Against abortion or assisted dying? No med school for you

[Shad]

What are your thoughts?

Imposition of views upon an applicant for an agenda. Nothing more.

 

[PureX]

The US one says this,

I do hereby affirm my loyalty to the profession I am about to enter. I will be mindful always of my great responsibility to preserve the health and the life of my patients, to retain their confidence and respect both as a physician and a friend who will guard their secrets with scrupulous honor and fidelity, to perform faithfully my professional duties, to employ only those recognized methods of treatment consistent with good judgment and with my skill and ability, keeping in mind always nature's laws and the body's inherent capacity for recovery.

It also says this,

I will be ever vigilant in aiding in the general welfare of the community, sustaining its laws and institutions, not engaging in those practices which will in any way bring shame or discredit upon myself or my profession. I will give no drugs for deadly purposes to any person, though it be asked of me.

In the U.K., where I live, it's not obligatory.

The intent is obvious, and the specifics are determined by boards of certification, and so on. One could choose a field of medicine that would not cause them to be confronted by their conscientious objections. Such that there is no need or reason to have to make all kinds of idiotic exceptions and compromises for every personal pique of conscience.

 

[Theophilus (Theo) Book]

A Canadian bioethicist is proposing that medical and pharmacist schools reject applicants who indicate that they would refuse to provide medical treatment, including abortion and assisted dying, on conscientious grounds:

Medical schools should deny applicants who object to provide abortion, assisted death: bioethicist

My personal opinion: I see quite a bit of merit in Dr. Schuklenk's suggestion.

In some respects, it's a bit heavy-handed. After all, someone who objects to, say, abortion, contraception, and assisted dying could potentially steer themselves to a medical discipline that isn't involved with these services.

On the other hand, though, I think it's useful to send a strong message to med - and pharmacy - students that the most important principle in medicine is that the needs of the patient come first, so anyone who would deny a patient care based on the practitioner's "needs" has no place in the medical profession.

In an environment where there's heavy competition to get into medical schools, only the best students are going to get in. I think it makes sense for the measurement of "best" to include a look at the applicant's ethics, not just their academic performance.

What are your thoughts?

Do you realize the Mother-to-be is the first line of defense for the next generation?

And the Father is HER defense?

If we believe in the Constitution that states to us of certain "God-given inalienable rights" that we are all entitled to life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, where is the exclusion stated for the next generation?

I guess you know that is who is being aborted???

So that when we get old, (I'll be old in another 25 years), and look for a Doctor, or lawyer, or grocer, I don;t want to be saying "Where did they go?" Because I will already know "YOU ABORTED THEM."

Same goes for the next generation of warriors to protect us. Who will they be?

Even the preachers and teachers???

Upon a time, in the previous century, the question was based upon the question of "When doe life begin in the newborn?

I answered that and they changed the question.

Now I will give you my answer and see if it means anything to the board participants.

Do you realize the Mother-to-be is the first line of defense for the next generation?

And the Father is HER defense?

If we believe in the Constitution that states to us of certain "God-given inalienable rights" that we are all entitled to life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, where is the exclusion stated for the next generation?

I guess you know that is who is being aborted???

So that when we get old, (I'll be old in another 25 years), and look for a Doctor, or lawyer, or grocer, I don;t want to be saying "Where did they go?" Because I will already know "YOU ABORTED THEM."

Same goes for the next generation of warriors to protect us. Who will they be?

Even the preachers and teachers???

Upon a time, in the previous century, the question was based upon the question of "When doe life begin in the newborn?

I answered that and they changed the question.

Now I will give you my answer and see if it means anything to the board participants.


I have stood by for a long time, wondering whether my small voice would make any impact upon the debate, currently raging in society, on the subject of Abortion. I look at the whole issue as misnamed, to begin with. The issue does not revolve around Abortion per SE, anymore than it revolves around adultery, or Birth Control, per SE. It revolves around the issue of determining at what point life begins in the womb.

Once the issue is properly identified, and resolved, the other issues will fall into their natural niches. To resolve the issue, then, let us take a look at life as it is developed and born into the world.

The new baby, most of the time, is said to be "alive," depending upon various and sundry "vital- signs." Yet, we do not conclude that the baby "became" alive at the moment of birth. So I think we can agree, life begins before the moment of birth.

If the very definition of "life" involves the ability to point precisely to some perceived "spark," at which time an embryo becomes viable, or "alive," then I'm afraid the debate will continue to rage unabated. But I really believe we can do better than that in our approach to such an important issue.

The first question I would raise, is a very simple one. Was the egg "alive," or dead, at the precise moment it was joined by the sperm? Was the sperm "alive?" If the egg and sperm were dead, how could they then become a zygote, a blastocyst, an embryo, a fetus,

The simple answer to this question, then, is, both the egg and the sperm were alive. Did the mother originate life in the egg at the precise moment she passed it from the ovary to the Fallopian chamber to begin its cycle, or was the egg alive when it was first produced into the cycle of the system?

The second question pertains to the sperm. Did the male give it life at the precise moment it left his testicle, to begin its journey in the cycle, or was the sperm alive while it resided in the male, awaiting the ejaculation process?

INTER-GENERATIONAL_LIFE-PROCESSING CYCLE - THE SCIENTIFIC TREATISE THAT DEMONSTRATES THE THEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT

1)The issue revolves around determining at what point life begins in the womb.

2)If the Potential Father (developing donor child) is alive prior to puberty, than Life MUST reside in the body of the child, in order to mature in the adult. TRUE_____ OR FALSE_____

3)If life can be determined to be within the DEVELOPING DONOR child (Potential Mother), and passes to the adult by maturation, prior to mating; and in the child, prior to maturation, and prior to puberty, from where did it come? PREVIOUS LIFE?______ OR SPONTANEOUS COMBUSTION_______

4)When the egg in the female is ready for processing, it is alive - TRUE____ OR FALSE_____

5)Did the mother originate life in the egg at the precise moment she passed it from the ovary to the Fallopian chamber to begin its cycle?
YES______ OR NO______

6)Was the sperm "alive or dead, at the precise moment it was ready for insertion into the reproduction process? ALIVE_______ OR DEAD________

7)When the egg accepts the Sperm to form the Zygote, is the egg alive or is it dead? ALIVE___________ OR DEAD___________

8)Was the sperm "alive or dead, at the precise moment it was accepted by the egg?" ALIVE________ OR DEAD________

9)Upon becoming a ZYGOTE, has death interrupted the process, or is the process still alive and developing? ALIVE _____ OR DEAD_____

10)Was life continued as the ZYGOTE became a BLASTOCYST, or did it originate within the system development?CONTINUED_____ ORIGINATED______

11)Upon developing to the stage of being a LIVING EMBRYO -
Did "life" originate in the Embryo? Or were the living gametes that formed the EMBRYO source its life?
ORIGINATED IN EMBRYO_______ SOURCED FROM GAMETES ________

12)Upon developing to the stage of being a LIVING FETUS -
Did "life" originate in the FETUS? Or was the living EMBRYO that formed the FETUS the source of its life?
SOURCED FROM EMBRYO_______ CONTINUED IN FETUS ________

WHERE WAS "LIFE" DURING THE ENTIRE PROCESS OF REPLICATION?
"For the life of the flesh is in the blood:...Lev 17:11

THE BEGINNING OF THE LIFE-CYCLE PROCESS:
"And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a "living" soul." Genesis 2:7 (KJV)

"...AND GOD SAID unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth..." Gen 1:28 (KJV)

And so GOD TELLS US that the process by which "life" is passed to the egg is begins with production of the egg, passes on to when the egg attaches itself to the wall of the uterus, and blood vessels are formed, by which life continues to be nourished in the egg, in the zygote, in the blastocyst, in the embryo, in the fetus, in the baby, in the Birth canal, In the passage of birth, and after the umbilical cord is cut, life continues in the new-born. It did not originate in any step of the cycle. It was passed from Parent to child, all the way back to its origin..... in the Garden. Similar events are present in production of the sperm, life is not "originated" IN the donor, it is passed on THROUGH the donor.

Some folks like to claim "My body is mine, I have the right to abort if I want to." To which I will always respond "What? Know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit which is in you, which ye have of God, and Ye are NOT your own? For ye are bought with a price; therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit which are God's." [1 Cor 6:19-20]

It matters not how science plays with what God has provided, they still must begin with that provision. And it was provided in the garden to Adam and to Eve, and has come uninterrupted to you and to me.

And no law of MAN can with impunity, over ride this Science of LIFE.

None of the "grooming processes" kill the entire replication process like separation from the blood supply, which carries the "life" throughout the developing process.

"clipping fingernails" does not interrupt the life-carrying blood-flow.
"Cutting Hair" does not interrupt the life-carrying blood-flow.
"Shaving the beard" does not interrupt the life-carrying blood-flow.
"waste that leaves the body" does not interrupt the life-carrying blood-flow.
"Shedding of tears" does not interrupt the life-carrying blood-flow.
"Perspiration" does not interrupt the life-carrying blood-flow.
"Flaking of sun-burned skin" does not interrupt the life-carrying blood-flow.
"Circumcision" does not interrupt the life-carrying
blood- flow.

Now, if life can be determined to be within the child, and passes to the adult by maturation, prior to mating; and in the child, prior to maturation, and prior to puberty, from where did it come? Vitamins in the food, perhaps? No! Minerals? No! I don't believe it can be shown to be dietary in nature; Though diet may very well play a part in other aspects of the cycle of life,i.e., as in passing it on.

The answer is simple, and leaves nothing to debate. "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a "living" soul." Genesis 2:7 (KJV)

"...AND GOD SAID unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the Earth..." Gen 1:28 (KJV)

After God told Adam and Eve to be fruitful, and multiply, and after man was cast from the garden, God revealed to them a secret, which still has men debating to this day. He told them where "life" was located in the cycle of life and death.

Lev 17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood:...

And so GOD TELLS US that the process by which "life" is passed to the egg is, it begins with production of the egg, passes on to when the egg attaches itself to the wall of the uterus, and blood vessels are formed, by which life continues to be nourished in the egg, in the zygote, in the blastocyst, in the embryo, in the fetus, even to inclusion of egg and sperm for the forming of the following generation; the baby, in the Birth canal, In the passage of birth, and after the umbilical cord is cut, life continues in the new-born. It did not originate in any step of the cycle. It was passed from Parent to child, all the way back to its origin..... in the Garden. Similar events are present in production of the sperm, life is not "originated" IN the donor, it is passed on THROUGH the donor.

Some folks claim "My body is mine, I have the right to abort if I want to."

To which I will always respond "What? Know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit which is in you, which ye have of God, and Ye are NOT your own? For ye are bought with a price; therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit which are God's." [1 Cor 6:19-20]


© 1997 by Theophilus Book

 

[Laika]

In an environment where there's heavy competition to get into medical schools, only the best students are going to get in. I think it makes sense for the measurement of "best" to include a look at the applicant's ethics, not just their academic performance.

What are your thoughts?

I may be reading in to this, but as far as I can tell, what are being called "conscience rights" is the right to not refer a patient to another professional and to deprive them of any care. If that's the case, the medical profession isn't at fault and shouldn't have to preemptively decide who gets in to medical school. Doctors can and should debate these issues and there should be no "political test" to determine who is allowed to become part of the medical profession.

In this context, the politicians risking patients care and lives to score points are the problem. That kind of political intervention in to the work of the medical profession to deprive people of care sounds distinctly reminiscent of the Nazi Euthanasia program.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And this person supposedly knows anything about ethics?

Yes. Do you?

 

[Heyo]

An interesting question and worth to discuss. I hope that was the purpose of this proposal and not a serious motion for such a law or rule.
There are too many interests and rights to consider to just see this as a clear cut case. I'm for a right to abortions and for a right to die, assisted if need be. That is far from consensus and having medical professional who oppose these rights can cause considerable harm. That doesn't mean that a society has a right to deny those people the study of medicine.
As has been mentioned, they may choose a career path that will never confront them with such a question. They may change their mind. They may lie to get in. It is also a question if the school or university is private or public (or gets public subsidies).
I also see a slippery slope when study places get denied on the basis of convictions.
So, I'd like to have as few health professionals with questionable work ethics as possible but I'm not OK with this way to reach that goal.

 

[PureX]

I may be reading in to this, but as far as I can tell, what are being called "conscience rights" is the right to not refer a patient to another professional and to deprive them of any care. If that's the case, the medical profession isn't at fault and shouldn't have to preemptively decide who gets in to medical school. Doctors can and should debate these issues and there should be no "political test" to determine who is allowed to become part of the medical profession.

It's not a "political test". It's a simple requirement that one be willing and able to fulfill the obligations of the position they are seeking to hold within their own society. It's just a simple matter of basic integrity and competence.

That politicians would use the issue to "make hay", well, of course. That's what they do. But the issue itself is simply and basically non-political. It's not really even religious.

 

[shmogie]

Yes.


It's not about belief; it's about actions... or at least the promise of actions. If someone swears that they won't practice their profession responsibily or ethically, what's the point of even training them?


There are no Christian medical schools in Canada.

If a Christian university decided it wanted a medical school, it would still need to be accredited. If they wanted to require their students to be unethical the way you suggest, I can't imagine they'd have an easy time getting approved by the accreditation board.


It's an idea to exclude people from a profession when:

- they deliberately choose to render themselves effectively incompetent.
- their patients suffer as a result of this choice.

If a religion requires any doctors and pharmacists among its adherents to behave unethically, I suppose they would be excluded as a matter of course, but that's not the main goal. The main goal is safeguarding patient care.


No, they really don't. This is why every sort of medical practitioner, including doctors, nurses, and pharmacists is bound by a code of ethics.

Actually, in America, they do. The guaranteed right to practice ones religion is in the Constitution.

If one is in a position that is about the preservation of life, and ones religion adheres to that concept, then one cannot be compelled to kill.

Compelling them to kill denies them the right of free religious practice.

The protection of religious rights is extremely important in America. That is why they are encoded in the very first amendment to the Constitution.

Other nations view things differently, everyone must be on the same page of killing.

Not here, the Constitution ensures one has the right to their religious conscience.

Dr. Leonard Bailey, A Christian physician that I knew, recently passed away. Dr. Bailey was a giant in the field of child surgery. Before him, children with hypoplastic left heart syndrome just died shortly after birth, thousands every year.

He developed the surgery that bears his name and now is common. No more will a child born with this condition have a death sentence. He also patented new surgery instruments used all over the world.

His works on pediatric heart surgery are considered definitive.

He would have flat out refused to do an abortion or kill someone in any other way.

If America had your draconian medical school ethical purity, the world would have been denied the benefits of the good doctors genius, those thousands would be dying every year, just because he would not participate in killing someone.

Wonderful.

 

[BSM1]

So that when we get old, (I'll be old in another 25 years), and look for a Doctor, or lawyer, or grocer, I don;t want to be saying "Where did they go?" Because I will already know "YOU ABORTED THEM."

Soooo...you saying that those who are living now are not smart enough to do those things 25 years from now? Why would you want to insult my grand children? You don't even know them. On the other hand, maybe one those aborted pregnancies would have produced another Hitler...hmmm..

 

[Spirit of Light]

It's not a "political test". It's a simple requirement that one be willing and able to fulfill the obligations of the position they are seeking to hold within their own society. It's just a simple matter of basic integrity and competence.

Nurses and doctors are there to save lives, not take them. do you really think a doctor goes 6-10 years in school for learning how to cure people, to end up taking life or assist someone who wants to die? Or even worse, take the life of an unborn child who has no voice to say if they want to live or die?
Why should human beings play God over other people and decide who lives and who dies?

 

[PureX]

Nurses and doctors are there to save lives, not take them. do you really think a doctor goes 6-10 years in school for learning how to cure people, to end up taking life or assist someone who wants to die? Or even worse, take the life of an unborn child who has no voice to say if they want to live or die?
Why should human beings play God over other people and decide who lives and who dies?

Doctors are not charged with the job of 'playing God', either. The collective society chooses it's ethical imperatives through it's enabled and authorized institutions, and it's doctors do their best to serve those imperatives. No one gets to play God, here. And no one should be doing so. No doctor's conscience is God, either, keep in mind. He exists to serve a profession that is governed by the society of human beings that authorized it to do so. God has nothing to do with any of this. This is about humans serving other humans as those other humans have chosen to be served.

 

[Shad]

Actually, in America, they do. The guaranteed right to practice ones religion is in the Constitution.

More so religious beliefs of medical professionals are protected by modern laws under conscience clauses. These also exist as part of codes in medical school enabling students to opt out of learning certain medical procedures like abortion. These clauses also work for the parents/individuals thus they can turn down a number of treatments for themselves and those under their legal care via the clause. JW and blood transfusions for example

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No matter what, people are always going to have reservations about some or other medical treatment. The answer has always been have someone else do it. It's not a hard compromise.

The whole reason that the this story came up now is because of legislation that, if passed, would get rid of the "have someone else do it" option. The Alberta legislature has a bill that would remove the requirement for a physician to refer the patient to someone else if they refused a treatment or service for reasons of conscience. Dr. Schuklenk was being interviewed for that story when he brought up the idea of screening out applicants to med school to nip the problem in the bud.

That legislation aside, there often is no "someone else." A specialist may be the only one in their field in a certain area. Rural areas may only have one family doctor for the whole community. Growing urban areas may have no doctors who are taking new patients. It may be impossible to transport an infirm or medically unstable patient to a different hospital.

Every medical discipline has a standard of care. When a practitioner refuses to uphold that standard, we as a society really have two choices:

- demand that the practitioner follow the normal standards of their profession, or
- force the patient to have substandard care.

 

[Shad]

. The collective society chooses it's ethical imperatives through it's enabled and authorized institutions, and it's doctors do their best to serve those imperatives.

You mean tyranny of the majority after all the collective does not agree does it?

 

[Shad]

That legislation aside, there often is no "someone else." A specialist may be the only one in their field in a certain area. Rural areas may only have one family doctor for the whole community. Growing urban areas may have no doctors who are taking new patients. It may be impossible to transport an infirm or medically unstable patient to a different hospital.

This is a problem in general. More so most rural medical centers do not do those procedures anyways. Your point is really moot.

- demand that the practitioner follow the normal standards of their profession, or
- force the patient to have substandard care.

False dilemma. Patients can find another doctor as a third option.

More so you are just making up a standard.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Ridiculous. These people may have turned out to be experts in other fields and they wouldn't have even been given a chance.

And Einstein failed his college entrance exam the first time around. This doesn't mean that schools shouldn't have standards for applicants.

 

[Rival]

And Einstein failed his college entrance exam the first time around. This doesn't mean that schools shouldn't have standards for applicants.

Your decisions of conscience shouldn't be part of that. Medicine is always going to be fraught with these kinds of considerations. I actually think it's better to have varied viewpoints in this field so meaningful discussions can be had.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Doctors are not charged with the job of 'playing God', either. The collective society chooses it's ethical imperatives through it's enabled and authorized institutions, and it's doctors do their best to serve those imperatives. No one gets to play God, here. And no one should be doing so. No doctor's conscience is God, either, keep in mind. He exists to serve a profession that is governed by the society of human beings that authorized it to do so. God has nothing to do with any of this. This is about humans serving other humans as those other humans have chosen to be served.

So what human beings are rightfully allowed to kill another human being? Outside of hospital that would be murder, and it is still murder within the hospital.
When I worked with sick people in a home for the elderly, we were clearly instructed that by no means was we allowed to end someone's life because they asked us to pull the cord or give them medicine that would stop their hearts.
You have something called terminal condition(time before they die a natural death) and we were only allowed to give pain killers so they should at least feel less pain. we were also instructed to stay with them as much as possible. I am not trained as a fully educated nurse or doctor, but I have enough medical education to be allowed to give medicine prescribed by doctors.
When a family member of the sick person asked me, can you not end the suffering for (mom or dad) but I was not in any position to be allowed to follow the family's order or request.
And the doctors also always say no to end someone's life because as they told the family. A doctor's job is to keep the person alive, but with as little pain as possible.
Medical trained persons should never end someones life

 

[Shad]

And Einstein failed his college entrance exam the first time around. This doesn't mean that schools shouldn't have standards for applicants.

Flunked versus declining an application completely based on a subjective standard are different issues. More so Einstein was automatically accepted at Zurich Polytechnic based on his work in HS.

 

[Harel13]

Yes. Do you?

I guess not, because I missed the memo that murder is okay.