The Catholic Education Service

It has been reported that the Catholic Education Service has been urging pupils in state funded Catholic Secondary schools to sign a petition against gay marriage. I cannot understand why they are pursuing this policy even from the point of view of their own self interest. Why antagonise a secular society which has been happy to fund faith education. These funds could easily be withdrawn. Further restrictions could be imposed upon what schools can and cannot teach if public opinion becomes unfavourable to the concept of faith schools.

I am opposed to idea of faith schools, as I do not believe that any religion should proselytise its ideas using state funds. If parents want their children to receive a "faith" education they should send their children to a private school not funded by the state. Even so, such such schools should be obliged to educate their children to an approved educational standard and curriculum.

I am opposed to any form of unbalanced political activity or discussion taking place in a school. Political campaigning for any cause should be banned within the confines of a school.

In my view religious institutions should be allowed to campaign for their views to be heard by the general population. Indeed it should be their right. This right should be exercised responsibly, however, so religious bodies should be careful not to interfere in the political process by encouraging young people to sign petitions against gay marriage or abortions etc.

Why is the Roman Catholic church so opposed to homosexuality and gay marriage? Is it because they are holding onto irrational beliefs for which there is no evidence?
 
The state does not intend to impose gay marriages on religious institutions. Roman Catholics, who are heterosexuals, will still be allowed to marry as per usual in their church. The same applies to Muslims. Some very religious people do not recognise the state's involvement in marriage but they are free to live together as partners without state sanction.

There is no evidence for the existence of a supernatural being which is influencing the observable universe. Where is the proof? So how can there be a God's law which dictates that homosexuality is divinely illegal or immoral?  It is simply irrational to believe that there can be any other law than that which human beings create for themselves. Secular society has deemed homosexuality to be legal and moral; the Church should accept this.

Stemming from the irrational belief that there is a supernatural being, is the opinion and that the Church is some how in touch with this being who endows absolute powers to the human priesthood. This priesthood is then allowed to dictate what we believe and  what we do not believe and how we should behave. It is dangerous to believe that the church has the absolute right to intervene in political affairs. The concept of divine right is complete irrational nonsense.

The dangers of  irrational thinking should not be allowed to penetrate state schools. Therefore, the opinions of creative design should not be taught in science lessons. Children and young people should only be taught facts for which which there is indisputable evidence. Children should be taught to distinguish between a fact for which there is evidence and an opinion for which there is not any evidence. The church cannot prove that there is a supernatural being so their claims are opinions only. Likewise, the church has not provided any evidence to suggest that people who are homosexuals or who do not want to get married in church or do not believe in the supernatural are sick.

 Whilst we should be concerned about human rights and the freedom to worship we should be concerned about the dangers that organisations such as "Core Issues" represent. Their ideas that homosexuals are sick and can be cured are irrational. In my view their cures represent  another form of witchcraft or sorcery. Any young person who is homosexual would do well to steer very clear of the ideas and quackery of this institution. The opinions of organisations such as "Core Issues"  should be vigorously and critically examined at school so that pupils can determine their veracity for themselves.

Contraception

The UK National Health Service is putting forward the idea that young women or teenagers, as young as thirteen years of age, should be allowed to obtain the contraceptive pill from trained pharmacists without recourse to a consultation with a doctor. Whilst the numbers of teenagers below the age of thirteen who might want to use this service is probably very small some important ethical issues are raised.

Some aspects of birth control involve medical prescriptions and procedures such as monthly contraceptive pills, the "morning after pill" and abortion. These medical interventions are for the most part being made on people who are not physically ill. Pregnancy, without physical complications, is not an illness. Most women who become pregnant are healthy individuals. I am of the opinion that we should be more careful when we give medical treatment to people who are not physically sick.

There is a legal age of consent which is sixteen. Surely, parents have some rights in this matter and would want to know if their daughters are engaging in under age sex and why.

There is the risk of sexually transmitted disease if anyone indulges in unprotected sex especially if one or both of the partners is promiscuous.

The very young women who are are indulging in under age sex may not be the best organised and might still get pregnant in spite of contraceptive pill usage. We need to see strong evidence that these proposals will in fact reduce unwanted teenage pregnancies.

What safeguards are in place to prevent "braver" young women visiting pharmacists to obtain contraceptive pills for their more timid friends? There is the possibility that young women could obtain this form of medication without any adult knowing.

It is my view that the handing out "off the shelf" solutions does not tackle the problems of unwanted pregnancies or other sexually related problems. Before any form of medication is dispensed to people who are physically in good health then there should at least be a consultation with a medical doctor who can discuss all of the physical and mental implications with the "patient". Where young people who are under the age of sixteen are involved every effort should be made to get the parents involved too.

We also need to do more to educate young people about the consequences of under-age sex and what to do if they are determined to indulge. Young men should also be encouraged to take their sexual activities seriously and use condoms when they have sex: not just to protect themselves but their partners as well.

I am not opposed to contraception or abortion but I think that we should exercise exceptional care especially where young women below the age of sixteen are concerned.

Just reaching out for a strip of pills to try to solve a complex problem is not acceptable for me. In my view our young people deserve something better.

NHS and the discharge of patients

At last the National Health Service is doing something about the abhorrent practice of discharging patients at night and have issued the following press statement by Professor Sir Bruce Keogh Medical Director of the NHS.
 

"While some patients may of course choose to be discharged during these hours, the examples highlighted of elderly patients being left to make their way home by themselves in the middle of the night are obviously unacceptable, and need to be addressed urgently... As health professionals we all agree that patients should be treated with compassion, so it is simply not acceptable to send people home from hospital late at night when they may have no family members nearby to support them".

This situation should not have been allowed to happen in the first place. You do not need a degree in nursing or a doctorate in medical science to realise that  discharging patients outside of normal working hours is unacceptable regardless of their age or whether family or friends are available to help them or not. This practice should be stopped immediately and there is no need for a review. The hospital staff should know better. It is obvious that this practice has to stop and there is no need for a consultation period. I fear that the practice will be allowed to continue and 75 year old men will be still  discharged, at inconvenient hours, into the care of their 70 year old wives. You can see this happening by reading between the lines of the PR statement.

Once again, of course, we are treated to a PR statement in flowery language which does nothing to tackle the problem that some people working in the NHS do not care about the patients. No matter how much money we spend there will be no improvement in care whilst the attitude remains that patients can be discharged from hospitals as if they are vegetables being dispatched to a supermarket warehouse.

It is time for patients to be treated with all the dignity that human beings can be afforded. The tone of the PR release does not fill me full of confidence that the problem of inadequate care throughout the health service will be addressed quickly. It sounds as if inadequate care is not regarded as a problem but more of a "challenge" to be hidden away on a checklist.

Hospital and NHS reorganisations will fail if management are unable to realise that patient care should be the top priority and not the bottom one.It is clearly time for a change of attitude and some down to earth thinking rather than management theory and PR speak.
 

Gay advertising "battles"

Today Transport for London banned an advertisement by Core Issues, a christian group, to promote on buses the following: "Not gay! Post-gay, ex-gay and proud. Get over it!".  Transport for London had previously accepted advertisements from Stonewall promoting: ''Some people are gay. Get over it''. The Core Issues advertisement is clearly meant to be a spoof which is satirising the Stonewall claims. The Mayor for London averred that the Core Issues advertisement was claiming that homosexuality was an illness which can be cured. It was also his opinion that this type of advertisement is offensive.

Try as I may,  I cannot see that the Core Issues' advertisement implies that gay people are sick. Their statement is as meaningless as the Stonewall one. The word gay is a colloquialism and it does not necessarily mean "homosexual" it can also mean "light hearted". "Get over it"  is just a catch phrase. Two diametrically opposed campaigning groups are using meaningless language to promote their point of view and  to criticise one another. Is this the silly season for public relations?

I could not care less whether someone is homosexual or not or whether they are proud of it or not. I am a heterosexual: I am what I am . I am not proud of it; why should I be? No one is going to convince me otherwise no matter what language they use. And I have no need to get over it, whatever that means.


What I do care about is the freedom of speech, the freedom to practise one's religion and the right to be a heterosexual or homosexual without fear or favour. I also believe in the right to be an agnostic or atheist without fear or favour.

Core Issues are not trying to interfere in the political process by their use of this advert. They are not proposing repressive laws either. They should be allowed to publish this advert. They are just as entitled to publish  "tripe" as Stonewall is.

Sperm Identity

There is talk in Britain of denying sperm donors their anonymity. The whole idea of sperm donation is that it should be anonymous. I suspect that not many men will want to donate sperm only to find that eighteen years or so later someone, who they have never been in contact with, is going to knock on their door claiming to be their son or daughter. Imagine the disruption especially if you are settled down with children that you do know. What would your wife or partner think, as well?

There are probably hundreds of thousands of people in Britian who have not been brought up by their real father and it is probably best if they do not know.

Let sleeping dogs lie, if you want a constant supply of sperm donors.

Transport woes

Yesterday I travelled by train from Kent to London Waterloo during the mid morning. The school children were on holiday and our four coach train was full to the brim. South Eastern trains had decided not to increase the capacity on the line even though there were as many passengers as their would be in the rush hour. Perhaps, I am maligning South East trains when I say that they had decided not to increase capacity whilst the children are on holiday. Probably, they had not thought to do this and probably they do not care.

At London Waterloo I caught an underground train to the West End; this train was also full to the brim as there had been a problem on the line. Not only was it full to the brim but it was also uncomfortably hot even though the outside temperature was only 14 degrees celcius. What will happen when the Olympic Games are running? All the school children will be on holiday and there will be hundreds of thousands of extra tourists taking to the railways and other forms of public transport. The system will not be able to cope and I have visions of tourists fainting on the overcrowded and hot underground trains. The Public transport system in London is no longer fit for purpose. I shall be avoiding any travel to London whilst the Olympics take place.

Another problem that I noticed on my journey was the failure of any young person to make way for someone who was elderly, infirm or pregnant. It was and is everyman and woman for themselves. No-one could care less as they stare into their "smartphones"  whilst oblivious to their fellow passengers around them.This lack of politeness and humanity is not limited to British people. My tube train was filled with people from all over Europe so anyone who is old, infirm or pregnant should be quite used to the fact that no-one is going to give up their seat for the less able when they pay a visit to London: Olympics or not.