Lynne Featherstone

No surprise that this Bill took up a good chunk of the time when I appeared on The Westminster Hour yesterday – but, as ever, the discussion was largely about process. Should it be a free vote or not?

Focusing in on the question simply of whether or not there should be a free vote on the bill (or on parts of it) misses two main points.

First – this political process story is presenting it as if the only way that Labour MPs will get to vote with their conscience is if there is a free vote. That’s wrong – a vote being whipped doesn’t suddenly mean all choice is taken away from you. Sure – it’s harder to vote ‘the other way’ if there’s a three line whip in place, but we shouldn’t be so blinded by the Parliamentary whipping system as to think that if a whip is in place you have all your freedom of choice removed.

Second – the question of some Labour MPs being able to vote with their conscience and in line with their personal moral beliefs has so dominated discussion that we’re in danger of losing the larger moral picture. How can I look in the eye of a constituent who is suffering from a disease such as Alzheimer’s and say, “I am going to oppose giving scientists the best possible chance to cure your disease?”

When it comes to health care there are many difficult issues – too many opportunities, and not enough money to pay for them all (regardless of which party is setting spending levels). But when we have opportunities that resources do allow – how can I turn my back on people and say, “No, I don’t want the best research carried out into healing you?”

For me, the only moral, conscionable choice is to say – “yes, we’re going to do our best to give scientists a chance of curing your disease”.

I appreciate some people will disagree with that - but for me too, this is a moral choice.

Comments

1. Justin Hinchcliffe says:

   24 March 2008 at 2:30 pm

   Lynne,

   This bill strikes at the heart of what makes us human. If it becomes law, it will permit many new abuses of human beings including the creation of cloned human-animal embryos and genetic modification of human embryos for research. Also, a child's need for a father will not be recognised for some test-tube babies under this bill.

   Within the same bill, some parliamentarians also want to widen the law on abortion. This would mean more abortions and there are already between 500 and 600 abortions every day.

   Is this what you really want?

   Justin
2. Anonymous says:

   24 March 2008 at 3:04 pm

   Interesting thoughts Lynne, I'm a fervent atheist who thinks religion shouldn't affect politics, but in this case a few major cabinet members may lose their jobs because their Cardinal is trying to press their vote! And that's religious discrimination/diversity as much as my job specs tell me (which why I'm anon... not Government, just media affiliated.)
   I agree that there should be a free vote - allow Browne, Kelly, etc, to vote with their own thoughts, and we won't care if that clashed with those of their religious leader.
   That's what makes this a democracy.
3. Douglas Rickard ~ artist, writer says:

   24 March 2008 at 10:15 pm

   How about, as my elected M.P., looking in my eye and telling me you're voting against my moral and ethical beliefs? What does

   experimenting on an unborn baby with an animal have to do with Alzheimer’s? Going by the letter I received from the people

   pushing this,it sounds like they are fearful of losing finanical investment from overseas more than anything. Medical research above human life. Seeing as you're so concerned about such diseases and your constituents' health, I won't go into the nutritional and lifestyle advice that is already out there to prevent Alzheimer’s, as you must be sharing it yourself already. And actually, Lynne, I've looked at your voting record and your voting choice differs very little from what your party's line is, and I suspect you therefore pick and choose which of your constituents' interests to 'stand by'.
4. Anonymous says:

   24 March 2008 at 10:39 pm

   Douglas,
   As we are all looking each other in the eye, would you look the family of an Alzheimers sufferer in the eye and tell them all they need do is change the diet of their sick relative?
   I am shocked if you really believe all they need is some diey advice and that they do not need better medical treatment than we know about now.
   Yours,
   Stephen
5. Frankie Roberto says:

   26 March 2008 at 1:08 am

   Too right Lynne.

   And all this emotional talk of unborn babies and Frankenstein creations is just nonsense - we're talking about microscopic bunches of cells here.
6. Anonymous says:

   20 May 2008 at 3:47 pm

   Dear Lynne,

   Please do not vote in favour of reducing the abortion limit. It's the same old dangerously medieval Tories who think women are feckless whores who are irresponsible about pregnancy. In fact, women who have abortions at 24 weeks are likely to be the most vulnerable for all sorts of far more complex reasons/traumas. And given that such late abortions only account for a tiny percentage of all the abortions carried out, reducing the limit is hardly going to reduce the number of abortions. It is a woman's right to choose: let's not put an unborn foetus before the rights of a living, developed woman.

   Thanks
   Sarah