A Christian doctor who refused to refer to a biological man as a woman has lost his court case, with a British court ruling that belief in the Bible is “incompatible with human dignity.”
Dr David Mackereth, a doctor with over two decades experience with the National Health Service, was dismissed by the Department for Work and Pensions on the grounds that refusing to call a patient by their preferred pronoun was “harassment” under the UK’s Equality Act.
Dr Mackareth has previously said that “Christians must be able to hold and express their faith in private and public and to uphold Biblical and scientific truths without fear of losing their livelihoods”.
But a British court ruled against the doctor.
“Belief in Genesis 1:27, lack of belief in transgenderism and conscientious objection to transgenderism in our judgment are incompatible with human dignity and conflict with the fundamental rights of others, specifically here, transgender individuals”, said the court.
The court went on to say that “in so far as those beliefs form part of his wider faith, his wider faith also does not satisfy the requirement of being worthy of respect in a democratic society, not incompatible with human dignity and not in conflict with the fundamental rights of others.”
Dr Mackarth said he was not alone in being disturbed by the court’s decision.
“Staff in the NHS, even those who do not share my Christian convictions, are also disturbed as they see their own freedom of thought and speech being undermined by the judges’ ruling.
“No doctor, or researcher, or philosopher, can demonstrate or prove that a person can change sex.
“Without intellectual and moral integrity, medicine cannot function and my 30 years as a doctor are now considered irrelevant compared to the risk that someone else might be offended”, he added.
Andrea Williams, the chief executive of the Christian Legal Centre, said that “it is deeply disturbing that this is the first time in the history of English law that a judge has ruled that free citizens must engage in compelled speech”.
Dr Mackereth says he will appeal the decision.
“I believe that I have to appeal in order to fight for the freedom of Christians – and any other NHS member of staff – to speak the truth.
“If they cannot, then freedom of speech has died in this country, with serious ramifications for the practice of medicine in the UK,” he said.
International experience reveals protection for doctors, but not for patients.
A Dutch court has cleared a doctor who performed euthanasia on a woman with dementia.
Medical Express reported that the “patient was given fatal doses of drugs despite some indications she might have changed her mind since declaring in writing that she wanted euthanasia.”
According to Medical Express:
The court ruled that in rare cases of euthanasia that were being performed on patients with severe dementia—and who had earlier made a written request for euthanasia—the doctor “did not have to verify the current desire to die.”
Judges at The Hague District Court ruled that the doctor met all criteria for carrying out euthanasia under the Dutch law legalizing mercy killing by physicians.
The doctor was accused of not acting with due care because, prosecutors alleged, she made insufficient efforts to find out whether the patient still wanted to die. To carry out the euthanasia, the physician drugged the patient’s coffee without her knowledge and then had family members restrain the woman while delivering the fatal injection.
Euthanasia Expertise Center spokesman Steven Pleiter approved of the decision.
“It feels good for people in the Netherlands that this is a clear view of the judges and court that it is possible to give euthanasia to a person who is not mentally competent any longer,” he said.
While a spokesman for the prosecution department said that they would carefully consider the judgment before deciding whether to apply to have it overturned.
Medical Express further reported that:
Under Dutch law, people are eligible for euthanasia if they make a considered, voluntary request for it and if their suffering is hopelessly “unbearable.” Patients can draw up a written request for euthanasia to be performed sometime in the future, in an advance directive, which should specify the conditions determining when they want to be euthanized. Doctors must also seek the advice of at least one other independent physician before killing the patient.
Dutch investigators began scrutinizing the case last September, marking the first time a doctor was criminally investigated for euthanasia.
The 74-year-old woman had renewed her living will about a year before she died, writing that she wanted to be euthanized “whenever I think the time is right.” Later, the patient said several times in response to being asked if she wanted to die: “But not just now, it’s not so bad yet!” according to a report from the Dutch regional euthanasia review committee.
In announcing the verdict, the court said the patient no longer recognized her own reflection in the mirror.
Suzanne van de Vathorst, an ethics professor from Erasmus University, disapproved of the decision.
“There’s a living, breathing person in front of you who is not aware that you’re performing euthanasia,” she said. “This is a very difficult thing to do and we cannot oblige doctors to do this.”
This international example of dangerous bias in euthanasia ‘protections’, may also be driving the euthanasia agenda of the WA Labor Government, according to FamilyVoice WA Director Darryl Budge,
“Amber-Jade Sanderson, who authored the WA Government’s parliamentary report on euthanasia, claimed on Flashpoint on Channel 9, ‘We can provide a safe and compassionate system that will protect doctors and also provide dying people a choice of how they will die,’” Mr Budge said.
“However, WA Health Minister Roger Cook told Parliament, ‘The [VAD] bill does not require any regulations to be made.’ He then added, ‘It is not anticipated that any regulations will be made under this bill.’
“However, Ms Sanderson told Flashpoint, ‘We don’t write regulations until bills are passed’, leaving viewers to assume that patient protections will be strengthened, despite the Health Minister denying any plans to do so.
“Therefore it appears that the WA government has prioritized legal protection for doctors. The emphasis seems to be on the autonomy of patients, without much regard for the many avenues for abuse, doctor steering, and ignorance of patients’ mental health,” Mr Budge concluded.
A South African doctor is facing unprofessional conduct charges after he told a woman biological truths about her unborn child, in a situation likely to be repeated here in Australia.
According to FamilyVoice spokesman David d’Lima, Australian doctors could face the same treatment as more jurisdictions become pro-abortion.
“It’s appalling that the South African doctor, Jacques de Vos, would find himself in trouble simply for saying that a foetus is a human being, and saying abortion takes a human life.
“Every unborn child is a being – it has existence – and is fully human genetically,” David d’Lima said.
“The little one simply needs time to become bigger, but is fully formed in its complexity by about 10-12 weeks, when most abortions sadly occur.
“Moves to widen access to abortion in New South Wales and South Australia will produce more loss of life in the womb and can only bring further restrictions on free speech and the expression of biological truth.”
WA's most senior end-of-life care specialists are concerned that an alarming lack of palliative care resources has caused increased demand for euthanasia.
Today, Legislative Assembly MPs will begin debating a bill to legalise euthanasia and doctor-assisted suicide.
According to the doctors, WA has the lowest number of publicly funded care beds per capita in the nation.
WA Palliative Medicines Specialist Group chairman Anil Tandon told WA Today that only one in three Western Australians who needed specialist palliative care had access to it.
Royal Perth Hospital only provided specialist palliative care during office hours, according to Professor Doug Bridge, the former head of palliative care at the hospital.
"I worked at Royal Perth for 20 years as head of department and still five years later I look and there's still no palliative care people on the weekend," he said.
"So Friday night, a patient is in pain, vomiting, breathless, they have to wait until Monday morning to see a specialist. You can't afford to pay them and that's been going on for decades."
Dr Tandon stated that it was no coincidence that states with the worst palliative care were the most supportive of euthanasia.
"If we join those two issues together, the current investment in palliative care and the current demand for euthanasia, what we see is that the two states with the lowest funding for palliative care are Victoria and Western Australia," he said.
"If there hasn't been an investment, well the public is going to want a solution to their distress."
There are only 15 full-time-equivalent palliative care specialists across WA, well under the 50 FTE positions recommended by national benchmarks.
Darryl Budge of FamilyVoice WA said, “In a state with dire statistics relating to elder abuse, mental health and youth suicide, the WA government must instead fix chronic underfunding of palliative care, especially as regional and rural WA are being denied equal access to specialists.
"WA has under one third of the palliative care specialists required by national benchmarks and the state needs more than $100 million in annual spending on palliative care for staffing and education, in addition to funding for infrastructure such as palliative care wards and beds.
"Wrongful deaths are guaranteed by this bill, which has even less safeguards than Victoria. No permit will be required to ensure a legal and robust process. There is no requirement for expert assessment of patient capacity. Evidence from WA’s chief psychiatrist on the importance of psychiatric assessments was ignored. Patients will be able to “doctor-shop” for any two doctors, who do not need to be financially independent, nor have expertise in palliative care or in the patient’s condition. The doctors can also hide the true cause of death on the death certificate."
Barnaby Joyce has threatened to leave the National Party after a reported backlash from NSW Nationals colleagues over his stance against a radical abortion bill.
It has been reported that NSW Nationals MPs are pushing to have him expelled because of his pro-life stance.
In response, Joyce has upped the ante and sought to call his colleagues’ bluff, saying that if four members of the NSW Nationals publicly state they do not support him, he will quit and become an independent.
Joyce has been an outspoken critic of the extreme NSW abortion bill, saying earlier this month that “two doctors does not equal God”.
“Just because they’re doctors does not mean they have a right to determine whether a healthy person lives or dies,” he said.
Joyce has even invoked his newborn son Tom.
“On 1 June Vikki's and my son Tom took his first breath,” he said in a recent speech in parliament.
“This was not the start of his life. The reality is that he was part of this world for some time and was merely passing from one room to another.
“The hour of birth is an arbitrary point in modern medicine, within a range of two to three months. His birth, to Tom, did not endow him with greater meaning as a person. As parents we had no lesser responsibilities than when Tom left the hospital, being totally reliant on our nurturing and protection.
“Inside the womb, Tom kicked, punched, grabbed his umbilical cord, felt pain, slept and dreamed. With ultrasound, he was most certainly seen in real human form. To say he didn't have the rights of other human life is to say he must have been subhuman,” Joyce said.
Former deputy prime minister John Anderson has warned that Nationals voters could abandon the party because of the “very messy” NSW abortion debate¬, according to The Australian.
“People like my wife will feel truly alienated from the party that she’s been a part of ever since she married me,” Mr Anderson said.
The legislation has been widely condemned.
“The bill is a bad one,”, said Catholic Archbishop Anthony Fisher. “It will require Catholic (and other) doctors and hospitals to collaborate by either taking part in the abortion or referring patients to someone who will.”
Likewise, Archbishop Makarios, the Primate of the Greek Orthodox Church of Australia, has criticised the legislation.
“The Orthodox Christian Faith and Tradition unequivocally teach that life begins form the first time of conception, that the life of the unborn is sacred and infinitely valued by God, and therefore must be considered with the same dignity and worth we enjoy ourselves,” he said.
“Tragically, the right to life of the indefensible unborn child is increasingly violated despite the protection and advancement of many other rights.”
Archbishop Makarios said NSW MPs should support pregnant mothers by offering alternatives to abortion.
FamilyVoice Australia upholds Christian values and the family: permanence of marriage, sanctity of human life, primacy of parenthood and limited government.
Don't miss out on quality research and news that will equip you to face the culture wars.
Join the growing movement of young people daring to be counter-cultural.