This point:

What Dorries is relying on here to push her agenda is a carefully calculated and contrived ‘wedge’ strategy, which is based on a not unreasonable assumption that many people, especially those with a limited understanding of (and interest in) the complexities of the scientific and non-scientific questions we’re dealing with in this debate, will respond emotionally, and viscerally, to the idea that a foetus may experience pain from a particular point its development and, as importantly, will do so far more than they will to the somewhat more abstract questions of consciousness and that this will, in turn, cause many people to re-evaluate their position on what they see as (morally/ethically) correct upper legal limit on abortion.

You’re right – and I think its also great for us. Nothing like a wedge issue to get your side mobilised and organised and do something. If the Tories can do it, why can’t we?

—————————-
Dear Nadine:

I have considered your kind invitation overnight but I remain deeply uncomfortable taking a platform with two clinicians. In order to have a balanced discussion there must be an O&G person on the platform who will balance any comments made by Professor Campbell and any clinical discussion from the floor. Although I can speak with considerable authority with regards to fetal pain I am not able to attain the same authority with regards to viability, breast cancer, suicide, cooling off periods and so on. A clinician will be much better positioned to address these types of concern.

My understanding is that Dr. is prepared to step forward in this role at short notice and I would be comfortable with that.

I would also be happy to consider other potential speakers.

I do hope you are able to accommodate this request as I would very much welcome the opportunity to debate my differences with Professor Anand in public and in person.

Yours truly,

Stuart.
—————————-

Dorries refused so I declined the invite to speak later that day:

—————————-
Dear Nadine:

With much sadness I am going to have to decline your offer to speak. It is not reasonable to have a panel that will be 2:1 against my position, especially as I expect the chair will share their views and not mine. I am not an expert on time limits. Furthermore, the issue of fetal pain, which is my expertise, is barely relevant to the issue of time limits. I am also not an expert on ultrasound, which you state will be part of the discussion. Without somebody who can challenge the speakers on the issue of time limits and the use of ultrasound, the panel will not be balanced. Moreover, if anything is raised from the floor not related to fetal pain, which you agree is likely, I will not be able to answer from a clinical perspective unlike my other colleagues on the panel. The imbalance, again, is very obvious.

If you are happy to have rebuttals from the floor then there is time to make it formal with the rebuttal placed on the platform. The time saved in discussion from the floor can be dedicated to the expert panel. Fifteen minutes per speaker, which is entirely adequate, still leaves 60 minutes for discussion. My understanding is that RCOG will not attend a meeting that is unbalanced in order to rebut from the floor in any case.

I have no option but to withdraw unless the panel is balanced and I will advise RCOG as to my action.

With much regret,

Stuart.
—————————-

I attended the meeting anyway; it is rare that I get the opportunity to see Prof. Anand speak and I wanted to hear what he would say. Dorries began the event by criticising the STC for its bias, incorrectly attacking me for not sending written evidence to the committee (I did) and criticising the STC for having me give oral evidence anyway (I didn’t). The subsequent fawning over Anand and Campbell was gratuitous.

Anand began his presentation by restating that he has no philosophical attachment to any pro-life or pro-choice position. A statement I find quite remarkable because it is contradicted by his behaviour and implies that he doesn’t care about abortion, when he obviously does. Regardless, his talk was occasionally interesting but most of it was taken up by self-promotion and multiple slides showing the titles of his published papers. He made dismissive and sometimes incorrect comments about my work as well as those of my colleagues who have also suggested the fetus does not feel pain.

Clearly nobody realised I was in the room and so they felt quite able to launch into a variety of personal attacks and jokes at my expense. Iain Duncan-Smith noted with much humour that I am yet to attain the status of professor. To see my professional colleagues, with their superior academic and clinical status, take part in such silliness was just sad. I can only hope that when Professors Campbell and Anand finally realised I was in the room that they were appropriately embarrassed.

What interests me is whether she has *any credibility at all* within intelligent Tory circles – what with this charade coming hot on the heels of that hilarious Goldacre thing. I find it pretty shocking that *anyone* in mid Beds would vote for her, let alone enough of them to get her elected (and if that isn’t an argument for STV that ought to appeal to Tories, I don’t know what is…). I have come across plenty of intelligent Right-thinkers in the past – even plenty of perfectly intelligent (though obviously wrong) “pro-lifers”. I’d hate to think any of them would give this muppet the time of day. So, does anyone out there *know* if she has any credible support?