the motion defeats me - particularly since the present Government has done plenty to remove those fixed reference points, both social and ethical in nature, that would support stability in the home lives of children.
The full agenda for the Conference can be downloaded in pdf format from www.atl.org.uk.
Impact of social dysfunction and family breakdown
17 THAT Conference urges the Executive Committee to press the Government to recognise fully the extent to which social dysfunction and family breakdown are damaging the educational attainment of children and the performance of schools and colleges.
I suspect that the concern lying behind this motion is that schools and teachers are being marked down during inspections/self evaluation processes when the real cause of the underachievement of pupils does not lie with the work of the schools and teachers themselves. But it will be interesting to see what definitions of "social dysfunction" and "family" are used in the debate. What the union will expect Government to do in order to deliver the "recognising" called for in the motion defeats me - particularly since the present Government has done plenty to remove those fixed reference points, both social and ethical in nature, that would support stability in the home lives of children.
The full agenda for the Conference can be downloaded in pdf format from www.atl.org.uk.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)