Since the Tony Bland case in 1993, UK courts have granted permission for food and water to be withdrawn from more than 40 patients in so-called persistent vegetative state, thus causing their deaths.
This year came an application for permission to withdraw food and water from a patient not in persistent vegetative state, but said to be "minimally conscious." The 52-year-old woman, referred to in court as "M" - it is not possible to identify her for legal reasons - was brain damaged by a viral disease in 2003. She is unable to breathe unaided or feed herself.
The application came from her family. Her sister told the Court of Protection "She can't move, she can't speak, she's fed through a tube, she can't even enjoy a cup of tea. She's got no pleasure in life. It's not a life, it's an existence, and I know she wouldn't want it."
Care home staff said M sometimes spoke, smiled and cried tears of emotion.
After a 10-day hearing, Mr Justice Baker this week refused the application. He said the preservation of life remained a fundamental principle of the law.
M did experience pain and discomfort, and her disability severely restricted what she could do, but she did have some positive experiences and there was a reasonable prospect those experiences could be extended. He urged the family to work together with doctors and carers on a revised care plan.
The judge's decision is the right one. Apart from the ethical problems involved in taking a human life, allowing the application would have been another step - and a big step - down the slippery slope towards random euthanasia.
There is a little book in the Old Testament called The Song of Solomon. 1 Ki 4:32 says Solomon spoke 3,000 proverbs and his songs were 1,005. Of all the songs that Solomon wrote, this is apparently the song.
In the whole book the name of God is nowhere mentioned, and some people wonder what it's doing in the Bible at all. Examine it, and it's one of the most spiritual books in the Bible.
It appears to be a love story between the king and a Shulamite maiden. Consider it an allegory of the spiritual relationship between the Christian believer and her Lord. As you read it, imagine, if you will, that the Shulamite maiden is the believer, the king is the Lord Jesus Christ, and the daughters of Jerusalem are other believers.
In the first chapter, the believer is newly come to faith, aware of her love for the Lord but not even aware of where to go for fellowship with Him ("Tell me, O you whom I love, Where you feed your flock, Where you make it rest at noon").
By the second chapter, she is aware of her risen Lord, wonderfully victorious out there in the world ("Behold, he comes Leaping upon the mountains, Skipping upon the hills") but content to wait in her own home until He comes to her.
She has some difficult experiences, sometimes at the hands of those she would least expect ("The watchmen who went about the city found me. They struck me, they wounded me; The keepers of the walls Took my veil away from me").
Through the book, you can see how her faith grows. In the second chapter, it's "My beloved is mine, and I am his." In the sixth chapter, it's "I am my beloved's, And my beloved is mine" - more concerned now that He should have all of her than that she should have all of Him. And in the seventh chapter, it becomes just "I am my beloved's, And his desire is towards me."
He invites her "Come with me from Lebanon, my spouse, With me from Lebanon. Look from the top of Amana, From the top of Senir and Hermon, From the lions' dens, From the mountains of the leopards" - to the spiritual heights, where together they can look out at all the Promised Land below.
Until eventually she can say "Come, my beloved, Let us go forth to the field; Let us lodge in the villages. Let us get up early to the vineyards; Let us see if the vine has budded, Whether the grape blossoms are open, And the pomegranates are in bloom."
God wants us to come to the place where we are concerned not just with ourselves, our own family, our own church, our own town (though certainly that), but where He is able to share His heart with us regarding all He is doing, everywhere.
Well, it happened. For a day or two it didn't seem certain what he would do. Then yesterday Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas made an official application to the United Nations for a place for an independent Palestinian state as a full member of the UN.The UN General Council - with one or two exceptions - gave him standing ovations as he made his case.The trouble is that the Palestinians have refused to recognise Israel, whose territory they want to acquire, and have refused to negotiate with Israel. Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told the General Council that the Palestinians wanted a state without peace. They should first make peace with Israel and then get their state.The General Council ignored him and voted for the Palestinians. The decision will need to be ratified by the Security Council. I understand they will discuss it on Monday. Full ratification is unlikely to be forthcoming. Either way, Abbas is now a hero among his supporters.The decision is both a victory and a disaster. It achieves nothing on the ground and will surely lead to further violence. An appeal for peaceful demonstrations in Israel yesterday led to stone-throwing at Israeli soldiers. More violence is said to be planned.Rockets from Palestinians in Gaza are continuing to fall on civilian populations in southern Israel. Esti Lehman, of Moshav Shuva, a mother of three children from five months to four years old, wrote in the Israeli media of having only seconds to find shelter after the alarm sounds and having to make, with three small children and only two hands, the terrible decision of who to grab first."They're shooting at me, at my children," she wrote. "This is war."Will there be peace between the Israeli Jews and their Arab neighbours? I think not.The Bible speaks of a time to come of terrible suffering for the Jews, but a time when many will come to faith.It also speaks of a day when the curse will be taken from the earth, the lion will lie down (literally) with the lamb, and there will be no wars. But alas, not yet.
Next week the United Nations will be asked to make a decision which is likely to have momentous consequences. The Palestinians will apply for recognition as a United Nations member state.Israel has said it is willing to negotiate with the Palestinians, with no preconditions. The Palestinians are refusing to negotiate with Israel, or recognise Israel's right to exist. Instead, they will go direct to the United Nations.Next Wednesday, September 21, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will deliver a major address to the UN General Assembly, putting Israel's case (and challenging the nations to deal with Iran in Iran's bid for nuclear weapons).
Next Friday, September 23, the Palestinian Authority will formally apply for full membership of the United Nations. To succeed, it will need two-thirds of the votes of the General Assembly's 193 nations, which it is expected to get. For full membership, it needs the votes of five members of the UN Security Council. Of the five, Russia has agreed to support the Palestinians' bid. If France, China and the UK vote in favour, the United States will - reluctantly - veto the decision. This would leave the PA not a full member of the UN, but recognised as a nonmember state.
A decision at the UN would effectively tear up agreements previously made between Israel and the Palestinians, and could lead to violent conflict in Israel, even war.
Israel is a legally constituted nation, with its own sovereign territory. The Palestinians have been offered a state on more than one occasion, but have hitherto refused the offer. Unfortunately for the Palestinians, they do not want a state as much as they want to see Israel wiped off the map.
Most people either laugh at or choose to ignore biblical prophecy, which is perhaps strange in view of the fact that all biblical prophecy of events to date (including those which took place in Jerusalem 2,000 years ago) has been exactly fulfilled.
The Bible says that God gave the land of Israel, which He calls His land, to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and their descendants for an everlasting possession. It says that eventually all nations will be gathered against Israel to battle. It says, what's more, that God Himself will bring all nations against Israel to battle, so that He can deal with them.
He will judge the nations, He says,
"On account of my people, my heritage Israel,
Whom they have scattered among the nations;
They have also divided up my land" (Joel 3:3).
If you would like to read of those days, start with Joel 3 and Zechariah 14. "The day of the Lord's vengeance" will not be a pretty sight.
No wonder the Bible instructs us to pray for the peace of Jerusalem.
Basildon Academy in Essex, opened last year with almost 1,600 pupils at a cost of £45 million, was not doing well, according to this morning's newspaper.
Parents said graffiti covered the walls, there was little homework set, none of it was marked, and pupils would get up in the middle of class to go for a cigarette. Truancy, fighting, bullying and teachers unable to cope were commonplace.
Then a new headteacher took over.
On his first day he sent 109 pupils home for wearing wrong items of uniform. In three days he sent home 151 pupils. Scores were given detention and dozens put in an isolation centre.
Within 48 hours teachers reported they no longer had to practise "crowd control" and they had twice the amount of time for teaching.
Said the headteacher: "The change is just remarkable. The morale of the teachers is high, there is no bullying and the pupils are happy. And we are instilling good habits that will make them good citizens and employees."
Is it permissible to ask why someone didn't do this before?
Antisemitism is on the increase in the UK. To the extent, writes Melanie Phillips in the Jewish Chronicle, that an increasing number of Jewish people are saying there is no future for Jews in Britain."Week in and week out, Israelis are blamed for defending themselves against mass murder. . . While atrocities by tyrannies and rogue states provoke almost total indifference, Israel is treated as a class apart: apparently the very worst country in the entire world, a kind of global blight which has to be expunged altogether from civilised society if not from the face of the earth. . .
"Few government ministers grasp the nature and scale of what is happening. Most don't think there is a problem, and many of those who do think it is Israel's own fault. . . While many Tory backbenchers support Israel, the government, with some very honourable exceptions, is hostile. . .
"The callow and opportunistic Cameroons are blank slates upon which can be written the fashionable bigotry and historical illiteracy of our times.
"The Cameron government did not create the madness now raging against Israel. It could, however, control it by standing up for truth and justice against lies and prejudice. Typically, it is choosing to fan the flames of ignorance and hatred instead."
One story that was not overburdened by media coverage in the UK: Thousands of demonstrators armed with sledgehammers broke into the Israeli embassy in Cairo last week and sacked and set fire to the building, dumping the Israeli flag and hundreds of documents - some of them classified - through the windows as police looked on.
Israeli officials were unable to contact Field Marshal Mohammed Tantawi, head of the Supreme Military Council, currently the ruling power in Egypt, because no one knew where he was. Or so they said. It was only hours later, after the US intervened, that Egyptian security forces rescued a few Israelis who had locked themselves in a secure part of the building, evidently fearing for their lives.
It is suggested the field marshal delayed in order to demonstrate that a future administration would need the military to keep order. Instead, he appears to have demonstrated that it will be Islamic militants, not the military, who will control Egypt.
The Israeli ambassador and 80 staff and families were taken from their homes and lifted out of Egypt on two Israeli military planes. The Israeli Prime Minister said despite the attack, Israel would keep its peace treaty with Cairo.
Meanwhile, Israel has not forgotten how to defend herself. You will find an interesting insight into the work of some of the most important people in Israel's Defence Forces by clicking here.
Increasingly in recent years universities have become hotbeds of antisemitism.After Edinburgh University Student Association voted to boycott Israel because they decided it was an apartheid state, I was pleased to note that novelist and erstwhile academic Denis MacEoin wrote an open letter to the Association.The letter is copied below, in full:
The Committee
Edinburgh University Student Association
May I be permitted to say a few words to members of the EUSA? I am an Edinburgh graduate (MA 1975) who studied Persian, Arabic and Islamic History in Buccleuch Place under William Montgomery Watt and Laurence Elwell Sutton, two of Britain's great Middle East experts in their day. I later went on to do a PhD at Cambridge and to teach Arabic and Islamic Studies at Newcastle University. Naturally, I am the author of several books and hundreds of articles in this field.
I say all that to show that I am well informed in Middle Eastern affairs and that, for that reason, I am shocked and disheartened by the EUSA motion and vote. I am shocked for a simple reason: there is not and has never been a system of apartheid in Israel. That is not my opinion, that is fact that can be tested against reality by any Edinburgh student, should he or she choose to visit Israel to see for themselves.
Let me spell this out, since I have the impression that those members of EUSA who voted for this motion are absolutely clueless in matters concerning Israel, and that they are, in all likelihood, the victims of extremely biased propaganda coming from the anti-Israel lobby. Being anti-Israel is not in itself objectionable. But I'm not talking about ordinary criticism of Israel. I'm speaking of a hatred that permits itself no boundaries in the lies and myths it pours out. Thus, Israel is repeatedly referred to as a 'Nazi' state. In what sense is this true, even as a metaphor? Where are the Israeli concentration camps? The einzatsgruppen? The SS? The Nuremberg Laws? The Final Solution? None of these things nor anything remotely resembling them exists in Israel, precisely because the Jews, more than anyone on earth, understand what Nazism stood for. It is claimed that there has been an Israeli Holocaust in Gaza (or elsewhere). Where? When? No honest historian would treat that claim with anything but the contempt it deserves. But calling Jews Nazis and saying they have committed a Holocaust is as basic a way to subvert historical fact as anything I can think of.
Likewise apartheid. For apartheid to exist, there would have to be a situation that closely resembled things in South Africa under the apartheid regime. Unfortunately for those who believe this, a weekend in any part of Israel would be enough to show how ridiculous the claim is. That a body of university students actually fell for this and voted on it is a sad comment on the state of modern education. The most obvious focus for apartheid would be the country's 20% Arab population. Under Israeli law, Arab Israelis have exactly the same rights as Jews or anyone else; Muslims have the same rights as Jews or Christians; Baha'is, severely persecuted in Iran, flourish in Israel, where they have their world centre; Ahmadi Muslims, severely persecuted in Pakistan and elsewhere, are kept safe by Israel; the holy places of all religions are protected under a specific Israeli law. Arabs form 20% of the university population (an exact echo of their percentage in the general population). In Iran, the Baha'is (the largest religious minority) are forbidden to study in any university or to run their own universities: why aren't your members boycotting Iran?
Arabs in Israel can go anywhere they want, unlike blacks in apartheid South Africa. They use public transport, they eat in restaurants, they go to swimming pools, they use libraries, they go to cinemas alongside Jews - something no blacks could do in South Africa. Israeli hospitals not only treat Jews and Arabs, they also treat Palestinians from Gaza or the West Bank. In the same wards, in the same operating theatres.
In Israel, women have the same rights as men: there is no gender apartheid. Gay men and women face no restrictions, and Palestinian gays often escape into Israel, knowing they may be killed at home. It seems bizarre to me that LGBT groups call for a boycott of Israel and say nothing about countries like Iran, where gay men are hanged or stoned to death. That illustrates a mindset that beggars belief. Intelligent students thinking it's better to be silent about regimes that kill gay people, but good to condemn the only country in the Middle East that rescues and protects gay people. Is that supposed to be a sick joke?
University is supposed to be about learning to use your brain, to think rationally, to examine evidence, to reach conclusions based on solid evidence, to compare sources, to weigh up one view against one or more others. If the best Edinburgh can now produce are students who have no idea how to do any of these things, then the future is bleak. I do not object to well documented criticism of Israel. I do object when supposedly intelligent people single the Jewish state out above states that are horrific in their treatment of their populations. We are going through the biggest upheaval in the Middle East since the 7th and 8th centuries, and it's clear that Arabs and Iranians are rebelling against terrifying regimes that fight back by killing their own citizens. Israeli citizens, Jews and Arabs alike, do not rebel (although they are free to protest). Yet Edinburgh students mount no demonstrations and call for no boycotts against Libya, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Iran. They prefer to make false accusations against one of the world's freest countries, the only country in the Middle East that has taken in Darfur refugees, the only country in the Middle East that gives refuge to gay men and women, the only country in the Middle East that protects the Baha'is. . . Need I go on? The imbalance is perceptible, and it sheds no credit on anyone who voted for this boycott.
I ask you to show some common sense. Get information from the Israeli embassy. Ask for some speakers. Listen to more than one side. Do not make your minds up until you have given a fair hearing to both parties. You have a duty to your students, and that is to protect them from one-sided argument. They are not at university to be propagandized. And they are certainly not there to be tricked into anti-Semitism by punishing one country among all the countries of the world, which happens to be the only Jewish state. If there had been a single Jewish state in the 1930s (which, sadly, there was not), don't you think Adolf Hitler would have decided to boycott it? Of course he would, and he would not have stopped there. Your generation has a duty to ensure that the perennial racism of anti-Semitism never sets down roots among you. Today, however, there are clear signs that it has done so and is putting down more. You have a chance to avert a very great evil, simply by using reason and a sense of fair play. Please tell me that this makes sense to you. I have given you some of the evidence. It's up to you to find out more.
Yours sincerely,
Dr. Denis MacEoin
When Jesus was down here, it was evident that He wasn't here for ever. But while He was here, there was one thing He made abundantly clear. He will return.He spoke about it often. He told parables about it. Many books of the Bible talk about it. Some devote whole chapters to it.
The book of Revelation, speaking in prophecy about that time, says "Let us be glad and rejoice and give him glory, for the marriage of the Lamb has come, and his wife has made herself ready" (Rev 19:7). Jesus is the Heavenly Bridegroom; those who know Him are His bride. One day He will come to take them home.
Notice it doesn't say "will hope to be ready" or "will make herself ready," but "has made herself ready." For most brides, their wedding day will be the most important day of their lives. You can't just walk into a church and get married in your lunch hour. There are preparations to be made: the church to book, bridesmaids to be chosen, bridal wear to be selected and the reception to arrange.
So how do you make yourself ready for His coming?
You must make sure that Jesus has first place in your affections. Not your husband. Not your wife. Not your children. Not anything else. But Jesus. If you want to have a successful marriage, don't put your spouse first. Put Jesus first, and everything else will fall into place.
You need to have a longing for that day. Before you were married, do you remember how you counted the days to your wedding? Hebrews says He will appear a second time "to those who eagerly wait for Him." Those who love Him are strangers and pilgrims in this world. They have another home being prepared specially for them. And it's much better than the one they have now. Each day they spend here is one day less and one day nearer.
And then we need to be busy doing what we're expected to be doing. The Scripture in Revelation that says "the marriage of the Lamb has come, and his wife has made herself ready" goes on: "And to her it was granted to be arrayed in fine linen, clean and bright, for the fine linen represents the righteous acts of the saints."
Live today as though today is all you have. After all, we have no guarantee that we'll still be here tomorrow.
"Behold, I come quickly!" (Rev 3:11).
There are an estimated 85 Islamic sharia courts in Britain. There is no objection to their providing mediation in religious matters, but there have been concerns that they should not deal with matters of family and criminal law, thus providing an alternative to the British legal system.
A UK Ministry of Justice inquiry into the operation of sharia courts in Britain was scrapped - because the Muslim courts refused to co-operate.
Jihad Watch says: "As has been the case in Britain, Sharia's proponents [in Germany] got their foot in the door with pleas for just a little Sharia, just for a few community matters. Then, the reality hits that Sharia is a package deal; as even Imam Rauf has noted, 'it is not possible in principle to limit the Shari'ah to some aspects of human life and leave out others.'
"And so commences a process of 'jurisdiction creeping.' There is no such thing as 'just a little' Sharia."
With regard to the situation in Germany, Jihad Watch quotes from an article in Der Spiegel:
In mosques or tearooms, Muslim elders dispense verdicts that keep their communities in line. They mediate between aggrieved immigrants, sometimes at the expense of German justice. Some say the arbitrations ease caseloads in court, but others see the creeping advance of Sharia law.
The men ambushed Fuat S. on the street, then locked him in a basement and tortured him. Fuat was later admitted to the hospital in Berlin's Neukolln district with gaping wounds, contusions and broken bones.
Police took his statement concerning the attack the same night. Fuat S., a gambler and a recipient of "Hartz IV" - Germany's social welfare benefits for the long-term unemployed - gave a detailed statement. He'd conned an acquaintance, Mustafa O., out of €150,000 ($217,000) and the man was taking his revenge, Fuat said, along with his three brothers. They hit his hands, arms and knees with a hammer and threatened to shoot him.
The public prosecutor's office in Berlin initiated proceedings against Mustafa O., a Palestinian man who had come to their attention repeatedly for violent acts. Police had investigated him in a number of cases, and now prosecutors saw an opportunity to convict a dangerous repeat offender. But when the case began, Fuat S., the principle [sic] witness, unexpectedly withdrew his testimony. It was not Mustafa who had tortured him, he said, but an Albanian man he didn't know. Mustafa, he said, wasn't even in the basement at the time. This was clearly a lie, as police analysis of telephone data showed, but the judge was forced to acquit the defendant due to lack of evidence.
The decision, in fact, was reached by a different judge. According to police, the victim's and the perpetrator's families had met at a restaurant in the presence of an Islamic "justice of the peace," an arbitrator who mediates conflicts between Muslims. The two families had reached a compromise: Fuat would drop the charges, and in exchange be relieved of part of his debt.
According to Bernhard Mix, the public prosecutor in charge of the case, Fuat's false testimony was part of a deal between the families. "It's difficult to establish the truth using legal means, when the perpetrator and the victim reach an agreement," he says.
Politicians and social workers tend to focus on forced marriages and honor killings, but the baleful influence of these Islamic arbitrators has gone largely unnoticed by the public. Joachim Wagner, an author and television journalist of many years, has taken a closer look at the phenomenon in his book "Richter ohne Gesetz" ("Judges without Laws"). Reconstructing Mustafa O.'s case, he reaches the conclusion that "the Islamic parallel justice system is becoming a threat to the constitutional legal system."
These justices of the peace don't wear robes. Their courtrooms are mosques or teahouses. They draw their authority not from the law, but from their standing within the community. Most of them are senior members of their families, or imams, and some even fly in from Turkey or Lebanon to resolve disputes. Muslims seek them out when families argue, when daughters take up with unbelievers or when clans clash. They often trust these arbitrators more than they trust the state.
The late juvenile court judge Kirsten Heisig drew attention the the problem a year ago: "The law is slipping out of our hands. It's moving to the streets, or into a parallel system where an imam or another representative of the Koran determines what must be done."
The question is: are similar things happening in Britain? It's a question that deserves serious investigation.
Wilf Cooper, of Lockleaze, Bristol, gave his wife to understand that he was going to six half-marathon races to put up barriers and help with the race.In fact, he was one of the runners. His wife found out when a neighbour spotted him on television. "He was in the doghouse that day, I can tell you," she says.
The reason for his subterfuge: Mr Cooper is 90 years old, and his wife worries about him. (They have been married for 67 years.) Despite having been found out, he wants to race one more time while he's able.
A marathon runner at 90, you say? What next! But wait.
The Daily Mail reports that the first person to sign up for the 2012 Edinburgh marathon is 100 years old.
Fauja Singh, who used to live in the Punjab but now lives in the UK, was born on April 1, 1911. He has run five marathons in London, one in Toronto and one in New York.
He is pictured with a long white beard, an orange turban - Mr Singh is a Sikh - sports gear and a massive pair of trainers.
The secret of a long and happy life, he says, is to be stress-free. ("Stay away from people who are negative, stay smiling and keep running.") And the diet he chooses to keep him running is plenty of ginger curry and copious amounts of tea.
Plenty of ginger curry and copious amounts of tea would probably spur me on, too. But not, I think, to running marathons.
What a commotion.
MP Nadine Dorries has proposed an amendment to the Health and Social Care Bill to the effect that women considering abortion should be offered NHS-funded counselling by an independent organisation that does not itself provide abortions and does not have a financial interest in the women's decision.
Opponents of the amendment say the intention is to take counselling out of the hand of organisations like Maries Stopes and BPAS, who also do abortions (and profit handsomely from them).
Mrs Dorries, who says the abortion lobby has reacted with almost hysterical outrage, claims to have been subjected to constant vilification and near-daily death threats.
Pro-abortion campaigners accuse Mrs Dorries of "pushing things down women's throats." She says independent counselling would only be for women who wanted it. The independent organisation suggested to offer counselling would not be a religious-affiliated group, but the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy.
(Some pro-lifers have suggested such a move could save 60,000 babies' lives each year).
"All I want is for women to have more choice, more guidance, so they can make a well-informed decision. Why should all these campaigners be anxious about women being offered independent advice?" she says. "If they are really pro-choice as they pretend, they would support my proposal."
Prime Minister David Cameron is said to be sympathetic to pregnant women being able to have independent advice and counselling and he will grant Conservative MPs a free vote on the issue, but he will not vote for the Dorries proposal because he is concerned that it would prevent abortion providers providing counselling as well.
The BBC says the Government has written to all MPs to tell them that health ministers will vote against the Dorries amendment, but Downing Street said no pressure was being applied to Conservative MPs to vote in a particular way.
Archbishop Cranmer says that before the General Election Mr Cameron promised a free vote on the upper time limit for abortion, but said it must remain a conscience issue and a free vote. And when women are offered a free choice in counselling, says Cranmer, what does he do?
"He writes to every Conservative MP, putting pressure on them to vote against the amendment. . . He knows full well that a letter from Government to all his MPs functions effectively as a three-line whip. Those who seek favour and enhancement will cave in, despite 92% of them supporting the amendment in their consciences."
The 92 per cent he mentions refers to a ComRes poll sponsored by the Right to Know Campaign which said that 92 per cent of MPs supported the principle that women considering abortion should have access to advice from someone who had no financial interest in the outcome of their decision.
What a commotion, indeed.
The matter will be debated in the House of Commons tomorrow.
May common sense and righteousness prevail.
Since the Tony Bland case in 1993, UK courts have granted permission for food and water to be withdrawn from more than 40 patients in so-called persistent vegetative state, thus causing their deaths.
