And again, same-sex marriage debate results in another long afternoon/evening of talking...

I had an exhausting afternoon in February keeping track of the debate in British Parliament over the legalisation of same sex marriage. And today, they're at it again with amendments a-go-go to muddy the waters and, predictably, idiotic and paranoid things are being said by elected represenatitives.

Here is a rundown of some of the shenanigans from Westminster...

David Burrowes, a Conservative MP opposed to gay marriage kicked things off by saying that New Clause 1 says the bill "should not lead to schools having to promote a view of marriage 'contrary to the designated religious character of the school'."

So Burrowes doesn't really understand that "teach" and "promote" are two different things. It is one thing for a teacher to inform a class that marriage in Britain between two men, two women or a man and woman are legal. This is not the same as the same teacher saying: "Gay couples can now get married in Britain and I urge all you kids to go out and find a partner of the same sex so you can join in the fun!".

This does not stop Burrowes from adding that the bill could be a "compulsory redundancy bill" for teachers who disapprove of gay people getting married.

Tim Loughton, another anti-marriage equality Tory MP, whose amendment on civil partnerships is clearly aimed at wrecking the bill says those who support it, are "promoting a hierarchy of conscious objection" because they support the right of Catholic surgeons to opt out of performing state-funded abortions (because Britain needs to risk experiencing a horrific Savita situation...) but are not in favour of Catholic registrars being able to opt out of performing state-funded gay marriages. Frankly, if both abortion and gay marriage are legal here, anyone who works as a gynaecologist or registrar and accepts public money for doing so should not be able to opt out of either procedure. But clearly I am "promoting" a separated church and state here...

Stephen Williams, a LibDem MP, responds to Loughton's abortion/marriage comparison, saying that he is in favour of Catholic surgeons opting out of performing abortion but not gay marriage because abortions make up "only a small part of what surgeons do, but conducting marriages is central to the work of the registrar." Well, that's a nice, wishy-washy response...

Stephen Doughty, a Labour MP, enforces commonsense by quoting the barrister Lord Pannick who said it would rake a legal miracle for religious bodies to be forced to conduct gay weddings by the European Court of Human Rights.

Good grief. More proof that separation of church and state is urgently required as Edward Leigh, Conservative, says that marriage is between a man and a woman and this should be a protected characterising of religious belief under the Equality Act 2010. Chris Bryant, a Labour MP and ex-vicar, scoffs at this nonsense saying that other religious beliefs, such as the virgin birth and transubstantiation are not specified this way in the Equality Act.

Leigh willfully ignores the fact that Christianity does not have a monopoly on marriage. Nor does religion in general. Next!

Leigh adds to the idiocy by saying amendments are needed, citing the case of Adrian Smith, a housing manager who said on Facebook that allowing gay weddings in churches as "an equality too far" and was advised he'd lose if he went to a tribunal. He didn't get his old job back and was only paid £100 n compensation. Firstly, no church will be forced to conduct a same-sex wedding under the bill (not even the Church of England vicars who'd like to do so...) and, secondly, nobody should be fired for expressing such views on Facebook. But that is another blog post for another time.

And there is now a break in transmission because work intervened and now I must get a tube home. I wonder what nonsense will transpire in the meantime...

South-west London and the amazing shrinking hospitals...

It has already cost more than £2 million and the costs are set to continue before the people like me who live in south-west London will find out just how badly our hospitals (for we do pay for these hospitals, they are ours) will be neutered.

"It" is the tragically misnamed "Better Service, Better Value" consultation has been given the task of saving more than £300 million across hospitals in this growing part of the capital. Given that more than £2 million has been spent "consulting", they are already behind the eight-ball.

Three options have been put forward involving closing assorted parts of hospitals, downgrading some Accident and Emergency departments to urgent care centres (how "urgent care" differs from the care required at an A&E department is unclear), closing some maternity units, slashing the odd renal unit and, hey,  surely we need fewer intensive care departments in a city this big...

If even one of these hospitals loses its A&E or maternity department, there will be an inevitable knock-on effect for the hospitals that still have these vital units. St Helier, the hospital nearest to my house, looks most likely to lose both these departments as well as the renal unit and intensive care. This hospital regularly accepts patients for A&E and maternity when the often excellent but frequently overstretched St George's Hospital in Tooting cannot cope. More than £200 million had been set aside by successive governments for a much-needed upgrade to St Helier but now that funding is under a cloud.

On top of all this, there are no costings on how much will need to be spent to upgrade the hospitals that don't lose vital departments so the whole process seems set to foist a gigantic exercise in false economy on our lives.

This all comes hot on the heels of the scandalous downgrading of Lewisham Hospital, in London's south-east - an area not too far removed from the swathe of the south-west which is now under threat.

The public is constantly being told that no decision has been made yet on the three options. And all three options are awful. It is fine for me to yell and scream that I want St Helier to remain as it is. But that means that another hospital in the area will lose services and St Helier would be overburdened.

So there is the truly nasty part - while we try and defend our local hospitals in our little corners of south-west London, this has the horrible effect of pitting communities against each other.

So, a fourth option needs to be put forward involving largely retaining the status quo. But there are only three options on the table. And here is the kicker: the BSBV committee is meant to put four options forward.

And there is another kicker. There is meant to be a three-month public consultation process that does not run over the summer holiday period. But the process is slated to run over the summer holiday period.

So what now? It is imperative that all of us who have been fighting to keep our hospitals in south-west London unmolested united and push for a fourth option to be put on the table and for the public consultation period to be moved back to September.

If neither of these two things happen, then it would not be unreasonable for the local authorities to call for a judicial review. But judicial reviews are expensive. And this is not a time when any local authorities are keen to put up council tax in order to fund a judicial review.

The question that everyone in south-west London needs to ask themselves is would they be prepared to pay a little bit more council tax in the short term to fund a judicial review? The kneejerk answer most people would give to this question is most likely a resounding no. And if that is the case, if everyone stands by and lets this happen, if the people of south-west London do not fight together to preserve their health services, the outcome could be fatal.





Photo courtesy of Michaela Kobyakov

So, I visited my friendly local mosque...

A few weeks ago, I wrote about a ridiculous piece in the Daily Mail, where David Goodhart, a writer with a book to peddle, portrayed Merton, the borough where I live, as some sort of hateful war zone where immigrants, especially Muslim immigrants, were not integrating. I did not recognise the Merton Goodhart wrote about and I was appalled - although not especially surprised - that the Daily Mail readily published something with rubbery use of stats and blatant lies.

As a result of this original blog post, I wrote a follow-up post and another post when David Goodhart responded over Twitter. And then I was invited to visit the mosque which formed the central theme of Goodhart's disgust for the "polite apartheid" that he claimed was going on in Merton. The Baitul Futuh mosque was not, as Goodhart claimed, built to replace a dairy and steal local jobs. There was a seven-year gap between the dairy closing down and mosque construction starting. In the seven-year gap, the old dairy site became a magnet for drug-related crime. Now there is a mosque on the site, this is no longer the case.

On my visit to the mosque, I learnt about its construction - part of the old dairy was used to build the minaret , the building is clad in elegant, self-cleaning marble, light enters the part of the mosque where women pray via walls created from the same material used at Chelsea's home ground - oh, and it didn't cost British taxpayers a penny to build.

The mosque shares its car park with a nearby college and the college uses large rooms in the mosque to hold exams. This is not just an example of the mosque integrating with the community, but an example of the mosque actually helping save the taxpayers money - allowing use of the mosque for exams means the college does not have to fork out for expensive building works. Why anyone would disapprove of this is a mystery to me. There are no reports of students leaving the mosque after an exam as extremists or under pressure to convert to Islam. It is a lovely, quiet building - I can see why it'd be a more pleasant place to do an exam than a cold school hall.

Bushra, a woman I consider to be my newest friend, showed me around the mosque. Having visited mosques in the Middle East and Turkey, I was mindful of dressing respectfully and wore a long top over loose jeans and I had a scarf draped around my shoulders. I asked if I should cover my hair with the scarf when I entered the mosque but was told this was not necessary. If I had've been asked to cover my hair, I would have done so without complaint. Equally, I wouldn't walk into a church wearing a bikini and I'd ask someone to leave my house if they turned up wearing a "Keep calm and carry on raping" T-shirt - it's about showing respect to your hosts.

As we entered the main part of the mosque, we removed our shoes and Bushra talked animatedly about Islam and in particular about the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community. It is the 73rd sect of the Islamic world and many adherents of this sect have sought safety in Britain because of persecution by other sects, especially in Pakistan. Unlike other sects, the Ahmadiyya community believes the messiah was Mirza Ghulam Ahmed, who lived from 1835-1908. Bushra explained that Ahmad was dismayed by fanatical Islamic beliefs and championed a religion of peace and justice. He spoke against religious bloodshed and recognised the nobility of teachings by Abraham, Zoroaster, Moses, Jesus, Krishna, Buddha, Confucius, Lao Tzu and Guru Nanak.

It would appear Ahmad was a man ahead of his time - he did not like the drive towards fanatical Islam in the 19th Century and it is hard to imagine he'd be thrilled by events such as the 9/11 and 7/7 terror attacks, the current Israel-Palestine situation or the fighting that has gone on between Catholics and Protestants in Ireland for that matter.

As Bushra told me, the concept of "jihad" is rooted in one's personal struggles rather than a desire to destroy other people. Suicide bombers should not be considered true Muslims as the Islamic view of suicide is much the same as that of many Christian faiths.

As such, I am quite sure that when I visited the Baitul Futuh mosque, I was not entering a dark and terrifying den of extremism. I am confident that there is no secret south London branch of al Qaeda operating from this mosque. I did not feel any pressure to become radicalised or to convert to Islam. Instead, Bushra and I drank tea, ate cake and samosas, and chatted for hours about the mosque's work, especially with secular charities, about the role of women and about life in general.

It was easy to relate to the reluctance of women at the mosque to pray alongside the men, given the head-down-bottom-up position for prayer - it's not a position I'd be thrilled to do in front of a group of men either. And while the men of the mosque have a group for the over-40 age group, the women do not because, quite simply, plenty of women were not keen to admit to being over 40.

Bushra told me about how her marriage was arranged, but not forced. Consent by all parties is important and, having met her husband at the mosque, it is clear that their marriage was not a case of forcing two people together with little in common. Arranged marriage was a way to meet someone with whom she could build a life - it is all too easy to judge this concept from the outside looking in. But Bushra pointed out that online dating isn't really any different - it is just another way to try and match yourself up with someone with whom you have stuff in common. Which makes sense. You can be very specific when you go trawling dating websites, right down to height and eye colour, just as an arrangement is about meeting certain criteria. Having a future husband/wife checklist is as universal as women not wanting to point their bums in the air around men or admit they are older than 40.

It reminded me of a conversation I had with Zara, the wonderful Muslim woman who used to clean my apartment when I was a spoiled expat living in Abu Dhabi. She told me that all most people want is peace and to live a peaceful life with their families. While families can take many forms, including your circle of friends in many cases, Zara's point was that underneath it all, people are not that different wherever you go.

The Baitul Futuh mosque is open to everyone. You don't need to make an appointment, you can simply turn up and someone will happily show you around without judgement. I said that it was similar to being able to walk into an open church and it was interesting that Bushra said she wasn't sure if she would simply enter a church. I'd never considered it from that perspective before - just as non-Muslims may be unsure about whether they can walk into a mosque and take a look around, plenty of Muslims are probably equally uncertain about whether they can walk into a church.

If you scoff at the idea of visiting a mosque, if you still believe that all Muslims are terrorists and simply believe every word in the Daily Mail, you are part of the problem. And if you are peddling the "Britain is a Christian country!" line, you'd better be as willing to show Muslims around your church (you do go to church, don't you?) as Bushra was to show me around her mosque.

Reflections on Anzac Day, 2013

April 25 is Anzac Day. This is the day when Australians and New Zealanders remember those who have died in war. As with Remembrance Day on November 11, it is important to not only honour those who have died but to look ahead, to try and forge a world where war is always the last resort, where better solutions might be found. But in a world where nations have a stunning inability to learn from history, I grow evermore cynical that this ideal may ever be achieved.

My maternal grandfather, Lindsay Gordon Wright, served in Papua New Guinea and Japan during WWII. Over the years, he was quick to share funny stories about condoms ("passion rations") being used to keep water out of rifles, practical jokes played by mischievous Australian soldiers on British officers, and his disdain for military police. But it really wasn't until the last decade of his life - he passed away in 2010 aged 89 - that he really spoke of the horrors he witnessed.

"War is just old men sending young men to die," was his succinct summation of it all.

Serving in WWII changed Lindsay. He was among an incredible group of Australian soldiers who set an amazing example by spending two years in Nagasaki after the war to help rebuild a city devastated by the dropping of an atomic bomb. He learned to speak Japanese, he came home with a deep respect for Japan and its people, which was unusual in his generation, and he refused to pick up a gun again. This was also unusual as he was a farmer and one of the ongoing arguments of the Australian gun lobby is that farmers "need" guns.

True to his word, Lindsay never touched a gun again, he was a strong advocate of gun control ("I've seen what a gun can do to a man," he'd often say) and he never spoke ill of the Japanese. And every time another war started, he'd shake his head in despair.

The invasion of Iraq over WMDs that were never found made him particularly angry. Iraq is a major buyer of Australian wheat and my grandfather was a wheat farmer While it's easy to dismiss his objections as being motivated by vested interests, that misses the bigger picture. War destroys economies as well as lives. Unless you're an arms dealer.

Meanwhile, every year there is a pilgrimage by Australians and New Zealanders to Turkey for an Anzac Day dawn service among the war graves. April 25 marks the anniversary of the landing of Anzac forces at Gallipoli - an event that was to start months of futile fighting over not much territory at all. It was disastrous with lives lost not only through fighting but also disease and suicide.

Over the years, there have been news reports on Anzac Day about the disrespectful behaviour of young visitors to Gallipoli with footage and photographs of drunkenness, empty bottles and cans left behind, people having sex in war cemeteries not uncommon. Thankfully, that doesn't seem to have happened this year - the reports in years gone by offered an awful mix of jingoism and ugly Australian behaviour that made me glad I visited Gallipoli in October 2003 instead. It was peaceful, there was time and space to contemplate it all in the war cemetries for Anzac troops as well as Turks, and the whole place is a lesson in the futility of war.

At a museum, there is a heartbreaking monument to an entire class of Turkish medical students all killed in Gallipoli in 1915. We will never know what world-changing potential was lost from that particular slaughter. There are graves aplenty of teenagers. It is horrific.

Amid all this, there was a moment of bonding between my father and our Turkish taxi driver. They hugged and they agreed that the soldiers on both sides were all victims while British generals removed from the action made life-altering decisions. "British generals with their gin-and-tonics!" was the insult levelled at soldiers' superiors by the taxi driver. But it was still a moving moment.

There is a more nuanced memorial at Gallipoli with the words of Ataturk, the founder of modern Turkey:

"Those heroes that shed their blood and lost their lives...
You are now living in the soil of a friendly country. Therefore rest in peace. There is no difference between the Johnnies and the Mehmets to us where they lie side by side here in this country of ours...
You, the mothers, who sent their sons from faraway countries wipe away your tears; your sons are now lying in our bosom and are in peace, after having lost their lives on this land they have become our sons as well."

They were Ataturk's words from 1934. They still resonate today as we refuse to embrace each other, to accept differences and to rejoice in what we have in common . As too many of our sons (and daughters) return in coffins from war zones, blind patriotism does not behoove any of us. Solutions that do not involve guns, bombs, drones, tanks, landmines, grenades, mortars and so on and so forth are still, it would tragically appear, to be light years away. Lindsay would shake his head.

Lest we forget. But may we also learn.




  

On the phone with the Hotel Hospital

"Hello, is that the PremierLodge Hospital Hotel?"

"Yes, it is. How can I help you?"

"Good! I am the Lead Nurse at the hospital up the road and I understand you are now open for patients."

"Right you are, Sister!"

"Er, can I speak to the manager please?"

"The manager has gone home for the day. We just operate on a skeleton staff overnight."

"I see. I have a few cases that I'd like to bring in. They are taking up valuable beds, we are full to capacity, but I'm not sure they're quite ready to go home yet."

"Right."

"I mean, it'd be great if we still had the old convalescent homes but they seem to have gone the way of leeches and trepanning and, well, we all know how hard it is to get a doctor to make a house call these days..."

"What?"

"Oh, never mind, I am babbling now, reminiscing about days gone by. Are all the staff there trained medical professionals?"

"No, but everyone has undergone the week-long PremierLodge induction course. Our certificates are on the wall in the break room."

"Right. But everything has been cleaned to hospital standards?"

"We have cleaners..."

"Good, jolly good, that's a start. Do the patients get fed at the same time or do they just use room service?"

"Oh, we have a special offer on this week for room service. All patients can get a free half-bottle of wine with every main meal ordered!"

"Wine? I was looking to bring in Mr Jenkins, he is recovering from a stomach ulcer, and Mrs Santori, who had a baby a couple of days ago. I'm not sure either of them are up to a glass of wine at the moment."

"There's a selection of food in the vending machines down the hallway."

"Vending machines? Special offers? Hang on, what is the deal with paying for food? I mean, I know these hotels are meant to save the NHS a fortune but who bills who? Do we pay the hotels to cater? Does the hotel bill the hospital or the local trust? Er, don't tell me the patients get billed?"

"Uh, there has been talk of billing the patients for food. They already have to pay for the telly, phones, soap and extra pillows, blankets and towels..."

"I see. What if one of the patients needs emergency care?"

"The doctor will come back in the morning and do rounds then. Costs a fortune to keep one in overnight on the off chance someone might take a turn for the worse. We're a business, not a charity, y'know."

"OK..."

"But it's cool, visitors can come at any time. It's better than those poxy hospital visiting hours."

"Visiting hours are there to ensure patients get adequate rest."

"But the patients get bored."

"I'm pretty sure Mr Jenkins is too busy dealing with post-operative pain and Mrs Santori is pretty focused on her new baby at the moment. I'm not sure I want to send either of them somewhere where members of the public can wander up and down the corridors at all hours."

"Oh, it's OK - we use G4S for our security here. Anyway, it's all part of the PremierLodge mission statement..."

"The what?"

"Our mission statement. 'PremierLodge Hospital Hotels aim to provide outstanding patient outcomes in a cost-effective, fun medical environment' - it's on the plaque in the foyer."

"Good grief. Is it a medical facility or the set of Grey's Anatomy? Is there a Dr McDreamy on hand?"

"No, but that's a great idea. Might draw in some more clients if we can get a doctor who looks like Patrick Dempsey on staff. We don't want to lose more business to the Infirmary Inn down the road. I'll suggest that at the next staff meeting. Noted!"

"I think I'll just keep Mr Jenkins in for an extra night and send Mrs Santori home tomorrow. If all else fails, they can call an ambulance after they're discharged, I suppose."

"Just remind them that PremierLodge's call centres will be managing 999 calls from now on - 45p a minute, higher from mobiles..."



Image courtesy of www.kozzi.com

Sir Stirling Moss and the poor little lady brains

In a departure from regular Rant Mistress transmission, today I am linking to my other website, a motoring website called On The Cars. I have the occasional rant here in between posting stuff for car lovers to lust over. Click on this link: http://onthecars.com/2013/04/18/sir-stirling-moss/ to experience my latest rant on Stirling Moss and why his comments on women in motor sport are utter nonsense.

Kermit Gosnell and the back alley clinic hidden in plain sight

Only a psychopath would not be horrified by the case of Kermit Gosnell.  He is on trial for eight counts of murder after an FBI raid on his "women's health" clinic. The allegations surround Gosnell, who was a doctor but not a qualified OB/GYN, performing abortions after the Pennsylvania state's 24-week limit and killing seven viable babies by snipping their spinal cords. Additionally, a woman died in his clinic from an overdose of anaesthesia. The court has heard appalling accounts of a filthy, substandard clinic with unqualified staff. The court has heard that Gosnell preyed on vulnerable, poor women who struggled to access birth control and early abortion.

There has been much vocal anger from prolife and prochoice commentators about the lack of media coverage this awful case has received. In a testament to the power of social media, the Gosnell case is now getting far more airplay across the board. It was astounding that this has been largely ignored by left- and right-leaning media, all of whom would get agenda-pushing mileage out of it. Interestingly, I first heard about the Gosnell case in 2011 via Amanda Marcotte, a prochoice journalist, but that may just be a reflection on the online circles in which I move.

In any case, the Gosnell case is now out there and it is a shocking example of multiple failings at every level.

Gosnell redefined the back alley abortion by conducting illegal, dangerous, unsanitary procedures in a clinic with massive signage on a busy street. He hid in plain sight.

The court is hearing accounts of foetal remains stored in freezers, bags and jars.

Further allegations would indicate that it wouldn't matter what sort of doctor Gosnell claimed to be, he was not meeting the standards one would expect in a developed country.

It has been alleged that the clinic smelled of animal urine because cats were allowed to roam freely inside. It has also been alleged that instruments were not properly sterilised, disposable medical items were re-used and furniture and blankets were bloodstained. None of this is acceptable in any sort of medical facility.

At a Pennsylvania state level, there were further failings that allowed Gosnell to slip through the net for so long.

In the state of Pennsylvania, there are no laws against impersonating a physician.

In the state of Pennsylvania, the State Board of Cosmetology appears to be more diligent about inspecting nail salons than health authorities are about inspecting medical facilities.

This is a case that should resonate around the world. Pennsylvania's 24-week limit is the same as UK abortion laws (with the exception of Northern Ireland). That is a sane abortion law but in Pennsylvania, it does not appear to be supported by essential regulation to ensure high standards are maintained in the state's clinics. I'd like to think that a British Gosnell would not be allowed to practice in any sort of capacity as a women's health specialist, whether that involved providing abortions or not.

Sometimes big government isn't necessarily a bad thing. In the case of regulating abortion clinics, it is essential. Britain combines regulation with free access to birth control, abortion and counselling. As a result, 91% of UK abortions happen in the first trimester. The only abortions that happen after the 24-week mark in the UK are for medical reasons. The law is quite clear and quite strict on this.

Abortion clinics in the UK are not overrun with heavily pregnant women demanding elective abortions on a whim. This is a ridiculous myth. In the case of Gosnell's desperate patients, they underwent awful procedures in situations where true choice was sadly lacking. A late-term abortion, for whatever reason, is not a pleasant, pain-free experience. Medical need or extreme desperation are pretty much the only two reasons why they happen.

Meanwhile, in Ireland the inquest into the death of Savita Halappanavar is taking place. Savita was 17 weeks pregnant when she died at Galway University Hospital where she presented with serious back pain. It is claimed that in the seven days she was in hospital, her cervix dilated, she leaked amniotic fluid, she was denied an abortion because there was a foetal heartbeat present, and was told Ireland is "a Catholic country" (Hint: It's not. There's no state religion). Savita died of septicaemia on October 28 last year. Argument rages on as to whether terminating her pregnancy might have saved her life.

If she was in Britain or Pennsylvania, she would have been within the legal time limit for an abortion, but the standard of care might have varied considerably between the two places, especially if she had the misfortune to be a poor woman living in Gosnell's neighbourhood.

In short, women deserve better than Gosnell. As a prochoice, I'd argue this means access to birth control, comprehensive sex education and timely abortion. The Gosnell case is also a wake-up call for fighting poverty and all that entails. It is a wake-up call for society to do better by women in vulnerable situations. Vulnerable pregnant women need to be able to make educated choices, whether that means abortion, motherhood or adoption. Such choices should be made with support and without stigma.

As a prochoice, I don't believe the Gosnell case is a reason to ban all abortion. As a human being, I believe it is a call to ensure all healthcare providers are operating hygienically and within the law.


Image courtesy of www.kozzi.com