Are we willing to make doctors into mere robots?

 LifeSite News

Reproduced with permission

Lea Singh

Some years ago I filled out a prescription for Yasmin, a birth control pill that is often prescribed, as in my case, to control acne for young women. Luckily the warning label scared me enough that I ended up throwing those pills in the garbage. I felt a bit foolish but followed my gut against the assurances of my doctor, who considered those pills the equivalent of Tylenol.

He was wrong. Yasmin made headlines last year when it was linked, together with another birth control pill, to the deaths of 23 women in Canada. This February the European Medicines Agency also admitted that the blood clot risks of Yasmin and similar newer birth control pills are much greater than previously thought.

The EMA’s statement came on the heels of a French report showing that about 20 French women per year died between 2000 and 2011 as a result of fatal blood clots from such ‘third-generation’ pills. All British physicians have now been ordered to warn their patients about the potentially fatal risk of blood clots associated with these pills.

But all this is apparently not enough. Nor is it enough that the World Health Organization has classified oral contraceptives as “carcinogenic to humans.”

It may never be enough for certain people, like Konrad Yakabuski of The Globe and Mail who recently criticized three Ottawa doctors for refusing to prescribe or refer for artificial contraception, saying: “The safety and effectiveness of popular government-approved contraceptives is not generally considered a matter of ‘medical judgment’ these days.”

Tell that to the families of the women who died on Yasmin, Mr. Yakabuski. The truth is, scientists are still studying the risks associated with our methods of artificial birth control, and the drugs that are legal and seemingly safe today might be history tomorrow.

Family doctors are often the first ones to see the red flags, and they should be free to stick to their medical judgements. After my Yasmin scare, I want doctors like that – doctors who haven’t been silenced by fear of feminist backlash, who dare to refuse to pump dangerous chemicals into my body. Such doctors might make me think twice about asking for that chemical cocktail, and they could save my life.

But medical judgement is not the only good reason why doctors might refuse to prescribe or refer. We should never require doctors to participate in treatments that would leave them feeling like they (sometimes quite literally) just killed a baby.

Why would we want to crush and destroy the spirit of our doctors by forcing them to cooperate with what they believe to be deeply wrong?

Here’s why: because the technical abilities of medicine have outgrown the moral limits of most world religions, and many people now feel entitled to treatments that their doctors might find abhorrent.

So the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario is reviewing their policy on the freedom of doctors to refuse to provide or refer for treatments that violate their deepest moral and religious convictions.

Are we willing to make doctors into mere robots who won’t be allowed to question, much less refuse, our ethically precarious requests? Some people argue that since doctors work on the public dime, they should be like medical vending machines that dispense any legal service on demand.

But if we strip our doctors of their conscience in order to do our bidding, here’s the price we pay. First, expect an exodus of principled doctors from the profession. We’ll be chasing away the very doctors who might protect us most, those who are willing to take a stand against bad medicine. Not to mention that practising Christians, among others, will effectively be barred from applying to medical schools.

Second, we will be left with doctors who are either willing to do things they consider unethical, or who have few ethical limits to begin with. I get creepy visions of the darkest moments of history repeating, as we find one day that nothing remains to protect us from those same doctors when we are weak and vulnerable.

With euthanasia knocking on Ontario’s door from neighbouring Quebec, now would be a good time to think about how personal ethics and integrity should be valued, not discouraged in our physicians.

Conscience rights for Ontario doctors may be on chopping block again

LifeSite News

Pete Balinski

Ontario’s College of Physicians and Surgeons is looking to update its policy on whether or not a doctor can refuse treatments on religious or moral grounds. The move has life and family advocates concerned doctors may be forced to violate their moral convictions when serving a patient, including one day being forced to participate in or refer for abortion and euthanasia.

“It is dangerous to ask anyone to set aside moral convictions. The greater the power and influence of the person involved, the more dangerous it is,” Sean Murphy, administrator of the Canada-based Protection of Conscience Project, told LifeSiteNews.

The College’s policy review comes at a time when mainstream media has highlighted a number of stories about women complaining that doctors would not prescribe birth control pills, either because of a medical judgment, ethical concerns, or religious beliefs. The reports have consistently sided with the pill-seeking women over the doctors. . . .[Full text]

We need to remember the lessons on abortion and conscience before we legalise assisted suicide

Catholic Herald

Francis  Phillips

Cases such as Dr. Chazan’s should make us think twice

On holiday last week I got into conversation with an atheist friend. The subject of abortion came up and whether a doctor or nurse has a right in conscience to refuse to participate in such a “procedure.” I cited the recent case of a prominent Polish Catholic doctor who had refused to perform an abortion. My atheist friend was annoyed. “What do you mean, he refused?” he said. “If it’s the law he has to comply with it.” By way of bolstering his argument he added, “Don’t doctors know that performing abortions is just part of their job?”

I countered this by saying that saving life and healing the sick was intrinsic to practising medicine; performing abortions wasn’t; indeed, the law of 1967 permitting it had run counter to all traditional notions of medicine from the Hippocratic Oath onwards. I added that I had read that many new medical graduates are now refusing to do abortions – not for religious reasons but because it wasn’t what they thought doctoring should be about. I added that this made medicine quite different from e.g. conscientious objection in war: being prepared to kill the enemy was intrinsic to soldiering; if you were a pacifist you would know this, so you would refuse to join up on conscientious grounds. . . [Full text]

Abortion row child dies

 Polski Radio

The baby at the centre of a pro-life row that has divided Poles died on Wednesday just hours after the professor who refused to abort the child was informed he would be dismissed.

Marcin Dubienecki, lawyer of the child’s mother, confirmed that the baby – which had serious brain defects – had been born in Warsaw’s Bielanski Hospital on 30 June.

“On behalf of my client, I am passing on the information that the child ‘whose life was saved’ by Professor Chazan died at 8.35 pm [on Wednesday],” he told the TVN24 news channel.

“The child was in a very serious condition. “All of the arguments that the child should never have been born proved correct,” he claimed. [Full text]

Philippines: Church encourages conscientious objection to contraception

The country’s bishops have issued a document recalling that abortion has not been legitimized and that a person’s right to life is still inviolable

Vatican Insider | Lastampa

Paolo Affatato

Conscientious objection is the best way to defy the Reproductive health bill in December 2012 which the Supreme Court officially approved last April. After Parliament approved the controversial provision in December 2012, despite strong opposition from the Philippine Church, some Catholic politicians presented a series of appeals in a final desperate attempt to contest the constitutional legitimacy of the law. The verdict issued by the court means all provisions relating to contraception and sex education are now enforceable. The idea is to spread a culture of family planning and encourage birth control. The Philippine bishops who have been holding a plenary session in recent days, have tried to save the situation by issuing a “pastoral guide“. . .  [Full text]