Hear Lynda in interview on Air TV: http://www.a1r.tv/videos/view/18409
Hear Lynda in interview on Air TV: http://www.a1r.tv/videos/view/18409
Please sign our petition to the Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Theresa May, calling for Government to scrap the guidance stopping parental access to children’s medical records
We thought it was maybe misinterpretation of new GDPR requirements, when parents started to receive letters from their doctors’ surgeries telling them they would no longer be allowed access to their child’s medical records, unless the child gave explicit permission. It appears, however, that we were wrong, because the Government has now issued a Briefing Paper entitled Patient records and confidentiality. And as s part of this, The British Medical Association (BMA) has produced guidance on confidentiality and the disclosure of health records in relation to children. The guidance states:
‘…children who are aged 12 or over are generally expected to have capacity to give or withhold their consent to the release of information …
If the child is competent to understand what is involved in the proposed treatment, the health professional should, unless there are convincing reasons to the contrary … respect the child’s wishes if they do not want parents or guardians to know. However, every reasonable effort must be made to persuade the child to involve parents or guardians particularly for important or life-changing decisions.’ (House of Commons Briefing Paper, Number 07103, 25 May 2018)
This means that Children age 12+ will have to give explicit consent allowing their parents or guardians access to their health records, otherwise all information will be withheld. The practical effect of this will therefore be to give children the right to make decisions about medical treatment without their parents’ knowledge or consent – indeed, in possible opposition to their parents’ wishes. Moreover, in practice it will mean that children become reliant on advice given by medical practitioners, of whose identity their parents may be unaware and over whom they have no influence.
This will inevitably place children at risk, especially in relation to matters of sexual health and so-called gender choice.
Currently, as a society, we prohibit the purchase of both tobacco and alcohol below the age of 18. Since 1885, when an age limit was introduced to try and stop child prostitution, the age of consent for sexual intercourse for both boys and girls has been 16. A young person below the age of 18 cannot marry without parental consent, though with consent, a child can marry at 16.
There are sound reasons for these restrictions. It is recognized that children lack emotional maturity and judgment and, as a consequence, may indulge in hazardous behaviours that will endanger their future wellbeing and safety. The age limits are designed to keep them safe. Yet now we are apparently proposing to allow children to make permanent, life-changing, and potentially life-shortening decisions that, when older, they may bitterly regret.
The BMA guidance states that there is no presumption of competence under the age of 16 – but it goes on to state that, “If the child is competent to understand what is involved in the proposed treatment, the health professional should, unless there are convincing reasons to the contrary … respect the child’s wishes if they do not want parents or guardians to know.” https://www.bma.org.uk/advice/employment/ethics/confidentiality-and-health-records/confidentiality-and-health-records-tool-kit/8-children-and-young-people It makes no mention of the fact that the child may be influenced by, and rely on, the views of health professionals.
To spell this out, it means that children will be able to assume sole responsibility for any treatment they might have. For example, they will be able to choose whether or not to have contraception, whether or not to have an abortion, and to seek treatment for any STIs they might contract. In express contravention of existing NHS guidelines regarding treatment for gender dysphoria, recommending that invasive treatment not be given under the age of 18 (https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/gender-dysphoria/treatment/), they will also be able to request and obtain life-changing hormonal and surgical intervention, perhaps in direct and explicit opposition to their parents’ wishes.
This is not just an abuse of the rights and duty of parents to protect their children, but it is potentially dangerous. Far from enshrining a child’s right to privacy and choice, at the very least it exposes them to exploitation and abuse by the unscrupulous.
But it has other consequences too. What happens, for instance, when a post-abortion 13 year old haemorrhages and is rushed to hospital, and the parentscan’t tell the over-worked doctor in A&E that she’s had an abortion – because they don’t know – so that she receives the wrong treatment? Or what happens to the child who develops clinical depression as result of inappropriate contraceptive advice, but tries to shoulder the burden alone, because she’s too ashamed to tell her parents why? Or the child who suffers a prolapse as result of anal intercourse? Or even the young person who at 12 decides they want – and manages to get – sex change surgery – only to decide a couple of years later (as happens) that they made the wrong choice? This policy removes the inhibitions that currently act as safeguards. It removes all protection from children far too young to make life-changing decisions for themselves.
Twelve is too young to bear such responsibility! Parents have not just the right, but the duty,to protect their children – and for this they need to know what’s going on in their children’s lives.
We call on the Government to acknowledge parents as bearing primary responsibility for their children’s welfare and to scrap this lunatic guidance, which can only serve the ideological agenda of sexual libertarianism and LGBT and transgender activism. But will not protect children.
Give parents full access to their child’s online medical records until at least age 16.
Scrap the guidance stopping parental access to children’s medical records.
How can we expect people to follow our faith when we have stopped believing? How can we expect God to hear our prayers when we are faithless?
Secularists often say gleefully that the Church is dying. It’s an outmoded relic, they say, of a bygone age – pure and simple superstition, disproved by science! At every level this can be challenged, but strangely the ‘Church’ says very little, seeming almost to collude with the lie. Thus, instead of denouncing what passes for the new morality, increasingly we are endorsing and affirming it, even going to the lengths of drawing up a liturgy for same sex marriage. Similarly, it’s very, very rare today that church leaders ever speak out against abortion – because we don’t want to upset the huge numbers of women in our congregations who might have terminated the life of their unborn child. At the same time we hold multi-faith services in our churches and cathedrals up and down the land, congratulating ourselves on our inclusivity and open mindedness – telling ourselves that this is the way to encourage unity and peace, while ignoring the first commandment, ‘You shall have no other god beside me’.
The truth is that in multicultural Britain life is cheap and sexual immorality the norm, while obedience to the precepts of the Bible is increasingly presented as open to question, or even irrelevant. God either didn’t mean what He said, we’re told patronisingly, or He got it wrong. In fact, the message of the greater part of the established Church today, as articulated by the Most Revd Michael Curry, presiding bishop and primate of the Episcopal Church in his address at the marriage of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, is ‘All you need is love.’
With respect, this is the gospel according to John Lennon, courtesy of the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, and has little, if anything, to do with the gospel of Christ. Yes, as Christians, we are enjoined to love, and not judge – but first and foremost, we are commanded to obedience to God, and to separate ourselves from sin. In other words, we are commanded unreservedly to love the sinner, but to condemn the sin.
Yet increasingly the official line taken by the Church – of all denominations – is no more than a mishmash of vapid platitudes designed to minimise affront, with the inevitable result that many intellectually compromised Christians don’t just love the sinner, but love sin as well! In both word and deed!
How have we got to this position?
God alone knows. But if this is what Christians today call ‘faith’, can we really be surprised when the Lord seems deaf to our prayers? ‘End poverty and give peace in our time, Oh Lord,’ we cry, ‘but don’t expect us to honour you as the One true God.’
The truth is that we live in an evil generation which every day grows worse – with the devil fighting might and main to claw back control, spewing out lies that, even a generation ago, would have produced outrage and fierce rejection. We have been beguiled by the serpent, and the judgement of God without any shadow of doubt draws near.
But it doesn’t have to be like this. There is still time to repent.
The gospel of Christ is a gospel of power. In John 14, Jesus promised the disciples, ‘…He that believeth on me, shall do the works that I do; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go to my Father.’
That wasn’t an ‘if’, or a ‘maybe’; it was Christ’s absolute assurance that, if we believe in him and are obedient to the Father’s commands, we shall move in the power of God. That promise remains equally true today. The Lord’s sacrifice was once and complete, and the power of the Spirit is promised to us unconditionally … provided only we live in faithfulness and obedience, honouring God in all we say and do.
The toothless and compromised gospel of the Church of England is the reason it is dying on its feet – and rightly so. Yet Christianity is not just alive, but flourishing. We have a gospel of power. All that is required for that power to become manifest and for God’s blessing to be released is our faithfulness and obedience to His word.
So Alfie Evans has lost his battle, and the Christian Legal Centre is now apparently facing investigation by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) for the advice given to his parents.
VfJUK asks if this is retribution by a political elite dedicated to the imposition of totalitarian control by a State that increasingly denies parental and individual rights?
Consider, in education we are increasingly being subjected to ideological indoctrination, which prioritises secular, LGBT and gender rights over all others, in clear misapplication of the enforcement and safeguarding of protected characteristics as defined under the Equality Act. By which we mean that, although similarly a protected characteristic, religion is apparently now only acceptable when it endorses the State line of so-called sexual and moral diversity – and if anything was ever misnamed, this is surely it, because ‘diversity’ now refuses absolutely to countenance any and all views that conflict with or contradict its rebranded version of morality.
So compliance is now being imposed on all schools by the regulatory body Ofsted. And, lest we are in any doubt, this includes ‘Faith schools’, which by definition in this brave new world hold politically incorrect views in need of suppression. It is for this imposition of values we don’t hold that we apparently have to pay our taxes – and now, in health matters too, we have seemingly to cede control to the all-powerful, but hardly benign, State.
In the case of Alfie Evans, what is so supremely shocking is not the decision by the hospital to withdraw life support – VfJUK fully endorses the view that there is no moral imperative to keep alive a body by artificial means once life as such has ended. No, the really shocking and deeply distressing thing is that medical opinion was clearly divided and, while the doctors at Alder Hey said there was nothing further they could or were prepared to do, other equally well-respected and eminent doctors voluntarily offered to undertake care of the toddler. AND WERE REFUSED. In fact, Alder Hey’s only response was to seek a court order to keep the child in virtual imprisonment, thus depriving him in one fell swoop of the chance, however remote, of both help and life.
Alfie’s parents desperately wanted to give their child that chance – and what individual, or indeed body, with the slightest trace of compassion and moral integrity could not have understood? Who would it have hurt? Not Alfie, who at one point was said by the hospital to be too far gone to have any sense of what was going on, and would have had every possible care on his journey to Rome (and might even have been fed, as apparently he wasn’t in Alder Hey until 24 hours before his death, when his organs were presumably already closing down); and not the tax payer, because there was never any question of the NHS being asked to fund this. Yet the NHS and the Courts chose to differ.
In Alfie’s best interests.
According to whom, we ask? True, Alfie might still have lost his battle, but at least he would have gone down fighting. As it is, the little boy’s death feels unpleasantly like execution.
And now the Christian Legal Centre is facing investigation because, as it seems, they dared stand up to the Establishment and offered help. Yes, yes, we know the main subject of complaint appears to be the over-zealous opinions offered by one of CLC’s case workers, variously branded by High Court judge Mr Justice Hayden as incorrect legal advice, vituperative bile, and deluded and fanatical (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/04/27/lawyershit-back-prejudicial-inflammatory-criticism-high-court/ ;https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/judge-slams-alfie-evans-legal-12423246 ). But the base line is, they were offering legal help to parents who had nowhere else to go. They were doing their job.
Shame on the Establishment! It does not lie with doctors or the State to determine what is in our best interest and when we should die. The parents’ right to try and help their sick child should have prevailed. The State should have moved heaven and earth to uphold that right.
Nanny does not know best.
It is time for the State to learn it is the servant and not master of the people.