►
A cheap shot from ACOG
by Judie Brown
Released December 19, 2007
Commentary by Judie Brown
The American College of Obstetricians and
Gynecologists is once again attempting to hijack medical ethics. Because of
ACOG’s history of mass deception, which I will detail in the paragraphs to
follow, this latest action should not have surprised me. But because of the
organization’s growing audacity, its most recent pronouncement shocked even me.
The political effort to protect so-called
reproductive medicine has led ACOG to the conclusion, according to its
Committee on Ethics, that even when healthcare providers have moral concerns
about a decision a patient has made, they may not allow those concerns to
translate into a refusal to provide a “service” or a prescription to that
patient.
If one examines this premise and the committee’s
language, it becomes painfully clear that the target for the statement is the
Christian medical community. For example, in the ACOG statement, we find the
following:
When conscientious refusals conflict with moral obligations that are
central to the ethical practice of medicine, ethical care requires either that
the physician provide care despite reservations or that there be resources in
place to allow the patient to gain access to care in the presence of
conscientious refusal.
In other words, if the physician is unwilling to
perform an abortion because he has ethical problems with the practice, that
physician is obligated to refer the patient to someone who will perform the
abortion. The reason for this is, according to the committee, that such an act
? the abortion ? is part of the ethical practice of medicine. While this may
sound reasonable in the morally relativistic culture in which we all live, it
is actually a slap in the face of reason and common sense.
Abortion is an act that results in death ? the
death of a human being. It is not the doctor who refuses to kill who should be
the focus of such ethical studies and commentaries, but rather the doctor who
has the ability to kill without batting an eyelash. But due to the flimflam
that runs throughout the fabric of the American College of Obstetricians and
Gynecologists’ rubric, quite the contrary is true. After all, the act of
abortion is protected by law in the United States.
But history shows that ACOG is always at the
forefront of promoting concepts that will later be affirmed in law.
When it became clear to ACOG’s leadership in the
1960s, for example, that the birth control pill would be a boon to their
patients, to population control and to their wallets, they went to great pains
to redefine when pregnancy occurs and when the child’s life actually begins. In
the ACOG Terminology Bulletin #1, dated September 1965, the following
definitions appear:
- FERTILIZATION is the union of spermatozoon and
ovum
- CONCEPTION is the implantation of a fertilized
ovum. ‘This definition has been selected deliberately because union of sperm
and ovum, cannot be detected clinically unless implantation occurs.’
The reason given in defense of the new definition
of conception is bogus. The very date of the bulletin makes that obvious to
anyone familiar with the history of the birth control pill. The FDA had
approved the birth control pill in 1960 and concerns were being raised about how that
pill might work. Thus it was in the best interests of ACOG’s membership to study
the manner in which they might successfully ease the concerns about early-day
abortion and increase their income, all in one fell swoop.
In the Declaration of Life, signed by
hundreds of pro-life physicians, the point is made that, during the discussions
about the inaccurate definitions, there was debate within the group:
Not everyone accepted these manipulations. Dr. Richard Sosnowski said
he was troubled: “... that, with no scientific evidence to validate the change,
the definition of conception as the successful spermatic penetration of an ovum
was redefined as the implantation of a fertilized ovum. It appears to me that
the only reason for this was the dilemma produced by the possibility that the intrauterine
contraceptive device might function as an abortifacient.”
Sadly, the forces of greed and deception won the
day and ACOG successfully denied the existence of the child during the first
eight days of his life within his mother.
The intervening 40-plus years have witnessed
unknown numbers of silent deaths because doctors have refused to be honest.
Expectant mothers have unwittingly aborted their own babies by the chemicals
they ingested and the devices they utilized. As a result, big pharmaceutical
companies have grown exponentially into financially profitable giants.
But who would have guessed, even in 1965, that
the day would come when members of the medical profession would be placed in
the position of choosing between career and moral conscience? Well, that time
has arrived.
ACOG claims that if a woman wishes to exercise
her “right” to pay a doctor to kill her baby, then it is the professional
responsibility of the physician to carry out her demand. The statement claims
that “‘a collective obligation does not mean that all members of the profession
are forced to violate their own consciences.’” But the same statement also says
systems must be in place to provide counseling and referral, “particularly in
resource-poor areas where conscientious refusals have significant potential to
limit patient choice, and that individuals and institutions ‘act affirmatively
to protect patients from unexpected and disruptive denials of service.’”
The statement cites the emergency room scenario
as one example of places where physicians who have a moral problem with the morning-after
pill should simply not be present. It goes on to say that institutions such as
Catholic hospitals, which have doctrinal objections, “should not position
themselves as primary providers of emergency care for victims of sexual assault.”
The committee’s answer to the moral dilemma faced
by the doctor who does not wish to kill a preborn child is totally
unacceptable. The doctor who has such conscience problems is not going to be
able to live with himself if he refers his two patients-mother and preborn
child ? to another doctor who will kill one of them. So where will that put the
physician with a commitment to protect and respect human dignity? Only time
will tell.
But this is where the examples provided by ACOG’s
history really trouble me.
In 1965, when ACOG forced a new definition of
pregnancy on the unsuspecting world, there was no hue and cry either from the
Catholics in the medical profession or from the Catholic bishops of the United
States. There was no definitive critique indicating that such a definition was
false, misleading and completely political in nature. There was no demand that
Catholics in health care stand up and defy the ridiculous inanity ACOG was
propagating.
Now, in 2007, we have to ask: Will those in a
position to lead a charge against this debacle do so? Will they assure that the
statement of ACOG’s ethics committee receives the public denunciation it
deserves? Will Catholic doctors rise up and say no? Will Catholic pharmacists
defy the statement and work with doctors to reverse it? Will Catholic bishops
demand that the statement be challenged, even in court, if need be?
When all is said and done, the ACOG committee’s
statement is but another in a continuing series of cheap shots against God, the
Creator of every human being, and it could not have come at a more opportune
time for Christians to decry it. But as I sit by and read the news, I wonder if
I will find a single rebuke of ACOG’s position, especially from the very people
chosen to serve as God’s shepherds.
Cheap
shots must be challenged. I fear for the babies and the doctors, for the families
that will be devastated and for the nation that will fall further into the
clutches of evil if, once again, good men and women do nothing.
Release issued: 18 Dec 07
|
