Voting Catholic ?

Embryonic threat
Wise and foolish bishops proclaimed their mixed messages for Easter.

Archbishop Rowan Williams had some thought provoking advice on the brevity of life and the futility or materialism. But Cardinal Keith O’Brien had a wild rant on Frankenstein babies.

Fairly, Lord Winston accused O’Brien of misleading the public with ‘lying’ statements. The row is futile. The bill will sail through the Commons with a majority of at least 200 even if some Catholic MPs vote against or abstain.

Amendments put down in the Lords pressing the Catholic views were overwhelmingly defeated. They are claimed to be 64 voting Catholic MPs out of 650. As with contraception not all  the Catholic MP s will agree with the church’s advice.

Others will judge it right to vote on behalf on their constituents not on the basis of their personal religious views. After all, none of them stood as ‘catholic’ candidates in their elections.

It would be foolish for the whips to try to browbeat MPs. The determined will vote with their consciences whatever the whips say. That was the view I gave to the whips two weeks ago. The common sense of the majority of MPs will ensure that this sensible timely measure is passed.

We have progressed since Galileo Galilei. The days when any Church could frustrate the advance of science have gone.

Unregulated Regulators
It’s not just our own drugs regulatory authority the MHRA that is held in contempt. The current edition of The Readers Digest hammers the American equivalent the FDA.

They say it’s lurching from one disaster to another, the 102-year-old agency learns of dangers too late and then moves too slowly to remedy them. Instead of depending on the FDA, Americans are doubting it -- and for good reason.

The greatest concern is here and in the USA is drug safety. FDA's financial dependence on pharmaceutical company user fees has led FDA leadership to regard industry-rather than the public--as the agency's clients. “The consequences of this mindset can be measured in hundreds of thousands of preventable tragedies, including deaths,” claims the magazine.

The complaints made mirror precisely the unhappiness here with the MHRA. They are 1. Pressure from industry ($400 million in user fees buys influence, if not control); 2. Safety of new drugs (neither companies nor FDA systematically monitor adverse drug effects after approval); 3. Sloppy record keeping); 4. Conflicts of interest (advisory committees); 5. Muzzled experts (Dr. Andrew Mosholder- SSRI-suicide finding; Dr. David Graham-Vioxx-heart attack risk;  Dr.Rosemary Johann-Liang- Avandia cardiac
risk..)

It’s very encouraging that a mainstream publication has taken up the cudgels on behalf of patients against Big Pharma. When will it happen here?

Comments

[Chris]

Its obvious these medieval throwbacks have no idea about science, nor do they want to. They want to keep people in thrall to their superstitious fairy tales to keep the people in line. It is what they have always done throughout history and is the very basis of all religion.

[Paul Flynn]

Thank Chris. Good to hear Catholic MP Jim Devine saying he would for the Bill. I belive the Church are deluding themselves if they believe they command the consciences of the 64 Catholic MPs who are free to vote.

[Diane Banner]

The religious hierarchy have a responsibility to speak out in matters of conscience or spirituality, but should not be involved with political posturing. I speak of the Anglican Archbishop of Wales who chairs 'Tomorrow's Wales'. He really should concentrate on matters appertaining to the Church in Wales.

[Paul Flynn]

He seems to be fine advocate for progressive views on most subjects. I have frequently disagreed with him - but I would not want him gagged.