Mental Injury and Abortion 2

How is it that our society can set such a high bar of having to suffer a recognised psychological disorder in order to claim civil damages for mental health injury (cf. Rorrison vs. West Lothian)? Yet, in the case of the Abortion Act, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists claim, ‘… to meet the terms of the Act, a woman need not have a psychiatric illness when she makes her abortion request, but there must be factors that would involve risk to her mental health if the pregnancy were to continue. Thus, the abortion is not carried out for social reasons, although a woman’s social circumstances may be taken into account in assessing the risks to her health.’

The World Health Organisation sets a similarly low standard of risk: ‘Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.’

So, to get an abortion, doctors only have to identify an increased risk to mental well-being, but not of a pathological mental illness. This is in spite of the British Journal of Psychiatry report that shows abortion increases the likelihood of mental injury.

How can a civilised society lower the standard of risk avoidance when a human life is at stake, but raise it when money enters the equation?

Mental Injury and Abortion

The British Journal of Psychiatry has published a report of a recent study that investigated the link between abortion and mental health.

I refer to Peter Ould’s summary of the key findings:

‘The broad picture reveals that women who have an abortion have an 81% increased risk of mental health problems when compared with women who don’t. This constitutes “a moderate to highly increased risk of mental health problems after abortion“.

The 1967 Abortion Act provides two mental health grounds for doctors to authorise a termination of pregnancy:

(a)that the pregnancy has not exceeded its twenty-fourth week and that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or any existing children of her family; or

(b)that the termination is necessary to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman;

One might concede that doctors may identify specific cases in which the mental health risk is actually reduced by abortion. In the UK, it is even probable that it will take some time to establish that mental deterioration is caused by abortion, rather than just a concomitant. (Although, that is still very worrying).

What amazes me, in the light of this study, is the staggering 97.7% of abortions in 2010 that doctors authorised in the UK to prevent the risk of mental health injury as defined in the 1967 Abortion Act.

Does merely the prospect of increased stress constitute an increased risk to mental health? Where is that defined? How is the type of injury described in section 1(a) distinguished medically from the grave and permanent injury described in section 1(b)?

I read the following about mental injury: ‘To amount in law to “nervous shock” (a.k.a. mental injury), the psychiatric damage suffered by the claimant must extend beyond grief or emotional distress to a recognised mental illness’ (parenthesis mine).

In Rorrison v West Lothian, the Lord Ordinary, in dismissing the plaintiff’s claim for mental injury damages, said this:

‘"Many, if not all, employees are liable to suffer those emotions [frustration and embarrassment], and others mentioned in the present case such as stress, anxiety, loss of confidence and low mood. To suffer such emotions from time to time, not least because of problems at work, is a normal part of human existence. It is only if they are liable to be suffered to such a pathological degree as to constitute a psychiatric disorder that a duty of care to protect against them can arise…"

What this paper should prompt is a thorough review of the process for assessing mental health risk in the case of abortion. Recent calls for an anti-depressant prescription review were prompted by a much smaller sample size and a less comprehensive study.

97.7% of the abortions last year were approved in order to avert recognised pathological mental illnesses, rather than just emotional distress.

Are doctors required to identify the actual illness that might otherwise result? If they are not and merely authorise the abortion on demand, I’m sorry, but that fact alone beggars belief in the current system!

Evidence that demands a verdict

Let us realise that the approach of the New Testament writers is primarily forensic (as it relates to the true origin of that word, forum), rather than strictly scientific. The forum was the ancient courtroom that primarily collected and tested oral testimony in order to arrive at a decision. There was no luxury of experimenting in the laboratory. The character and oral statement of a witness were even more crucial to establishing the truth than it is today. Arguments would need to be skilfully and logically presented. The motives of each side would need to be examined. ‘By the mouths of two or three witnesses shall every word be established’ (2 Cor. 13:1) was the corollary. The court could even inflict harm to see whether it might cause someone to recant their testimony.

An unrepeatable historic event occurs and over 500 people claim to have witnessed the reality of it over a period of several weeks. Unlike a laboratory experiment, history cannot be verified by repetition. Yet, we accept a world that already consigns those convicted by credible testimony to long terms of imprisonment and, in some countries, death.

So, why do we hesitate on account of faith decisions? Is it not because we are hopelessly prejudiced against the outcome and find the personal implications of acceptance unbearable? Our guilt is fixed by this double standard, as John said, ‘If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater.’ (1John 5:9)

The first-century movement claimed a growing following of those who were convinced that the continuation of miraculous events corroborated the testimony that Jesus had returned to life forever. Hardened, but thoughtful critics were eventually won over by the positive impact on the lives of that following who saw virtue in eschewing personal gain for others. The calm, sane leaders of the movement were also willing to sacrifice their own safety, yet maintained their testimony without a hint of retaliation. Moreover, they extended compassion towards their persecutors.

We can question the likelihood, motives, relative resourcefulness and credibility of the witnesses to the resurrection and their detractors. We may be swayed by rhetoric, the resonance of the testimony with our own first-hand experiences of personal guilt and what we know of human nature. This is as it should be in a courtroom.

However, there is one caveat. Ultimately, we, the jury, are also on trial. The motives and prejudices of our own lives face as much scrutiny as the biblical witness itself. We sit in judgement and still desperately need a cure for own own selfish nature, a cure that the early church and those who, through the ages, were touched by its faith and practice appear to have found.

It would be criminally negligent to ignore such a cure, if it exists. So, we can no more postpone our judgement indefinitely after careful deliberation than we do in a court of law. There is an awful responsibility for continuing in error, if all the evidence points to a conclusive remedy.

Heart of Mine

ONE DAY YOU MAY FIND TRUE LOVE THAT WILL LAST FOREVER AND EVER
TILL THEN YOU'LL SPEND A LIFETIME WISHING ONE TOGETHER
YOU NEVER THOUGHT SHE'D SAY GOODBYE
AND YOU'LL NEVER UNDERSTAND THE REASONS WHY

HEART OF MINE
HOW WILL YOU KEEP FROM DYING
STOP REMINISCING WHO IS SHE KISSING?
HEART OF MINE
OH WHAT'S THE USE IN TRYING
NO ONE CAN MEND YOU NOW

LOVE PLAYS CRUEL GAMES
YOU CAN'T BELIEVE SHE'S FOUND ANOTHER LOVER
"DOES SHE MISS ME?"
SOMETIMES YOU JUST CAN'T HELP BUT WONDER
NO, YOU CAN'T HOLD THE HANDS OF TIME
AND YOU'LL ALWAYS BE THE ONE SHE LEFT BEHIND

HEART OF MINE...

Neo-Desiderata - the new 'things to be desired' for men and women

I want to...stand up to brash, overbearing and prejudiced bullies at work or in school;

I don't want to...make up, read, listen to, re-tell, or harass others with crude or clever jokes and comments that suggest others are inferior or useless.

I want to...follow my conscience;

I want to...extend respect, reach out and help those whose path I come across, but are outside of my race, neighbourhood or familiar social circle.

I want to...be a skilled worker and gainfully employed, rather than depending mostly on a partner or any benefits;

I don't want...the pretence that I love my family more, when I'm really into the sham of self-centred, self-made personal success.

I want to...reduce the amount that I spend on or borrow for non-essentials like designer clothing, bling, prestige holidays, outings and vehicles, endless home enhancements and fake cosmetic accessories, while my extended family, the sick and frail need financial help. 

I want to...be authentic, caring and generous, not selfish.

I want to...stop my food and drink binges for good.

I want to...end my fear of giving up the material gain that boosts my acceptance and pride, as well as the admiration and popularity of friends and acquaintances.

I want to...feel loved for who I am, not what I have or can provide.

I want to...pay off my debts and save funds to help the hospitalised and terminally ill with their medical/family/financial hardships.

I want to...practice personal giving of resources and time to the hospitalised, the very young, the sick, the injured and suffering;

I don't want to...treat the mother/father of my children as an obstacle to my freedom.

I want to...stop carrying grudges over past hurts.

I want to...desire forgiveness for those who hurt me, and from those whom I've hurt, just like God desires to forgive me for hurting Him;

I don't want to...compete for my partner's attention and try so hard to keep my partner's eyes away from anyone else;

I don't want to...maintain my life partner's loyalty by constantly trying to attract his/her attention. My life partner should just love me for me.

I don't want to...be a secret domestic bully.

I want to...fight for a single lifelong loving intimacy with one person and not give in to explicit, or implicit irresponsible sexual behaviour;

I want...a permanent life partner as my friend and confidante, not someone who will either mostly ignore me when I grow old, or just wants me for sex fixes and domestic convenience.

I want to...avoid any TV and internet media that present desperate, misguided or exploited people as objects of lust, ridicule or comedy;

I don't want to...read or relay scandal and gossip about the famous.

I want to...be able to share my Internet surfing history without the shame of greed before God, or my peers and co-workers.

I don't want...my kids playing or acting out violent, or sexually explicit video content;

I want to...fight the indifference towards any programme that praises explicit violence, racism, sexist comedy, contempt for doing right and immediately change the channels.

I don't want to...let celebs, TV personalities, leisure pursuits, fan web-sites and magazines twist my views about my relationship with others, material things and the roles of men and women.

God made simple!

I worry about Marcus Borg's representation of God and it's not particularly because he suggests that the Bible is sometimes wrong. He appears to have built a perfectly sealed box that contains his neatly dovetailed theology of God's responsibilities and human rights. Where the biblical record stands outside of that box, he declares that it's wrong.

In the case of Saul, (1 Sam. 14) Borg suggests that since God, by reason of love, is incapable of wholesale extermination Himself, He could not have commanded Saul to slay the Amalekites, especially as it involved the slaughter of innocent babies. Yet, most of the Old Testament presents the God who exterminates individuals, whole societies and civilisations by various means, including war, famine and natural disasters. Even the reasons seem weak, e.g. punishing by death an attempt to steady a cart carrying the emblems of His presence among His people. Soldiers are burned to death for merely carrying out their orders to capture Elijah. The treacherous schemers who conspired to have Daniel executed, are not punished alone, but with their whole families. The prophets regularly make these events instructive by declaring that what is suffered is not a mere coincidence, but an act of retribution commanded by God.

Should we believe that major disasters involving the indiscriminate loss of life are beyond the purview of an omniscient God? Is it not within His power to devise an ingenious form of suffering (if the theology box allows for it) that magically spares innocent, promising young lives? Oh, and old, frail ones too? Certainly, if I had everything that God has at His disposal, I would...In fact, God should...and if not, He, or those who present Him otherwise are wrong.

The Old Testament writers grapple with uncomfortable ideas about God, including the fact that suffering is not just permitted, but ultimately executed by exclusive divine prerogative. God doesn't give us easy answers to His exercise of prerogative. Theology can't successfully merge God's declaration that He runs the entire universe with the reality that, in many cases, severe suffering, brutality and ruin affects innocent lives. Yet, the OT prophets do move us away from the capriciousness of heathen gods.

My mind can't be privy to most of God's reasoning. If I was, I'd be God and I would magically make everyone good and drop a really big book from the sky called 'God made simple' instead!

‘It’s another grey area!’

Never, Lord!” he said. “This shall never happen to you!”
‘But He turned and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me Satan thou art an offence (σκάνδαλον) unto me for thou savourest not the things that be of God but those that be of men’ (Matt. 16:22,23)

Of course, this probably wasn’t what Anglican Mainstream had in mind when they used the word ‘scandal’ in the context of their quoted response to the 2005 pastoral statement on Civil Partnerships. Nevertheless, the meaning of the word, scandal has changed considerably from its Greek root. A far cry from the idea of public disgrace is a word originally describing the small twig covered with bait that collapses under pressure to close a trap, thereby restraining or killing the unwitting prey. Peter’s misleading advice would be a collapsing twig, if relied upon during the onslaught of Christ’s necessary suffering as the rejected Messiah, the Lamb of God. It would thwart His prophetic role in delivering our salvation and the conclusive indictment on the guilt of that, or all other societies that superficially embrace the rule of God. The church should remember that even to this day.

The cross itself was to Jews a σκάνδαλον (1 Cor. 1:23), repulsive to those who superficially could not see God’s salvation behind its indelible mark of divinely imposed shame. The σκάνδαλον is merely the inadvertent trigger of a moral calamity, but it is connected to the trap of discouraging adherence to God’s scripturally revealed purpose. By this means, it causes actual harm to the mission of the church. In spite of Peter’s best intentions, Jesus knew that paying attention to ‘the things of men’ was a diversion from His priorities which, if it continued, would jeopardise the primary mission of the Messiah as revealed in scripture. What things divert us from our scripturally revealed priorities in life?

Christ indicated that these triggers of moral calamity are impossible to prevent, but those causing them reap divine rejection: ‘Woe unto the world because of offences (σκανδάλων)! for it is necessary that offences (σκανδάλα) come; but woe to that man by whom the offence (σκανδάλων) comes.’ (Matt. 18:7)

For Christ, even in the twilight of the widespread defection from God, His commitment to His scriptural purpose remained ‘black and white’. He was following the ‘Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shifting shadow’ (Jas 1:17)

Yes, Isaiah predicted the era of grace and yet he declared, ‘To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, they have no light of dawn’ (Is. 8:20)

So, morality, sexual or otherwise, is not as grey as it seems.