Roger Kiska comments on how the NHS website language has changed over time to normalise issues such as abortion, transsexualism and sexual orientation.
“No matter how big the lie; repeat it often enough and the masses will regard it as truth.“
~ John F. Kennedy
Let us never forget that the NHS is a state actor. It therefore has the resources and influence to change the hearts and minds of millions of people on very sensitive moral and social issues. Of this fact, they are only all too well aware.
It is fascinating to go back in time and see how the NHS portrayed issues such as abortion, assisted suicide and gender reassignment only a few short years ago compared to how they do so today. What is clear is that they have acted with intentionality in moving away from objective, or at least even-handed, descriptions of these things in an effort to socially indoctrinate people who visit their websites. The end result, in many cases, is that patients of the NHS are no longer being warned of significant and life changing consequences inherent among some of these issues because of the NHS’ effort to mainstream the current cultural zeitgeist. An argument that these changes were made as science has progressed does not hold water. All of these issues remain as contentious as ever. The science remains the same. The only thing that has changed is that entities like the NHS have become increasingly intolerant of competing viewpoints. Examples abound:
Only earlier this month the NHS, in defining euthanasia, gave the following example: “A doctor who gives a patient with terminal cancer an overdose of muscle relaxers to end their life would be considered to commit euthanasia.“ The site also provided a definition for involuntary euthanasia.
Today that same page has altered its language to say, using that same example, that that same doctor could be guilty of euthanasia. Changing the language from “would” (i.e. that doing so would be illegal) to could (i.e. that doing so may not be illegal) clearly is aimed at softening the public’s views on laws related to assisted suicide. The site also removes its definition of involuntary euthanasia.
This move also shows the very real consequences of the Director of Public Prosecutions softening its guidance regarding prosecuting certain categories of medical personnel who participate in assisted suicide. The fear that this decision would have wide ranging implications was precisely the reason why Nikki and Merv Kenward, with the help of the Christian Legal Centre, brought a judicial review before the High Court to challenge the new guidance.
On abortion, under the heading ‘Recovery’, in 2002 the NHS wrote: “Physical recovery, especially after an early abortion, is usually quick. You may experience a few hours of period-type pain and a few days of gradually lessening bleeding similar to a period. However, psychological recovery may not be as rapid, as many women suffer from feelings of regret, guilt or depression. How traumatic a woman finds this situation depends on many factors, such as her personal circumstances, the reasons for the termination and how sure she was about the decision to have the procedure done.“
In 2004 it added that many people have strong views and opinions about abortion (both for and against), including religious objections, and that all of these views should be respected.
Today, that same heading omits any mention of respecting opposing views to abortion. Instead it warns its readers, in the strongest terms, to avoid crisis pregnancy centres which are pro-life: “beware of so-called “crisis pregnancy centres” that claim to provide impartial advice but often do not.” The irony about their comment on impartiality is palpable.
They also make a strong ideological turn against post-abortion distress syndrome by now stating: “Women who have an abortion are no more likely to experience mental health problems than those who continue with their pregnancy.” Ideology aside, this is simply an awful and cruel thing to say knowing that there are women out there with deep emotional and psychological wounds which were a direct result of their abortions.
On now to the issue of gender reassignment. The NHS, in 2002, warned about parental influence on their children in relation to gender identity disorder by stating: “In some cases, their parents may have treated them from birth as if they were of the opposite sex, often because the parents wanted a baby of that sex. This early environmental conditioning may be more powerful than genetic influences.“
The NHS of 2002 also said that some young adults with gender confusion may try to relieve increasing feelings of gender anxiety by getting married, trying to live in their birth sex and seeking counselling.
Today, however, the NHS has mainstreamed gender identity disorder as being normal; something to be realised by even young children. It makes the point that it is not a mental illness. The NHS page fails to provide any data relating to the statistically higher rate of suicide among transgender individuals or the fact that their likelihood of working in the sex industry or becoming homeless are exponentially higher than among the remainder of the population.
On the subject of sexual orientation, in 2006, the NHS wrote: “Others [people with same-sex attractions] will eventually become attracted to people of the opposite sex as their feelings change over time.”
The NHS of 2017 also makes a radical shift on this as well, now stating “you don’t choose your sexuality, it chooses you.”
Last, but not least, in 2010, on the subject of anal sex, the NHS warned its users that “anal sex has a number of health risks.” It then went on to name a number of those health risks: HIV, HPV or wart virus, hepatitis A and hepatitis C and E. Coli. It concludes with the warning: “the only completely safe way to prevent these is not to have anal sex…”
Today’s advice, despite the prevalence of health risks and the fact that male to male transmission of HIV continues to be at epidemic rates, is to use condoms. Any discourse on abstinence is removed.
As a business practice, the NHS seems to be wanting to keep its hospitals full by removing warnings relating to dangerous behaviour and procedures. However, as a service funded by taxpayers, we should be appalled with both the calculated attempt by the NHS at indoctrination of the public as well as its wilful removal of very real health threats from its website. I would encourage readers of this article who would like to do more to write a complaint to the Department of Health at:
Secretary of State for Health
The Rt Hon Jeremy Hunt MP
Department of Health, Richmond House, 79
Whitehall, London, SW1A 2NS