It Already Begins…Obama Supporting Pro-Abortion Policies…asking Doctors to Defy Hippocratic Oath and the Declaration of Geneva

Posted: January 22, 2009 by Rick Hogaboam in Abortion, Politics, Social Issues

Sadly, President Obama has chosen to commemorate Roe v. Wade by reinstating taxpayer funding of abortions for NGO (Non Government Organizations) oversees. Read here.

He also is seeking to rescind the conscious clause for health care providers (link), which was supported and enacted by President Bush…see article below on Bush’s support:

Bush Admin Helps Pro-Life Doctors, Nurses Avoid Abortion Discrimination

by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
July 15
, 2008

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) — The Bush administration is continuing its efforts to help pro-life doctors and nurses avoid employment discrimination when it comes to opting out of participating in abortions. The Department of Health and Human Services has drafted new tentative rules that would guide hiring decisions.

The idea is to require hospitals and other medical facilities that receive federal funding to guarantee that they will not refuse to hire medical staff who refuse to participate in abortions.

The facilities would be required to sign written certifications as a prerequisite for receiving the federal funds.

The rules would go further and require state and local governments receiving federal funding to certify as well that they won’t discriminate against hospitals and medical facilities that don’t do abortions when making grant considerations with federal monies.

The New York Times obtained a copy of the proposed rules and HHS officials say they’re necessary to ensure federal funds do not “support morally coercive or discriminatory practices or policies in violation of federal law.”

The Bush administration also said the rules are based on legislation Congress has already approved to protect pro-life medical personnel.

Since the laws are often ignored, the rules would draw attention to them.

They would allow the administration to cut off federal aid to entities that discriminate against people who object to abortion based on “religious beliefs or moral convictions.”

Dr. David Stevens, the head of the 13,000-member Christian Medical Association, told LifeNews.com that he’s pleased President Bush is moving ahead with protections for pro-life doctors and nurses.

“It’s high time that the will of the people, as expressed over the past 35 years through laws passed by Congress, finally be translated into practical healthcare regulations,” he said.

“Americans on all sides of controversial issues such as abortion, reproductive technologies and assisted suicide can appreciate the need to protect everyone’s First Amendment rights of free speech and religious exercise. That means that healthcare professionals must be free to follow their individual conscientious convictions on these life-and-death matters,” he added.

Stevens said an internal survey of his group’s membership found 41 percent of pro-life physicians had been pressured to compromise their views on the job.

“Anecdotal accounts suggest that few persecuted healthcare professionals actually know their conscience rights and that they typically simply submit to pressure by resigning,” he said.

“Unless pro-life professionals are equipped to know and apply their conscience rights, they actually stand at risk of being weeded out from the profession altogether,” Dr. Stevens added.

The proposal is also drawing heat from abortion advocates because of its clear-cut definition of abortion — one that they say includes things like the morning after pill that can also work sometimes as an abortion drug.

The proposed HHS rules define abortion as “any of the various procedures — including the prescription, dispensing and administration of any drug or the performance of any procedure or any other action — that results in the termination of the life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation.”

Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL, told the Times that the Bush administration is using the definition in an attempt to stop the distribution of birth control or contraception.

“Why on earth is the Bush administration trying to discourage doctors and clinics from providing contraception to women who need it?” she claims.

 

I thought Obama was smarter than to pick a fight with the thousands of doctors who reject killing babies.

The protection for human life has been watered down as it is in the revisions of medical oaths, but will suffer only more under a president who wishes to bind the conscious of doctors to a new oath: “Abortion on Demand No Matter the Reason”.

I am curious to see what will happen after the ACLU plants a pregnant woman seeking an abortion before a doctor known for refraining from providing abortions, only to sue him/her for not providing the abortion. Do we really want to run off a large perentage of doctors and force Christian/Catholic hospitals to perform abortions against their will? By the way, about 1/3 hospitals in this country falls under that category, many of which are renowned for their level of care.

I thought it would be worth noting this downward spiral in the value of human life, especially in the “Declaration of Geneva”, which has revised the oath over the years to limit the protection of human life from conception. The article below is from Wikipedia on the Declaration of Geneva (the bold is my doing for emphasis):

Declaration of Geneva

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article pertains to the medical profession. There is also the Geneva Declaration on the Future of the World Intellectual Property Organization and the 1923 Geneva Declaration of the Rights of the Child.

The Declaration of Geneva was adopted by the General Assembly of the World Medical Association at Geneva in 1948 and amended in 1968, 1984, 1994, 2005 and 2006. It is a declaration of physicians‘ dedication to the humanitarian goals of medicine, a declaration that was especially important in view of the medical crimes which had just been committed in NaziGermany. The Declaration of Geneva was intended as a revision [1] of the Oath of Hippocrates to a formulation of that oath’s moral truths that could be comprehended and acknowledged modernly.[2]

The original Declaration of Geneva reads:[3]

At the time of being admitted as a Member of the medical profession

  • I solemnly pledge myself to consecrate my life to the service of humanity :
  • I will give to my teachers the respect and gratitude which is their due;
  • I will practise my profession with conscience and dignity;
  • The health and life of my patient will be my first consideration;
  • I will respect the secrets which are confided in me;
  • I will maintain by all means in my power, the honour and the noble traditions of the medical profession;
  • My colleagues will be my brothers
  • I will not permit considerations of religion, nationality, race, party politics or social standing to intervene between my duty and my patient;
  • I will maintain the utmost respect for human life, from the time of its conception, even under threat, I will not use my medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity;
  • I make these promises solemnly, freely and upon my honour.

The Declaration of Geneva, as currently amended, reads[2]:

At the time of being admitted as a member of the medical profession:

  • I solemnly pledge to consecrate my life to the service of humanity;
  • I will give to my teachers the respect and gratitude that is their due;
  • I will practise my profession with conscience and dignity;
  • The health of my patient will be my first consideration;
  • I will respect the secrets that are confided in me, even after the patient has died;
  • I will maintain by all the means in my power, the honour and the noble traditions of the medical profession;
  • My colleagues will be my sisters and brothers;
  • I will not permit considerations of age, disease or disability, creed, ethnic origin, gender, nationality, political affiliation, race, sexual orientation, social standing or any other factor to intervene between my duty and my patient;
  • I will maintain the utmost respect for human life;
  • I will not use my medical knowledge to violate human rights and civil liberties, even under threat;
  • I make these promises solemnly, freely and upon my honour.

The amendments to the Declaration have been criticised as “imping[ing] on the inviolability of human life” because, for example, the original made “health and life” the doctor’s “first consideration” whereas the amended version removes the words “and life”, and the original required respect for human life “from the time of its conception” which was changed to “from its beginning” in 1984 and deleted in 2005.[4] These changes have been criticised as straying from the Hippocratic tradition and as a deviation from the post Nuremberg concern of lack of respect for human life. [5]

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s