‘Accepting Evangelicals’ – the new ‘evangelicals’ who back same sex marriage

With the government set to debate ‘gay marriage’, I am constantly asked on social media why I cannot, like ‘other more loving and tolerant Christians’, accept same sex ‘marriage’ as an expression of love and commitment between two people of the same sex.

Several people have referred me to an article in the Independent last week titled ‘Happy and Clappy and out of the closet: Evangelicals who say gay is OK’.

The implication is that if some evangelicals are welcoming same sex marriage then evangelicalism per se should not be a barrier to others moving in the same direction.

Many of the ‘evangelicals’ featured in the article will be well known names to those who have been following the debate – Jeffrey John, Brian McLaren, Jeremy Marks, Benny Hazlehurst – and are certainly not regarded as ‘mainstream’. In fact many Christians (and non-Christians) I suspect would not consider them to be evangelicals at all.

Peter Ould has done a helpful review of the article on his blog and I won’t say more about it here but the Independent has helped to give a higher profile (at least amongst its liberal readership) to a pressure group called ‘Accepting Evangelicals’ which it describes as the ‘the prime mover in promoting pro-gay evangelicalism’.

‘Accepting Evangelicals’ has in fact been going since 2004 but on a straw poll of fellow Christians this week virtually no one I asked had actually heard of it.

On its website it claims to be an ‘open network of Evangelical Christians who believe the time has come to move towards the acceptance of faithful, loving same-sex partnerships at every level of church life, and the development of a positive Christian ethic for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people.’

It claims to have over 540 members of whom 82% are open members whose names are listed on the site. Other members have opted to remain ‘confidential’ because they ‘are concerned that their public support would put them at risk of prejudice or discrimination‘.

Amongst the ‘open members’ are Benny Hazlehurst (pictured), who acts as secretary to the group, former Eden Baptist minister Roy Clements, ‘Courage’ founder Jeremy Marks, Ekklesia co-director Simon Barrow, ‘post-evangelical’ Dave Tomlinson and Oasis Trust founder Steve Chalke.

Perhaps the only surprise here to some will be Steve Chalke, although many would argue that he been moving away from an evangelical position on key biblical doctrines for some years.

The group published a position statement in summer 2012 and has a page of ‘resources’ along with four articles on the Bible and homosexuality (accessible here) written by Hazlehurst for his personal blog in 2010 and ‘adapted’ for ‘Accepting Evangelicals’.

The arguments are the usual ones – the sin of Sodom was ‘rape, inhumanity, and breaking the laws of hospitality’ and not ‘principally about homosexuality’. The proscriptions about homosexual relations in Leviticus 18 and 20 applied to ‘idolatry and male prostitution’ and not ‘loving, committed, faithful, exclusive same-sex relationships’. Jesus said nothing about the issue and much of what Paul says in 1 Timothy and 1 Corinthians is ‘cultural’ or confusing and hangs on the definitions of disputed Greek words. In Romans 1 Paul ‘saw homosexual activity, alongside all the idolatry of the Greco-Roman world. It was not born out of love, or orientation, but out of pagan practices, greed, lust and abuse of power.’

The wider framework of biblical sexuality and teaching about marriage are ignored.

Hazlehurst’s arguments have been ably refuted in a variety of recent works, and most recently in the Evangelical Alliance’s summer 2012 publication ‘Biblical and pastoral responses to homosexuality’ which is available on the EA website and summarised here.

His whole argument is aimed at creating a case for marriage for those who exhibit ‘the self-giving love that we observe today between people of the same sex who genuinely love each other and want to commit their lives to each other before God’.

These people, we are told, are ‘prayerful, devout, committed Christians, worshipping God faithfully, and giving him the glory’.

To become a member there is no declaration to sign, just an affirmation that the member is ‘happy to be publicly associated with Accepting Evangelicals’.

I suspect we will hear much more of this group over the coming weeks and months and the liberal press will no doubt be only too obliging in making each new high profile ‘member’ into a news story.

I remain unconvinced.

Biblical teaching on homosexuality is very clear and liberal ‘Christians’ and secularists are thankfully much more honest about taking the words as they are written rather than trying to contort them to accommodate the special case.

The Evangelical Alliance’s recent book and another recent CMF publication on ‘Unwanted same sex attraction’ are careful to major on the pastoral issues faced in trying to help those who experience same sex erotic attraction or recognise that they have a homosexual orientation and I have myself written on this before.

But I am left wondering how many of this group are actually true evangelicals.

The key evangelical distinctives are the need for personal conversion, a high regard for biblical authority, an emphasis on the saving death and resurrection of Christ and an active obedience to and proclamation of the gospel.

David Bebbington has termed this ‘quadrilateral of priorities’ conversionism, biblicism, crucicentrism, and activism.

‘Accepting Evangelicals’ it seems to me undermine all four.

There is highly suspect exposition of the Bible, selective obedience to biblical teaching, an unwillingness to make sacrifices for the sake of the Gospel and an inadequate understanding of what Jesus’ death and resurrection has achieved in helping believers to die to self, live as redeemed creatures in the power of the Holy Spirit and to resist temptation.

Richard Lovelace wrote in his classic work 'Homosexuality and the Church' in 1978 that he saw the growing acceptance of homosexual practice within the church as due to a ‘false religion’ opposed to biblical revelation and the authority of Scripture, an ‘antinomian ethic’ that undercuts the balance between law and Gospel, a ‘cheap grace’ that ignores repentance and a ‘powerless grace’ that denies the possibility of change.

This remains, in my view, an accurate assessment.

The Department of Health is grossly under-reporting the true number of abortions for Down's syndrome

Some of the most common congenital abnormalities accounting for abortions in England and Wales are ‘trisomies’, in which there are three copies of one particular chromosome rather than two.

The most common trisomies are Down's syndrome (trisomy 21), Edwards’ syndrome (18) and Patau syndrome (13).

But how many of each are aborted?

Well it depends very much on who you ask.

The National Down Syndrome Cytogenetic Register (NDSCR) was set up on 1 January 1989.

It holds anonymous data from all clinical cytogenetic laboratories in England and Wales of cases of Down's, Patau and Edwards syndromes diagnosed antenatally or postnatally.

Its 2010 annual report was published in December 2011 and is available here.

In 2010, 1,868 Down's syndrome diagnoses were made, 1,188 (64%) prenatally and 680 (36%) postnatally.

Of the 1,188 babies diagnosed prenatally 942 were aborted, 25 miscarried or were stillborn, 52 were born alive and in 167 the outcome was unknown.

Of the 466 babies diagnosed prenatally with Edwards’ syndrome 344 were aborted. Of those 191 babies diagnosed prenatally with Patau syndrome 151 were aborted.

So in total, according to the NDSCR, there were at least 942 babies with Down's syndrome, 344 with Edwards’ syndrome and 151 with Patau syndrome aborted in 2010.

This gives us an overall total of at least 1,437 abortions of babies with one of the three conditions. I say ‘at least’ because the NDSCR estimates that a substantial proportion of those babies with trisomy with ‘unknown’ outcomes were also aborted.

But if we go to the Department of Health’s abortion statistics we get a different story altogether.

The Abortion Statistics for England and Wales in 2010 were published in May 2011 and are also available on line.

But they tell us (Table 9) that in 2010 there were only 482 abortions for Down's syndrome, 164 for Edwards syndrome and 51 for Patau’s syndrome. Together these made up 30% of the 2,290 abortions carried out for congenital abnormalities (ground E) in that year. But the total with one of these three conditions is only 697.

The disparities are astounding. 740 babies aborted with one of the three trisomy conditions, or 51.5% of the NDSCR’s total of 1,437, were apparently not reported by the Department of Health. For Down's syndrome 460 out of 942, or 49%, were not reported.

If the NDSCR statistics are accurate, and there is no reason to doubt them, then this means that the Department of Health is being notified about less than half of the abortions carried out for trisomy 13, 18 or 21.

Does this mean that doctors are knowingly falsifying abortion certification forms by neglecting to put down the true diagnosis for babies with congenital abnormalities? Or are they perhaps, possibly even deliberately, mis-classifying them as abortions on mental health grounds? Or are they just not bothering to report at all?

Is this possibly even evidence of a failure of abortion reporting on a much greater scale?

Might this be an under-reporting problem that goes much beyond babies with trisomy conditions?

Might it actually be that only half of all abortions for any fetal abnormality are being reported?

Is it even possible that this degree of under-reporting operates across other categories of abortion, perhaps even all categories? In other words might the Department of Health figures be grossly under-reporting the total number of abortions in England in Wales?

Whatever the truth of the matter is, the disparities in the figures are alarming and need to be investigated urgently.

Sadly, some people believe that the lives of people with disabilities are not worth living or that they constitute too much of a burden on society for them to be allowed to live.

It now appears that some doctors believe that their deaths are not worth recording either, even when it is illegal not to do so.

Twelve good arguments atheists advance against Christianity

Are there any good arguments for Christianity? Of course! That’s why so many intelligent thinking people are Christians (here are twenty).

Are there any good arguments against Christianity? Of course! That’s why so many intelligent thinking people are not Christians.

So what are the best arguments against Christianity? Well it depends on whether you are a Muslim, a Jew, an atheist, a Hindu or something else. Every ‘worldview’ has its own particular set of arguments.

But given that atheism seems to be the most rapidly growing ‘worldview’ in Britain, and at least in part at the expense of Christianity, what are the best arguments atheists bring against Christianity?

Here’s a list of twelve of the most common ones I have heard over my twenty years working with Christian Medical Fellowship.

In listing them, I’m not saying that I find any of them particularly convincing (I don’t and none of them have led me personally to doubt any of the teachings of Jesus Christ).

But some intelligent people do find them convincing and cite them as reasons why they either lost the faith of their childhood or chose not to believe. This is why I am calling them ‘good arguments’ – they are, in other words, good enough to persuade some people.

Some of these arguments I have already posted responses to on this blog. If so they are hyperlinked. I’ll link others as I post new answers.

The most common response I receive today for people not believing is simply ‘because there is no evidence’. This is interesting in itself as I don’t actually know any Christian who would say that their faith is not based on evidence which they personally find plausible.

This suggests to me that Christians, for some reason, are not very effective at explaining to non-Christians why they do believe. Or, alternatively, that atheists for some reason are reluctant to give up their 'unbelief'. Or both.

If you are an atheist please let us know which of these arguments you find most convincing. If you are a Christian then let us know which ones you find hardest to answer. Are there any important ones that you think I have left out? Anonymous posts are welcome.

So, in no particular order:

1.There’s so much suffering in the world
If God is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly benevolent then he would eradicate evil and suffering but the world is full of it. Therefore he is either not all powerful, not all knowing, not benevolent or (most likely) does not actually exist.

2.Jesus can’t be the only way to God
There are many different religions in the world, all followed by many intelligent educated people. Isn’t it simply arrogant and narrow-minded to suggest that all of them apart from Christianity are wrong?

3.Christian faith is just psychological
Christians believe in Christ largely for psychological reasons: because it comforts them, because they were brought up that way or because they are afraid not to believe in case they go to Hell.

4.Miracles can’t happen
The world operates according to observable laws of nature meaning that miracles simply cannot occur. Regardless there is no evidence to suggest either that they do or that they ever did.

5.A good God wouldn’t send people to Hell
An allegedly omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent God has seemingly freely chosen to sentence most human beings to hell. Why? Should such a God (if he exists) be trusted?

6.The problem of those who have never heard
There are many people who have died without hearing the Christian gospel and many today have not heard and will never hear it. If Christianity is true God and people are damned without believing it God would surely have found a way for them to have heard.

7.The Bible is full of errors
Many events in the Bible, such as the creation narrative, the flood, much Old Testament history and the Gospel accounts are not backed up by science or archaeology and much of the history is not even internally consistent. They were also written long after the events they claim to describe are are in the main just 'stories'.

8.Christianity may be true for you but it isn’t true for me
I can see that believing in Christianity ‘helps’ you, that it is ‘true for you’. But it is not ‘true for me’. Everybody should be free to choose his or her own belief.

9.The God of the Bible is a moral monster and restricts human freedom
God, particularly as depicted in the Old Testament, is a vengeful, genocidal, pestilential megalomaniac who does not act morally. Furthermore his restrictions on such things as sexual behaviour, abortion and euthanasia are undermining of human autonomy.

10.It is no longer necessary to invoke God as an explanation for anything
Now that we have the theories of evolution and big bang/multiverse theory there is no need for a designer to explain the origin and complexity of living things or the physical universe.

11.The church is full of hypocrites
Christianity has been responsible for a huge amount of killing and wars throughout history and the newspapers are full of supposed Christians who are paedophiles, liars, adulterers, murderers and abusers. If Christianity were true it would make people better.

12.Christians cherry-pick what they want out of the Bible
Christians do not consistently apply the Bible’s commands but pick and choose what they want. For example they forbid sex outside marriage but are happy to eat shellfish and wear polyester although these are forbidden in exactly the same books of the Bible. Furthermore Christians disagree profoundly amongst themselves about what is right and wrong.

The peril of the circular argument – for both Christians and unbelievers

A common accusation levelled against Christians by unbelievers is that we present a circular argument in the way we discuss the authority of the Bible.

On the one hand we say that Jesus is the Son of God and produce proof texts from the Bible to make our point.

When they reply that they don’t accept the authority of the Bible we then produce sayings of Christ to prove that the Bible is Word of God – from the Bible itself!

The argument is circular. It’s analogous to Muslims saying that we must accept the authority of the Qur’an because it came from Muhammad who is a prophet, and that we know he is a prophet because the Qur’an says he is. But if you can’t accept the premise then you can’t get into the circle.

One reason Christians get into this predicament is that it was the Apostle Paul's usual practice to persuade Jews by reasoning with them from the Old Testament Scriptures that Jesus was the promised Messiah and Son of God.

The Jews however believed these Scriptures to be inspired and authoritative. Paul had a very different approach addressing Gentiles (Acts 14 & 17). His theology remained biblical without presuming that Bible texts should be the final court of appeal.

A second reason Christians tie themselves in knots is because they don’t think clearly about the real object of Christian belief. We are asking people primarily to put their trust in a person, Jesus Christ, not a book.

As a Christian I believe the Bible to be the Word of God. But I don’t expect unbelievers to accept that.

As Christians we regard the Old Testament Scriptures to be the revealed word of God ultimately because Jesus himself had that view of Scripture (see argument here) and trusting the Old Testament Scriptures is a proper consequence of first of all submitting ourselves to Jesus and becoming his disciples.

Similarly we believe in the authority of the New Testament Scriptures because we believe that Jesus commissioned the apostles to write them and guided them in the process (see argument here).

But it is not necessary for unbelievers to believe that the New Testament documents (including the four Gospels) are God-breathed Scripture in order to assess the force of our argument about Jesus.

The argument flows instead from the fact that they contain eye-witness testimony about Jesus and our appeal to them, in the first instance, is not as authoritative Scripture, but as credible historical documents.

Unbelievers cannot reasonably deny that these documents were written in the first century and we can produce compelling evidence that these writings have survived the centuries essentially as they were written.

They describe the amazing figure of Jesus of Nazareth, who gave the world a body of teaching which is there for everyone's evaluation. He is described as an exemplary character who practised what he preached. He is said to have performed amazing deeds, and his sayings are shot through with the most extraordinary claims he made about himself. The events of his life are said by eye-witnesses, who later became his followers, to have climaxed not only in his death but in his resurrection.

The whole saga, because of the importance of his teaching, the example of his character, his astonishing claims and the impact he had made on the world's stage, demands evaluation from every thoughtful responsible person. They may conclude that the whole story is invention, but history is not on their side.

So Christians need to avoid using the circular argument and instead argue from the historical accounts about Jesus that he was in fact who he claimed to be.

And unbelievers need to take on board that they do not have to first accept that the New Testament documents are Scripture in order to make an assessment of whether or not Jesus was the Son of God.

The Gospel accounts do not actually claim to be God-breathed Scripture, just to be credible historical accounts of what Jesus said and did. So let’s allow unbelievers to start from this point and see what conclusions they draw.

‘Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.’ (Luke 1:1-5)

‘Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.’ (John 20:30-31)

See also:

1.Why the whole Bible carries Jesus’ authority

2.Has the Bible been corrupted?

3.Is Jesus Christ the only way to God?

4.Is the Bible reliable?

5.Jesus Christ – One solitary life

Today is JRR Tolkien’s 121st birthday - a tribute

Lovers of ‘The Lord of Rings’ Trilogy, and now ‘the Hobbit’ will be interested to know that today, 3 January 2013, is JRR Tolkien’s twelfthty-first birthday.

Tolkien was born in Bloemfontein, South Africa, on 3 January 1892 and died on 2 September 1973.

He is of course best known as the author of the classic high fantasy works The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings which have had a major resurgence in the light of Peter Jackson’s award winning films.

But as well as being an accomplished English writer and poet he was also a philologist and university professor: Rawlinson and Bosworth Professor of Anglo-Saxon at Pembroke College, Oxford, from 1925 to 1945 and Merton Professor of English Language and Literature at Merton College, Oxford from 1945 to 1959.

He was also a close friend of CS Lewis, fellow Oxford professor and author of the 'Chronicles of Narnia' (also now a film series) and many favourite books on Christian apologetics of which ‘Mere Christianity’, ‘Miracles’, ‘The Problem of Pain’ and ‘The Screwtape Letters’ are probably the best known.

Tolkien was a major factor in Lewis’ Christian conversion and they were both members of the informal literary discussion group known as the Inklings which met at the Eagle and Child Pub just over the road from St John’s College.

Tolkien was appointed CBE by Queen Elizabeth II on 28 March 1972. In 2008, The Times ranked him sixth on a list of ‘The 50 greatest British writers since 1945’ and Forbes ranked him the 5th top-earning dead celebrity in 2009.

After his death, Tolkien's son Christopher published a series of works based on his father's extensive notes and unpublished manuscripts, including The Silmarillion.

These, together with The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings form a connected body of tales, poems, fictional histories, invented languages, and literary essays about a fantasy world called Arda, and Middle-earth within it.

Tolkien, throughout his life, was a devout Catholic, and behind all his books lies a Christian cosmology or worldview.

This is most evident in the Silmarillion, which has striking parallels with the biblical narrative and especially with the concept of an omnipotent, omnipresent God who created angels as well as men.

For those who wish to know more about the origins of balrogs, wizards, giant spiders, trolls, orcs and Sautron himself the Silmarillion is essential reading. The narrative is densely packed and one is left with the impression that had Tolkien been granted several more lifetimes he would have filled it out in much more detail as he has done with the familiar tales of Middle-earth.

The Silmarillion’s first chapter rings loudly of the biblical creation narrative:

‘There was Eru, the One, who in Arda is called Ilúvatar; and he made first the Ainur, the Holy Ones, that were the offspring of his thought, and they were with him before aught else was made. And he spoke to them, propounding to them themes of music; and they sang before him, and he was glad.’

As the narrative progresses we learn that these created Ainur, or angelic beings, included the more powerful Valar and the subordinate Maiar, who Tolkien describes as ‘other spirits whose being also began before the world’ who act as ‘servants and helpers’ to the Valar. Balrogs, Wizards (including Saruman and Gandalf) and Sauron himself are all Maiar.

This angelic hierarchy is reminiscent of the similar celestial strata we see in the Bible consisting of cherubim, seraphim, angels, archangels and others. And, as in the Bible, some Ainur (angelic beings) are good and some are bad.

In the Silmarillion, the lead ‘bad’ Vala (singular of Valar) is Melkor, who became Morgoth, and conscripted Sauron, the dark master of the Lord of the Rings Trilogy. Like the biblical Satan, or devil, he started out good, but fell on account of his pride and rebelled against Iluvatar (ie. God).

‘But as the theme progressed, it came into the heart of Melkor to interweave matters of his own imagining that were not in accord with the theme of Ilúvatar, for he sought therein to increase the power and glory of the part assigned to himself.’

Having fallen he then led others astray:

‘Then the discord of Melkor spread ever wider, and the melodies which had been heard before foundered in a sea of turbulent sound.’

In the same way Satan is described in the Bible as ‘the seal of perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty’ who was ‘in Eden, the garden of God’ and ‘blameless’ but whose heart ‘became proud on account of (his) beauty’ and was thrown to earth (See Ezekiel 28 and Revelation 12).

However Eru’s plan, like that of the God of the Bible, was not to destroy him immediately or stop his evil but rather to turn it for good:

‘And thou, Melkor, shalt see that no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me, nor can any alter the music in my despite. For he that attempteth this shall prove but mine instrument in the devising of things more wonderful, which he himself hath not imagined.’

So we see here Christian concept that evil is fallen good and that, despite evil, God uses it to bring about something even more beautiful than was first created.

Eru’s words to Melkor bring echoes of Joseph’s words to his brothers after they had betrayed him in Genesis 50:20:

‘You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives.’

And of course most importantly they foreshadow the life of Jesus Christ who, although crucified by the hands of sinful men, thereby provided, through his death and resurrection, the path by which sinful human beings can be reconciled with God himself.

So, if I have whetted your appetite you might be interested in reading the Silmarillion for yourself (£5.99 on Amazon), and perhaps even reading it alongside the Bible.

Huge opposition mounts against gay marriage

With the coalition government about to publish their bill to legalise gay marriage in England and Wales there has been a huge increase in opposition to the measure over the last two months.

Over 624,000 people have now signed the Coalition for Marriage (C4M) petition against the redefinition of marriage which simply reads as follows:

‘I support the legal definition of marriage which is the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. I oppose any attempt to redefine it.’

The petition has overwhelmed that of the ‘Campaign for equal Marriage’ (C4EM) which has attracted only 64,000 signatures, just over 10% of C4M’s total.

This underlines the growing suspicion that the push to legalise gay marriage is the concern of a small liberal elite which does not speak for the majority.

C4EM is claiming that of 649 MPs in total, 305 (47%) support the proposal and 114 oppose it with 14 neutrals and 216 unknowns.

But the Daily Mail has already published a list of 118 Tory MPs alone who oppose it and the Telegraph said before Christmas that 137 Tory MPs, almost half the party, are expected to oppose it based on letters to constituents.

Ed Miliband has now offered Labour MPs a free vote on the issue and the names of eight who are on record as opposing it is available on the New Statesman’s website.

So together with the other ten MPs that C4EM have identified who oppose gay marriage (eight DUP, one Lib Dem and one Independent) we had already before Christmas a total of 155 opposed (137 Tory, 8 Lab, 10 other).

There is even stronger opposition in the House of Lords.

Three quarters of Conservative peers and 67% of cross-benchers have said in a poll that the government should call a halt to its plans to introduce equal marriage for England and Wales.

Meanwhile, a separate poll of MPs found two thirds of members of the Commons are opposed to using the Parliament Act to get the legislation through if it is blocked in the Lords.

Furthermore, over the Christmas period there were several new developments which may well lead others to declare their hands against the Prime Minister’s proposals.

The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Westminster, Vincent Nichols, used his Christmas message to attack the government’s plans branding them ‘totalitarian’ and has urged Catholics to write to their MPs asking them to oppose the move.

More recently he warned that the ‘true nature of marriage' will be lost to schoolchildren if gay wedding plans go ahead.

In his support the Pope used his New Year message to ‘warn David Cameron’ about damage to the family if marriage is redefined.

Over the Christmas period High Court Judge Sir Paul Coleridge criticised (video here) the plans saying the Government should not be focusing on a ‘minority issue’ involving only 0.1% of the population when families are in crisis.

Meanwhile A Conservative Home poll showed that 55% of Tory Party members would vote against SSM if they were in Parliament.

Angry Muslims have demanded that the government treats them the same as the Church of England allowing an exemption on having to conduct ceremonies and former Catholic Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor has said that gay marriage calls trust in David Cameron into question.

In the face of all this growing opposition our Prime Minister remains resolutely determined.

Whether he will be successful remains to be seen, but even if he is, it seems that his making this issue a key priority at such a time is alienating huge numbers of his own MPs, party members and hundreds and thousands of not millions of ordinary British citizens.

Other posts on this blog about the issue include the following:

1. Ten reasons not to legalise same-sex marriage in Britain
2. Ten myths about the redefinition of marriage
3. Ten ways redefining marriage would damage civil liberty
4. Ten People Punished for Believing in Traditional Marriage
5. Same-sex marriage - 24 articles on all aspects of the UK debate

Christian doctors call for ban on NHS 'bribing' hospitals to put more patients on controversial death pathway

The Daily Mail has today run a story highlighting Christian Medical Fellowship’s suggestions on how the implementation of the controversial Liverpool Care Pathway could be improved.

The LCP is a framework for the care of patients in the last hours or days of life that is now used in the management of about one third of all dying patients in Britain.

The government is currently carrying out an investigation into its use and it is also the subject of a parliamentary debate on Tuesday 8 January.

I have blogged about the LCP extensively (see links here and latest update here)

The Daily Mail has used a dramatic headline (‘Christian doctors call for ban on NHS “bribing” hospitals to put more patients on controversial death pathway’) including the word ‘bribing’ which we did not use, but they have helpfully highlighted a number of our concerns.

The full CMF press release, my most recent blog and a recent Triple Helix article by Dr Jeff Stephenson are all available on line for those who would like to read our nine recommendations in full.

The Daily Mail has majored on the 7th of these which was worded as follows:

'Non-clinical priorities in the use of the pathway, especially financial priorities, must be eradicated and every patient treated solely according to their need. In this connection it would be far better to link CQUIN payments to staff training in the use of the pathway rather than numbers of patients placed on the pathway.'

The Daily Mail’s most salient quotes are as follows:

An influential group of Christian doctors yesterday called for an end to financial ‘bribes’ that encourage hospitals to place dying patients on the controversial Liverpool Care Pathway.

The Christian Medical Fellowship said judgments about whether to withdraw treatment from terminally-ill patients should be made solely on clinical grounds.

The CMF, which represents more than 4,000 doctors, said financial incentives for hospitals to use the system – thought to run at more than £10 million a year in total – should be ‘eradicated’ immediately.

It also urged ministers to tighten controls to end the ‘undoubted abuses’ of a system designed to ensure patients die with dignity.

Dr Jeff Stephenson, a Devon-based consultant in palliative care, said the care pathway could help ease suffering if used properly.

But he added: ‘It remains a tool, and it is only as good as those who use it. There is always potential for misuse and abuse and there are undoubtedly instances where this occurs.

‘Where these arise by intention then those involved should be held to account, but more often they occur through poor understanding and inadequate training.

‘We owe it to patients to not only furnish the means to better care, but also to equip adequately those who provide it.’

Payments to hospitals to introduce it are made through a system called Commissioning for Quality and Innovation, which channels money to hospital trusts through NHS ‘commissioners’.

…the CMF said a number of urgent steps were needed to restore public confidence in a system used in around 130,000 cases a year.

Hospitals are thought to have been rewarded with an extra £30million over the past three years for increasing their use of the LCP.

The CMF said these payments should be ended, with the cash diverted into better training for staff.

It said: ‘Non-clinical priorities in the use of the pathway, especially financial priorities, must be eradicated and every patient treated solely according to their need.’

The organisation also said no patient should be placed on the LCP unless they were ‘imminently dying’.

Assessments should only be made by senior doctors and the decision should be discussed with patients and their families.

Anyone placed on the pathway who shows signs of improvement should be taken off it immediately.

…The CMF also called for an annual audit of the care pathway to ensure it is being used properly.

Cases of abuse should be reported to the appropriate medical body, such as the General Medical Council, for possible disciplinary action.