8mm
Posted on 12/11/2007 4:44:27 PM PST by wagglebee
ACOG has released a position statement entitled "The Limits of Conscientious Refusal in Reproductive Medicine."
The paper targets pro-life physicians, insisting that physicians who object to doing abortions should refer patients to doctors who will do them.
ACOG also requests that pro-life doctors move their practices closer to abortion businesses so women can have a shorter drive to get an abortion when their physicians refuse to perform or refer for one.
A leading group for Christian doctors, the 15,000-member Christian Medical Association (CMA), has issued a challenge to the OBGYN organization.
CMA sent a letter on behalf of itself and dozens of pro-life groups to ACOG president Douglas Laube and the group's board of directors.
In the letter, Dr. David Stevens, CMA's director, tells ACOG that it's new position statement, "suggests a profound misunderstanding of the nature and exercise of conscience."
Stevens says ACOG has "an underlying bias against persons of faith and an apparent attempt to disenfranchise physicians who oppose ACOG's political activism on abortion."
"ACOG is not only out of touch with conscience-driven physicians, but also with our long-standing American tradition to protect the rights of citizens to not participate in conscience-violating actions-especially when those actions would take a human life," Stevens added.
The groups say ACOG's position will result in Christian doctors feeling pressured to exit the field of obstetrics.
"At a time when many communities are already suffering the loss of obstetricians
and gynecologists forced out of their practices for economic reasons, it seems especially unwise to send such a message of ideological intolerance and religious discrimination," the letter says.
Gene Rudd, MD, an obstetrician and gynecologist and the vice-president of CMA, told LifeNews.com that he has withdrawn his membership in ACOG after 25 years.
"My conscience can no longer support their lack of conscience," he said.
"ACOG's strategy seeks to marginalize dissenting opinions. I as an obstetrician have a moral obligation not only to act in my patient's best interest, but also in the best interest of the developing baby, and of society as a whole," Dr. Rudd concluded.
ACTION: Express your disappointment with the ACOG policy paper by contacting the group at: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecology, Douglas W. Laube, MD, President, PO Box 96920, Washington, D.C. 20090-6920. You can call ACOG at (202) 638-5577 and members can email membership@acog.org.
The abortionists are murdering 3500 Americans EVERY DAY and they still thirst for more blood.
Pro-Life Ping
And breast implants.
Nose job, too.
Don’t forget the tramp stamps and multiple body piercings.
That's probably the whole point. Where did "do no harm" go? Sounds like doctors are now professionally obligated to assist in the killing of a baby.
No they shouldn’t. End of discussion. Women have brains. They can open the damn phone book themselves.
Bump!
Refer this. Abortion is murder. (Don’t bother starting debate on this point with me.)
I think all “doctors” that advocate or participate in abortions should have their liscences pulled for violating the “Hypocratic Oath”..’do no harm’!
ritique of ACOG Committee Opinion #385
Image
By Dr. Bob Orr
CMDA Member and Clinical Ethicist, Burlington, VT
“The healthcare professional’s right (and obligation) of conscience has been a foundational concept for centuries. In recent years, patient autonomy has gained prominence in North American medical ethics. Some individuals and organizations have tried to reconstruct the patient-physician relationship such that the patient’s wishes always prevail, diluting or negating this longstanding professional right and duty. The ACOG’s new statement on “The Limits of Conscientious Refusal in Reproductive Medicine” is the boldest professional opinion statement on this critical topic.”
Critique of:
ACOG Committee Opinion # 385, November 2007
The Limits of Conscientious Refusal in Reproductive Medicine
A. This detailed opinion on the right of conscience contains several flawed assumptions:
Flaw #1. Patient autonomy is the final arbiter of treatment decisions
* For several hundred years, physician beneficence was believed by all to be the final arbiter of treatment decisions.This was meant to reflect the generally accepted belief that whatever the physician felt was in the patient’s best interest was what should be done.
* In western medicine, this imbalance began to change in the 1960’s and 1970’s such that patient autonomy, i.e., the right to self-determination, was appropriately accorded much greater weight.
* Currently, patient autonomy is felt to outweigh the physician’s concept of patient beneficence in most instances.But patient autonomy is not absolute.There are times when the physician’s exercise of beneficent care is supported and even lauded, e.g.,
o treatment and prevention of suicide
o imposition of life-saving treatment when a patient has made an irrational refusal
o imposed isolation of a contagious patient who endangers society
o imposed immunizations.
* This flawed assumption is exemplified when ACOG states
“[a]lthough respect for conscience is important, conscientious refusals should be limited if…[4 broad criteria offered].”The criteria offered are overly broad and biased. (see critique below) While equally, physician autonomy is not absolute, this tipping of the balance so strongly in favor of the patient based on assertions is ethically troubling.
Flaw #2. Negative patient autonomy (the right to refuse) and positive patient autonomy (the right to demand) are morally equivalent
* Negative patient autonomy is nearly inviolable; it is rarely justified to impose unwanted treatment (see above for examples).
* However, positive patient autonomy carries much less moral weight.Patient demands are routinely denied by conscientious physicians for such things as unnecessary surgery, unwarranted antibiotics, assisted suicide, etc., even in those situations where the requested treatment is within the bounds of accepted practice or in instances when other (ignorant, sloppy, or unscrupulous) physicians might accede to the request.
* Such physician refusals are generally based on patient beneficence.However, for decades, a physician has also been permitted to decline a patient’s request based on his or her conscience.To not do so implies that the patient’s right to access to specific treatment options outweighs the physician’s right to avoid moral complicity in an action that he or she believes to be immoral.
* This ACOG opinion supports this incorrect implication, as noted by its repeated referral to physicians as “providers.”There is a major conceptual difference between a professional who professes allegiance to standards (those shared by the profession, as well as personal standards) and a “provider,” a technician who merely provides whatever is requested of him or her.
Flaw #3. Matters of conscience for the professional are matters of personal opinion
* The (limited) concept of conscience as “self-knowledge” is expressed by ACOG when they define it as the “private, constant, ethically attuned part of the human character.”This is a truncated and incomplete view of conscience.A person’s conscience is inseparable from his or her worldview or religious beliefs.
* “In the history of ethics, the conscience has been looked upon as the will of a divine power expressing itself in man’s judgments, an innate sense of right and wrong resulting from man’s unity with the universe, an inherited intuitive sense evolved in the long history of the human race, and a set of values derived from the experience of the individual.” (Columbia Encyclopedia, 6th ed.)
* Recognizing this divine origin of an individual’s conscience, a conscience clause is defined as “a clause in a general law exempting persons whose religious scruples forbid compliance therewith…” (Webster’s Revised Unabridged)
* ACOG reiterates its incomplete view of conscience when they claim “…not to act in accordance with one’s conscience is to betray oneself.1 They admit to no betrayal outside the self.
Flaw #4. Prima facie values can and should be overridden in the interest of other moral obligations that outweigh it
* ACOG admits that respect for conscience is a value, but they go on to say it is only a prima facie value. This is not so much a flawed assumption as one that is distorted.
* A prima facie value is one that is accepted on its own merit, without need for proof, though it may be contested and shown to be invalid in a particular circumstance.
* By emphasizing the possibility of override, and claiming conscience is only a prima facie value, they imply that this is of little consequence.
Read Full Critique on CMDA’s web site
“Healthcare professionals and patients must be made aware that such opinions, if accepted by the profession as a whole, will have a devastating effect on the practice of medicine. Mandating such an approach would have the effect of making healthcare professionals mere technicians, stripping from them the ability to apply moral reasoning to their practices.”
1. Orr RD. Addressing Issues of Moral Complicity: When?, Where?, Why?, and Other Questions. Dignity [newsletter of the Center for Bioethics & Human Dignity] Spring 2003;9(2):1,5; available at http://www.cbhd.org/resources/bioethics/orr_2003-05-23.htm
Action:
• Write to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG)
Contact ACOG and let them know that as a healthcare professional you strongly oppose their recent statement.
Executive Board Affairs - exbd@acog.org
Government Relations - govtrel@acog.org
Clinical Practice - clinical@acog.org
• Send us your personal stories on Healthcare Right of Conscience. What many healthcare professionals may not realize is that they are not alone in standing for what they believe. Your stories will be used to encourage others to continue standing strong for what they believe as this issue continues to become more widespread.
Submit your story
Read Member Stories (CMDA Members-Only)
http://www.cmda.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home&CONTENTID=10171&TEMPLATE=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm
Ah....”Judas Logic”!
Dr. Mengele doubtless thought all doctors should refer Jews for extermination as well.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic Ping List:
Please ping me to all note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
Well, isn't that a nice euphemism!
The "destruction of life unworthy of life" (Vernichtung lebensunwerten Lebens) continues...
They can issue new policies to their hearts content. Doesn't mean anyone is going to adhere. Let them try to enforce these policies.
How about if ACOG aborts all their kids?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.