July 14, 1998. 2:45 am. In the dead of winter; in the dead of the night, a baby girl was born.
She died 80 minutes later. Alone, unwanted, unloved. Her name was Jessica.
In early July 1998, an expectant mother met with Dr Henry Cho of Darwin Private Hospital and requested an abortion. Dr Cho became concerned about the “great psychological trouble” the woman would face if she continued with her pregnancy and although nearly half way through the pregnancy - at 19 weeks - booked her in for a second trimester abortion.
On July 13, Dr Cho admitted the mother into Darwin Private Hospital and prescribed Misoprostol, a drug which is used to induce labour. Misoprostol is the drug used to trigger labour for a stillbirth and is generally acknowledged to be safe for a live baby. Dr Cho’s intention in this case was that the baby would die during delivery, as a result of the trauma of birth at such a premature age.
In the early hours of July 14, after labouring for some time, the mother delivered her little girl, and the child was promptly placed in a kidney dish by the attending registered mid-wife, Nurse Carrie Williams. It wasn’t until Nurse Williams took the baby from the room that she realized little Jessica was alive. Jessica was breathing, moving, crying.
Nurse Williams noted in the Coronial Inquest that the child looked to be between 22 and 24 weeks gestation, and not the recorded 19 weeks. Dr Cho later agreed that the pregnancy had progressed to 22 weeks.
Nurse Williams wrapped the child in a blanket, covered her and left her alone, checking back every 15 minutes until little Jessica died at 4:05 am.
During Jessica’s short life, Nurse Williams continued to care for her mother. She phoned Dr Cho for some assistance in dealing with the child who had survived an attempted abortion, and was told that “nothing need be done”. Dr Cho had reportedly informed the woman that there was the possibility her baby may be born alive, but Nurse Williams was not aware of this.
During the coronial inquest, Nurse Williams stated that there was nothing further she could have done for the child. She said that the baby’s vital signs were good and that she “desperately wanted to do more” but she felt her hands were tied.
It is estimated that 1 in every 30 babies aborted between the age of 17 and 24 weeks is born alive and lives for between 1 and 4 hours before dying. Jessica’s story is not rare.
© Eva Whiteley 2009
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Euthanasia Debated
On February 3, I had the dubious privilege of attending a public debate hosted by IQ2, an Australian forum for live debate. The proposition: we should legalize euthanasia.
Speakers for the proposition were Philip Nitschke, founder and director of the euthanasia advocacy organization Exit Australia, openly gay Greens Senator Bob Brown, and Professor Peter Baume, former NSW senator and patron of the Voluntary Euthanasia Society of NSW.
Speakers against the proposition were Dr Maria Cigolini, a GP and teacher of General Practice at the University of Sydney who has worked in palliative care for 20 years, former Federal Health Minister and current Shadow Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, Tony Abbott, and Jesuit professor of law at ACU, Father Frank Brennan.
The debate began with an emotional and passionate tirade from Philip Nitschke. His 9 minutes seemed to me to be rather wasted on summarizing the current situation, berating Kevin Andrews for overturning the 1996 euthanasia laws in the Northern Territory, and assuring the audience that it is religion that forces politicians to rally against euthanasia.
Dr Cigolini followed with a detailed, factual summary of present palliative care options. In her speech, she said that legalizing euthanasia would take attention away from care issues and towards the far easier and ultimately cheaper option of lethal injection. She said that in the euthanasia debate, death is often viewed as an alternative to ongoing palliative care.
Dr Cigolini pointed out that many proponents of euthanasia have no training in psychological or palliative care and assume far too quickly that illnesses like depression should be treated with a fatal drug or a lethal injection rather than with compassion, medical assistance and ongoing support.
Dr Cigolini’s speech was followed by a quiet and pleading address from Senator Bob Brown, who quoted the Hippocratic Oath and told us that it was not right to impose one’s own ethical position on another. Most significantly, Senator Brown spoke about eliminating the “burden of suffering”. Relieving suffering isn’t sufficient for Senator Brown and although he often speaks publicly about his belief in a loving and compassionate God, the Christian concept of suffering seems to entirely escape him.
Following Senator Brown’s sedate oration it was Tony Abbott’s turn to bait the audience. His speech was passionate, political and at times very sarcastic. Mr Abbott spoke of his 99 year old grandmother and said he would be horrified to think that she would ever feel so unloved and unwanted as to consider suicide. He pointed out the hypocrisy of treating young and Indigenous suicide as a tragedy but of encouraging and assisting the elderly in the direction of euthanasia.
Professor Peter Baume followed Mr Abbott. His speech was the most articulate and intelligently researched of the 3 proponents. However, he played word games with the audience, proposing that we use the term “end of life decisions” rather than euthanasia. He assured us that nurses and doctors who object to euthanasia, would not be forced to do anything they considered objectionable. Sounds eerily like the status of abortion before it was decriminalized in Victoria last year.
Fr Frank Brennan took the part of peace-maker, sitting on the fence and offering no real moral authority as a guide. He said: “It’s not a matter of which side is more compassionate, it’s more about which side can put an argument about what the law might be.” He suggested that until such time as such an argument could be put forward, we should stick with “do no harm”. He even noted, at the suggestion from a member of the audience, that we should leave moral absolutes out of the argument because there is no unanimity about truth today. I was expecting something far more persuasive from a priest of the Jesuit order.
A sell-out audience of 1200 indicates that euthanasia remains a hot topic and pro-lifers cannot afford to relax. New euthanasia bills are introduced in the senate on practically an annual basis, usually by Senator Brown. It is a strange irony that at a time when we have the capacity to relieve pain more than ever before, some people in society are seeking to end fragile lives.
As ever, the Catholic Church remains strong in its opposition to the concept and practice of euthanasia, the Pope stating earlier this month that "euthanasia is a false response to the drama of suffering, a solution unworthy of man… the real response cannot be to give death, no matter how gentle, but to testify to love to help confront pain and agony."
© Eva Whiteley 2009
Speakers for the proposition were Philip Nitschke, founder and director of the euthanasia advocacy organization Exit Australia, openly gay Greens Senator Bob Brown, and Professor Peter Baume, former NSW senator and patron of the Voluntary Euthanasia Society of NSW.
Speakers against the proposition were Dr Maria Cigolini, a GP and teacher of General Practice at the University of Sydney who has worked in palliative care for 20 years, former Federal Health Minister and current Shadow Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, Tony Abbott, and Jesuit professor of law at ACU, Father Frank Brennan.
The debate began with an emotional and passionate tirade from Philip Nitschke. His 9 minutes seemed to me to be rather wasted on summarizing the current situation, berating Kevin Andrews for overturning the 1996 euthanasia laws in the Northern Territory, and assuring the audience that it is religion that forces politicians to rally against euthanasia.
Dr Cigolini followed with a detailed, factual summary of present palliative care options. In her speech, she said that legalizing euthanasia would take attention away from care issues and towards the far easier and ultimately cheaper option of lethal injection. She said that in the euthanasia debate, death is often viewed as an alternative to ongoing palliative care.
Dr Cigolini pointed out that many proponents of euthanasia have no training in psychological or palliative care and assume far too quickly that illnesses like depression should be treated with a fatal drug or a lethal injection rather than with compassion, medical assistance and ongoing support.
Dr Cigolini’s speech was followed by a quiet and pleading address from Senator Bob Brown, who quoted the Hippocratic Oath and told us that it was not right to impose one’s own ethical position on another. Most significantly, Senator Brown spoke about eliminating the “burden of suffering”. Relieving suffering isn’t sufficient for Senator Brown and although he often speaks publicly about his belief in a loving and compassionate God, the Christian concept of suffering seems to entirely escape him.
Following Senator Brown’s sedate oration it was Tony Abbott’s turn to bait the audience. His speech was passionate, political and at times very sarcastic. Mr Abbott spoke of his 99 year old grandmother and said he would be horrified to think that she would ever feel so unloved and unwanted as to consider suicide. He pointed out the hypocrisy of treating young and Indigenous suicide as a tragedy but of encouraging and assisting the elderly in the direction of euthanasia.
Professor Peter Baume followed Mr Abbott. His speech was the most articulate and intelligently researched of the 3 proponents. However, he played word games with the audience, proposing that we use the term “end of life decisions” rather than euthanasia. He assured us that nurses and doctors who object to euthanasia, would not be forced to do anything they considered objectionable. Sounds eerily like the status of abortion before it was decriminalized in Victoria last year.
Fr Frank Brennan took the part of peace-maker, sitting on the fence and offering no real moral authority as a guide. He said: “It’s not a matter of which side is more compassionate, it’s more about which side can put an argument about what the law might be.” He suggested that until such time as such an argument could be put forward, we should stick with “do no harm”. He even noted, at the suggestion from a member of the audience, that we should leave moral absolutes out of the argument because there is no unanimity about truth today. I was expecting something far more persuasive from a priest of the Jesuit order.
A sell-out audience of 1200 indicates that euthanasia remains a hot topic and pro-lifers cannot afford to relax. New euthanasia bills are introduced in the senate on practically an annual basis, usually by Senator Brown. It is a strange irony that at a time when we have the capacity to relieve pain more than ever before, some people in society are seeking to end fragile lives.
As ever, the Catholic Church remains strong in its opposition to the concept and practice of euthanasia, the Pope stating earlier this month that "euthanasia is a false response to the drama of suffering, a solution unworthy of man… the real response cannot be to give death, no matter how gentle, but to testify to love to help confront pain and agony."
© Eva Whiteley 2009
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
No Freedom for Drivers with Questioning Children
The Aboriginal Health and Medical Research Council of New South Wales (AHMRC) has invested an enormous amount of money in billboard advertising on the Hume Highway between Melbourne and Sydney.
On my return journey from Melbourne last week I counted 3 billboards carrying an advertisement for condoms as protection against STIs(1) and as a way to "enjoy your freedom".
This in spite of a wealth of studies which have found that condoms afford no protection against the most common STIs. A 2001 report from the U.S. National Institutes of Health stated that “there is no scientific evidence that condoms prevent the transmission of most sexually transmitted diseases (STDs)”. This seems to have escaped the developers of the campaign.
Some of the propaganda on the AHMRC website includes downloadable and printable wallet-size how-to guides in the art of condom application. Interestingly, the website currently contains no information about the importance of a nutritious diet or the benefits of immunisation. Considering the Council is about ‘health and medical research’ one would assume their wallet-sized how-to guides might be more appropriately developed to promote, for example, healthy eating tips.
These billboards are a serious affront to children and families traveling on the Hume. For parents, the freedom to choose when and how they explain the word ‘condom’ to their 8 year olds has been taken away.
(1) Sexually transmitted infection – previously referred to as a sexually transmitted disease.
AHMRC website accessed 12-01-2009
© Eva Whiteley 2009
On my return journey from Melbourne last week I counted 3 billboards carrying an advertisement for condoms as protection against STIs(1) and as a way to "enjoy your freedom".
This in spite of a wealth of studies which have found that condoms afford no protection against the most common STIs. A 2001 report from the U.S. National Institutes of Health stated that “there is no scientific evidence that condoms prevent the transmission of most sexually transmitted diseases (STDs)”. This seems to have escaped the developers of the campaign.
Some of the propaganda on the AHMRC website includes downloadable and printable wallet-size how-to guides in the art of condom application. Interestingly, the website currently contains no information about the importance of a nutritious diet or the benefits of immunisation. Considering the Council is about ‘health and medical research’ one would assume their wallet-sized how-to guides might be more appropriately developed to promote, for example, healthy eating tips.
These billboards are a serious affront to children and families traveling on the Hume. For parents, the freedom to choose when and how they explain the word ‘condom’ to their 8 year olds has been taken away.
(1) Sexually transmitted infection – previously referred to as a sexually transmitted disease.
AHMRC website accessed 12-01-2009
© Eva Whiteley 2009
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Further Research on Abortion-Related Mental Health Problems
An American study published in November in the Journal of Psychiatric Research found abortion to be "responsible for more than 10% of the population incidence of
alcohol dependence, alcohol abuse, drug dependence, panic disorder, agoraphobia, and bipolar disorder". With the abortion rate in the US hovering at around 1.2 million per year,(1) these research findings mean that a procedure undertaken by less than 1% of the population is responsible for up to 10% of the nation’s mental health problems.
In New Zealand this month, a study by the University of Otago which followed 500 women over 30 years, found there to be a 30% increase in mental health disorders in women who had experienced abortion. The increase was noted even after confounding factors had been considered. The study found that abortion accounts for between 1.5% to 5.5% of the incidence of mental health disorders in the community.
This follows a 2006 New Zealand study – authored by the same Otago University’s Professor David Fergusson – which showed that abortion increases a woman’s risk of mental health problems by up to 45%, irrespective of other factors, including family structure, educational achievement, parental criminal history and childhood physical and sexual abuse. In a country where every year 2% of the population undergoes abortion(2), these percentages indicate an impending mental health crisis.
Opponents have slammed the latest reports, claiming methodology of the studies is faulty and not all confounding factors were properly allowed for. Commenting on the latest findings, Abortion Law Reform Association New Zealand (ALRANZ) President Dr Margaret Sparrow cited an August 2008 study by the American Psychological Association which stated that there was “no evidence…to support the claim that an… association between abortion history and mental health was caused by the abortion per se, as opposed to other factors.”(3) Dr Sparrow agreed with the APA report which found that while one abortion is not detrimental to women, multiple abortions could be.
The new research findings follow this year’s publication of Redeeming Grief, a close look at abortion-related trauma by renowned post abortion grief counselor, Anne Lastman. Anne’s must-read book is an honest and open discussion about the psychological, spiritual and emotional aftermath of abortion. With stories from women who have experienced abortion firsthand and Anne’s own 12 years of experience in the field, the book looks at a side of abortion which is rarely mentioned in the public sphere.
In most developed nations, over 95% of abortions are procured on grounds of mental health. These research findings strongly suggest that abortion is not beneficial to a woman’s health after all.
(1)Guttmacher Institute – July 2008 Statistics; www.guttmacher.org Accessed 2-12-2008
(2)Statistics New Zealand – December 2007; www.stats.gov.nz Accessed 2-12-2008
(3)Report of the APA Taskforce on Mental Health and Abortion – August 2008; www.alranz.org Accessed 2-12-2008
© Eva Whiteley 2008
alcohol dependence, alcohol abuse, drug dependence, panic disorder, agoraphobia, and bipolar disorder". With the abortion rate in the US hovering at around 1.2 million per year,(1) these research findings mean that a procedure undertaken by less than 1% of the population is responsible for up to 10% of the nation’s mental health problems.
In New Zealand this month, a study by the University of Otago which followed 500 women over 30 years, found there to be a 30% increase in mental health disorders in women who had experienced abortion. The increase was noted even after confounding factors had been considered. The study found that abortion accounts for between 1.5% to 5.5% of the incidence of mental health disorders in the community.
This follows a 2006 New Zealand study – authored by the same Otago University’s Professor David Fergusson – which showed that abortion increases a woman’s risk of mental health problems by up to 45%, irrespective of other factors, including family structure, educational achievement, parental criminal history and childhood physical and sexual abuse. In a country where every year 2% of the population undergoes abortion(2), these percentages indicate an impending mental health crisis.
Opponents have slammed the latest reports, claiming methodology of the studies is faulty and not all confounding factors were properly allowed for. Commenting on the latest findings, Abortion Law Reform Association New Zealand (ALRANZ) President Dr Margaret Sparrow cited an August 2008 study by the American Psychological Association which stated that there was “no evidence…to support the claim that an… association between abortion history and mental health was caused by the abortion per se, as opposed to other factors.”(3) Dr Sparrow agreed with the APA report which found that while one abortion is not detrimental to women, multiple abortions could be.
The new research findings follow this year’s publication of Redeeming Grief, a close look at abortion-related trauma by renowned post abortion grief counselor, Anne Lastman. Anne’s must-read book is an honest and open discussion about the psychological, spiritual and emotional aftermath of abortion. With stories from women who have experienced abortion firsthand and Anne’s own 12 years of experience in the field, the book looks at a side of abortion which is rarely mentioned in the public sphere.
In most developed nations, over 95% of abortions are procured on grounds of mental health. These research findings strongly suggest that abortion is not beneficial to a woman’s health after all.
(1)Guttmacher Institute – July 2008 Statistics; www.guttmacher.org Accessed 2-12-2008
(2)Statistics New Zealand – December 2007; www.stats.gov.nz Accessed 2-12-2008
(3)Report of the APA Taskforce on Mental Health and Abortion – August 2008; www.alranz.org Accessed 2-12-2008
© Eva Whiteley 2008
Friday, November 28, 2008
Time to Invest In A Water Purifier?
Contraception in the water is not all comic suggestion or brave social commentary. In New Jersey in 2003, traces of hormonal contraceptives were found in tap water and more recently near Denver, Colorado, synthetic estrogen was found to be the cause of deformities and infertility in male fish. The affected fish dwelt downstream from a town sewerage plant and it was discovered that the “main culprits [of infertility and deformities] were…estrogens and other steroid hormones from birth-control pills and patches that ultimately ended up in the creek after being excreted in urine into the city's sewers.”(1)
There’s one good reason to take advantage of the Government’s rainwater tank rebate.
(1) Birth-control pills poison everyone? Environmentalists silent on threat from water tainted with estrogen published by WorldNetDaily, July 12 2007: accessed 16-07-07
© Eva Whiteley 2008
There’s one good reason to take advantage of the Government’s rainwater tank rebate.
(1) Birth-control pills poison everyone? Environmentalists silent on threat from water tainted with estrogen published by WorldNetDaily, July 12 2007: accessed 16-07-07
© Eva Whiteley 2008
In the Water Supply
This article is not recent, but I really enjoyed writing it, so thought I'd share it anyway.
July 2007
A New Zealand university professor has landed himself in hot water after suggesting that contraceptive chemicals be put in the water supply in order to stop uneducated women having children.
His comments come after results from the latest New Zealand census reveal that women without a tertiary education have an average of one child more than women with a university degree.
Professor Jim Flynn of the South Island’s Otago University, suggested tap water contraception as a means to boost the birth rate among university-educated women while simultaneously lowering the birth rate among women without a higher education.(1) Professor Flynn also recommended that women affected by the innovative tap water could take an antidote if they wanted to become pregnant.
The media reaction to the suggestion was admirable and the Professor back-peddled rather quickly, claiming in subsequent interviews that his statement was not serious.(2) But he is not alone. Similar comments are appearing increasingly in newspaper opinion columns and on web logs where it is suggested that greater access to contraception among the lower classes would curb teen pregnancy, domestic violence, child abuse, single-parent families and infant mortality. Contraception by postcode has been suggested as a means to cure the nation’s indigenous problems. The idea is appealing to the financially-minded; certainly it is cheaper and easier to supply contraception to the masses than it is to educate them.
Professor Flynn’s comments, while inappropriate and immoral, reflect a wider concern that the younger generation is having babies but failing to raise them properly. At age 73, perhaps the professor agrees with the general consensus that contraception will curb the poverty, violence and immorality commonly associated with the not-so-well-educated. But as noted in the UN’s 2003 World Fertility Report, contraception is linked to a rising disrespect for marriage and the family and rather than fixing social problems, only serves to compound them.
Most believe that the best way to solve the problem of children being born into disadvantaged circumstances is to use and distribute contraception. If poor couples only have two children instead of three, we could soon break the poverty cycle, so they reason. The Catholic Church has ever been a bastion against this kind of thinking, and its teaching on contraception has been ridiculed and rejected most vehemently in the last 50 years. It is estimated that up to 80% of Catholics use contraception.
So, why is contraception not the cure for social ills?
• Contraception is contrary to the laws of God and the natural law. The Church’s teaching on the subject can be summed up thus: "It is wrong to impede the procreative power of actions that are ordained by their nature to the generation of human life."(3) The Church’s Biblical foundation for opposing contraception can be located in Genesis 38: 7-10 which details the contraceptive sin and consequent punishment of a man called Onan. Contraception cuts God from the equation and allows couples to proclaim that while He is Lord of their lives, they do not want Him to be Lord of their fertility.
• Numerous Scripture passages can be found in which children are seen as a blessing from God (see: Genesis 28:3, 1 Chronicles 25:5, Tobias 6:22, Psalms 127:3-5 & 128:1-4, Exodus 23:25-26, Deuteronomy 28:4), and sterility as a curse (see: Genesis 30:1-2 & 30: 22-23, Hosea 9:11, Jeremias 18:21, 1 Kings 1:6).
• Contraception fosters disrespect for human sexuality, in particular female sexuality and fertility. Rather than being viewed as the blessing that it is, fertility becomes the problem to be fixed and pregnancy becomes the new STD.
• The past half-century has seen a phenomenal increase in the prevalence of AIDS, divorce, underage and extra-marital sex, abortion and homosexuality. While the connection is often difficult to extrapolate, it would be foolish to assume that the advent of the Pill and the acceptance of contraception by most Christian groups has had nothing to do with these upward trends.
• Apart from the spiritual and emotional consequences of birth control, contraceptives have numerous physical side-effects, including: irregular or heavy periods, headaches, breast tenderness, thrombosis, nausea and vomiting, skin problems, such as acne and blotching, weight gain, amenorrhea, ovarian cysts, pelvic infection and irritation, jaundice, lethargy, dizziness, loss of libido (how ironic), mood swings, increased risk of ectopic pregnancy, increased risk of miscarriage, increased risk of infertility later in life and decreased bone mineral density (Australian Medicines Handbook 2005, pp.626-638)
But if contraception is not the answer, then what is?
If we are going to curb domestic violence and child abuse and combat poverty and a lack of education, we desperately need to get back to the basics. While a secular education is extremely important to equip a person to face life’s challenges and to choose the career which best suits him, it falls a distant second behind educating for eternity.
Children must be taught that marriage is a sacred union and that sex is a gift. Parents should encourage their children to abstain; they should have a love for chastity and a desire to save sex for marriage. Babies must be seen as a blessing, not as a burden, mistake or accident. Parents should be encouraged to raise their children well, and not half-heartedly, by palming them off to 5-day-a-week childcare institutions. If poor parenting was the exception, Professor Flynn would perhaps not have shared his controversial suggestion.
According to Doctor Emma Whiteley, of Tamworth, the key to fixing the root cause is to re-establish the Faith in the hearts and minds of Catholic parents and their children. And from that, we must re-establish the social reign of Christ the King. “Then you wouldn't have single mums, worthless dads, eleven-year-old kids in juvenile justice.”
The Church’s teaching on contraception is undoubtedly correct – one need only read Pope Paul VI’s Humane Vitae to understand the intimate connection between the contraceptive mentality and promiscuity, family break-up and brutal population control. The revolution must begin in Catholic homes.
At the very beginning of every ‘unwanted’ child is an act of sex that was either misunderstood (in the case of many married couples) or abused (in the case of pre- and extra-marital sex). If society would readjust it’s perspective of marriage, sex, the family and children, there would be no ‘accidental’ pregnancies, no abortions, no unwanted children and no supposed ‘need’ for contraception in the water supply.
(1) http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10450313 Brainier mums needed to maintain future generations' intelligence, says professor, Published July 8 2007 by The New Zealand Herald, accessed online 15-07-07
(2) http://www.stuff.co.nz/4121799a11.html Published 9 July 2007 by stuff.co.nz, accessed online 20-07-07
(3) Smith, J. (2000) Humane Vitae: A Generation Later, excerpt accessed online: 01-09-07 http://www.goodmorals.org/smith6.htm
(4) Personal communication with the author, 28-08-2007
© Eva Whiteley 2008
July 2007
A New Zealand university professor has landed himself in hot water after suggesting that contraceptive chemicals be put in the water supply in order to stop uneducated women having children.
His comments come after results from the latest New Zealand census reveal that women without a tertiary education have an average of one child more than women with a university degree.
Professor Jim Flynn of the South Island’s Otago University, suggested tap water contraception as a means to boost the birth rate among university-educated women while simultaneously lowering the birth rate among women without a higher education.(1) Professor Flynn also recommended that women affected by the innovative tap water could take an antidote if they wanted to become pregnant.
The media reaction to the suggestion was admirable and the Professor back-peddled rather quickly, claiming in subsequent interviews that his statement was not serious.(2) But he is not alone. Similar comments are appearing increasingly in newspaper opinion columns and on web logs where it is suggested that greater access to contraception among the lower classes would curb teen pregnancy, domestic violence, child abuse, single-parent families and infant mortality. Contraception by postcode has been suggested as a means to cure the nation’s indigenous problems. The idea is appealing to the financially-minded; certainly it is cheaper and easier to supply contraception to the masses than it is to educate them.
Professor Flynn’s comments, while inappropriate and immoral, reflect a wider concern that the younger generation is having babies but failing to raise them properly. At age 73, perhaps the professor agrees with the general consensus that contraception will curb the poverty, violence and immorality commonly associated with the not-so-well-educated. But as noted in the UN’s 2003 World Fertility Report, contraception is linked to a rising disrespect for marriage and the family and rather than fixing social problems, only serves to compound them.
Most believe that the best way to solve the problem of children being born into disadvantaged circumstances is to use and distribute contraception. If poor couples only have two children instead of three, we could soon break the poverty cycle, so they reason. The Catholic Church has ever been a bastion against this kind of thinking, and its teaching on contraception has been ridiculed and rejected most vehemently in the last 50 years. It is estimated that up to 80% of Catholics use contraception.
So, why is contraception not the cure for social ills?
• Contraception is contrary to the laws of God and the natural law. The Church’s teaching on the subject can be summed up thus: "It is wrong to impede the procreative power of actions that are ordained by their nature to the generation of human life."(3) The Church’s Biblical foundation for opposing contraception can be located in Genesis 38: 7-10 which details the contraceptive sin and consequent punishment of a man called Onan. Contraception cuts God from the equation and allows couples to proclaim that while He is Lord of their lives, they do not want Him to be Lord of their fertility.
• Numerous Scripture passages can be found in which children are seen as a blessing from God (see: Genesis 28:3, 1 Chronicles 25:5, Tobias 6:22, Psalms 127:3-5 & 128:1-4, Exodus 23:25-26, Deuteronomy 28:4), and sterility as a curse (see: Genesis 30:1-2 & 30: 22-23, Hosea 9:11, Jeremias 18:21, 1 Kings 1:6).
• Contraception fosters disrespect for human sexuality, in particular female sexuality and fertility. Rather than being viewed as the blessing that it is, fertility becomes the problem to be fixed and pregnancy becomes the new STD.
• The past half-century has seen a phenomenal increase in the prevalence of AIDS, divorce, underage and extra-marital sex, abortion and homosexuality. While the connection is often difficult to extrapolate, it would be foolish to assume that the advent of the Pill and the acceptance of contraception by most Christian groups has had nothing to do with these upward trends.
• Apart from the spiritual and emotional consequences of birth control, contraceptives have numerous physical side-effects, including: irregular or heavy periods, headaches, breast tenderness, thrombosis, nausea and vomiting, skin problems, such as acne and blotching, weight gain, amenorrhea, ovarian cysts, pelvic infection and irritation, jaundice, lethargy, dizziness, loss of libido (how ironic), mood swings, increased risk of ectopic pregnancy, increased risk of miscarriage, increased risk of infertility later in life and decreased bone mineral density (Australian Medicines Handbook 2005, pp.626-638)
But if contraception is not the answer, then what is?
If we are going to curb domestic violence and child abuse and combat poverty and a lack of education, we desperately need to get back to the basics. While a secular education is extremely important to equip a person to face life’s challenges and to choose the career which best suits him, it falls a distant second behind educating for eternity.
Children must be taught that marriage is a sacred union and that sex is a gift. Parents should encourage their children to abstain; they should have a love for chastity and a desire to save sex for marriage. Babies must be seen as a blessing, not as a burden, mistake or accident. Parents should be encouraged to raise their children well, and not half-heartedly, by palming them off to 5-day-a-week childcare institutions. If poor parenting was the exception, Professor Flynn would perhaps not have shared his controversial suggestion.
According to Doctor Emma Whiteley, of Tamworth, the key to fixing the root cause is to re-establish the Faith in the hearts and minds of Catholic parents and their children. And from that, we must re-establish the social reign of Christ the King. “Then you wouldn't have single mums, worthless dads, eleven-year-old kids in juvenile justice.”
The Church’s teaching on contraception is undoubtedly correct – one need only read Pope Paul VI’s Humane Vitae to understand the intimate connection between the contraceptive mentality and promiscuity, family break-up and brutal population control. The revolution must begin in Catholic homes.
At the very beginning of every ‘unwanted’ child is an act of sex that was either misunderstood (in the case of many married couples) or abused (in the case of pre- and extra-marital sex). If society would readjust it’s perspective of marriage, sex, the family and children, there would be no ‘accidental’ pregnancies, no abortions, no unwanted children and no supposed ‘need’ for contraception in the water supply.
(1) http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10450313 Brainier mums needed to maintain future generations' intelligence, says professor, Published July 8 2007 by The New Zealand Herald, accessed online 15-07-07
(2) http://www.stuff.co.nz/4121799a11.html Published 9 July 2007 by stuff.co.nz, accessed online 20-07-07
(3) Smith, J. (2000) Humane Vitae: A Generation Later, excerpt accessed online: 01-09-07 http://www.goodmorals.org/smith6.htm
(4) Personal communication with the author, 28-08-2007
© Eva Whiteley 2008
The Golden Calf
Pink Ribbon Month
October was breast cancer awareness month and all over Australia and the world, groups formed to raise money for the cause. From retail therapy groups who were sponsored simply to shop, to the group in Oklahoma that decorated bras and hung them in an art gallery; women seemed desperate to fund a cure.
Again, the world focused on finding a cure rather than focusing on a major cause of the disease and again, well-documented research - which, if heeded, could save lives - was swept under the carpet.
The Pill
In July 2005 the World Health Organisation’s International Agency for Research on Cancer defined the Pill (the world's most popular oral contraceptive) as a Class 1 carcinogenic, placing it in the same category as asbestos and tobacco. This should have been enough for feminists to decry the Pill, but apparently sexual freedom is more important than women’s very lives and Pill use has continued unabated.
In October 2006, a study by the Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research found that the golden calf of contraceptive technology, the Pill, is associated with an increased risk in the development of breast cancer later in life. In fact, the study showed that there was a whopping 44% risk increase in women who used the Pill prior to their first pregnancy.(1)
These findings were not well-publicised. This is partly because the Pill is a lucrative business and partly because denunciation of the Pill would seem to be a defeat for women. For nearly 50 years, the Pill has been seen as a feminist triumph in a patriarchal society – an emancipation linked with a break from traditional gender roles. But the emancipation is an unsteady one when women’s lives are endangered by the very object which claims to make them free.
Pharmaceutical companies are raking in billions of dollars annually selling a Pill that literally improves a woman's risk of developing breast cancer and groups are out there walking 20 kilometres on a windy Saturday to try and raise money to find the cure. How many more women need die from Pill-related breast cancer before we tell the pharmaceutical companies to break open their coffers and fund a cure?
First step to culling the breast cancer rate: quit the Pill.
(1) Kahlenborn C, Modugno F, Potter D, Severs W., Oral Contraceptive Use as a Risk Factor for Premenopausal Breast Cancer: A Meta-analysis, Mayo Clinic Proceedings 2006;81(10):1290-1302
© Eva Whiteley 2008
October was breast cancer awareness month and all over Australia and the world, groups formed to raise money for the cause. From retail therapy groups who were sponsored simply to shop, to the group in Oklahoma that decorated bras and hung them in an art gallery; women seemed desperate to fund a cure.
Again, the world focused on finding a cure rather than focusing on a major cause of the disease and again, well-documented research - which, if heeded, could save lives - was swept under the carpet.
The Pill
In July 2005 the World Health Organisation’s International Agency for Research on Cancer defined the Pill (the world's most popular oral contraceptive) as a Class 1 carcinogenic, placing it in the same category as asbestos and tobacco. This should have been enough for feminists to decry the Pill, but apparently sexual freedom is more important than women’s very lives and Pill use has continued unabated.
In October 2006, a study by the Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research found that the golden calf of contraceptive technology, the Pill, is associated with an increased risk in the development of breast cancer later in life. In fact, the study showed that there was a whopping 44% risk increase in women who used the Pill prior to their first pregnancy.(1)
These findings were not well-publicised. This is partly because the Pill is a lucrative business and partly because denunciation of the Pill would seem to be a defeat for women. For nearly 50 years, the Pill has been seen as a feminist triumph in a patriarchal society – an emancipation linked with a break from traditional gender roles. But the emancipation is an unsteady one when women’s lives are endangered by the very object which claims to make them free.
Pharmaceutical companies are raking in billions of dollars annually selling a Pill that literally improves a woman's risk of developing breast cancer and groups are out there walking 20 kilometres on a windy Saturday to try and raise money to find the cure. How many more women need die from Pill-related breast cancer before we tell the pharmaceutical companies to break open their coffers and fund a cure?
First step to culling the breast cancer rate: quit the Pill.
(1) Kahlenborn C, Modugno F, Potter D, Severs W., Oral Contraceptive Use as a Risk Factor for Premenopausal Breast Cancer: A Meta-analysis, Mayo Clinic Proceedings 2006;81(10):1290-1302
© Eva Whiteley 2008
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Contraception for Children
Controversy surrounds contraception agenda for Indigenous children
Family and women’s groups speak out against “government approval of underage sex”
The Government-approved use of a contraceptive implant on Indigenous girls as young as 12 has faced a barrage of criticism from Opposition MPs and family groups who claim that the Government is approving illegal and potentially harmful underage sex.
The small Aboriginal community of Woorabinda, south west of Rockhampton in Queensland, has become the focus of intense scrutiny after the state’s opposition child safety spokeswoman, Jann Stuckey, travelled there in March, 2008.
Mrs Stuckey was told by concerned Woorabinda residents that a number of children, including some who are disabled, had been given the implant. According to Mrs Stuckey, the residents had reported the practice to the Department of Child Safety but nothing had been done to investigate the matter further and the practice had continued on up to 12 girls.
Mayor of Woorabinda, Roderick Tobane, supports the use of the implant on the girls, although he has admitted he would not approve underage sex for his own children.
While Mr Tobane could not confirm that any of the children are disabled, he is now pushing for restrictions on community members wanting to speak to politicians or the media about their concerns. In an interview with the ABCs Annie Guest, Mr Tobane said he would no longer tolerate bad publicity from community whistle-blowers.
The Mayor urged concerned citizens to approach the police, rather than politicians.
Queensland Health says the practice is rare, but Mrs Stuckey disagrees. It has been revealed that up to 12 children have been given the implant. In a community of less than 1000, Mrs Stuckey estimates this to be 20% of the population’s 12 year olds. “Hardly what I would call a last resort,” she said.
Queensland Health acting chief health officer Linda Selvey said, “There are cases where a young person's decision-making process is impaired in some way and they are simply unable to make informed decisions about their health and their body, including their sexual behaviour and contraception."
While the State Opposition is claiming that parental consent is not always sought, the State Government is claiming that it is. Queensland Premier, Anna Bligh, said that for children in the care of the state, the Child Safety Department makes the decision. Family advocacy groups say this approach is wrought with complications and have expressed concern that the implant could be used to cover up incest and rape.
Gail Instance, Executive Director of Family Life International Australia, believes there is nothing more likely to encourage underage sex than to give young people contraceptives.
“A report from Perth recently showed that since the Pill has been available over the counter, the abortion rate among teenagers has increased and there has been an explosion of sexually transmitted diseases like chlamydia. The same things have happened in the UK. It's only a matter of time before authorities in Queensland are complaining about an increased incidence of sexually transmitted diseases there too,” she says.
Penrith doctor, Emma Whiteley, believes that the only thing the practice protects a child from is pregnancy. “The implant doesn’t protect against rape, physical and sexual abuse or STDs. Children who are too young to make the decision to use contraception, and who need a guardian to sign the consent form are too young to be having sex. This practice conveys tacit government approval of underage sex.”
Another complication of the practice, says Dr Whiteley, is the lack of knowledge about the long-term effects of contraceptive implants. “Implanon is a slow-release hormone which prevents pregnancy for up to 3 years. Who knows what long-term effects this will have on the fertility of these children?”
© Eva Whiteley 2008
Family and women’s groups speak out against “government approval of underage sex”
The Government-approved use of a contraceptive implant on Indigenous girls as young as 12 has faced a barrage of criticism from Opposition MPs and family groups who claim that the Government is approving illegal and potentially harmful underage sex.
The small Aboriginal community of Woorabinda, south west of Rockhampton in Queensland, has become the focus of intense scrutiny after the state’s opposition child safety spokeswoman, Jann Stuckey, travelled there in March, 2008.
Mrs Stuckey was told by concerned Woorabinda residents that a number of children, including some who are disabled, had been given the implant. According to Mrs Stuckey, the residents had reported the practice to the Department of Child Safety but nothing had been done to investigate the matter further and the practice had continued on up to 12 girls.
Mayor of Woorabinda, Roderick Tobane, supports the use of the implant on the girls, although he has admitted he would not approve underage sex for his own children.
While Mr Tobane could not confirm that any of the children are disabled, he is now pushing for restrictions on community members wanting to speak to politicians or the media about their concerns. In an interview with the ABCs Annie Guest, Mr Tobane said he would no longer tolerate bad publicity from community whistle-blowers.
The Mayor urged concerned citizens to approach the police, rather than politicians.
Queensland Health says the practice is rare, but Mrs Stuckey disagrees. It has been revealed that up to 12 children have been given the implant. In a community of less than 1000, Mrs Stuckey estimates this to be 20% of the population’s 12 year olds. “Hardly what I would call a last resort,” she said.
Queensland Health acting chief health officer Linda Selvey said, “There are cases where a young person's decision-making process is impaired in some way and they are simply unable to make informed decisions about their health and their body, including their sexual behaviour and contraception."
While the State Opposition is claiming that parental consent is not always sought, the State Government is claiming that it is. Queensland Premier, Anna Bligh, said that for children in the care of the state, the Child Safety Department makes the decision. Family advocacy groups say this approach is wrought with complications and have expressed concern that the implant could be used to cover up incest and rape.
Gail Instance, Executive Director of Family Life International Australia, believes there is nothing more likely to encourage underage sex than to give young people contraceptives.
“A report from Perth recently showed that since the Pill has been available over the counter, the abortion rate among teenagers has increased and there has been an explosion of sexually transmitted diseases like chlamydia. The same things have happened in the UK. It's only a matter of time before authorities in Queensland are complaining about an increased incidence of sexually transmitted diseases there too,” she says.
Penrith doctor, Emma Whiteley, believes that the only thing the practice protects a child from is pregnancy. “The implant doesn’t protect against rape, physical and sexual abuse or STDs. Children who are too young to make the decision to use contraception, and who need a guardian to sign the consent form are too young to be having sex. This practice conveys tacit government approval of underage sex.”
Another complication of the practice, says Dr Whiteley, is the lack of knowledge about the long-term effects of contraceptive implants. “Implanon is a slow-release hormone which prevents pregnancy for up to 3 years. Who knows what long-term effects this will have on the fertility of these children?”
© Eva Whiteley 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
