Glasgow health board again tries to force midwives to supervise abortions

Two Glasgow midwives, who won a landmark legal battle to avoid taking any part in abortion procedures, may now have to return to court.

Last April appeal judges ruled that the right of Mary Doogan and Concepta Wood (pictured) to conscientious objection meant they could refuse to delegate, supervise or support staff involved in abortions.

The verdict marked the first time in Britain that the right to conscientious objection was deemed to extend beyond direct participation.

But a spokesperson for NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde (GGC) has now said (apparently at the prompting of the National Secular Society) that it is the health board’s intention to appeal the decision of the Inner House of the Court of Session to The Supreme Court (Further reports here and here).

The Abortion Act 1967 gives healthcare professionals the right to conscientiously object to ‘participate’ in abortion but the scope of the word ‘participate’ has been the matter of some legal dispute.

Lady Dorrian, who presided at the previous appeal  with Lord Mackay of Drumadoon and Lord McEwan, said: ‘In our view the right of conscientious objection extends not only to the actual medical or surgical termination but to the whole process of treatment given for that purpose.’

The previous judgment was hugely significant and meant that official guidance from both the Royal College of Midwives (RCM) and the General Medical Council (GMC) would almost certainly need revision.

The RCM guidance currently reads as follows:

‘The RCM believes that the interpretation of the conscientious objection clause should only include direct involvement in the procedure of terminating pregnancy. Thus all midwives should be prepared to care for women before, during and after a termination in a maternity unit under obstetric care.’

The GMC guidance  similarly reads:

'In England, Wales and Scotland the right to refuse to participate in terminations of pregnancy (other than where the termination is necessary to save the life of, or prevent grave injury to, the pregnant woman), is protected by law under section 4(1) of the Act. This right is limited to refusal to participate in the procedure(s) itself and not to pre- or post-treatment care, advice or management, see the Janaway case: Janaway v Salford Area Health Authority [1989] 1AC 537'

The outcome of the case is important because the Supreme Court is the highest court in Britain and its rulings will therefore be binding on all lower courts and will have repercussions not just for nurses but also for doctors and all other healthcare staff.

As I have previously argued as Christians we should not be intimidated by state or other authorities who attempt to force us to do what we believe is morally wrong.

Abortion not only takes an innocent human life, it is also contrary to all historic codes of medical ethics including the Hippocratic Oath and Declaration of Geneva.

These courageous midwives, who have been victimised by their health authority, deserve our prayers and support.

‘We must obey God rather than human beings!’ (Acts 5:29)

(I have blogged on this case more extensively here, here and here)  

Government drags its feet for almost 18 months over investigating doctors in 14 NHS trusts who pre-signed abortion forms

Last July I blogged about the 14 NHS abortion clinics which according to reports by the Care Quality Commission (CQC), the health service regulator in England, had broken the law by allowing doctors to pre-sign forms authorising abortions. 

The story was covered by the BBC, Telegraph, Daily Mail and Guardian. 

The breaches were uncovered in an investigation ordered by Health Secretary Andrew Lansley who asked the CQC to investigate whether the practice, first identified in January 2012, was widespread.

The Abortion Act 1967 requires a form (HSA1) certifying that the requirements for a termination have been met to be signed by two doctors before the procedure takes place.

Pre-signing by one doctor allows another doctor to take a solo decision to allow a termination contrary to the provisions of the Act.

In my blog last summer I pasted the full ministerial statement which made it very clear that the police and General Medical Council were involved. I also listed the NHS Trusts named in the CQC investigation. The ministerial statement concluded as follows:

Investigations by the police, General Medical Council, and Nursing and Midwifery Council continue and further referrals may result from the publication of the CQC reports. We await the outcome of these investigations. In the meantime, my officials will work with a number of bodies including the CQC and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists to address the findings from these inspections.

Abortion is still a crime unless it is carried out under the provisions of the Abortion Act and the reason two doctors signatures are involved is because abortion involves the taking of a human life.

Clearly in the case of these 14 NHS abortion clinics at least one named doctor put his or her signature to statutory documents knowingly and wilfully making false claims.

This is a form of perjury (see detail on law here).

I said at the time that the CQC must have already had the doctors’ names (as their signatures would have been on the forms) and that if the law was being properly upheld we should expect to hear that at least 14 doctors were being prosecuted for perjury and also appearing before the General Medical Council.

What has happened since? It seems essentially nothing!

On 6 June Baroness Knight of Collingtree asked the following question of Lord Howe (pictured), the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health:

‘My Lords, is it not the case that early last year the Government’s own care quality inspectors found, in a number of abortion clinics, piles of forms signed by doctors authorising abortions for women they had never seen, let alone examined? Why has so little been done to stop these happenings when they are so blatantly against the law of the land?’

Lord Howe’s answer was quite revealing:

‘My Lords, the Care Quality Commission has put in place procedures to identify pre-signing or other instances of non-compliance, and they are confident that these would now be picked up during inspections. However, my noble friend is right; there was a concern early last year that this pre-signing was happening. Since then, however, the CQC has been working directly with providers who are registered to provide termination of pregnancy services to ensure that they are complying with the requirements of the Act. It is beginning to explore how it can strengthen the registration process alongside its regular inspection activities. I therefore suggest to my noble friend that it is not a case of nothing having happened.’

So no GMC investigation, no police investigation, no prosecutions. Just that the CQC are ‘working directly with the providers (of abortion)’ by ensuring they comply with regulations and ‘beginning to explore how it can strengthen the registration process’.

Yes that’s ‘beginning to explore’ almost 18 months after concerns were first raised!

Well it is clear that all the government’s strong words last year were nothing but words.

Fourteen reports of perjury and illegal abortion by NHS staff apparently do not warrant anything but empty promises, cover-ups and foot-dragging.  

‘Acquitting the guilty and condemning the innocent – the Lord detests them both’ (Proverbs 17:15)

The Big IF - Lobbying world leaders on malnutrition, land rights and tax is right but charity begins at home

45,000 people gathered in Hyde Park today to urge G8 leaders to act on world hunger (see also reports from BBC and Ekklesia).

A colourful installation of thousands of plastic flowers (picture), the petals of which represented the millions of children who die each year as a result of malnutrition, was the focal point of the Big IF rally.

Organised by the Enough Food for Everyone IF coalition of over 200 NGOs, including dozens of Christian and faith-related groups, the initiative is the first major joined-up campaign since Make Poverty History in 2005, the last time the UK held the G8 presidency.

The Make Poverty History movement focussed on trade, aid and debt whilst the main targets of the Big IF are malnutrition, land rights and tax.

The IF coalition, which includes Save the Children, Oxfam, Unicef and Christian Aid, is calling on the G8 group of industrialised countries, which meets in Northern Ireland on 17 and 18 June, to increase funding to tackle malnutrition and stunted growth.

Its key message is: ‘There is enough food for everyone, yet one in eight people do not have enough food. This year, world leaders must tackle hunger and save millions of lives.’

The coalition also wants the G8 to make greater efforts to give people in poorer countries control over their land, both by ensuring transparency and greater accountability over land deals and by closing loopholes that allow companies to dodge paying tax.

Figures published by the Lancet on Thursday showed malnutrition to be the root cause of death for 3.1 million children, accounting for about 45% of deaths among children under five years of age.

The growth of a further 165 million children was stunted as a result of poor diets, according to the Lancet's research. Previous estimates had put the figure at 2.3 million.

While supporters enjoyed the sun in Hyde Park, across London politicians and government officials pledged up to £2.7 billion to tackle malnutrition, effectively doubling the annual current spend on nutrition by 2020. The UK has pledged an extra £375 million to help the world's poorest children.

There will be another rally in Belfast next weekend together with a summit looking for commitments to tackle tax and transparency.

Addressing the unjust societal structures and mechanisms that promote and perpetuate poverty and malnutrition are key Christian priorities.

But we also need to repent of the materialism in our own lives that blinds us to the needs of the poor and marginalised.

Richard Stearns, President of World Vision United States, brought a huge challenge to the church in what I thought was one of the defining events of the Cape Town 2010 Lausanne Congress.  

He argued that there is ‘a hole’ in our Gospel: 

‘Jesus described a big Gospel, a Gospel that began with proclamation and evangelism, yes, but also embraced compassion toward our fellow man and biblical justice – proclamation, compassion and justice – you see these three defined the good news of Jesus Gospel.

The whole Gospel makes demands upon the rich and the poor that go beyond belief. This whole Gospel means a total surrender to God’s kingdom, not just believing the right things but doing the right things as well.

We are called to care for the widow, the orphan, the alien and the stranger. We’re called to lift up justice and fight economic disparity; to speak up for the voiceless and to hold our governments accountable; to be generous with our money and to live lives of integrity before a watching world.

The most powerful evangelism of all involves not just speaking the good news but being the good news. Not just preaching the Gospel but demonstrating the Gospel because love for our neighbours that is only spoken is not love at all. You see love must be demonstrated.

This radical gospel of love, word and deed was intended by Jesus to launch a social and spiritual revolution on earth, one that had the power to change the world.

But sadly the church over the centuries has often failed to be that good news…  What about our generosity? In the wealthiest of all nations in Christian history we give just 2.5% of our incomes to God’s work, 75% less than the biblical tithe. And 98% of what we give is spent in the United States – 98% for us and 2% for the rest of the world.

“I was hungry while you had all you needed. I was thirsty but you drank bottled water. I was a stranger and you wanted me deported. I needed clothes but you needed more clothes. I was sick but you pointed out the behaviours that led to my sickness. I was in prison and you said I was getting what I deserved.”

This is the version of Matthew 25 that many Americans and even churches have embraced…. Sometimes I dream and I ask "What if?" What if we actually took this Gospel seriously? Could we, might we, actually be able to change the world?’

You can read and listen to the full message here.

Stearns’ description of the US church equally applies here in the UK. How will we respond I wonder?

Will be like the people of Sodom who ‘were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy’ (Ezekiel 16:49)?

Or will we walk in the footsteps of Jesus Christ who ‘made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant’ (Philippians 2:7) and who ‘though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, so that you through his poverty might become rich’ (2 Corinthians 8:9)?

What will people say of us in 2025? More importantly, what will God say?

The Archbishop’s speech on gay marriage – needless concessions and a lost opportunity

Nine Church of England Bishops, including the Archbishop of Canterbury, this week voted for Lord Dear’s amendment attempting to derail the government’s Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill. Five abstained. Ten chose not to attend. The amendment was passed by a 390-148 majority.

There has been speculation in the press that the Church of England had made a deal with government over trading abstentions for later amendments and that pressure had been put on bishops by church officials to suggest they abstain so as not to evoke a government backlash against the church.

However this has been firmly denied by the church’s parliamentary and political advisors.

Now that the bill has passed its second reading in the House of Lords the leader of the ‘Lords Spiritual’, Bishop of Leicester Tim Stevens, has issued a statement on behalf of the church about its strategy for the days and weeks ahead.

In this he says that ‘it is now the duty and responsibility of the Bishops who sit in the House of Lords to recognise the implications of this decision and to join with other Members in the task of considering how this legislation can be put into better shape’. 

He adds that ‘the issue now is not primarily one of protections and exemptions for people of faith’ but rather ‘improvement (of the bill) in a number of other key respects, including in its approach to the question of fidelity in marriage and the rights of children’. 

As a result it has been reported widely in the press, perhaps not surprisingly, that ‘the Church of England has effectively accepted defeat over gay marriage signalling that it will no longer fight against a change in the law’.

The words and actions of bishops in the coming weeks and days will no doubt undergo careful scrutiny, but my purpose in this blogpost is rather to comment on the speech that the Archbishop of Canterbury gave before supporting the Dear amendment last Monday, because I suspect I am not alone in finding it rather disappointing.  

I have reproduced his speech below (in italics) from his own website and placed my own comments after each section in non-italicised script (marked >>). The speech is 864 words and runs to ten paragraphs. It has been quoted widely but selectively and I think it is therefore important to consider it as a whole.

Archbishop Justin's speech to the Lords on the government's gay marriage Bill

Monday 3rd June 2013

My Lords, this Bill has arrived in your Lordship's House at great speed. The initial Proposals, when published at the end of the autumn, have needed much work to get them into today's form. Much of that work has been done through detailed legal effort and discussion, and I am deeply grateful to the DCMS (Department for Culture, Media and Sport) teams – and especially to the Secretary of State for the thoughtful way in which she has listened and the degree to which she has been willing to make changes in order to arrive at the stage we’ve reached today.

>> It is part of House of Lords tradition to be polite even to those with whom you strongly disagree. But the Archbishop has gone much further than this in complimenting the government for their handling of this bill. And yet the bill was launched with no democratic mandate, seeks to redefine the biblical concept of marriage as a lifelong union between a man and a woman enshrined in British law and poses a serious threat to civil liberties. To commend the Secretary of State for the ‘thoughtful way she has listened’ and ‘the degree to which she has been willing to make changes’, given that the government ignored half a million public submissions to its consultation and then sought to block every amendment put forward to make the bill more safe during its passage through the House of Commons, is curious to say the very least.  Not only are the Archbishop’s commendations inappropriate and unnecessary; they are actually a slap in the face to those many Christians, MPs and others who in good conscience have stood against the bill in the face of great opposition. 

We all know, and it’s been said, that this is a divisive issue. In general the majority of faith groups remain very strongly against the Bill, and have expressed that view in a large number of public statements. The House of Bishops of the Church of England has also expressed a very clear majority view –  although not unanimous, as has been seen by the strong and welcome contribution by the Bishop of Salisbury. 

>> Why does Welby consider it necessary to single out Nicholas Holtam, Bishop of Salibury, for commendation and call his contribution ‘strong and welcome’ when in fact Holtam takes a position diametrically opposed to what the Scriptures teach and has also likened opponents of gay marriage to those who used the Bible to justify slavery and apartheid? Should he not rather be saying that Holtam does not represent the church’s view or, at very least, not dignifying his words and actions with a comment? How does Welby’s approach to Holtam square with the Apostle Paul urging his co-workers to ‘command certain men not to teach false doctrines’ (1 Timothy 1:3), to ‘gently instruct in the hope that God will grant repentance’ (2 Timothy 2:25) and to insist that false teachers ‘must be silenced’ (Titus 1:11)? 

The so-called Quadruple Lock may have some chance of withstanding legal scrutiny in Europe, and we are grateful for it, although other faith groups and Christian denominations who’ve written to me remain very hesitant. There have been useful discussions about the position of schools with a religious character and issues of freedom of conscience. And I’ve noted the undertaking of the Noble Baroness the Minister on those subjects, and I’m grateful for what she has said. The Noble Baroness the Minister has also put forward all her views today with great courtesy and persuasive effect, and I join in the remarks of the Noble Baroness, Baroness Royall, in appreciation of that. 

>> Why is it necessary to thank the government for the ‘quadruple lock’ when there is considerable doubt about how legally robust it is and when it is a government’s primary duty to protect its citizens anyway? Why has he identified with the Labour leader Baroness Royall in commending the Minister for ‘useful discussions’ about religious schools and freedom of conscience when all attempts to obtain legal protection for teachers and conscience have been so far been blocked by the government working in tandem with the Labour Party?

And I have to say that personally I regret the necessity of having to deal with the possibility of a division at this stage, on a bill passed by a free vote in the other place.

>> Why does Welby ‘personally regret’ having to vote against a bill which undermines the Christian definition of marriage? Is it not his Christian duty (and joy) to stand up for Christian truth? And why does he need to say so?

I was particularly grateful to hear the speech of the Noble Baroness, Baroness Royall, and agreed with the proud record that was established by the last government during the years in which it held office in this area. I also, if I may, will pass on her comments with gratitude to my colleague the Most Revd Prelate the Archbishop of York. 

>> Why is it necessary for Welby to commend the previous Labour government and what does he mean by its ‘proud record’? How is this even relevant?

It is clearly essential that stable and faithful same sex relationships should, where those involved want it, be recognised and supported with as much dignity and the same legal effect as marriage. Although the majority of Bishops who voted during the whole passage of the Civil Partnerships Act through your Lordships' House were in favour of civil partnerships a few years ago, it is also absolutely true that the church has often not served the LGBT communities in the way it should. I must express my sadness and sorrow for that considerable failure. There have been notable exceptions, such as my predecessor Archbishop Ramsey who vigorously supported decriminalisation in the 1960s. 

>> On what basis is Welby saying that ‘faithful same sex relationships’ should ‘be recognised and supported with as much dignity and the same legal effect as marriage’? What biblical or church teaching supports this view? And is he suggesting that the church should have served the LGBT community by endorsing and blessing same sex civil partnerships? This is certainly the most natural reading of his speech and yet it is not even the position of the church which he leads.

It is also necessary to express, as has been done already, total rejection of homophobic language, which is wrong – and more than that, sickening. 

>> What does the archbishop actually mean by ‘homophobic language’?  And why, if so many people have already mentioned this, does he feel it necessary to mention it again? Welby has now used 516 of his 864 words and seven of his ten paragraphs. Thus far he has commended the government, the Labour opposition and a bishop that many regard as a heretic, given his blessing to same sex partnerships and apologised both for the church’s past record and also for having to vote against the bill. Not a good start and the clock is steadily ticking.

However, I and many of my colleagues remain with considerable hesitations about this Bill. My predecessor Lord Williams of Oystermouth showed clearly last summer, in evidence during the consultation period, that it has within it a series of category errors. It confuses marriage and weddings. It assumes that the rightful desire for equality – to which I’ve referred supportively – must mean uniformity, failing to understand that two things may be equal but different. And as a result it does not do what it sets out to do, my Lords. Schedule 4 distinguishes clearly between same gender and opposite gender marriage, thus not achieving true equality. 

>> Now at last we see some arguments against the bill and it is this paragraph that has been most quoted in the media. Welby is absolutely right that the bill contains ‘category errors’, ‘confuses marriages and weddings’ and misunderstands the difference between ‘equality’ and ‘uniformity’. But why didn’t he leave himself more time to unpack these arguments and why does his opposition amount to nothing more than ‘considerable hesitations’. If he rejects the underlying principle of the bill, why does he not say so?

The result is confusion. Marriage is abolished, redefined and recreated, being different and unequal for different categories. The new marriage of the Bill is an awkward shape with same gender and different gender categories scrunched into it, neither fitting well. The concept of marriage as a normative place for procreation is lost. The idea of marriage as covenant is diminished. The family in its normal sense, predating the state and as our base community of society – as we’ve already heard – is weakened. These points will be expanded on by others in the debate, I’m sure, including those from these benches.

>> Again some good strong words, but could he not have expanded on some of these points rather than confining them to two paragraphs totalling 204 words – the length of a short letter to the Times? Why has he spent  more than twice as many words already on unnecessary commendations and apologies that have actually served to undermine his position? And should he not, as Archbishop of Canterbury and Head of the Church of England, be saying something about what a distinctively Christian understanding of marriage actually is?

For these and many other reasons, those of us in the churches and faith groups who are extremely hesitant about the Bill in many cases hold that view because we think that traditional marriage is a corner stone of society, and rather than adding a new and valued institution alongside it for same gender relationships, which I would personally strongly support to strengthen us all, this Bill weakens what exists and replaces it with a less good option that is neither equal nor effective. This is not a faith issue, although we are grateful for the attention that government and the other place have paid to issues of religious freedom – deeply grateful. But it is not, at heart, a faith issue; it is about the general social good. And so with much regret but entire conviction, I cannot support the Bill as it stands.

>> If there are ‘many other reasons’ why has he not outlined what some of them are in his first seven paragraphs? Why, as head of the Church of England, does Welby see legal same sex homoerotic partnerships as a ‘valued institution alongside (marriage)’ which he ‘would personally strongly support to strengthen us all’? How does he believe that legalising same sex partnerships ‘strengthens us all’? And why is this ‘not at heart a faith issue’ when the teaching of both the Bible and the church on the matter is so clear and when our current law on marriage was historically based on this biblical definition? Why does he say that he cannot support the bill ‘as it stands’? Does he not oppose its underlying principle? Or is he saying that he would actually support it with various amendments?

It is notable that the Archbishop of Canterbury’s speech does not mention God, Jesus Christ, the Bible or even the historic position on the Church of England. Nor does it explain how the Christian concept of complimentary heterosexual marriage is a creation ordinance for all mankind supposed to mirror Christ’s own relationship with his bride the church.

You might argue that parliament would not have been convinced by such arguments. Quite probably not.  But the Archbishop of Canterbury has a responsibility to bear witness to Christian truth in the public square.  He should also not be granting needless and unbiblical concessions. He is after all the Archbishop of Canterbury.  

Welby’s speech was a wonderful opportunity to speak for Christ and Christians and to explain why Christians believe that marriage is so precious and should not be redefined.

Sadly, for both church and society, it was an opportunity he largely missed and some of the concessions he has made are very worrying indeed.  

Today’s cancer headlines – keeping it all in perspective

The alarming headline ‘Half of UK population “will get cancer in lifetime”’ has made a press release from Macmillan Cancer Support into a major news story today.

Not surprisingly the charity is using it as an opportunity to argue that ‘the NHS will not be able to cope with the huge increase in demand for cancer services’ and that we therefore need more investment in  ‘proper after-care’ and in ‘engaging cancer patients on their own health’.

Many people reading these reports may be anxious about their own future health but the reality is that whilst people are more likely to get cancer in the future they are also less likely to die from it.

 In 1992, the proportion of people in the UK who got cancer during their life was 32%. This increased to 44% in 2010 and is expected to level off at around 47% between 2020 and 2030.

But this needs to be balanced against changes in survival prospects. In 1992, 45,000 people, or 21% of those who had cancer, did not die from the disease. This increased to 35% in 2010 and is expected to rise to 38% in 2020.

So in simple terms your chances are 50/50 of getting cancer in 2020 but your chance of dying from it is only six in ten.

Overall the chance of dying from cancer will remain only slightly higher than it is now – about one in three.

The growth in the number of people getting cancer is explained by the fact that people are living longer, because as the population ages the incidence of cancer rises.

Macmillan puts the increased survival rates from cancer down to a greater focus on early diagnosis, advances in cancer treatments and better cancer care.

In the UK, more than one in three people will develop cancer at some point in their lives. Every year, around 309,500 people are diagnosed with the disease.

But experts estimate that more than four in 10 cancer cases could actually be prevented by lifestyle changes, such as: not smoking, keeping a healthy body weight, cutting back on alcohol, eating a healthy, balanced diet, keeping active, avoiding certain infections (like HPV), staying safe in the sun and avoiding certain occupational risks (see chemicals in the workplace).

Cancer, of course, is not just one disease but over 200 different conditions with a variety of levels of severity and outcome – and the outlook in any given cancer depends on its type, location and stage.

And if you avoid cancer then the likelihood is that you will die instead of heart disease, respiratory disease or stroke.

For Christians there are several big take home messages.

First is to appreciate that cancer is very common, so don’t be surprised if it happens to you or your loved ones. Rather prepare for it.

Second is to remember that your body is a gift from God and a temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 6:19) so treat it with respect. You may, in so doing, lessen your chance of getting certain cancers.

Third is to accept that, unless Christ returns first, you are going to die of something so live your life with that in mind. As a surgeon I was continually surprised to meet patients who seemed to be under the illusion that it was never going to happen to them, or at least not yet.

Fourth is to keep it all in an eternal perspective.

The Bible says that all people ‘are destined to die once and after that to face judgment’ (Hebrews 9:27) and then to end up in one of two destinations for all eternity (Revelation 20:11-15). That is something that wonderfully focusses the mind about priorities on earth!

But the very next verse puts it all in perspective because it tells us the wonderful news that ‘Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many’ and that ‘he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him’ (Hebrews 9:27).

So are you waiting for him?

Medicine is limited. All it really can offer is a few more years of better quality.

The important thing to realise is that this life is only a shadow of what is to come, and that what follows this life is infinitely more important.

So don’t be scared of cancer. If it happens it happens. Instead grasp the fact that there is actually something far worse than cancer.

As Jesus said’ ‘I will show you whom you should fear: fear him who, after your body has been killed, has authority to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him.’ (Luke 12:5)

If you are not a Christian and that scares you, then you are not far from the Kingdom of God.

If so, then maybe it’s time to do something about it.

RCOG neglects to warn pregnant mothers about major risk to foetus

The College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) has been criticised for saying pregnant women may want to ‘play it safe’ and avoid chemicals found in many common household products.

Items which it suggests should be avoided include tinned food, ready meals, shower gel and even new cars.

Critics say however that the advice is unhelpful, unrealistic and alarmist. To take all their guidelines seriously women would have to lock themselves away from almost everything in modern life.

But what the RCOG does not mention is that the greatest danger to the foetus is actually posed by the RCOG itself.

Members of the RCOG, along with its trainees, kill about 200,000 babies in the womb every year throughout the UK.

It’s called abortion, a procedure that is actually forbidden by the Hippocratic Oath.

And unlike tinned food, ready meats and shower gel, there is well documented evidence that this abortion risk is actually real.  

It’s called the Department of Health Abortion Statistics. 

450,000 sexually transmitted infections in England last year – missing the obvious

Hot on the heels of Holly actor Michael Douglas’ claim that his oral cancer was the result of oral sex (also see here) comes today’s report  that diagnoses of sexually transmitted infections rose to almost half a million in England last year, with the highest rates in those aged under 25.

According to Public Health England, there were 448,422 diagnoses in 2012 - a rise of 5% from 2011. The data show too many people are putting themselves at risk through unsafe sex, it says.

People aged under 25 made up 64% of all chlamydia and 54% of genital warts diagnoses in heterosexuals in 2012. New diagnoses of gonorrhoea rose 21%, which is a concern given the growing global threat of antibiotic resistance.

What accounts for this continuing epidemic?

Well according to Dr Gwenda Hughes, head of STI surveillance at Public Health England, ‘These data show too many people are continuing to have unsafe sex, putting themselves at risk of STIs and the serious consequences associated with infection, including infertility.’

Among the advice Public Health England offers to help reduce the risk of STis is ‘always use a condom when having sex with new partners, reduce the number of sexual partners and avoid overlapping sexual relationships’.

What the BBC doesn’t tell you is that condoms do not protect adequately against three of the most common STIs: Herpes, HPV (which caused Michael Douglas’ problem)and Chlamydia (one of the commonest causes of infertility).

Nor do they say that, with failure rates for condom users running at one in seven per year, those who follow the government's advice on avoiding STIs may find themselves playing not just the lottery, but Russian roulette.

The BBC’s ‘reducing the risk’ lists contains five suggestions but, perhaps not surprisingly, mentions neither abstinence nor being faithful to one partner throughout life.

So let me say it.

If you want not just to reduce the risk of sexually transmitted infections but actually to eliminate it altogether then marry a virgin and stay faithful to him or her ‘as long as you both shall live’.

It’s amazingly effective.