SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Margaret Sanger's Eugenic Legacy of Death, Disease, Depravit

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
From: Brumar899/4/2016 7:28:48 PM
  Read Replies (1) of 1308
 
Bioethics "Consensus Statement" Would Force Doctors to Kill and Abort

Wesley J. Smith September 2, 2016 11:42 AM

Bioethicists want to force doctors, nurses, pharmacists, and other healthcare professionals to participate in euthanasia, abortion, and other actions that violate their consciences or religious beliefs. This wasn't formerly a serious problem. The values contained in the Hippocratic Oath were consistent with sanctity of life moral conscience.

That is no longer true. A "consensus statement" signed by prominent bioethicists from around the world and published by Oxford University would force dissenting doctors to be complicit in such actions. From the statement (my emphasis):

1. Healthcare practitioners' primary obligations are towards their patients, not towards their own personal conscience. When the patient's wellbeing (or best interest, or health) is at stake, healthcare practitioners' professional obligations should normally take priority over their personal moral or religious views.

2. In the event of a conflict between practitioners' conscience and a patient's desire for a legal, professionally sanctioned medical service, healthcare practitioners should always ensure that patients receive timely medical care. When they have a conscientious objection, they ought to refer their patients to another practitioner who is willing to perform the treatment. In emergency situations, when referral is not possible, or when it poses too great a burden on patients or on the healthcare system, health practitioners should perform the treatment themselves.

Euthanasia (i.e., homicide) and assisted suicide are considered by these zealots to be a "treatment" where legal. Ditto, non-therapeutic abortion, even though a healthy pregnancy isn't an illness.

This statement could apply to procedures such as sex change surgery and providing treatments made from destroyed embryos or fetuses. Also organ transplants taken from mentally ill and disabled euthanized patients, as happens in Netherlands and Belgium, not to mention those live-harvested, still illegal but advocated in the most prominent medical and bioethics journals.

Medical professionals are being pushed toward what I call " medical martyrdom": either be complicit in killing, commit what the professional considers a grievous sin, or suffer professional discipline, perhaps even loss of license.

Make no mistake, these bioethicists and many in the medical establishment want to drive orthodox Christian and other faith believers, along with pro-lifers, out of the medical professions. The question of medical conscience -- as a subset of religious liberty -- is going to be one of the most contentious issues facing society in the next decade.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2016/09/bioethics_conse103112.html
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext