[hocndoc]

Forgive me for prefering to let legal dogs lie by posting the article in full.

The complete article is available for free on line at http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/352/24/2471

There is also an audio of an interview with Charo at

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/352/24/2471/DC1

There is no disclosure that Professor Charo is an outspoken and well-traveled advocate for abortion, cloning, and embryonic stem cell experiments. She was on a panel covering the legal issues of cloning and embryonic stem cell research this past weekend in Houston. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1420130/posts http://www.genpol.org/

She was also quoted in a recent MSNBC/Newsweek article, "Ethics, Eggs and Embryos," concerning the donation of oocytes for cloning for embryonic stem cells. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8185339/site/newsweek/

This editorial is an excellent example of her work: she immediately jumps to the conclusion that religion and right wing politics are at the base of conscience laws and assumes that her views are the only correct views, with basis in fact and law rather than personally held beliefs (i.e., religion by another name):

""" Finally, there is the awesome scale and scope of the abortion wars. In the absence of legislative options for outright prohibition, abortion opponents search for proxy wars, using debates on research involving human embryos, the donation of organs from anencephalic neonates, and the right of persons in a persistent vegetative state to die as opportunities to rehearse arguments on the value of biologic but nonsentient human existence."""

I agree with R. Alta Charo's opinion, as implied by her objection to conscience clauses within State and Federal laws, that mere legality does not make any act "right." However, I disagree with her conclusion that these laws are politically motivated, limited to those who belong to the specific religions she names, or that the refusal of medical professionals to participate in killing members of our species is a recent innovation.

The most ancient (pagan, Greek) recorded code of medical ethics called upon medical professionals to "First, do no harm" and prohibited the deliberate ending of human life. This code has been reaffirmed in the Nuremberg Code, the Declaration of Helsinki, and the United Nations' International Declaration of Human Rights. History has repeatedly shown us the result of discrimination, whether legal or not, between members of our species when following this code.

Professor Charo appeals to morality - the discernment between right and wrong acts - whether explicitly or not. Upon what does she base her morals which cause her to travel about the country advocating for cloning and other means of obtaining embryonic stem cells? And why is she not a "moral busybod(y)" in her desire for consequences for those who violate her idea of professionalism?

[hocndoc]

Gentlemen, please ping your lists.

Doctors: please consider writing the editors of the NEJM at comments@nejm.org about this latest misuse of their editorial discretion.

[marron]

Does professionalism include the rather old-fashioned notion of putting others before oneself?

I can save everyone the trouble of reading this. His position is that refusing to kill your patient is tyranny. Refusing to perform an abortion is "legalized discrimination". Obeying your conscience is "exploiting your position".

[SupplySider]

And why is she not a "moral busybod(y)" in her desire for consequences for those who violate her idea of professionalism?

Precisely.

I wonder what her opinion is of psychiatrists who choose to refrain from treating homosexuals seeking to change to heterosexuality?

[Mr. Silverback]

ProLife Ping!

If anyone wants on or off my ProLife Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.

[Mr. Silverback]

Conscience is a tricky business. Some interpret its personal beacon as the guide to universal truth. But the assumption that one's own conscience is the conscience of the world is fraught with dangers. As C.S. Lewis wrote, "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

Though I'm sure almost every doctor, nurse and pharmacist using the conscience clause believes it's better for their patient to avoid being a victim of abortion, this section shows why They Just Don't Get It. The medical professionals making these choices are doing so because they believe they would be party to murder, and if they thought it would benefite their patients, they would make the same choice.

[Question_Assumptions]

Send Nat Hentoff after her. The look on the pro-abortion person's face in an old PBS Fred Friendly roundtable debate on abortion when she tried to define it as a religious issue and Nat Hentoff pointed out he was an atheist was priceless.

[Search4Truth]

Are they demanding to keep their principles and their job too?

If an employer requires something of you that you find is against your principles, you have the right to leave that employment. To stay would be unprincipled. Perhaps one could start a company of their own where one is not required to sacrifice their principles in the performance of their job. That would be the principled thing to do. The American thing in fact.

[MarMema]

physicians, nurses, and pharmacists are increasingly claiming a right to the autonomy not only to refuse to provide services they find objectionable, but even to refuse to refer patients to another provider and, more recently, to inform them of the existence of legal options for care.

[cpforlife.org]

Pro-Life PING

Please FreepMail me if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.