The Anti-Life Agenda in Medicine
Posted on February 17, 2008
Filed Under "PC" Rantings, Medical Rantings, Religious Rantings | 5 Comments
Fr. Tad Pacholczyk, with a doctorate in neuroscience from Yale and post doc work at Harvard, writes about how certain ideologies continue to integrate themselves into mainstream medical thought. He writes:
Recently I came across some published remarks by Professor Richard Sloan of Columbia University dealing with the relationship between medicine and religion. He notes that even though abortion is a “perfectly legal procedure,” some physicians withhold information about the practice from their patients, claiming their decision is justified by their religious beliefs. He goes on to express his displeasure that some states have enacted conscience clauses, “to permit such religiously motivated malpractice.” He even states that in some parts of the country, patients may have “no alternative to physicians who think that their primary obligation is to honor their religious convictions rather than act in the best interests of their patients.”
Such is the tolerance from the left. I also find Dr. Sloan’s remarks regarding “primary obligation” telling. Christians of course must always follow Christ first and foremost. But following Christ will always lead to what is best for others for Christ demands that we love others as he does. The professor fails to see that abortion is murder and ignores that the unborn are due protection including the right to their lives.
Comments
5 Responses to “The Anti-Life Agenda in Medicine”
Leave a Reply
Timeless Wisdom
"Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions." - ILN, 4/19/30
Dr. Sloan either fails to agree with Christianity’s view that a zygote is the equivalent of a free-living human being or he agrees with the belief but understands it is not the HCP’s role to impose their religious beliefs on non-adherents. His patients go to him for health care, not pastoral care.
While as a Christian, you are obligated to follow Christ consistently with the teaching of your denomination, you need to understand that, as a physician, your primary obligation is to your patient. It is your responsibility, as a Christian, to find a way to balance those obligations in your personal and professional life. You can easily do this, without imposing your religion on non-adherents, by avoiding employment that would put you in a position to compromise your religious or moral integrity. A vegan should not work in a butcher shop just as a Scientologist should avoid social work, psychiatry, psychology, pain/anaesthesia and work as a dispensing pharmacist. If you do not want to ever be involved in terminating a pregnancy or prescribing/dispensing birth control, don’t work in an emergency care, limit work in OB/GYN or pharmacy to a “Christian” practice that makes it abundantly clear those services will not be provided (& that only treats patients to unmarried women who abstain from sex and married women), or find a specialty in which your religion will not impact a patient’s treatment.
cranky,
you indeed represent a popular secular view of the world, but a rather flawed one. What makes you believe that a secular view of the world is in some way more correct than a Christian view? Why are secular morals superior to Chrisitian morals? Why should any physician excuse himself from any realm of medicine because of his Christian beliefs? In the great liberal world, “diversity” and “choice” and “tolerance” are the preeminent virtues are they not? Secularist always stipulate that Christians excuse themselves from public life when their religious beliefs run contrary to zeitgeist. Rarely do secularist impose these same standards on those on the social fringe. Would you propose that those with certain secular views of the world excuse themselves from certain employment? Say for example, “cross dressers should find employment where their fashion does not offend” or “homosexuals should not expect employment by religious organizations which consider homosexuality sinful.” Doubtful.
Serious Christians propose their faith, not impose it as you suggest. Secularist on the other hand generally seek to impose their world view and often by legislative means.
I love how when someone presents a view that is consistent with a religious view that is not the same as orthodox/fundamentalist Christianity, it’s considered a “secular” view. Secularism is not the antithesis of belief, non-belief is. “Secularists” do not demand that people of faith abandon their faith outside the church or the privacy of their own homes. That argument is a proverbial straw man. What secularists want is for all people to be able to live and act in accordance with their own faith (or lack thereof) without having the faith of others imposed on them.
Medicine/Healthcare is not just any old job or a job that just requires one to consider how to adhere to their own beliefs. Patients are not consumers, and HCPs need to be mindful of that. If a physician is uncomfortable in performing routine tasks associated with a position, then maybe that physician has chosen the wrong specialty or picked the wrong practice to join. There is a very big difference between just practicing medicine in a way that allows you to maintain your ethical integrity and choosing to maintain your integrity by going out of your way to interfere in the treatment of patients who o not share your religious view. If you re-read my post, you’ll see that I gave an example of a way a “Christian” with a calling for OB/GYN could practice that specialty without impose their view on unsuspecting patients (or forcing employers to just let personnel disregard policy of which they were aware when they chose that job/profession).
Jehovah’s Witnesses do not approve of blood transfusions on religious grounds but those who are HCPs would not dream of discouraging or standing in the way of someone in need of a transfusion from getting one; they also would not consider demanding the right to do so without impunity.
As for your reference to homosexuals working in a religious organization in which the denomination outright rejects homosexuality as a sin, I have to say I don’t understand why someone who is gay would stay in such a denomination, let alone work for one. Provided they do not accept public funds, I advocate permitting Catholic schools and other religious academies to fire employees (an refuse to permit/expel students) for behaving/living in a way inconsistent with church doctrine – you’ll find that while many in the liberal/secular/progressive movements may bristle at these situations, we do recognize the right of religious sovereignty within a religious institution. As for “offensive fashion”, that’s found everywhere and isn’t the domain of “cross dressers” (my lack of “fashion sense” aside, there are many who would be offended by how I dress as showing too much skin when it’s actually very modest by most standards).
I’ve had your faith (just about every denomination of it) “proposed” to me so many times, I’ve lost count. In most cases, the “proposal” was inappropriate and having it become of my medical care without my consent can only be construed as [an attempt at] imposition at best. The reason I am an adherent to my religion and not yours is as much due to how my religion resonates with me as it is due to an overt rejection of some rather critical tenets of yours. I laud people of faith for embracing their beliefs. Those who are the best witnesses for their faith are those who testify in how they live (not how they overtly evangelize). People who are right with themselves, their G-d and their faith exude a peace that is hard to miss (and incredibly inspiring) – even those of us of a different faith (or with no faith) take notice an recognize it for what it is.
cranky, you present a secular view regardless of your religious belief. Secular means religious skepticism, indifference or exclusion. Unbelief is unbelief, not secularism we agree.
Secularists often demand that people of faith abandon their beliefs outside of church and home. That is what hate crimes often try to do (with particular emphasis on homosexuality.)
I think that you are rather naive to think that “What secularists want is for all people to be able to live and act in accordance with their own faith (or lack thereof) without having the faith of others imposed on them.” The mere mention of religious values/belief in public is considered an “imposition of religion” by secularists. I find secularists among the least tolerant in our society.
We are in agreement that the best witness of faith is a well lived life. But Christ calls believers to evangelize. And Christians just cannot get around that commission if they are to follow Christ. They must evangelize with respect and prudence (and always with great charity), but followers of Christ cannot exclude themselves from this mission.
I think we have a problem that has been created by those on the extremes (both sides) and the pundits (who get paid for stirring it up). The vast majority of people on the left couldn’t care less about Christmas sales, store displays or saying Merry Christmas vs Happy Holidays. There is a big misunderstanding of what is meant by “public” as in not kept hidden in private vs the public that refers to government (publicly funded) places. It’s not really legitimate complaint (nor one that is made by the left) if/when you walk around the mall singing O Come All Ye Faithful (unless you sing like Roseanne Barr) but it is a legitimate to complain when a public school requires a religious prayer at school activities and for the choir to perform overtly religious songs for the Christmas (or Winter) concert.
Merchants, as I’m sure you’ll agree, are in the business of selling things and doing whatever they can do to turn a profit. The decision to sell Christmas vs selling holidays is one that isn’t mandated by legislation or, even, politics; it’s a marketing and financial one. The religious right and pundits conflate the two and it’s amazing how many people buy into it and jump in on the “secularists are coming” bandwagon. [I do have to say, as an aside, that the whole alleged war on Christmas and Easter stuff has actually undermined Christianity and serves to draw attention away from the purpose and meaning of your most holy days]
The uber-left notwithstanding (don’t get me started on people who have to vilify and marginalize those with whom they disagree) we have them, liberals/progressives support your right to be evangelists in the real public (i.e., not within publicly funded institutions such as schools, government agencies, government land) and to criticize those of us who reject your beliefs. We may not like it but do not take our countering your statements as a belief you have no right to have or voice your opinion. The beauty of this country is that we can voice our opinions, including, reacting to and criticizing others. Some of those opinions may be off base, done with an obvious lack of understanding of the subject matter and/or downright rude, but we have the luxury of showing we are learned or ignorant here.
Where we have a real clash is when the right to express your faith (vis a vis evangelizing) is taken to mean we don’t have the right to tell you to sell your beliefs elsewhere when we are not interested. It is “proposing” when you approach us to engage in the discussion; it is “imposing” when you don’t let us reject your attempt at engagement and get away from you or you engage in this activity in inappropriate places (i.e, public schools, via legislation, etc.). We all need to bear in mind that, when following the call to evangelize, one must be aware that an attempt at engagement may be unwelcome and understand that’s a line in which proposition and harassment cross.