I found this article, from a Catholic paper dated 1991, being used as a bookmark in my Bible, yellowing with age.

During the 1990 debates on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act, Parliament authorised everything from the use of destructive experiments on human embryos, to the abortion of handicapped babies up to and even during birth.

Authority was also given for the witholding of information about the identity of suppliers of semen for IVF; for the tasteless and inaccurately dubbed "virgin births"; and for the licensing of the abortion drug RU486.

There is no point polititicians now being wise after the event.

Where were they - or the secular press - when the Government pushed the Bill through Parliament at its Third Reading on a two-line whip?

Mostly they ridiculed and derided pro-life groups like SPUC and Life and accused pro-life MP's of scaremongering.

Some Churches, too, were either like the Gethsemane Christians - and had fallen asleep on the job, - or, even worse, had joined the enemy's camp.

That doughty champion of the unborn, Ken Hargreaves MP, warned during the passage of the Embryology Act, that waiting in the wings was legislation to allow euthanasia.

His words were prophetic because only weeks later a group of Labour MP's introduced before our Parliament the first Bill to legalise euthanasia.

Although it fell at the first fence they will be back and keen to imitate new Dutch laws.

To their credit Holland's Christian Democrats have threatened to pull out of the Government and call a General Election if Holland's euthenasia laws are given the Royal Assent.

But, even without law, it is estimated that the Dutch medical profession carry out between 5,000 and 20,000 cases of euthenasia each year.

Some attempts have been made to prosecute the doctors involved, but these have largely failed on technicalities and the killing of the terminally ill and comatose patients is known to continue, sometimes with the sufferer's consent, sometimes on the doctor's orders.

No one is suggesting Doctors should go to ridiculous lengths to keep mechanically functioning a body that is clearly ready to break down and irreversibly die.

Much of the argument centres on a sick patient's wishes - supporters of euthenasia say that if a person is in considerable pain and wishes it to be ended, why not?

But who, in moments of despair, have not had thoughts they have not later regretted?

The whole question of death is a taboo subject in a predominately atheist country like Britain.

Because few people are convinced of their ultimate resurrection and salvation there is an industry that goes with the process of dispatching a dead relative designed to soften the impact on the bereaved.

The industry uses the trappings of religion because it makes people feel better.

We live in an odd country - in the sixties the penalty for murder was repealed, but the Abortion Act was enacted, now in the nineties the first attempt at legalising euthenasia has insinuated its way into public life.

It is all part of an increasing belief that there is nothing sacred in the human condition.