:00:09. > :00:13.A new out to the throne is expected any day now, a festival at
:00:13. > :00:19.Buckingham Palace this weekend is the latest event to mark the
:00:19. > :00:29.Queen's Diamond Jubilee, 60 years since her coronation. But as a
:00:29. > :00:41.
:00:41. > :00:46.purely Christian coronation out of touch with modern Britain? Good
:00:46. > :00:49.morning. I'm Samira Ahmed. Welcome to Sunday Morning Live. Also today:
:00:49. > :00:54.A pioneering new test for Down syndrome in the womb is being
:00:54. > :00:58.trialled this month, but will it lead to more abortions on the ground
:00:58. > :01:01.of disability? And the NHS is considering whether
:01:01. > :01:05.people on the organ donor register should be given priority if they
:01:05. > :01:11.need a transplant. Is too much pressure being put on people to
:01:11. > :01:17.become donors? We talk to a relative who faced a stark choice. They told
:01:17. > :01:24.me that unfortunately, she had died. At the same time, they asked
:01:24. > :01:28.me, would I consider donating her organ? My guests this week are
:01:28. > :01:31.Jonathan Bartley, co-founder of the Christian think-tank Ekklesia,
:01:31. > :01:36.author and columnist Kishwar Desai, whose novels have explored issues
:01:36. > :01:39.like violence against women and gender selection of babies in India,
:01:39. > :01:44.and Adrian Hilton, a researcher in social sciences at Oxford University
:01:44. > :01:49.and well-known as a logger on all things religious. We want to know
:01:49. > :01:59.what you think as well. If you have a webcam, you can join via Skype.
:01:59. > :02:09.
:02:09. > :02:13.You can also join us through Twitter to give birth to her first child any
:02:13. > :02:18.day now. Whether the child is a boy or girl, it will be third in line to
:02:18. > :02:22.the. The news will be announced by a notice posted outside Buckingham
:02:22. > :02:27.Palace, an old tradition. Inside the grounds of the palace, they have
:02:27. > :02:31.been celebrating the Queen's Diamond Jubilee. Her coronation 60 years ago
:02:31. > :02:36.was deeply rooted in tradition, too, a ceremony vested with the trappings
:02:36. > :02:39.of the church of England, of which she has -- she is the supreme head
:02:39. > :02:43.and has the title of defender of the faith. This child has talked about
:02:43. > :02:47.becoming defender of faith rather than the faith -- wins child has
:02:47. > :02:51.talked about becoming defender of faith rather than the faith when he
:02:51. > :02:54.ascends the throne. But nearly a third of the publishing of England
:02:54. > :02:59.and Wales do not consider themselves as Christian according to the latest
:02:59. > :03:09.census. Jonathan Bartley thinks it should change. This is his Sunday
:03:09. > :03:14.
:03:14. > :03:17.stand, from Westminster Abbey. If you have ever wondered why
:03:17. > :03:22.progress towards religious equality has been so slow, you don't have to
:03:22. > :03:26.look much further than the Christian coronation. Therefore all CRD
:03:26. > :03:30.arrangements at the heart of the problem. This is not just a harmless
:03:30. > :03:33.hangover from a bygone era will stop the coronation remains at the heart
:03:33. > :03:38.of a cosy relationship, a deal which ensures that the church retains
:03:39. > :03:42.control of its unjust privileges while not being too strident in its
:03:42. > :03:46.criticisms of the establishment. The monarch and Mrs to uphold all the
:03:46. > :03:49.privileges that the church of England enjoys. A Christian
:03:49. > :03:54.coronation is in fact a contradiction in terms. Jesus did
:03:54. > :03:58.not tell his followers to assume inequality and run empires, quite
:03:58. > :04:02.the opposite. The only reason we have a Christian coronation is
:04:02. > :04:07.because the church wanted power and privilege, and kings and queens want
:04:07. > :04:10.a divine authority to rule. All faiths and even the nonreligious
:04:10. > :04:16.should be part of the coronation ceremony. If they are not inclusive,
:04:16. > :04:19.what is the point in having them at all? The time has come to move on.
:04:19. > :04:24.Let's have an inclusive ceremony and take a step down the road towards
:04:24. > :04:34.equality. If we are to have a monarch, let's have an inclusive
:04:34. > :04:34.
:04:34. > :04:39.coronation. If we can't do that, let's scrap the whole thing.
:04:39. > :04:45.The views of Jonathan Bartley. Time to make it multi-faith, or scrap the
:04:45. > :04:50.whole thing, Kishwar? I would say it is tokenism anyway. Even if you
:04:50. > :04:54.assume that Prince Charles would want a multi-faith coronation, which
:04:54. > :05:01.faith is he going to choose? There are hundreds of them. So I don't buy
:05:01. > :05:11.into this. That is the question for art text vote today. Should future
:05:11. > :05:20.
:05:20. > :05:25.coronation is the multi-faith ceremonies? You can only vote once.
:05:25. > :05:31.Adrian, what do you think? I don't think Jonathan has thought this
:05:31. > :05:36.through. You move towards a multi-faith coronation, which
:05:36. > :05:42.instantly excludes the atheists and secular humanist is. From whom we
:05:42. > :05:49.shall be here shortly. There is too much theology here that is a
:05:49. > :05:53.thousand years old. In liturgy, it is 3000 years old. But the ceremony
:05:53. > :05:59.itself is all a bit of a construction going back to Henry
:05:59. > :06:05.VIII. Not entirely, it goes back to 973 and the crowning of King Edgar.
:06:05. > :06:12.The theology of this service was created by St Dunston will stop and
:06:12. > :06:17.it has been adapted over the years to incorporate different political
:06:18. > :06:23.or religious aspects of culture. But if you move now to multi-faith, what
:06:23. > :06:32.happens to the part where the monarch wants to uphold the laws of
:06:32. > :06:37.God? Which God are we talking about? Are we talking about sharia?
:06:37. > :06:41.idea that the Queen now upholds the laws, every law passed by the
:06:41. > :06:44.government is the law of God, is a complete nonsense. We should open it
:06:44. > :06:50.up to those of no religion as well. It should be an inclusive ceremony
:06:50. > :06:53.for everyone. Secondly, we should get rid of the stuff where the Queen
:06:53. > :06:56.makes this political statement in the middle of the coronation and
:06:56. > :06:59.says I will uphold all the privileges of the church of England
:06:59. > :07:05.will stop that includes the 26 bishops in the House of Lords and
:07:05. > :07:10.the right of faith schools to discriminate over admissions. It
:07:10. > :07:16.entrenches unjust privileges for one dominant -- one denomination within
:07:16. > :07:24.Christianity. But it is a very real thing, because this happens to be a
:07:24. > :07:29.Christian country. What do you mean by a Christian country? It is a
:07:29. > :07:36.predominantly Christian country. And then there are the other religions
:07:36. > :07:46.and the atheists. The point is that when Prince Charles said this was
:07:46. > :07:47.
:07:47. > :07:55.what he wanted, immediately, bang! - came the action -- came the reaction
:07:55. > :08:01.from the Archbishop and others, who said, you can't do this. He was told
:08:01. > :08:06.he could have his multi-faith ceremony later. So in any case, no
:08:07. > :08:11.one will accept this. That is why it is tokenism. It is just a question
:08:11. > :08:20.of having another little ceremony to please the rest of the Hindus all
:08:20. > :08:27.Muslims, but it doesn't mean anything. In any case, the whole
:08:27. > :08:34.thing of having a king and queen and so on is pretty much a redundant
:08:34. > :08:37.phenomenon. It is a ceremonial status. These things just add to the
:08:37. > :08:42.political correctness of this period and are meaningless. It would be
:08:42. > :08:52.much better if they were to go out there and say they were working with
:08:52. > :08:59.
:08:59. > :09:09.the community to help So you so you are therefore endorsing... I am
:09:09. > :09:14.
:09:14. > :09:18.saying that this is the reality, so wake up. We have just heard an
:09:18. > :09:21.ulterior motive. The ulterior motive is the abolition of the monarchy.
:09:21. > :09:27.You think it is an anachronistic, and you would rather see the church
:09:27. > :09:31.out of power altogether? I would rather see a level playing field.
:09:31. > :09:37.Let me look at this idea of whether a multi-faith ceremony would be
:09:37. > :09:42.tokenistic, or whether it could have meaning. Let's go to a viewer from
:09:42. > :09:46.the UK Punjab Heritage Association. You have been to a multi-faith event
:09:46. > :09:52.attended by the Queen. What is your idea on whether they have real
:09:52. > :09:58.value? The event I attended last year was the first official diamond
:09:58. > :10:04.jubilee event. Any event that recognises and celebrates diversity
:10:04. > :10:10.is positive. But I don't back the monarchy to deviate from
:10:10. > :10:14.Christianity, because they are so historically synonymous. But we do
:10:14. > :10:20.believe in a multicultural society, and that must be embraced. How
:10:20. > :10:29.meaningless and event is depends on how it is publicised and
:10:29. > :10:33.represented. It is about communities and them being recognised.
:10:33. > :10:39.Communities take great pride in their way of life and their history
:10:39. > :10:42.being shared. Seeks take great pride in their contribution to World War I
:10:42. > :10:49.and World War II being recognised. It is about community is being
:10:49. > :10:54.recognised in national events. Adrian, she talks about history. It
:10:54. > :10:57.is bigger than just religion, isn't it? That is very important, and I
:10:57. > :11:03.would agree with everything she said. We forget that King Edward
:11:03. > :11:07.VII, King George V and King George VI were also emperors of India. They
:11:07. > :11:13.were monarchs over millions of Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs, but none
:11:13. > :11:19.of those were agitating. They were not treating them very well! That is
:11:19. > :11:23.a different matter. I am simply making the point that the Church of
:11:24. > :11:32.England provides a sacred canopy under which people of all faiths and
:11:32. > :11:35.none are free to believe as they wish. Let's look at this issue about
:11:35. > :11:39.Prince Charles expressing his interest in being a defender of race
:11:39. > :11:43.and the idea of whether you can represent all faiths. Let me bring
:11:43. > :11:47.in a representative from the Muslim Council of Britain. What do you
:11:47. > :11:55.think of the idea of Prince Charles representing all faiths? Could he do
:11:55. > :11:59.that? Yes, of course. I am excited by this idea. Britain has
:11:59. > :12:03.traditionally been a Christian country. Our monarchs have in
:12:03. > :12:11.Christian, and it is right that every ceremony has to have a
:12:11. > :12:14.significant content of Christian cultures. At the same time, the
:12:14. > :12:18.monarchy has been very inclusive. They are recognising their diversity
:12:18. > :12:21.of faiths and cultures in our country. I attended the Commonwealth
:12:21. > :12:29.Day ceremony, which is very colourful and includes trailers from
:12:29. > :12:38.all traditions and is a significant part of our society. It includes
:12:39. > :12:44.secular and nonreligious people as well. As a Muslim, I feel included.
:12:44. > :12:53.I don't feel disadvantaged, and I support the continuation of the
:12:53. > :13:03.established church, with the monarch as head of the church and state.
:13:03. > :13:08.That is modern Britain today. bring in one other contributor. We
:13:08. > :13:11.need to hear the voice of the atheists. Andrew Copson is from the
:13:11. > :13:17.British humanist Association. Many people, including those of different
:13:17. > :13:20.religions, say look, it is a Christian ceremony, but there is
:13:20. > :13:25.enough intrusion, and it is really about pageantry and history will
:13:25. > :13:29.stop I think the coronation of a new head of state is an important moment
:13:29. > :13:33.and it should unite all the people in the country of which that person
:13:33. > :13:38.will be head of state. And I think for most people in Britain today,
:13:38. > :13:42.even if they have a cultural Christian affiliation, which is
:13:42. > :13:47.decreasing anyway, but even if they have that, for most people a
:13:47. > :13:51.Christian ceremony is meaningless. It doesn't add any extra status or
:13:51. > :13:57.significance to the installation of a head of date. It would be better
:13:57. > :14:01.if we had a ceremony that emphasised what we shared in our civic nature
:14:01. > :14:04.as citizens of this country, as they do in the United States of America
:14:04. > :14:14.when they're in no great a president, or in France, or as they
:14:14. > :14:14.
:14:14. > :14:20.did recently in the Netherlands when they brought in their new king.
:14:20. > :14:25.interesting comparisons. The idea that the ceremony is meaningless
:14:25. > :14:32.because most people are not religious. And there are so many
:14:33. > :14:39.models in America and France. America you have had until the most
:14:39. > :14:44.recent inauguration, the Reverend Lee Graham providing there, swearing
:14:44. > :14:49.an oath on the Bible. They have their own Christian liturgy in the
:14:49. > :14:55.United states of America. difference is he is talking about
:14:55. > :15:01.Prime Minister 's, presidents who are democratically elected. It is a
:15:01. > :15:10.different way of celebrating them. That can be multi-faith, whatever
:15:10. > :15:15.you like. But this is a different tradition. To respond to that, if
:15:15. > :15:23.you look at places like America, Christianity is at the heart of a
:15:23. > :15:28.lot of these ceremonies. There have often been swearing on the Bible at
:15:28. > :15:34.residential elections but that does not mean to say that it is somehow a
:15:34. > :15:38.church service. The correlation is emphasising the late between the
:15:38. > :15:48.monarch and God, between God and the government and that is something
:15:48. > :15:49.
:15:49. > :15:59.that increasingly alienate the majority of people. Just to let
:15:59. > :16:00.
:16:00. > :16:05.Jonathan respond. Non-Christians are saying, leave it as it is. We have
:16:05. > :16:09.got Charles coming up on the horizon. Do we want a hypocrite as a
:16:09. > :16:13.monarch with Mac someone who does not want that uniqueness to the
:16:13. > :16:23.coronation ceremony, he has made it clear he wanted to be something
:16:23. > :16:27.
:16:27. > :16:32.wider. We are actually talking about one denomination. When I do jury
:16:32. > :16:37.service I do not swear on the Bible even though I am a Christian. I take
:16:37. > :16:42.the word of Jesus seriously. That coronation ceremony is one narrow
:16:42. > :16:45.part of Christianity and does not have the breadth of Christianity.
:16:45. > :16:51.Just cause we have a historical dominance of the Church of England
:16:51. > :16:56.it does not mean that we should carry that on in perpetuity. It does
:16:56. > :17:01.have implications for people with Mac lives. I just want to let
:17:01. > :17:06.Jonathan have the last word. Some viewers saying, this is a ridiculous
:17:07. > :17:11.idea, Britain is a Christian country. Our identity has already
:17:11. > :17:17.been diluted. Another saying, the idea of a monarchy and religious
:17:17. > :17:21.head of state seems odd in a secular democratic society.
:17:21. > :17:31.The poll is open on this. The question, should coronation speed
:17:31. > :17:33.
:17:33. > :17:38.multi-faith ceremonies. You can only vote once. Texts will be charged at
:17:38. > :17:44.your standard message rate. You have around 20 minutes before the poll
:17:44. > :17:50.closes. In the next two weeks trials will
:17:50. > :17:53.start at two hospitals in the South East of England of a new road test
:17:53. > :17:58.for pregnant women to check for the presence of Down's syndrome. The
:17:58. > :18:02.whole area of such tests leads to possible termination and is a
:18:02. > :18:05.controversial issue. Next Wednesday an all-party group of MPs will
:18:05. > :18:10.reveal the findings of their enquiry into whether too many abortions are
:18:10. > :18:17.being carried out on disability grounds. The current law allows
:18:17. > :18:22.abortion without time limit in cases where a child would be classed as
:18:22. > :18:32.severely handicapped. More about this new blood test that could
:18:32. > :18:35.
:18:36. > :18:39.provide more accurate diagnosis. This is the Professor of evil
:18:39. > :18:45.medicine at Kings College, London. He is leading the trial of the new
:18:45. > :18:51.blood test. You can see the heart beating. Unlike the current
:18:51. > :18:54.screening method this test is as DNA to return more accurate results. It
:18:54. > :19:02.ensures that fewer women have to undergo an invasive amniocentesis
:19:02. > :19:08.test which can place them at risk of miscarriage. First of all instead of
:19:08. > :19:14.picking out about 90% of the babies with down syndrome, it is likely
:19:14. > :19:22.that it would pick up more than 99%. And secondly, instead of carrying
:19:22. > :19:28.out an invasive test in around 5% of women, you only need to do it in
:19:28. > :19:32.less than half a percent of women. Currently the new screening
:19:32. > :19:37.procedure is available in private hospitals and costs around �400. If
:19:38. > :19:44.that deal is reduced and the study proves a success, it could be made
:19:44. > :19:50.available across the NHS. important thing is that space behind
:19:50. > :19:55.the neck. In Down's syndrome the amount of water behind the neck is
:19:55. > :19:58.eager. The professor feels the test will provide women with the
:19:58. > :20:04.information that they need to make an informed choice about their
:20:04. > :20:08.pregnancy. We will explain our findings, explaining the
:20:08. > :20:14.implications of those findings in terms of the quality of life they
:20:14. > :20:19.could expect. And whether a child with a given problem would survive
:20:19. > :20:24.or not. And then the parents decide. He recognises there is an
:20:24. > :20:27.ethical debate around this area of medicine. The ethical position of
:20:27. > :20:34.whether by improving the methods of detecting babies with Down's
:20:34. > :20:39.syndrome, we are taking a position that Down's syndrome is a really bad
:20:39. > :20:42.thing and therefore there must be better methods of identifying it in
:20:42. > :20:50.order to destroy them, that is an argument that I respect. The
:20:50. > :20:56.alternative argument is that if society through the house of
:20:56. > :21:00.parliament has legalised termination and the government has accepted the
:21:00. > :21:05.principle of screening for Down's syndrome and therefore our role, if
:21:05. > :21:12.those things are accepted, termination and universal screening
:21:12. > :21:18.for Down's syndrome, is to improve the method of screening.
:21:19. > :21:22.As with other medical advances the new test to create ethical issues.
:21:22. > :21:26.Disability groups say children born even with severe conditions can have
:21:26. > :21:34.a fulfilling life. What do you think? Should parents have the right
:21:34. > :21:39.to choose whether a disabled child should be borne? You can join in the
:21:39. > :21:44.debate by webcam, or by phone, text or e-mail. So many children can live
:21:44. > :21:49.better lives. People do wonder if disability should be grounds for
:21:49. > :21:57.abortion any more. I think there should be no discrimination anyway
:21:57. > :22:02.on any level between what is called normal and people who are disabled.
:22:02. > :22:06.So definitely this is a sensitive issue. But I think families have to
:22:06. > :22:14.make the decision on this if they are told in advance if a child is
:22:14. > :22:18.likely to be disabled. The right should be given to families because
:22:18. > :22:21.we have had personal experience of this, we had somebody who was
:22:21. > :22:26.physically challenged and mentally challenged in our family and I did
:22:26. > :22:31.see it was difficult for everybody. The parents went through a lot of
:22:31. > :22:35.difficult moments. And had they been told what they were in for they
:22:35. > :22:39.could have made a more informed choice. I'm not saying that the
:22:39. > :22:46.child did not give us a lot of pleasure. It is not cut and dried.
:22:46. > :22:49.But information should be out there. Jonathan, what is your experience?
:22:49. > :22:56.We have experienced it personally and it is one of the hardest
:22:56. > :22:59.decisions, whatever you think, when you are faced with it. We went into
:22:59. > :23:05.hospital for a routine scan and it became apparent that all was not as
:23:05. > :23:12.we expected. We were sat down with medical vessels and they explained
:23:12. > :23:16.to us that our child was going to be born with spina bifida. We asked
:23:16. > :23:23.what the medical solution was and they said, you can have an abortion.
:23:23. > :23:27.We felt very much pushed in that direction. What worries me, I do not
:23:27. > :23:31.stand in judgement on any parents because I have been there and it is
:23:31. > :23:40.a terrible decision to make. But at the same time the signals coming
:23:40. > :23:45.from government and in that video just now, the sense is that it is a
:23:46. > :23:51.problem to be disposed of and this is the solution. So the solution is
:23:51. > :23:56.to get rid of the problem and that child. It is a strong undercurrent.
:23:56. > :24:00.And we see that after birth as well and increasingly coming into public
:24:01. > :24:06.policy. That if you are a parent and have gone ahead with a pregnancy,
:24:06. > :24:13.people start to question whether you were irresponsible. You have to come
:24:13. > :24:18.down hard on that straightaway. People will be watching thinking,
:24:18. > :24:26.everyone's experience is different. Who is to say that the parents
:24:26. > :24:32.should be forced to go through with a pregnancy where they feel for them
:24:32. > :24:37.it is not the right decision. quickly forget Ellie Simmonds, David
:24:37. > :24:44.Wear, Johnny Peacock. These are disabled people who have excelled
:24:44. > :24:50.and brought the nation immense inspiration last year. I wonder how
:24:50. > :24:56.disabled people watching this programme think in terms of, this is
:24:56. > :25:00.a society moving towards abortion eugenics. They want us to be
:25:00. > :25:05.cleansed out of society because we are somehow not quite fully human
:25:05. > :25:13.enough to enjoy the qualify -- -- the quality of life that the
:25:13. > :25:19.able-bodied enjoy. I want to bring in a contributor on webcam. Just to
:25:19. > :25:26.get a different experience. Julie Langdon, you had to make a decision
:25:26. > :25:33.when you were pregnant. Can you tell us about that? I became pregnant
:25:33. > :25:41.when I was 36. It was accidental. I did not quite know what was going to
:25:41. > :25:47.happen, if I was going to be on my own. I thought I would find it
:25:47. > :25:54.difficult to have a disabled child on my own. And that it was not the
:25:54. > :26:00.right course for me to take. So I had an amniocentesis. I was refused
:26:00. > :26:09.a test because I was not old enough, I was told I was more likely
:26:09. > :26:14.to miscarry from the test. I asked to see my consultant, he agreed with
:26:14. > :26:20.me that they were not comparing like with like because if I had a
:26:20. > :26:28.disabled child I would have it for the rest of my life and how would
:26:29. > :26:34.that child look after itself after a high had gone? But if I miscarried
:26:34. > :26:44.from the test, I could have another baby, I hoped. So the consultant
:26:44. > :26:45.
:26:45. > :26:51.said, you can have the test. I did that and my partner was with me. At
:26:51. > :26:57.20 weeks I learnt that I was carrying a Down's syndrome baby. At
:26:57. > :27:03.that point I realised that by choosing to have the test I in fact
:27:03. > :27:09.had already made the choice. Many disabled people live perfectly happy
:27:09. > :27:15.and normal lives. And medical progress is helping people. I have
:27:15. > :27:20.close friends whose children have enhanced their lives. But it is a
:27:20. > :27:24.matter of personal choice and I realised I had made my choice.
:27:24. > :27:31.can acknowledge that Down's syndrome babies bring enormous blessings to
:27:32. > :27:37.babies. But there is this but that somehow damns millions of Down's
:27:37. > :27:43.syndrome babies. This has been very judgemental. Do you feel that there
:27:43. > :27:47.is this judgement placed on women who choose to have terminations?
:27:47. > :27:53.That there is a political lobby around, you must have a child and
:27:53. > :27:57.must never have a termination on the grounds of disability? If you take
:27:57. > :28:04.my circumstances, which are mirrored by hundreds of thousands of other
:28:04. > :28:10.people. I could have had an abortion because I got pregnant by accident
:28:10. > :28:16.without knowing whether the baby was disabled or not. I took the decision
:28:16. > :28:24.that I did not want to bring a disabled child into the world and I
:28:24. > :28:32.am enormously relieved that I do not have a 30-year-old disabled daughter
:28:32. > :28:40.now. My husband has died, I would be looking after this child. In my old
:28:40. > :28:47.age. Thank you so much for speaking to us. Another contributor Haley, is
:28:47. > :28:54.a parent who has a six-year-old daughter who has Down's syndrome.
:28:54. > :28:59.People are concerned at the idea of having a child with a disability
:28:59. > :29:06.whose severity may be unknown. You must be aware of that. If the answer
:29:06. > :29:13.really just have good screening and let people make that decision?
:29:13. > :29:20.Looking at the question of more conclusive screening, who is it
:29:20. > :29:24.better for? Let us get this straight. Down's syndrome is not a
:29:24. > :29:30.serious disability by any stretch of the imagination. Individuals with
:29:30. > :29:39.down syndrome do not suffer in any way from the condition. Individuals
:29:39. > :29:44.lead full lives and also contribute to society in an enormous way. Yet
:29:44. > :29:50.30 million pounds was spent last year on screening, on the
:29:50. > :30:00.termination process. 92% of all babies diagnosed with Down's
:30:00. > :30:03.
:30:03. > :30:09.syndrome. Does it feel like a judgement on you when others choose
:30:09. > :30:13.to have a termination? Currently, you can terminate up to and during
:30:13. > :30:19.birth. We need to have some equality here so that all pregnancies are
:30:19. > :30:29.treated in the same way. What upsets me as a disability campaigner is
:30:29. > :30:33.that prospective parents are unquestioningly led down the path
:30:34. > :30:38.towards a screening without explanation of what it means or what
:30:38. > :30:45.you are screening for. They think they are going for peace of mind.
:30:45. > :30:52.But actually, the doctors that we trust our catching Down syndrome in
:30:52. > :30:58.language that makes it seem terrifying, as a syndrome that must
:30:58. > :31:04.be screened out. That is something Jonathan was saying as well. When
:31:04. > :31:10.you so much. -- thank you so much. Many people will be watching and
:31:10. > :31:15.thinking, there is a huge range of experience of disability. There is a
:31:15. > :31:19.political lobby now the other way to say that you must have your child,
:31:19. > :31:23.whatever the condition. Are you conscious of that? I am only
:31:23. > :31:26.conscious of the pressure in the other direction. It is remarkable
:31:26. > :31:31.that we spend all this money on trying to screen out children with
:31:31. > :31:38.Down syndrome, when we should be spending that money on making
:31:38. > :31:42.society inclusive. The problem is not the children. The problem is
:31:42. > :31:47.society and society's attitudes. There will be disabled people
:31:47. > :31:51.watching this who think, this makes me out to be a second-class citizen,
:31:51. > :31:56.a problem, a burden on society. We need to completely reframe this
:31:56. > :32:00.debate. Disability is not the problem. Disabled people are not
:32:00. > :32:07.just judged on whether they are Paralympian 's, they are people in
:32:07. > :32:12.their own right. Let me bring in a contributor, Jane Fisher. You work
:32:12. > :32:15.in a field which gives parents advice after they have had these
:32:15. > :32:19.difficult tests and results. What do you make of the charge that the
:32:19. > :32:24.medical profession pressures parents into feeling they should terminate
:32:24. > :32:30.if they have a diagnosis like this? We take the opposite view. Many
:32:30. > :32:34.parents call us on our helpline in emotional turmoil after they are
:32:34. > :32:37.given the diagnosis, feeling that they are not being given any
:32:38. > :32:41.direction and feeling that the decision is almost impossible. I
:32:41. > :32:44.suppose they are reeling in grief that they are not expected the baby
:32:44. > :32:49.they thought they were going to have and I are trying to adjust to
:32:49. > :32:55.different reality, trying to work out what the diagnosis means for
:32:55. > :33:00.them and their family. Our job is to help them do that and give them
:33:00. > :33:04.safe, independent, non-space to do that. But the fact is that after
:33:04. > :33:12.consideration, many parents find it is not something they want for their
:33:12. > :33:16.child or their family. Kishwar? I agree. It is important that we are
:33:16. > :33:23.not judgemental about this. It is important that families decide. We
:33:24. > :33:28.do see examples of families broken up after they have decided to have a
:33:28. > :33:33.child, but they feel they cannot cope sometimes. We need to look into
:33:33. > :33:37.the feelings of the families. Are they emotionally, physically,
:33:37. > :33:43.financially able to cope? If not, they must be given a fair chance
:33:43. > :33:53.without us making them feel guilty. Which is itself you being
:33:53. > :33:55.
:33:55. > :34:01.judgemental. Not at all.There is something immensely important here,
:34:01. > :34:05.which nobody has defined. Society and parliament have not defined what
:34:05. > :34:10.we mean by severe disability. You will know that in parts of the
:34:10. > :34:14.world, to be female is to be severely disabled. In huge parts of
:34:14. > :34:19.India and China, if the baby is female, it is deemed to be a
:34:19. > :34:26.disability and it is aborted. look at it in another way. What you
:34:27. > :34:30.said was important, the fact that we need to have a better understanding
:34:30. > :34:37.and a better social structure around us, where parents can turn to people
:34:37. > :34:42.who can give them the moral support they require. That is lacking, which
:34:42. > :34:46.is why a lot of parents feel unable to deal with it. A lack of adequate
:34:46. > :34:50.support is not a reason to abort. We are better than we were decades ago,
:34:50. > :34:56.but there will always be more to do. We should not put the resources
:34:56. > :35:00.into screening out, we should put them into a -- improving the
:35:01. > :35:04.situation. Let me read a couple of comments. Lynn from Essex says, I
:35:04. > :35:09.had an abortion after 15 weeks after finding out my child could not have
:35:09. > :35:12.had -- my child had Down syndrome. If I had had the child, it would
:35:12. > :35:18.have put a strain on the whole family. It is not easy to bring up
:35:18. > :35:24.pages able to child. Thank you for all your comments.
:35:24. > :35:27.Letter on Sunday Morning Live, there needs to be a revolution in public
:35:27. > :35:30.attitudes to create more organ donors, according to a new NHS
:35:30. > :35:37.strategy document. But are we put under too much pressure to donate
:35:37. > :35:47.our organs? Remember to keep voting in our text poll as well. Should
:35:47. > :35:52.
:35:52. > :35:59.future coronations be multi-faith about five minutes before the poll
:35:59. > :36:04.closes. Time to look at another story that
:36:04. > :36:08.has been making the news this week. I wanted to look at the Pakistani
:36:08. > :36:13.schoolgirl, Malala Yousafzai, who made a speech at the United Nations
:36:13. > :36:21.at a youth event. It was a remarkable speech, but it raises
:36:21. > :36:24.lots of questions. Adrian, what were your thoughts? She is right that the
:36:24. > :36:31.key to challenging the what hubby Islamist agenda is through
:36:31. > :36:35.education. It is with books and pens, especially of women throughout
:36:35. > :36:40.the world. The more you educate them, the more enlightened they are
:36:40. > :36:43.and the more likely they are to be -- the less likely they are to be
:36:43. > :36:48.duped into thinking that blowing yourself up takes you straight to
:36:48. > :36:55.paradise. But much as I admire what she is and what she is doing, the
:36:55. > :37:01.Nobel Peace Prize is absurd. She is one of thousands of girls in August
:37:02. > :37:09.and who are -- girls in Pakistan who are trying to be properly educated.
:37:09. > :37:15.She was randomly shot. Any of those girls could have been shot. Let me
:37:15. > :37:19.make a correction here. She did have a website. She was blogging for a
:37:19. > :37:24.long time and she knew this was dangerous. She had already received
:37:24. > :37:32.a number of death threats, so she knew where she was going, and she is
:37:32. > :37:35.a very brave girl. I have just come back from Karachi, and it is a very
:37:35. > :37:42.difficult situation for young girls who want to pursue what they want to
:37:42. > :37:46.do. You wonder whether her case, which draws attention to it, will
:37:46. > :37:50.make the situation on the ground in Pakistan better or worse. People
:37:50. > :37:55.might regard her as being appropriated by the West. No. People
:37:55. > :37:58.are listening carefully to what is happening. In fact, I think if
:37:58. > :38:02.something like the Nobel Peace Prize is given to her, it will be a
:38:02. > :38:09.wonderful thing. The way they are picking out women is astonishing.
:38:09. > :38:13.The Taliban have a policy of burning down schools and trying to insure
:38:13. > :38:19.that women don't go to school. Jonathan, she now has a
:38:19. > :38:24.multi-million book deal. She is an amazing public speaker. She will
:38:24. > :38:31.never go back and live in Pakistan. We have made dubious decisions over
:38:31. > :38:41.peace prizes being given to people who have gone to war. Well-known
:38:41. > :38:43.
:38:43. > :38:48.statesmen all over the world. We have just had a review of what is
:38:48. > :38:52.going on in Afghanistan, the tactics that have unused. A general said
:38:52. > :39:00.three weeks ago that maybe we should have negotiated in 2002, when we had
:39:00. > :39:04.an opportunity. The direction we need to be travelling in is to go
:39:04. > :39:06.back to education and peaceful initiatives, which provide better
:39:06. > :39:12.long-term consequences, rather than giving peace prizes to people
:39:12. > :39:16.leading invasions. We have two lead it -- leave it there.
:39:16. > :39:22.You have been voting in our text poll this morning. The poll is
:39:22. > :39:25.closing now, so please don't text, as your vote will not count and you
:39:25. > :39:29.may still be charged. We will bring you the result at the end of the
:39:29. > :39:33.show. Now, proposals from the NHS this
:39:33. > :39:35.week suggest that it might be time to follow the lead of countries like
:39:35. > :39:41.Israel and Singapore and allow people already on the donor register
:39:41. > :39:44.to be given priority if they need transplant surgery. The NHS blood
:39:44. > :39:49.bank is also considering ways of preventing families from overriding
:39:49. > :39:53.the wishes of deceased donors who wanted to give organs. The Welsh
:39:53. > :39:56.assembly has agreed to introduce the system in 2015 whereby unless a
:39:56. > :40:01.person has opted out of the donation scheme, consent to remove organs
:40:01. > :40:09.will be presumed to have been given. We met one man who
:40:09. > :40:12.experienced a tragedy and faced a difficult dilemma.
:40:12. > :40:18.Lloyd Dolton Brown, from St old bones in Hertfordshire, had to make
:40:18. > :40:22.a dish and we all hope -- he had to make a decision we all hope never to
:40:22. > :40:27.face after his sister Jane was rushed to hospital following a
:40:27. > :40:32.traffic accident. I went back and forth from the hospital over a day
:40:32. > :40:39.or so, and finally they told me that unfortunately, she had died. At the
:40:39. > :40:44.same time, they asked me, would I consider donating her organs?
:40:44. > :40:48.Naturally, it was a decision which required a lot of thought. To my
:40:48. > :40:55.knowledge, she didn't carry a donor card. So making the decision to
:40:55. > :41:00.donate Jane's organs was a difficult and soul-searching decision. When I
:41:00. > :41:07.spoke to her friends after deciding to donate her organs, all her
:41:07. > :41:14.friends, each and every one, said that was exactly what Jane wanted.
:41:14. > :41:20.She was 29 when she was knocked over, and I thought, what a waste.
:41:20. > :41:25.Is there anything we could do to make her going less wasteful?
:41:25. > :41:29.organs that Lloyd donated on behalf of his sister helped to save five
:41:29. > :41:35.lives. 13 years after the death of his sister, Lloyd still receives
:41:35. > :41:43.updates on how the recipients are getting on. One of the kidneys went
:41:43. > :41:48.to a mother who had two children aged, I think, free and four --
:41:48. > :41:52.three and four. And I got a letter relatively soon after the transplant
:41:52. > :41:56.had been made, and one a few years later, saying how great the
:41:56. > :42:02.condition of the mother was and how she was able to bring up her family,
:42:02. > :42:08.which would not have otherwise happened. Lloyd now campaigns for
:42:08. > :42:14.people to join the organ donor register. I think lots of people
:42:14. > :42:20.have real concerns about organ donation. The way I look at it, it
:42:20. > :42:25.carries on the person's life. They don't -nothing, and you can remember
:42:25. > :42:29.them -- they don't die for nothing, and you can remember them in another
:42:29. > :42:33.way with other benefits that they have given, the true gift of life,
:42:33. > :42:38.to someone else. A situation all of us hope we will
:42:38. > :42:42.never encounter. But three people a day are dying waiting for
:42:42. > :42:46.transplants, so shouldn't the health authorities do all they can to get
:42:46. > :42:54.more organ donations? Or is there a danger of putting too much treasure
:42:54. > :42:58.on over an emotive issue? What do you think? Let me get the views of
:42:58. > :43:03.our guests. I have met Lloyd and he does all this campaigning, but not
:43:03. > :43:07.enough people want to make that decision. You can see why there is a
:43:07. > :43:14.logic to say, what is wrong with giving priority to you as a
:43:14. > :43:18.transplant if you are willing to donate? Because you are saying that
:43:18. > :43:22.some are more equal than others. Where does that slippery slope stop?
:43:22. > :43:28.Do we stop giving organs to those who drink or smoke 's maybe you just
:43:28. > :43:33.do it with donors. But that is making it conditional. What happens
:43:33. > :43:38.to Jehovah's Witnesses? There are issues here of religious conscience
:43:38. > :43:41.and individual choice. What Wales is doing is the ultimate
:43:41. > :43:46.nationalisation, quite a Borat, saying that when you die, your body
:43:46. > :43:52.belongs to the state. That is not our tradition. It should be down to
:43:52. > :43:57.the individual or the family. agree with that. It is to do with
:43:57. > :44:06.the family. The family should be allowed to decide. In the Hindu
:44:06. > :44:11.religion, the body is a very important thing after they have
:44:11. > :44:14.died, because their ceremonies to be conducted around it. So it would be
:44:14. > :44:19.difficult for families around religious reasons. In Israel, they
:44:20. > :44:22.did research where a surgeon talked to patients who were religious and
:44:22. > :44:32.they said, we would never give, but they were all waiting for
:44:32. > :44:34.
:44:35. > :44:44.transplants full up --. It is down to the families. But what is wrong
:44:45. > :44:45.
:44:45. > :44:53.with the idea that if you are willing to give, we will give back?
:44:53. > :44:58.I agree about not giving priority, they could smoke perhaps 40
:44:59. > :45:05.cigarettes a day. You could not make that moral distinction between a
:45:05. > :45:09.heavy drinker and someone who signed up? You could have somebody abusing
:45:09. > :45:19.their body but get priority because they are an organ donor which is
:45:19. > :45:24.
:45:24. > :45:31.crazy. I think we we should presume. You do not think it turns from a
:45:31. > :45:38.given intimate take? It is actually about the kind of society we want to
:45:38. > :45:45.live in. We are not just isolated individual units with no
:45:45. > :45:55.responsibility to each other but recognising we do have a a
:45:55. > :45:57.
:45:57. > :46:03.responsibility to help people. What the Welsh assembly is doing, if you
:46:03. > :46:10.die... People do not want to make these decisions. And with this if
:46:10. > :46:18.you felt strongly you could opt out. I do not agree with Jonathan on
:46:18. > :46:26.the premise that we are a community. We are individuals in a community.
:46:26. > :46:30.And those individuals make decisions or not for the community. The notion
:46:30. > :46:40.that the community can presume rights of individuals is going too
:46:40. > :46:42.
:46:42. > :46:48.far. Just to bring in Simon Cooper on the webcam, you have had a liver
:46:48. > :46:53.and lung transplant. Do you think it is right for people to have a
:46:53. > :46:57.transplant if they are not willing to be on the donor register? No, I
:46:57. > :47:02.think if you want to take you should give. That would be the right way.
:47:02. > :47:06.In your experience you received organs because someone else had a
:47:06. > :47:11.family tragedy. Do you know anything about the story behind your
:47:11. > :47:15.treatment? Sorry, I did not hear the question. Do you know anything about
:47:15. > :47:23.the family which allowed you to have your transplant operations? We do
:47:23. > :47:30.not know much, they do not tell you much about the family. But I would
:47:30. > :47:35.like to thank the families and the donors for giving their organs.
:47:35. > :47:44.do you say when people are concerned that there is too much pressure on
:47:44. > :47:52.people to become donors? I think it should be an opt out rather than an
:47:52. > :47:59.opt in. If you were so much against donating you would go out of your
:47:59. > :48:06.way to take yourself off. Whereas you do not really think about
:48:06. > :48:11.signing up to it. Just to add something about opting out.
:48:11. > :48:17.Supposing there is an individual who agreed but the family later on
:48:18. > :48:26.resist and the NHS is now saying that they could override that. I
:48:26. > :48:34.just want to bring back the point that it is a process, M birth, death
:48:34. > :48:43.is also something people are consumed by. They have grief, they
:48:43. > :48:52.have other issues and at that stage for them to get into a discussion
:48:52. > :49:02.saying they want to retain the organs or donate them, it is
:49:02. > :49:03.
:49:03. > :49:13.unseemly. I think in these cases when the individual does decide to
:49:13. > :49:22.donate, if the family resists them in those cases they must uphold the
:49:22. > :49:31.wishes of the family. The reason there is such a low number of organ
:49:31. > :49:39.donations is actually because of the many cases in which the family
:49:39. > :49:49.overrides the wishes of the individual. I understand it is
:49:49. > :49:55.around 14% when that happens, the family overrides the dying wishes of
:49:55. > :50:05.the individual. I think if the individual has made that decision
:50:05. > :50:05.
:50:05. > :50:11.than the family should not override that. Effectively it is a will and
:50:11. > :50:21.to challenge the will, there are processes to go through. It is
:50:21. > :50:22.
:50:23. > :50:31.occasionally done in extremists but this decision to donate is made of
:50:31. > :50:40.the individual. Families are in turmoil and grief, of course. They
:50:41. > :50:50.are human beings, you know. You have to appreciate that. Just to bring in
:50:50. > :50:59.an intensive care doctor, you often have to deal with these situations.
:50:59. > :51:08.How would you feel about ignoring families who decide they want to
:51:08. > :51:18.override what their loved one said about donation? As someone who works
:51:18. > :51:18.
:51:18. > :51:25.with these families I'm always sympathetic to how they feel. My
:51:25. > :51:35.family -- -- my patient is unconscious, it is the family I deal
:51:35. > :51:38.
:51:38. > :51:48.with. But if the family at overruling the decision, that is a
:51:48. > :51:49.
:51:49. > :51:59.lot, 14%. People would be surprised that there are strong held wish to
:51:59. > :52:05.be overturned. I need to know as a doctor when you join the register,
:52:05. > :52:13.how binding that is. We need the public today to tell us, how binding
:52:14. > :52:19.should that be on me as a doctor going to your family when you join
:52:19. > :52:24.the register? What about the concerns that some families could
:52:24. > :52:32.have, the feeling is that these difficult decisions are having to be
:52:32. > :52:41.made when a relative is still technically alive? When you become
:52:41. > :52:47.an organ donor, you are always deceased first.
:52:47. > :52:52.Bit because sometimes you have to plan for the potential for organ
:52:52. > :52:58.donation, that has to begin while the patient is still alive in
:52:58. > :53:08.intensive care. Then you approach the family and get their consent.
:53:08. > :53:15.But it is an emotional time so I have sympathy for the families. But
:53:15. > :53:22.the key issue is talking to your family to let them know your wishes.
:53:22. > :53:32.Many times the family will overrule because they never knew you were
:53:32. > :53:37.registered. So that leaves them in turmoil, did they really mean it?
:53:37. > :53:45.need guidance from the public about how to treat families with respect
:53:45. > :53:55.and dignity. If the law were to be changed and the family said we still
:53:55. > :53:55.
:53:55. > :54:03.do not want to make the donation in matter whether you have presumed
:54:03. > :54:10.consent, would you then ignored the law if the family said they did not
:54:10. > :54:16.like that decision? I think in this country thankfully we will always
:54:16. > :54:23.respect families. We care for everyone, the patient and their
:54:23. > :54:31.family. But we have to ask this question. 13% overruling, what is
:54:31. > :54:38.the implication for that? The effect is that someone's wished to donate
:54:38. > :54:48.is denied and up to five people will miss out on a life-saving transplant
:54:48. > :54:53.and die. So we cannot just ignore this issue. I'm interested in how
:54:53. > :55:00.far, a lot of it is about being squeamish and the fact that people
:55:00. > :55:05.do not want to think about death. Even if you have an educational
:55:05. > :55:14.programme they will not necessarily make that decision. That is because
:55:14. > :55:20.we live in a culture where death is not often discussed. It is like
:55:20. > :55:24.discussions about sex in the Victorian era was. We should have
:55:24. > :55:29.ethical discussions and debates in schools and universities. But in the
:55:29. > :55:35.short term that is not going to help doctors who have patients who need
:55:35. > :55:40.transplants and too often the families are saying no. Compulsion
:55:40. > :55:49.is not going to help him either. It will cause too much unrest and
:55:49. > :55:56.distrust. What you think about the fact that there is this debate?
:55:56. > :56:02.you just waiting for a result and to go with the mood of that? We're
:56:02. > :56:09.seeing some advances in Wales with their usual. The rest of the UK will
:56:09. > :56:14.be watching carefully to see what that does. Both Ford the number of
:56:14. > :56:20.donors and the ethical and legal issues that will stem from that. To
:56:20. > :56:27.be the first ever UK to begin the debate and help me make these bins
:56:27. > :56:33.do you come across a situation where someone is not on the wish for the
:56:33. > :56:42.organs to be donated? Two thirds of the occasions, is not actually on
:56:42. > :56:49.the register so to the family. And in that case it is 50-50. But if you
:56:49. > :56:56.go to other countries in the world, Spain, the Rand, it is much higher.
:56:56. > :57:06.Family refused it 50 years in spite of the organ donor register, in
:57:06. > :57:25.
:57:26. > :57:32.spite of all though. Understand. Are one. Another saying, if I die I do
:57:32. > :57:42.not wait given to other donors. Another saying, what is the point of
:57:42. > :57:43.
:57:43. > :57:47.being a donor is a member of your The monarchy will become irrelevant
:57:47. > :57:51.over the years and we will see change take place. So I don't agree
:57:51. > :57:56.with you that it is at the heart of everything. As I said at the
:57:56. > :57:59.beginning, I feel it is tokenism and it does not matter. We will have to
:57:59. > :58:05.have this debate in a few years' time. Thanks to everyone who has
:58:05. > :58:09.taken part in this programme and to all my guests in the studio and to
:58:09. > :58:12.all our remarkable contributors via webcam today. Thank you as well.
:58:12. > :58:19.Don't text or call the phone lines any more, they are closed. But you