martedì, febbraio 27, 2024

Information about the two referendums

 


Information about the two referendums

       

Dear Supporter,

As you know, Ireland is holding two referendums on March 8, one on the family and one on carers. The one on the family will further downgrade the relative position of marriage in Irish law and society. The second will remove the words 'mother' and 'woman' (in the context of home) from the Constitution as well as removing the necessity to try and protect mothers from being forced out of the home by economic necessity, a move we think is retrograde.

The Iona Institute has produced two memos you may find of some use in seeking to understand the two referendums. You can find the one on the family amendment here and the one on the carers' amendment here

Maria Steen gave a talk last month on the two referendums and you can find her talk here. You will also find an audio of the talk here.

Finally, we published the findings of a new opinion poll conducted by Amarach Research and commissioned by the Iona Institute which found that 69pc of mothers would prefer to stay at home than go out to work given the chance. We released the results last week and they have already been quoted in the debate. You can find the results here.

We hope you find these resources of help. 

Regards,

David Quinn

lunedì, febbraio 12, 2024

Ireland: Marriage should maintain its exclusivity



On the 8th March, Irish citizens will be voting in referendums to amend parts of its constitution. Two amendments will be on the ballot on International Women’s Day, with one of them possibly altering the definition of marriage and the family.

The first article that will be voted on currently commits to protecting “with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack”The proposed amendment would change the wording to allow the state to recognise “the Family, whether founded on marriage or on other durable relationships, as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society” (emphasis ours).

The second articles relates to the provision of care by members of the family. It would replace the original recognition that “by her life within the home, a woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved”. The new version, if it succeeds at the ballot box, would recognize “the provision of care, by members of a family to one another by reason of the bonds that exist among them, gives to Society a support without which the common good cannot be achieved” (emphasis ours).

In Ireland, the need for a referendum on extending the definition of family in the constitution was recently questioned in light of a Supreme Court judgement on an unmarried father’s welfare entitlements. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the exclusion of the surviving unmarried father of three children from the widower’s contributory pension (WCP) was unconstitutional. The case raises the question of whether marriage should still have a unique role today, or whether it should be considered equal to other non-marital relationships. Angelo Bottone, Chairman of Family Solidarity Ireland (a member association of FAFCE), spoke to us about this issue and the need to rethink the unique role of the family parented by one man and one woman in marriage in today’s society:

FAFCE: We are following the latest developments in Ireland regarding the O´Meara case and the constitutional amendments with interest. It has been argued that unmarried families are de facto relegated to the second tier by the current wording of the constitution, as “the family” is “based” on marriage. There seem to be efforts to prevent marriage from being presented as something superior to other forms of life. What consequences do these endeavours have for the image of marriage as such?

AB: In all great civilisations marriage has been viewed as a unique institution, forming the bedrock of society. The State has an interest in promoting marriage because it is the best place for children to be born as it offers the stability of a mother and a father united in a publicly committed relationship. Non-married couples who wish to enjoy the same benefits of married ones are free to marry and those, instead, who choose not to marry, should not expect the same benefits without the same commitment. With this referendum proposal, the Government practically denies that there a fundamental difference between those couples.

FAFCE: How does the attitude towards marriage change in a society where non-marital relationships are considered equal and just as desirable as families based on marriage between a man and a woman?

AB: Marriage has no equal. Plenty of research has constantly proved that it offers the best environment to raise a stable family. The benefits of a two-parent married family for children’s emotional, educational, and social development are unique and not replicated in other arrangements.

We know that legislation shapes society, inspires policies, and might even stigmatise dissent. More significantly, legal norms not only follow but also lead changes in culture. The message from this referendum, if it passes, is that non-committed and non-publicly recognised relationships are not significantly different from marriage. As an inevitable consequence, promoting the special status of marriage will be perceived a form of discrimination. Marriage, which is already threatened by other forces, will be further weakened.

FAFCE: The proposed amendment will extend constitutional family status to people in “other durable relationships”. But the decision as to what “durable relationships” means in any case will be left to the courts and ultimately to the Supreme Court. Why should it not be for lawmakers to decide on minimal criteria to qualify a non-marital relationship for treatment as a family – an institution said to have inalienable and imprescriptible rights and duties and to be the fundamental unit group of our society? What could be the concrete consequences of an amendment proposal of this kind?

AB: The expression “durable relationships” is extremely vague. As undefined it would leave important legal interpretations to the judiciary, leading to unpredictability and inconsistency in how family relationships are recognised and treated under the law. While polygamy or polyamory have currently no legal recognition, nobody is prevented from being involved into multiple “durable relationships”. If the referendum passes, one particularly concerning possibility is the legal recognition of polygamous or polyamorous relationships under the guise of “family.” This could also drastically expand eligibility criteria for family reunification in Irish immigration law, leading to unforeseen and possibly unsustainable social and legal outcomes.

Moreover, in marriage, explicit consent is paramount, necessitating its clear expression before two witnesses and under the supervision of a solemniser. The State also knows exactly when it begins and when it ends. In contrast, the term “durable relationships,” nebulous as it is, lacks any formal stipulation for such explicit consent or established criteria for its verification and its duration. The proposal put forth by the referendum could potentially lead to the acknowledgment of familial status for relationships that may not be founded on mutual consent, provided they possess some appearance of durability. Also, “durable relationships” can be ended abruptly by one of the partners involved at any moment for no reason.

FAFCE: The state is at present free by law to remedy perceived injustices for those in durable relationships who are not married. With declining marriage rates, is it socially beneficial or wise to make non-marriage the easier, equal and increasing norm in the raising of children?

AB: The O’Meara case, which extended the widow’s pension to a non-married partner, proves that there is no need to change the Constitution to grant certain marital benefits to other situations. To what extent this Supreme Court decision was wise is debatable. Nonetheless, we, as Family Solidarity, believe that the current Constitution gives sufficient scope to legislators, or to the courts, to amend what might be considered as injustices, without altering the fundamental role that marriage has in the establishment of a family. A vote in the opposite direction would dilute the unique value of marriage, with detrimental effects on society. The government’s efforts to redefine family structures reflect a misunderstanding of the natural and social importance of marriage, risking the erosion of values that have long been considered central to societal health and stability. As we said in our manifesto, “this is not just a vote for the preservation of our cultural heritage, but a stand for the future stability and integrity of our nation.”

lunedì, febbraio 05, 2024

A new report exposes the dubious claims made about daycare

 

If all mothers are out working, which is what the Government seems to want, and most young children are in daycare, shouldn’t we closely examine the benefits of this aim from the point of view of mothers, children and society? The question is particularly relevant in light of the carers’ referendum on March 8th.

Many claims are made by politicians and others about the benefits of putting young children into daycare. A big one is that it creates a more equal society by closing achievement gaps among children from different socio-economic backgrounds. However, a new study by the think tank Civitas challenges this and other claims made about daycare.

The report, called ‘Universal childcare: is it good for children?’, is based on a big review of international research about the supposed benefits of daycare and one conclusion it arrives at is that the evidence does not strongly support the claim that it leads to a more equal society by improving the academic performance of less advantaged children.

While high-quality childcare can benefit older children (above three years) from disadvantaged backgrounds in the short term, it is unclear if these benefits last into adulthood or lead to better job prospects and earnings. There is little research showing a link between daycare and life-long benefits.

Any money spent by the State must be justified. The State is pouring lots of money into subsidising daycare. The burden of proof is on the State to demonstrate the benefits of this. That evidence seems to be much weaker than most people suspect.

To cut a long story short, other influences on a child are far stronger than time spent in daycare, unless the child is from a very poor and dysfunctional family in which case target subsidised daycare at this group rather than providing universal subsidies.

The Civitas report says: “The research consistently finds that family characteristics, parenting and the home learning environment have a more significant influence on children’s development than childcare. These factors are also more important than family income. The quality of care a child receives in the home can be high or low, independent of the family’s socio-economic status. Formal childcare only offers development benefits for children if it replaces lower quality care. If a parent is able and willing to provide high quality care in the home, then long hours in formal childcare may be detrimental rather than beneficial for the child’s development”.

The reports also says that the effect of subsidised daycare on maternal employment is mixed and modest at best. Advocates says it increases employment rates among mothers, but even if this is a desirable outcome (it is only desirable if it is what mothers want), there is little evidence State-subsidised daycare has much effect on maternal employment rates either way.

Subsidised childcare may help mothers who avail of it financially, but it doesn’t necessarily empower all women, as it assumes all women prefer to work rather than care for their children at home. This overlooks the value many women place on raising their children themselves. This is a very relevant point in the context of the carers’ referendum.

The push to make it normal for children to be cared for by someone other than their mothers is based on a few assumptions: that moving childcare from homes won’t hurt children, parents, or society; that it’s more important for a mother to be involved in work than with her children and family; and that having a job is empowering and rewarding for women, while taking care of the home and children is not seen as valuable.

The report notes that “while these beliefs are influential in academic and political circles, evidence suggests that they are not representative of the values and beliefs of the general population.”

survey commissioned by the Iona Institute a few years ago found that only 17pc of respondents preferred to use day-care for their children under the age of five, while 49pc of respondents preferred to mind their offspring at home and a 27pc preferred a family member to do so.

The report by Civitas concludes that universal childcare has not shown the big benefits claimed by its advocates. The quality of daycare provided is critical, but it is hard to ensure that it surpasses the care provided by a loving family at home.

This being so, why is the Government so determined to have as many mothers as possible in the workplace and to end the Constitution’s commitment to try and protect mothers from being forced out of the home due to economic necessity?

 


Image by Esi Grünhagen from Pixabay

venerdì, febbraio 02, 2024

ON 8TH MARCH VOTE NO!



On the 8th of March, we are presented with a pivotal choice in two critical referendums. The first proposal seeks to fundamentally alter the Constitution's understanding of the family, shifting from its traditional foundation in marriage to a vague notion of “other durable relationships.” This shift not only undermines the sanctity of marriage-based families but introduces a breadth of legal ambiguities and complexities.

 

Former Attorney General and Minister for Justice Michael McDowell has highlighted the inherent dangers in this vague terminology. The term "durable relationships" lacks a clear legal definition and is absent from current legislation, potentially opening the door to a plethora of interpretations by the judiciary. This could lead to unforeseen and profound changes in family law, affecting areas such as inheritance, welfare rights, and more.

 

One particularly concerning possibility is the legal recognition of polygamous relationships under the guise of “family.” This could drastically expand eligibility criteria for family reunification in Irish immigration law, leading to unforeseen and possibly unsustainable social and legal outcomes.

 

The second proposal seeks to replace the Constitution's specific acknowledgment of women’s roles within the home with a generic concept of “care,” effectively diminishing the unique and invaluable contributions of women in domestic life. This move to gender-neutral language, while seemingly progressive, actually erases the specific recognition of mothers and their unparalleled role in nurturing and maintaining the familial structure.

Additionally, this second proposal will remove the State’s obligation to protect mothers from being forced by economic necessity to work outside the home.

 

In light of these considerations, it becomes evident that these two proposals have far-reaching and detrimental consequences for the fabric of Irish society. The redefinition of the family risks diluting the time-honoured values that have long been the cornerstone of our communities, and the removal of specific acknowledgments and protections of women's roles in the home undermines the dignity and value of their contribution.

 

Therefore, in defence of the traditional family structure, in recognition of the unique role of women in our homes and society, and to maintain clarity and stability in our legal system, we strongly urge you to vote NO on both proposals. This is not just a vote for the preservation of our cultural heritage, but a stand for the future stability and integrity of our nation.

 

Family Solidarity

sabato, gennaio 27, 2024

The Medical Council’s poor defence of its decision to remove ban on doctors killing patients

 

Dr Suzanne Crowe, President of the Irish Medical Council (IMC), appeared before the Oireachtas Committee on Assisted Dying on Tuesday and defended their extremely controversial decision to remove the prohibition on doctors deliberately ending a patient’s life from the Council’s ethical code.

She denied the charge that the move helps pave the way for euthanasia and asserted that the organisation has no position on the committee’s work as it falls outside the Council’s direct remit. But a body like the IMC ought to have a position on the deliberate killing of patients, surely? Why is the old prohibition no longer in the ethics code? Certanly the IMC agrees that the law can be unethical and can’t blindly follow it in all cases?  She also admitted that the Council had not widely consulted doctors before it made the huge changes.

In the 2024 revision of the Guide to Professional Conduct and Ethics, the Medical Council made several alterations from the previous edition, including the removal of the phrase: “You must not take part in the deliberate killing of a patient.” Dr. Crowe explained that this change has misinterpreted, emphasising that the guide still mandates doctors to comply and operate within the law. But is this sufficient?

This decision has attracted criticism from several hundred doctors and also from Bishop Kevin Doran.

Senator Ronan Mullen queried Dr. Crowe about the rationale and process behind this significant change. She responded that the Council’s aim is to provide principles-based guidance rather than a legal code, suggesting that the specific line about not participating in deliberate killing was inconsistent with this approach. She also noted that references to specific treatments, such as assisted reproduction and ionising radiation, were removed to align more with conceptual rather than case-based guidance.

However, the removal of the prohibition on killing patients is not about specific treatments but relates to a fundamental principle of medical ethics that dates back to Hippocrates’ obligation “First, do no harm.” This foundational ethical tenet, emphasising healing over harming, has been a consistent feature in previous editions of the Medical Council’s code.

The deletion of such a significant ethical principle seemed to lack substantial justification, which Dr. Crowe appeared unable to provide. She admitted that while there was no specific consultation on this particular issue, there was a broader consultation on the overall content of the guide, although many doctors appear to have been unaware it was even taking place.

British ethicist David Albert Jones has observed that the new guide contains eight paragraphs on patient privacy protection, highlighting the depth of consideration given to certain aspects of medical ethics while seemingly overlooking the profound implications of removing a long-standing ethical principle from the Medical Council guide.

You would have to assume that if the law told doctors to violate patient privacy, the Council would object and denounce the law as unethical. This makes the removal of the prohibition on doctors killing patients all the more disturbing.

sabato, gennaio 20, 2024

Disability rights groups concerned euthanasia will eventually target their members

 

The Oireachtas Committee on Assisted Dying continues to hold hearings. On Tuesday it heard from representatives of disability groups.

Peter Kearns (pictured), the representative from the Independent Living Movement observed that debates about euthanasia and assisted suicide can easily “trigger commentary with eugenic overtones”. He said that lack of necessary resources and of societal acceptance will make disabled people feel like a burden.

Mr Kearns acknowledged that there is a variety of opinions on end of life issues among the members of his group and disabled people should not be used as “pawns” in this debate. Nonetheless, he stressed the negative impact that the introduction of assisted suicide or euthanasia would have on people with disabilities.

“In other jurisdictions where assisted suicide has been legislated for, disabled people frequently speak about feeling hopeless, ‘having nothing to live for’ or feeling they would be ‘better off dead’ and take the State’s only clear support ‘option’ to cross the Rubicon to ‘clinical assisted suicide’”, he told the Committee.

Many members of Independent Living Movement Ireland believe that the offer of assisted suicide would result in disabled individuals feeling like they are a ‘burden’ on their families, the State, and Irish society, primarily due to a lack of necessary support, according to Mr Kearns.

“We need to be mindful of any discourse in relation to assisted dying that can trigger commentary with eugenic overtones about who is ‘worthy’ of supports to live”, he said.

The Independent Living Movement says that many disabled individuals fear a slippery slope where the concept of ‘dying with dignity’ evolves from euthanising terminally ill people to encompassing those who might end their lives due to societal pressures or the perceived inferiority associated with disabilities.

This concern was confirmed by John Dolan, CEO of the Disability Federation of Ireland.

“It is important that the State does not unduly have an ‘invisible’ hand, or influence, in the decision of someone to end their life because it has not supported disabled people to have a life of independence equal to everyone else”, he said.

Both witnesses were careful to represent the variety of views held by the members of their organisations, but it was clear that both very much fear the “slippery slope” and that the grounds for assisted suicide and euthanasia will swiftly more from the terminally ill to those considered to have a poor quality of life such as people with severe disabilities.

domenica, gennaio 14, 2024

My 2023 articles

Tutti i miei articoli non accademici pubblicati nel 2023


“Guidami, Luce gentile”, Il Timone, vol. XXV, pp. 38-39

https://www.iltimone.org/articoli-riviste/il-mistero-della-luce/

 

‘How parents of DS children are subtly directed toward abortion’

https://ionainstitute.ie/how-parents-of-ds-children-are-subtly-directed-toward-abortion/

 

‘Yet another study links religious practice and wellbeing’

https://ionainstitute.ie/yet-another-study-links-religious-practice-and-well-being/

 

‘NCCA confirms worst suspicions of parents about gender ideology’

https://ionainstitute.ie/ncca-confirms-worst-suspicions-of-parents-about-gender-ideology/


‘A new organ donor Bill is ethically questionable’

https://ionainstitute.ie/a-new-organ-donor-bill-is-ethically-questionable/

 

‘Children are left unprotected against extreme pornography’

https://ionainstitute.ie/children-are-left-unprotected-against-extreme-pornography/

 

‘Another UN committee pushes a radical agenda in Ireland’

https://ionainstitute.ie/another-un-committee-pushes-a-radical-agenda-on-ireland/

 

‘The West is sinking deeper into moral individualism’

https://ionainstitute.ie/the-west-is-sinking-deeper-into-moral-individualism/

 

‘A surprising reason why fertility rates have fallen so much’

https://ionainstitute.ie/a-surprising-reason-why-fertility-rates-have-fallen-so-much/

 

‘Married women account for only 16pc of abortions in England’

https://ionainstitute.ie/married-women-account-for-only-16pc-of-abortions-in-england/

 

‘President Biden invokes the very Christian concept of dignity in address’

https://ionainstitute.ie/president-biden-invokes-the-very-christian-concept-of-dignity-in-address/

 

‘Abortion pill risks not being properly explained to women’

https://ionainstitute.ie/abortion-pill-risks-not-being-properly-explained-to-women/

 

‘Sex abuse of young women seems to be on the increase’

https://ionainstitute.ie/sex-abuse-of-young-women-seems-to-be-on-the-increase/

 

‘Marriage in Ireland still declining despite a bumper 2022’

https://ionainstitute.ie/marriage-in-ireland-still-declining-despite-a-bumper-2022/

 

‘Extend assisted suicide to the poor argue Canadian ethicists’

https://ionainstitute.ie/extend-assisted-suicide-to-the-poor-argue-canadian-ethicists/

 

‘New sex education programme all about gender ideology’

https://ionainstitute.ie/new-sex-education-programme-all-about-gender-ideology-2/

 

‘What Census 2022 tells us about religion in Ireland’

https://ionainstitute.ie/what-census-2022-tells-us-about-religion-in-ireland/

 

‘Palliative care doctors warn against permitting assisted suicide’

https://ionainstitute.ie/palliative-care-doctors-warn-against-permitting-assisted-suicide/

 

‘Dr Peter Boylan proven wrong as abortion number rises’

https://ionainstitute.ie/dr-peter-boylan-proven-wrong-as-abortion-number-rises/

 

Pro-life activist tells meeting about being arrested praying near abortion clinic

https://ionainstitute.ie/pro-life-activist-tells-meeting-about-being-arrested-praying-near-abortion-clinic/

 

‘Committee hears assisted dying should be available to the mentally ill’

https://ionainstitute.ie/committee-hears-assisted-dying-should-be-available-to-the-mentally-ill/

 

‘How family breakdown is contributing to homelessness’

https://ionainstitute.ie/how-family-breakdown-is-contributing-to-homelessness/

 

‘More Americans are unhappy because fewer are married’

https://ionainstitute.ie/more-americans-are-unhappy-because-fewer-are-married/

 

‘Why men stay at home to mind children’

https://ionainstitute.ie/why-men-stay-at-home-to-mind-children/

 

‘The key facts of life left out of new RSE courses’

https://gript.ie/the-key-facts-of-life-left-out-of-new-rse-courses/

https://ionainstitute.ie/the-key-facts-of-life-left-out-of-new-rse-courses/

 

‘A report from a meeting of pro-‘assisted-dying’ leaders’

https://ionainstitute.ie/a-report-from-a-meeting-of-pro-assisted-dying-leaders/

 

‘Sensationalist claims about Canadian mass graves prove unfounded’

https://ionainstitute.ie/sensationalist-claims-about-canadian-mass-graves-prove-unfounded/

 

‘MEPs launch another attack on the right to life’

https://ionainstitute.ie/meps-launch-another-attack-on-the-right-to-life/

https://bottone.blogspot.com/2023/09/the-european-parliament-launches-new.html (revised version)

 

‘The liberal prejudice against marriage revealed’

https://ionainstitute.ie/the-liberal-prejudice-against-marriage-revealed/

Alive magazine, n. 302 January 2024, p. 13

 

‘Insurance companies could easily offer euthanasia in the future’

https://ionainstitute.ie/insurance-companies-could-easily-offer-euthanasia-in-the-future/

 

‘A clash of worldview at the ‘assisted dying’ hearings’

https://ionainstitute.ie/a-clash-of-worldview-at-the-assisted-dying-hearings/

 

‘Oireachtas committee hears about Canada’s extreme euthanasia regime’

https://ionainstitute.ie/oireachtas-committee-hears-about-canadas-extreme-euthanasia-regime/

 

‘Assisted dying’ against best medical practice leading doctor tells committee’

https://ionainstitute.ie/assisted-dying-against-best-medical-practice-leading-doctor-tells-committee/

 

‘Make euthanasia available to dementia patients committee told’

https://ionainstitute.ie/make-euthanasia-available-to-dementia-patients-committee-told/

 

‘The convicted murderer who helps run Exit International‘

https://ionainstitute.ie/the-convicted-murderer-who-helped-an-irishman-die-by-assisted-suicide/

 

‘The convicted murderer who helped an Irishman dying by assisted suicide’

https://bottone.blogspot.com/2023/11/the-convicted-murderer-who-helped.html

 

‘Committee hears the most extreme pro-‘assisted dying’ view yet’

https://ionainstitute.ie/committee-hears-the-most-extreme-pro-assisted-dying-view-yet/

 

‘How family breakdown perpetuates social disadvantage’

https://ionainstitute.ie/how-family-breakdown-perpetuates-social-disadvantage/

 

‘Palliative care doctors spell out the case against euthanasia’

https://ionainstitute.ie/palliative-care-doctors-spell-out-the-case-against-euthanasia/

sabato, gennaio 13, 2024

The growing problem of anti-Christian persecution in Europe

 

Anti-Christian crimes in Europe are increasing, according to a recent report by the Observatory on Intolerance and Discrimination against Christians in Europe (OIDAC). For example, it says that arson attacks on churches increased by 75pc in 2022 compared with 2021.

In 2022, OIDAC recorded 749 anti-Christian hate crimes across 30 European countries. Notably, there were 38 physical assaults and three murders. Religious services were disrupted at least 19 times.

These numbers might be just the tip of the iceberg due to underreporting and lack of media attention.

Between 2021 and 2022, there has been a worrying increase in these crimes, especially arson attacks, which rose from 60 to 105. Many of these incidents are linked to radicalised groups, sometimes Islamist in nature, with anti-Christian sentiments.

The report highlights the ongoing debate about freedom of speech. New laws are emerging that regulate and limit speech, sometimes even extending to private conversations.

Ireland’s hate speech Bill was presented as a case in the report. The Bill is quite extreme as it criminalises possessing material deemed ‘hateful’ against certain groups, but ‘hate’ is not defined.

Another example is the creation of “buffer zones” around abortion clinics in the UK and Ireland, leading to the criminalisation of Christians for activities like silent prayer in public areas.

There are moves to eliminate conscience clauses from medical laws. This puts Christian medical professionals who refuse to participate in certain practices, like abortions, due to their religious beliefs, in difficult positions.

The report mentions concerns about vaguely formulated and expansive laws that could criminalise parents, pastors, and teachers for expressing dissenting opinions on certain controversial topics.

For instance, the UK government voted to introduce a new mandatory curriculum on sex education in Northern Ireland, which includes lessons in how to access abortion. The legislation will put pro-life parents, or schools in a very difficult position.

The reports says: “The right of parents to educate their children in accordance with their religious beliefs has continuously been threatened through legal provisions, criminalising ‘non affirmative’ communication between parents and children in regard to identity-related issues as well as through obligatory school education on ideological issues contradicting religious or moral beliefs”.

Indeed, there is also worry about potential legal repercussions for parents who, based on their religious beliefs, advise their children against undergoing hormone therapies or other similar interventions​​ in order to ‘transition’ from one ‘gender’ to another.

The OIDAC report also found that the conflict between Russia and Ukraine has significantly affected religious freedom. Russian authorities and troops have violated Christian religious freedoms by closing churches and detaining religious leaders.

The report also sheds light on the severe persecution of Christians in other parts of the world, like Nigeria, Armenia, India, and Pakistan.

The organisation calls for greater attention and action from European institutions to these issues of Christian persecution, which are often ignored by the media. But given that governments can sometimes be behind moves to crackdown on dissent from certain liberal orthodoxies, on abortion and gender ideology for instance, this might be a vain hope.

venerdì, gennaio 05, 2024

New study confirms pro-social benefits of religion

 

A new report called ‘Faith and Wellness’ confirms that religious people are more positive in their mentality, have more social support and are more involved in their communities.

“An estimated 160 million more adults have positive experiences than would be the case if those adults were not religious.”, says the report, which is based on data collected from 2012 to 2022 by Gallup and also on a review of academic studies.

The study highlights five key factors of spirituality that positively influence wellbeing: 1) positive coping and a sense of purpose in life; 2) faith-based social connections; 3) community and civic engagement; 4) structural stability; and 5) workplace support of holistic wellbeing.

Religion often provides individuals with effective coping mechanisms and a profound sense of purpose in life. This aspect of spirituality can be particularly helpful in managing stress and navigating life’s challenges, contributing to overall mental and emotional well-being, says the report.

(Professor Patricia Casey produced for the Iona Institute a paper on this topic, called “The Psycho-Social Benefits of Religious Practice.)

Moreover, spiritual communities often offer robust social support networks. The sense of belonging and community found in these groups can be a significant source of emotional assistance, helping individuals to feel connected and supported.

“When spiritual life is shared, you’re at an 82pc decreased relative risk of suicide, 80pc decreased risk of addiction, and a 75pc decreased risk of depression … If this was a pill, who wouldn’t take that?”, commented Lisa Miller, Professor of Psychology and Education at Columbia University.

The ‘Faith and Wellness’ report highlights the positive role of “structural stability”, which refers to the fact that many spiritual traditions offer frameworks for moral and ethical decision-making, aiding individuals in navigating complex life situations and contributing to a sense of clarity and direction.

An analysis of data from the Gallup World Poll found that people of faith scored better than non-religious in five out of nine wellbeing measures. These are: social life (having a support structure and opportunity to make friends), positive experience (self-reported well-being), community basics (everyday life in a community), optimism (positive attitude towards the future) and civic engagement (inclination to volunteer and help others).

This last measure, the relationship between religion and civic engagement, was explored by the ‘Faith and Wellness’ report.

Many religious teachings emphasise the importance of being part of a larger community, which includes caring for those around you, especially those in need. This emphasis on altruism and assisting others not only serves societal functions related to the economy and public service but also creates opportunities for social networking and personal growth. Individuals with connections to religious communities, such as having “church friends”, are found to demonstrate more altruistic behaviours.

“Several studies have found a link between volunteering or membership in a voluntary association and measures of mental health, including depression and distress, especially among older adults. For the most part, these studies indicate that caring for others generates positive emotions, which in turn increases one’s mental health and wellbeing”, says the report.

Finally, the ‘Faith and Wellness’ report addresses a striking paradox: Despite the established positive benefits of spirituality and religion to health and wellbeing, there is a notable decline in these practices in many parts of the world.

“Why are people turning away from a practice that can provide positive benefits to their lives?”, the report asks.

One contributing factor to this trend seems to be a lack of awareness. Many are not well informed about the mental and physical health benefits of a spiritual life.

martedì, dicembre 19, 2023

Palliative care doctors spell out the case against euthanasia

 

Palliative care doctors in Ireland and the UK were before the Oireachtas Committee on Assisted Dying last week and very firmly and eloquently explained why they are against euthanasia. It is extremely noteworthy that the group of doctors who are the most dedicated by reason of their branch of medicine to those nearing the end of their lives are also typically the most strongly opposed to assisted suicide.

Dr Faith Cranfield (pictured), speaking on behalf of the Irish Palliative Medicine Consultants Association, told committee members that her biggest concern is that the availability of assisted suicide or euthanasia would impact the ability of palliative care practitioners to effectively and humanely address the suffering of their patients, as they do everyday, because it will offer immediate death as a remedy instead.

She asked the committee to imagine the case of ‘Mary’, who has cancer, is overwhelmed by a sense of despair and wants to die. The family hears her expressing this wish and is tempted to feel the same way. But palliative care steps in and her situation becomes far more manageable. She experienced many other valuable moments in her life with her family. In a world with euthanasia, would this happen, or would Mary be ushered towards euthanasia instead?

Dr Matthew Doré, secretary of the Association of Palliative Medicine for Great Britain and Ireland, said that in Canada, hospices have been shut on the basis that they were not facilitating ‘medical assistance in dying’, and there is now an existential crisis in its workforce.

Professor Max Watson, who has worked in hospices for more than 35 years, including with the Irish Hospice Foundation said: “It is very difficult to see safeguarding working because in every legislation where it started, those safeguards are then attacked in law”.

“I am suspicious of safeguards because I have not seen them really work. Today’s safeguards are what another section of the population will take to court on the grounds that they are being legislated against. A person who is depressed could demand access to the same things as people who have a terminal diagnosis. Once we embark on this we are heading towards a situation where it comes down to people’s individual choice”, Prof. Watson told the Committee.

Dr Doré seconded Prof. Watson’s opinion: “The very proponents for this legislation admit to its arbitrary criteria and thus seek to extend it, and if legalised will succeed, as it becomes a question of equality of access for a ‘treatment’. In Canada in 2016 it was clearly stated that the country would not end up like Belgium and would be an exception. Do we think Ireland is going to be an exception to this tried and tested international trend?”, he asked.

Dr Regina McQuillan, representing the Irish Palliative Medicine Consultants Association, maintained that introducing assisted suicide legislation may pressure individuals with serious illnesses. The option of assisted suicide or euthanasia can create what she called “unintended coercion”, i.e. making individuals feel obliged to choose it to relieve the burden on their families, even if not explicitly stated by their loved ones.

She said that the concept of assisted suicide is initially introduced to prevent a difficult death, but then it evolves to also address the desire to escape a difficult life. This shift alters people’s knowledge, desires, and expectations, leading to broader societal transformations. “Putting it into healthcare confuses things further”, she said.

Dr Matthew Doré drew parallels with historical cases of wrongful executions, emphasising the potential for mistakes when determining who should be euthanised. He argued that “incorrect deaths” can result from various factors, including misdiagnosis, unpredictable prognoses, fluctuating choices, mental health issues, elder abuse, and financial concerns. He raised concerns about the societal impact of legalising assisted suicide and questioned what percentage of such “incorrect, unnecessary deaths” would be deemed acceptable.

“An incorrect death is a death mismatched with the rationale for having an assisted death. It is a consequence of pre-empting the unknowable. As lawmakers, committee members will know laws balance individual liberty against societal safety. We have speed limits because driving over 30 km/h on O’Connell Street risks other people, the pedestrians. All traffic laws, all domestic laws, all criminal laws, – it is why we have prisons – are balancing individual choice versus society. Your individual liberty is limited to how it affects other people. My question to the committee is: what percentage of incorrect, unnecessary deaths in the population due to the legalisation of assisted suicide would be acceptable? I suggest none”, Dr Doré said.

Professor Watson spoke about the effect of ‘assisted dying’ legislation on the quality of health services: “We have seen a deterioration in countries which have introduced assisted dying. Australia has decreased end-of-life care. It has gone down two places in the league table, from fourth. The Netherlands has gone down. New Zealand has gone down eight places since 2015. Switzerland has actually improved. Canada has gone down 11 places in terms of overall indices. Belgium has gone down 21 places. It is not universal in all countries but there is a trend that where assisted dying has come in, the quality of end-of-life care, as previously assessed, has decreased.”

Last week’s session was one of the most informative so far. The palliative care doctors spoke from their daily experience with terminally-ill patients and their message to the Committee was really clear: do not legislate for ‘assisted dying’. Will the members of the Committee listen to them? Deputy Gino Kenny certainly was not. Listening to his questions, you would almost think he knew more about dealing with the terminally ill than those who do it every day.