A new version of the controversial Reproductive Health bill is being circulated among Filipino lawmakers. The substitute bill, proposed by the sponsor of the original bill, is reported to include a number of changes responsive to concerns of the bill’s opponents. Some of the proposed changes deals with sections of the bill that could have an adverse impact on health care workers opposed to some birth control methods for reasons of conscience. The bill’s author is now prepared to remove the provision that threatens objectors with prosecution if they speak out, and to exempt denominational hospitals from a requirement to provide services that contravene their religious ethos. [Inquirer]
Serious mistake made in diagnosing death before organ transplantation
A 19 year old girl who was seriously injured in a car crash in October, 2011, narrowly escaped having vital organs removed for transplant following what appears to have been a misdiagnosis by attending physicians. After consulting with the family, they removed a respirator and ceased treatment. However, the girl regained consciousness as they were preparing to harvest her organs. [Medical Daily]
Abortion described as a “right”
In a commentary on CBC Radio, Canada’s publicly funded state broadcaster, Prince Edward Island University professor Richard Raiswell asserted that “abortion is a medically necessary, essential health care service” and insisted that all Canadian women have a “right” to the service. Since the province does not provide abortion on the island, Raiswell argues that women who have to leave the island to obtain the procedure “are being denied access to safe medical care.” He suggested that that is illegal. [CBC Radio]
Over 100 plaintiffs in lawsuits against U.S. government birth control mandate
The Becket Fund reports that more than 100 plaintiffs have now joined lawsuits against the federal government as a result of an administration regulation that forces employers to provide insurance for birth control and sterilization even if they object for reasons of conscience. [Becket Fund HHS Page]
Ethicist supports “positive” eugenics: likens current practice to Nazi policies
Julian Savulescu, an ethicist at the University of Oxford, argues that the current practice of using prenatal screening and abortion to eliminate embryos suspected of having disabilities or diseases is akin to Nazi eugenic policies, which were also directed at eliminating the ‘unfit.’ He supports the use of prenatal testing to identify and destroy embryos with disease or disabilities as long as it is understood that this implies nothing about the moral status of disabled people, but argues that people should also be able to select for desirable characteristics, like intelligence or sex. His position is that “freedom of reproduction” can be restricted “for social purposes,” but only if the purposes are “uncontroversially good,” the restrictions are necessary, and that no less restrictive policies would be workable. [News Limited]