A host of moral and ethical issues in the
field of medicine and research is sparking volatile debates around the
world. Bioethics is changing the shape of medicine as a whole by
redefining the physician's role in health care, as well as the patient's
rights and even his or her value as a person. Health care professionals
whose ultimate concern used to be restoring their patients back to health,
are now faced with more complex considerations, such as euthanasia,
physician-assisted suicide, fetus's rights, genetic manipulation, and
cloning. Who is deciding where to draw the lines in these complicated
battlegrounds?
An incredibly eye-opening interview on WorldNetDaily
Sunday, February 11 between Geoff Metcalf and bioethics watch-dog,
Wesley Smith, exposed the sinister agenda of a growing movement within the
medical community. The introduction to Smith's book, "The
Culture of Death -- The assault on medical ethics in America",
broaches the subject this way: "Unbeknownst to most Americans, a
small but influential group of philosophers and health care policy makers
are working energetically to transform our nation's medical practice and
health care laws." Sounds harmless enough, until people learn what
they are trying to transform medicine into... a license to kill.
When asked how the medical community's society was
changing, Mr Smith said "...we have this ideological movement called
the 'bioethics movement,' which is moving us from the Hippocratic type of
'do no harm' medicine that most people want their doctors to pursue to one
which is based on the so-called 'quality of life.'" Unfortunately,
"quality of life" is defined by someone other than the person
whose life is at stake.
When the medical field first took shape, the renown
Greek physician, Hippocrates, established the basis for modern medicine's
emphasis on patient welfare with these words from the Hippocratic Oath,
circa 400 B.C.:
"...I will follow that system of regimen which,
according to my ability and judgement, I consider for the benefit of my
patients, and abstain from whatever is deleterious and mischievous. I
will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest any such
counsel; and in like manner I will not give to a woman a pessary to
produce abortion."
Sadly, only 13 percent of doctors today will take the
oath. Could it be because every doctor who graduates is required
to go through bioethics training? One case in point involves the doctor of
a 92 year old woman who had an infection and her doctor would not give her
antibiotics. The woman's daughter phoned the doctor to complain, and was
told "Your mom's going to die of an infection anyway. It might as
well be this infection."
Bioethics concerns itself not with "the right to
die" as living wills are designed to ensure, but rather "the duty
to die." This movement's philosophy classifies humans not as a unique
and special creation, but in the same class as animals- only perhaps less
desirable. According to bioethics, someone is not considered a real
"person" unless he or she is a valuable contributor to
society.
Tom Beecham, author of the textbook The Principles of
Biomedical ethics, makes this position clear with these words:
"Because many humans lack property of personhood
or are less than full persons … they are thereby rendered equal or
inferior in moral standing to some non-humans. If this conclusion is
defensible, we will need to rethink our traditional view that these
unlucky humans cannot be treated in the way we relevantly treat similar
non-humans. For example, they might be aggressively used as human
research subjects and sources of organs."
Many horrifying examples reinforce this twisted
viewpoint. Peter Singer, a "moral philosopher" and bioethicist
who teaches at Princeton, is in favor of "retroactive abortions"
by letting parents kill their children up to one year after birth!
Some doctors will not treat Alzheimer's patients as thoroughly as those
without mental impairment. Others withhold proper medical care for people
with physical handicaps, in comas, or the elderly. Dr. "Death"
Kevorkian, proponent of euthanasia, fits nicely into this list. "What
it means is that the people among us who are the most vulnerable, the
weakest -- they literally get shoved out of the life raft," Smith
said.
A frightening trend taking place in many intensive care
units around the country is called Futile Care Theory. As unbelievable as
it may sound, doctors are putting up signs similar to those found in some
restaurants saying, in essence "We reserve the right to refuse
service." In other words, if someone goes to the hospital and wants
his or her life extended- via a feeding tube, respirator, or
medication--the doctors can refuse treatment if they think that the
quality of the person's life is not worth the expenditure of money or
effort.
Whereas Living Wills used to be a necessity for people
who did not want their lives extended through artificial means, the
recommendation now is that people sign a Protective
Medical Decisions Document. It is put out by a group called the International
Anti-euthanasia Task Force, and it documents the kind of treatment a
patient wants. For example, it prevents them from taking away food and
water from someone who is cognitively disabled, which happens in all 50
states.
But why would doctors, who traditionally
have been taught to save lives, want to harm or kill their patients? Maybe
they have been brainwashed by the UN's pantheistic ideology which teaches
that humans and rocks have the same inherent value, with the exception, of
course, that humans are destroying the earth and must be curtailed. The UN
Global Biodiversity Assessment has this to say about population control:
It is "estimated that an
'agricultural world' in which most human beings are peasants should be
able to support 5 to 7 billion people... in contrast, a reasonable
estimate for an industrialised world society at the present north
American material standard of living would be 1 billion." Section
11.2.3.2 pp 773 (note: there are presently 6 billion people on earth.)
Two drastic remedies are proposed to save
the earth. If we all live as peasants, then fewer of us will have to be
eliminated. But to keep the same standard of living that we enjoy now, 5
billion people on earth will have to go! The multifaceted avenue
through which this will be accomplished includes abortion, euthanasia,
withholding adequate medical care, and much more. Even the music industry
plays a part through many heavy-metal songs which glorify suicide as the
only recourse that teenagers have to eliminate pain in their lives.
It is interesting to note that the people
who maintain that the planet is overpopulated, do not, in fact, volunteer
to sacrifice themselves for the sake of "Mother Earth." Instead,
they seek to kill unborn children, the elderly, and people deemed of
"lesser worth" to society. (Why should those who do not
view 6 billion people as a problem, have to die for those who do?)
Organizations such as The Voluntary Human
Extinction Movement, Gaia
Liberation Front, and The Church of Euthanasia aim for not only zero
population growth, but negative population growth--although their
members stick around to educate the rest of the world's misguided masses.
The common denominator in the midst of it
all, however, is the enemy of our souls.... Satan himself. Every life that
he can snuff out prematurely is a life that may never know the saving
grace of Jesus Christ. To Jesus, each and every life has limitless value-
the beggar, the prostitute, the handicapped, every baby whether born or
not- to the extent that He would sacrifice Himself to give them
Life. "The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have
come that they may have life, and have it to the full." (John
10:10) Get a life..... get Jesus. V bm
Note: In 1997 the
Supreme Court unanimously upheld Washington and New York state laws
banning assisted suicide. The Court ruled that the Constitution does not
guarantee citizens the right to end their lives with a doctor's help, but
left individual states the option of legalizing the practice. Oregon is
the only state that has passed a law in favor of assisted suicide.
http://www.Bioethics.net
