Minister of Health,

Parliament Building,

Wellington.

Dear Mr Ryall

Re: Official Information Act Request – Embryonic Stem Cell Research

I wish to request under the Official Information Act a copy of the recommendations if any from the Ministry of Health to you on the recommendation of the Advisory Committee on Assisted Reproductive Technology [ACART] to allow for the experimentation on spare embryos stored in IVF clinics in New Zealand.

In your letter of 23 June 2009 to this Society you advised that you had not made a decision on this matter. I would be grateful if you would advise if you have now made a decision in response to the above recommendation of ACART. Our Society continues to be opposed to  experimentation on human embryos.

Yours sincerely

Ken Orr

Secretary

Each year at the annual March for Life in Washington, DC the International Down Syndrome Coalition for Life joins the march and members carry large laminated photos of our precious kids.  I received the photo below from the IDSC to let me know that Chloe participated in this year’s March – the smallest voice can have the largest impact!  Please check out my site (Stop Aborting Down Syndrome Individuals Now)  http://sadsin.blogspot.com/

Blessings,

Kurt Kondrich

From the International Down syndrome Coalition for Life http://idscforlife.wordpress.com/

Ken Orr

For Right to Life Executive

2. This statement explores the ways the Council expects doctors to approach
some of the issues arising from their personal beliefs and those of their
patients. It attempts to balance doctors’ and patients’ rights – including the
right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and the entitlement to
care and treatment to meet clinical needs – and advises doctors on what to
do when those rights conflict.
3. While the Council does not impose unnecessary restrictions on doctors, we
expect doctors to be prepared to set aside their own beliefs where this is
necessary in order to provide care in line with the principles outlined in Good
medical practice.
Doctors’ personal beliefs and patient care
4. Your first duty as a doctor is to make the care of the presenting patient your
first concern, whatever their medical need. Patients are entitled to expect that
you will offer them good quality care based on your clinical knowledge and in
accordance with this statement.
5. Investigations or treatment should be provided on the basis of the
assessment you and the patient make of his or her needs and priorities, and
on your clinical judgement about the likely effectiveness of the treatment
options.1
6. You must not allow any personal views that you hold about patients to
prejudice your assessment of their clinical needs, negatively affect your
relationship with them or delay or restrict their access to care. This includes
where you believe that the patient’s actions have contributed to their condition
as well as your views about their age, culture, disability, ethnic or national
origin, gender, lifestyle, marital or parental status, race, religion or beliefs,
sex, sexual orientation, or social or economic status.
1 Good medical practice, clause 21
7. You should not normally discuss your personal beliefs with patients. You
must not impose your beliefs on patients, or cause distress by the
inappropriate or insensitive expression of religious, political or other beliefs or
views. Equally, you must not put pressure on patients to discuss or justify
their beliefs (or the absence of them). Recognise when your actions might
not be acceptable or might be offensive to patients2.
8. However, you must advise patients – both in person and in printed materials
such as practice leaflets – about any treatments or procedures that you
choose not to provide or arrange because of your personal beliefs, but which
are not otherwise prohibited.
9. Challenge colleagues if their behaviour does not comply with this guidance.
Ensure patients receive all the information they want or need
10. Give patients all information they want or need to know about:
• Their condition and its likely progression.
• Treatment options, including expected risks, side effects, costs and
benefits3.
11. You must not withhold information about the existence of a procedure or
treatment because carrying it out or giving advice about it conflicts with your
personal beliefs.
12. If you have an ethical concern about providing a service that is not prohibited
by law or a statutory code of practice, you should be aware of who else in
the area can provide this service. You should advise patients who request
this service of the options available to access the service.
13. In such cases you must tell patients of their right to see another doctor with
whom they can discuss their situation and must ensure that they have
sufficient information to exercise that right. In deciding whether the patient
has sufficient information, you must explore with the patient what information
they already have, and what information they may need.
Making a referral
14. If the patient cannot readily make their own arrangements to see another
doctor you must ensure that arrangements are made, without delay, for
another doctor to take over his or her care. You must not obstruct patients
from accessing services or leave them with nowhere to turn. Ensure that your
staff understand and comply with this guidance.
15. Work with colleagues in ways that best serve the presenting patients’
interests4.
16. If you refer the patient, ensure that the practitioner you refer to has
appropriate training, expertise and experience and is able to provide the
services requested with appropriate care and skill in accordance with this
guide.
2 Statement on cultural competence, clause 15c
3 Good medical practice, clause 13. For more information, refer to the Council’s statement on
Information and consent.
4 Good medical practice, foreword.
17. Whatever your personal beliefs may be about the treatment or procedure in
question, you must be respectful of the patient’s dignity and views.
18. Take steps to ensure the patient’s privacy is respected and protected.
19. The local funding agency should ensure that all the costs to the patient of
travelling outside the area for services are met when there is no other
practitioner in the area who can provide that service. Advise the patient
about how to access that funding.
20. If your role involves arranging treatment or carrying out procedures that
conflict with your personal beliefs, you should explain your objection to your
employer or contracting body. You should explore constructively with them
how to resolve the difficulty without compromising patient care, and without
placing an unreasonable burden on colleagues5.
Advance directives
21. Always respect a patient’s wishes expressed in an advance directive, unless
the patient is being treated under specific legislation such as the Mental
Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Amendment Act 1992.
Advance directives have legal standing under the Code of Health and
Disability Services Consumers’ Rights. If you hold a moral objection, you
should transfer responsibility for the patient to another doctor6.
Patients’ personal beliefs
22. Trust and good communication are essential components of the doctorpatient
relationship. You must respect patients’ rights to hold religious or
other beliefs and should take those beliefs into account where they may be
relevant to treatment options. However, if patients do not wish to discuss
their personal beliefs with you, you must respect those wishes.
23. Demonstrate the ability to work with the patient’s cultural beliefs, values and
practices in developing a relevant management plan7. Work in partnership
with patients by:
• Listening to them and responding to their concerns and preferences.
• Respecting their right to reach decisions with you about their
treatment and care8.
• Making sure the patient agrees before you provide treatment or
investigate their condition.
24. Respect the patient’s right to decline treatment9.
25. Occasionally, when people are unable to comment or refuse to consent to
treatment, a legal opinion should be sought whether to seek authority from
the High Court. Such cases may include:
5 Refer to the Council’s statement on A doctor’s duty to help in an emergency for guidance on
what your responsibilities are when urgent care is required.
6 Good medical practice, clause 24
7 Statement on cultural competence, clause 15d
8 Good medical practice, foreword
9 Good medical practice, clause 15
(a) a blood transfusion or caesarean section to save life; or
(b) termination of treatment to allow the patient to die peacefully,
for example patients in permanent vegetative states; or
(c) sterilisation of a patient who is unable to consent but for whom
the family and other carers, supported by medical opinion,
request the operation to enhance the quality of life of the
patient and prevent deterioration in his or her physical or
mental health10; or
(d) a dispute between parents about the treatment to be provided
to a child.
Specific requirements relating to contraception and abortion
26. The Contraception, Sterilisation and Abortion Act 1977 sets out the
procedures and requirements for an abortion as well as the responsibilities of
medical practitioners. If you work in a field where you are likely to encounter
patients requesting an abortion, you should make yourself familiar with this
Act.
27. While the Council recognises that you are entitled to hold your own beliefs, it
remains your responsibility to ensure that a pregnant woman who comes to
you for medical care and expresses doubt about continuing with the
pregnancy is provided with or is offered access to objective information or
assistance to enable her to make informed decisions on all available options
for her pregnancy including termination.
28. If you object on the grounds of conscience to providing advice or other
services with respect to contraception, sterilisation, abortion or other
reproductive health matters you are required, under section 174 of the Health
Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003, to inform the person
requesting the service that he or she may obtain that service from another
health practitioner or a family planning clinic. In doing so, you must ensure
that the referral is timely and complies with the guidance outlined in
paragraphs 14-20 of this document.
29. If a funder or employer decides to fund an abortion or contraception service,
do not allow your personal beliefs to interfere in the implementation of that
service.
30. You have no legal or ethical right to refuse to provide medical care to a
patient who is awaiting or has undergone a termination of pregnancy, on
grounds of a conscientious objection to the procedure. The same principle
applies to the care of patients before or following any other procedure from
which you have withdrawn because of your beliefs.
31. Access to abortion is not restricted on grounds of age11. The consent of a
parent or guardian is not required in order for a child or young person to
access abortion information or services. However, that young person must
receive the same counselling and approval by a certifying consultant as any
other woman seeking an abortion.
10 Council’s statement on Information and consent, clause 18
11 The Care of Children Act 2004.
32. There is no restriction on a doctor giving contraceptive advice, or prescribing
contraception to people under the age of 16, without consent from their
parents. Minors have the same right to privacy as any other person.
Male infant and pre-pubescent circumcision
33. You should use your professional judgement when a request is made for
routine infant and pre-pubescent male circumcision. While the preference of
the parents and their cultural and religious beliefs are important, factors like
the best available evidence regarding potential benefits and complications,
alternatives to this intervention and the child’s best interest should be
discussed with the parents.
Female circumcision
34. Female genital mutilation – sometimes referred to as female circumcision – is
a serious crime and also a child protection issue, whether undertaken in the
New Zealand or abroad. You must decline to perform these procedures and
must refuse to refer the patient to any other person or the purpose of having
these procedures performed. If you learn that such a procedure has been
performed or is being contemplated you must notify appropriate child
protection or law enforcement agencies. If you treat a patient who has
undergone these procedures, treat them with sensitivity and compassion.
Other relevant Council resources
• Good medical practice
• Statement on cultural competence
• Information and consent
• Cole’s Medical practice in New Zealand
The Medical Council of New Zealand also acknowledges the work done by the
General Medical Council in this area, particularly its resource booklet “Personal
beliefs and medical practice”.
March 2009
This statement is scheduled for review by March 2014. Legislative changes may make this statement obsolete
before this review date.

Investigate Magazine.

Dear Ian

The Right to Debate

In response to Judith Hill, February edition. Your correspondent propounds a hedonistic, secular and utilitarian quality of life ethic which proposes that only the fit have a right to life. This ethic is opposed to the sanctity of life ethic which respects the right to life of every human being from conception to natural death..The society that she proposes would sadly be selfish, uncaring and unloving. The message that she is giving to those with Down syndrome is that you are not welcome in society, you have nothing to contribute and you are a burden on the taxpayer. Every child is a gift from God that comes into this world to love and be loved. There is a more serious disability than Down syndrome and that is to fail to love.

The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights states that our human rights are inalienable and universal. Being inalienable they cannot be taken away from us and being universal they are conferred on every human being. She wrongfully claims that, "the concept of the "Right to life "does not apply to the fetus, let alone a malformed fetus." This is untrue, the Crimes Act 1961, recognises the fetus as an unborn child and having a right to life. Section 182 “ killing unborn child” states that to kill an unborn child in New Zealand is a serious crime and on conviction, the person convicted may be imprisoned for a term of up to 14 years. The Contraception Sterilisation and Abortion Act 1977, states in the long title that "abortions may be authorised after having full regard to the rights of the unborn child." Every unborn child including a child with Down syndrome is a unique and unrepeatable miracle of the Creators loving creation and should be accorded the respect due to the human person. Our human rights do not come from the state or from society. At conception the new human being is endowed by its Creator with human rights, the foundation of these rights is the right to life.  The unborn child is the weakest and most defenceless member of the human family and deserves our respect and protection. We all have a duty to defend life and the first duty of the state is to provide effective legal protection for the right to life of every member of the human family especially the weak and the defenceless. The writer falsely claims that it is not the business of anybody else, including politicians, whether a couple decide to terminate the life of their unborn child. That is incorrect, the state has a compelling interest in protecting the lives of future citizens and therefore is obligated in justice to provide effective legal protection for unborn children.

The United States Centre for Disease Control in Atlanta, states that the classification for Down syndrome is a "mild to moderate disability." Most children with Down syndrome participate in public and private educational programs. Educators and researchers are still discovering the full educational potential of people with Down syndrome. Today people with Down syndrome live at home with their families and are active participants in the educational, social and recreational activities of their community. People with Down syndrome are valued members of their families and their communities, contributing to society in a variety of ways. Women who have an unborn child diagnosed with Down syndrome need and deserve the support and compassion of the community to accept their child as a valued and loved member of the family and community.

Every abortion is the violation of the human rights of the unborn child. Abortions are excused for rare and serious reasons. under the Crimes Act. s 187A, [1] [aa], states that an abortion may be authorised on the following ground, “That there is a substantial risk that the child, if born, would be so physically or mentally abnormal as to be seriously handicapped…”This ground relates to a pregnancy of not more that 20 weeks gestation.

It is noted that the test for that section is that the handicap is serious. As the clinical definition for Down syndrome is a mild to moderate disability it is contended that Down syndrome does not meet the threshold of being serious.It is thus our Society’s opinion that; it is unlawful for certifying consultants to authorise an abortion, or for doctors to perform an abortion for Down syndrome, on the grounds of fetal abnormality as set out in the Crimes Act 1961, s [1] [aa].

Why then is the government promoting a culture of death by sanctioning and funding the unlawful killing of unborn children with Down syndrome?

Yours faithfully

Ken Orr

Spokesperson,

Right to Life New Zealand Inc.

Hon Tony Ryall,

Minister of Health,

Parliament Building,

Wellington.

Dear Mr Ryall

Down Syndrome, Search and Destroy – National Programme

Our Society wishes to express its concern and opposition to the new screening programme for Down syndrome. We view the screening of unborn babies for Down syndrome with a new national screening programme as a further manifestation of a culture of death. The screening is not for the benefit of the child, it is a search and destroy programme that has as its sole objective the termination of the lives of unborn children who have Down syndrome.

Human life begins at conception and at that point the newly conceived life is endowed by its Creator with inalienable human rights, the foundation right is a right to life. Our human rights are both inalienable and universal. The termination of the life of the unborn child is a violation of the human rights of the unborn child. A child does not forfeit its right to life because it has Down syndrome. The killing of an unborn child with Down syndrome is the ultimate discrimination against those with a disability.

This is eugenics which proclaims that only the perfect have a right to be born. The screening programme is a further major step on the slippery slope. The government seeks to conceal the true purpose of the programme by calling it a “quality improvement” rather than national screening programme. The government states that it is providing a service to families by giving them a choice whether to terminate the life of the child with Down syndrome or to allow the child to be born. We should be aware that this is part of a strategy of social conditioning. This important human rights issue raises several important questions.

• Has the government decided that children with Down syndrome are not valued or wanted in our community?
• Is it the government’s intention to encourage families to abort children with Down syndrome?
• This insidious option to terminate the life of the child will ultimately become a duty to kill the child before birth?
• Should we expect that with the acceptance of eugenics ultimately it may be expected that with the rationing of diminishing health resources that health care for the disabled will be restricted. 

The screening programme denies that unborn children with Down syndrome have an important contribution to make to the family and society; they should be valued, loved and respected.

The government should withdraw the screening programme and promote a culture of life by ensuring that families that have unborn children with Down syndrome receive compassion and are given all the encouragement, support needed to bring their child to birth. After the birth of their child they should be provided with the services necessary to assist them in providing for the special needs of their child.          

Yours sincerely

Ken Orr

Secretary

Pro-Abortion Violence: Setting the Record Straight      Why Women Abort      The Abuse of Population Control      Negative Effects of the Pill      Does Welfare Reduce Abortion?      Condoms      Fetal Development      Men & Abortion      Maternal Deaths      Obama v Life I: Before the Election

The letter posted below is posted as a ‘template’ and we encourage persons concerned about misuse of embryonic stem cell research to use it or modify it when writing to the Minister of Health Tony Ryall and also to their local MP concerning this issue. The writing of letters to express concern is regarded as a very important mechanism to advise the government of opposition to this proposed research which we see as a gross violation of the sanctity of human life.

Dear Sir,

I amopposed to the recommendation made to the Minister of Health, by the Advisory Committee on Assisted Reproductive Technology, [ACART] that permission be granted for the use of human embryos for embryonic stem cell research in New Zealand.

It is a scientific fact that human life begins at conception. At the moment of conception the human embryo is endowed by its Creator with human rights, the foundation of these rights is the right to life, these rights are inalienable and can not be taken away. From conception the human embryo should be accorded the respect that is due to the human person.

Human embryos are members of the human family and should be respected and protected.

Embryonic stem cell research entails the destruction of the human embryo. This is immoral and a violation of the human rights of the human embryo. The human embryo is not a potential human being but a unique and unrepeatable miracle of God’s loving creation. The destruction of the human embryo is a violation of the fifth commandment of God, Thou shalt not kill.

.ACART contends that the use of so called ‘spare embryo’s from IVF clinics for embryonic research is justified on the grounds that these embryo’s are not required for implantation and well be destroyed. The end does not justify the means. The destruction of human persons can never be justified to promote medical research. It is believed that there are between 5,000 to 7,000 human embryos stored and frozen in IVF Clinics in New Zealand.

We have had more than ten years of research on embryonic stem cell lines that have produced no medical cures. Right to life applauds ethical research with  umbilical cord stem cells and adult stem cells that have produced more than seventy treatments for medical conditions, many more are anticipated.

I request that you defend life by rejecting the recommendation of ACART to allow for the use of human embryos for research, and to reject an 18 months moratorium allowing for more research.

Ken Orr

For Right to Life

It gets worse, Professor Naomi Pfeffer, of London Metropolitan University, has recently complained that out- of- date regulations are preventing British scientists from using ’tissue’ from the 200,000 foetuses, which are aborted in England and Wales each year. She believes that woman are perfectly capable of giving informed consent (to use their aborted unborn children for medical research). She states that doctors will act ‘ethically’ in requesting the tissue. One has to wonder whose ethics she is talking about.

Two British scientists, Professor Sir Richard Gardner, an Oxford University stem cell expert, and Professor Stuart Campbell, a leading London ‘obstetrician’, have argued that tissue from aborted foetuses may be a more realistic fix than transplants from adults.  Professor Campbell told the London Daily Mail that he had no ethical objections. “Many babies were aborted quite late and if they are going to be terminated, it seems a shame to waste their organs”.

These are the kind of acts that Nazi war criminals were hung for after the Nuremberg Trials, and that it is now being touted by what are supposedly reputable British scientists and obstetricians is in our opinion, the stuff that nightmares are made of. Welcome to the brave new world, as incremental acclimatisation slowly but surely de-sensitises and strips every shred of human conscience and respect for the sanctity of innocent human life.

Chris O’Brien

For Right to Life

Right to Life New Zealand in the defence of life is totally opposed to the recommendation as being immoral and a violation of human rights. It is also an appalling exploitation of women who would be asked to give up their children for research and destruction..

It is a scientific fact that human life begins at conception. At the moment of conception the human embryo is endowed by its Creator with human rights, the foundation of these rights is the right to life, these rights are inalienable and can not be taken away. From conception the human embryo should be accorded the respect that is due to the human person. Human embryos are members of the human family and should be respected and protected.

Embryonic stem cell research entails the destruction of the human embryo. This is immoral and a violation of the human rights of the human embryo. The human embryo is a unique and unrepeatable miracle of God’s loving creation. The destruction of the human embryo is a violation of the fifth commandment of God, Thou shalt not kill.

ACART contends that the use of so called ‘spare embryo’s from IVF clinics for embryonic research is justified on the grounds that these embryo’s are not required for implantation and will be destroyed. The end does not justify the means. The destruction of human persons can never be justified to promote medical research. ACART also contends that the research would be ethical as the consent of the parents would be required. Right to Life contends that human embryos, human persons are not a commodity owned by the parents. Parents do not have a moral right to give consent to donate their children to medical science for research. To do so would be a grave dereliction of their duty to protect their offspring.

We have had more than ten years of research on embryonic stem cell lines that have produced no medical cures. Right to life applauds ethical research with umbilical cord stem cells and adult stem cells that have produced more than seventy treatments for medical conditions, many more are anticipated. It is suggested that the government encourage ethical medical research in New Zealand using adult stem cells that have very promising results for the cure of serious medical conditions such as paraplegia.

Right to Life has written to the Minister of Health requesting that he rejects the recommendation of ACART to allow research on human embryos. and to reject an alternative 18 months moratorium allowing for more research and consultation. We have also requested that he prohibit, cloning, the making of hybrid human / animal research animals and the genetic modification of human embryos for research. Right to Life encourages readers to right to the Minister of Health, Parliament Building, Wellington to express their opposition to this recommendation of ACART.