|
WHY CAN'T WE LOVE THEM BOTH
by Dr. and Mrs. J.C. Willke
CHAPTER 37
DOCTORS & NURSES
The ancient doctor had a dual role
— to heal and to kill —
Hippocrates introduced a new ethic — to only heal. This passed
intact into the Christian area and guided medical practice until the middle 20th century.
Then, first with abortion and then with euthanasia, some doctors resumed the old pagan
dual role.
The Oath of Hippocrates
"I swear by Apollo, the Physician, and Aesulapius and Health
and All-Heal and All the Gods and Goddesses that, according to my ability and judgement, I
will keep this Oath and Stipulation:
"To reckon him who taught me this art equally dear to me as my
parents, to share my substance with him and relieve his necessities if required:to regard
his offspring as on the same footing with my own brothers, and to teach them this art if
they should wish to learn it without fee or stipulation, and that by precept lecture and
every other mode of instruction. I will impart knowledge of the art to my own sons and to
those of my teachers, and to disciples bound by a stipulation and oath, according to the
law of medicine, but to none others. "I will follow that method of treatment 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
anyone if asked, nor suggest any such counsel; furthermore, I will not give to a woman an
instrument to produce abortion."
"With purity and with holiness I will pass my life and practice
my art. I will not cut a person who is suffering with a stone, but will leave this to be
done by practitioners of this work. Into whatever houses I enter I will go into them for
the benefit of the sick and will abstain from every voluntary act of mischief and
corruption, and further from the seduction of females or males, bond or free."
"Whatever in connection with my professional practice, or not
in connection with it, I may see or hear in the lives of men which ought not to be spoken
abroad, I will not divulge, as reckoning that all such should be kept secret."
"While I continue to keep this oath unviolated, may it be
granted to me to enjoy life and the practice of the art, respected by all men at all times
but should I trespass and violate this oath, may the reverse be my lot." All doctors
used to swear this oath when they were licensed to practice medicine. But then two
sentences were quietly dropped: "I will give no deadly medicine to anyone if asked,
nor suggest such counsel, and in like manner, I will not give a woman a pessary to produce
abortion."
Some medical colleges substituted:
"I will do nothing illegal," essentially the new American
Medical Association position (see below). Subsequently, most medical colleges have dropped
the oath entirely.
Are there any other
famous pledges?
Yes, here is another, almost as old: "I will
not give my patients any poisonous drug, if they ask first, nor will I advise them thus,
nor aid in a miscarriage." Oath of Arabian
Physician
Also, right after World War II and the horror of the Nazi doctors
and the Holocaust, this was adopted:
"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 practice my profession with conscience and dignity; the health
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 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 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." Declaration of Geneva, The
World Medical Association, Sept. 1948
Sadly, this one has been largely
forgotten, and today few medical graduates take any ethical pledge.
Can anything be done?
Surveying the wreckage of today’s medical ethics, a prestigious
group of physicians, led by Dr. Joseph Stanton, decided to put forth a new oath, relevant
to today’s technological age. They clothed it in dignified classical language that
expresses the timeless ethic of good medicine. It was released in 1995. Hopefully, it will
someday be used widely.
A.D. 1995 Restatement of the Oath of Hippocrates (Circa 400 B.C.)
"I swear in the presence of the Almighty and before my family,
my teachers and my peers that according to my ability and judgment I will keep this Oath
and Stipulation:
"To reckon all who have taught me this art equally dear to me
as my parents and in the same spirit and dedication to impart a knowledge of the art of
medicine to others. I will continue with diligence to keep abreast of advances in
medicine. I will treat without exception all who seek my ministrations, so long as the
treatment of others is not compromised thereby, and I will seek the counsel of
particularly skilled physicians where indicated for the benefit of my patient."
"I will follow that method of treatment which, according to my
ability and judgment, I consider for the benefit of my patient and abstain from what-ever
is harmful or mischievous. I will neither prescribe nor administer a lethal dose of
medicine to any patient even if asked nor counsel any such thing nor perform acts of
omission with direct intent deliberately to end a human life. I will maintain the utmost
respect for every human life from fertilization to natural death and reject abortion that
deliberately takes a unique human life."
"With purity, holiness and beneficence I will pass my life
and practice my art. Except for the prudent correction of an imminent danger, I will
neither treat any patient nor carry out any research on any human being without the valid
informed consent of the subject or the appropriate legal protector thereof, understanding
that research must have as its purpose the furtherance of the health of that individual.
Into whatever patient setting I enter, I will go for the benefit of the sick and will
abstain from every voluntary act of mischief or corruption and further from the seduction
of any patient."
"Whatever in connection with my professional practice or
not in connection with it I may see or hear in the lives of my patients which ought not be
spoken abroad I will not divulge, reckoning that all such should be kept secret.
"While I continue to keep this Oath unviolated may it be
granted to me to enjoy life and the practice of the art and science of medicine with the
blessing of the Almighty and respected by my peers and society, but should I trespass and
violate this Oath, may the reverse be my lot."
What is the policy of the American Medical Association?
Stripped to its bare bones, regarding abortion, it is — what is
legal is now ethical. But the AMA has consistently condemned euthanasia.
Does making something legal, also make it right?
"In 1944, a physician in Germany could
participate in genocide with legal sanction. In America he would have been a murderer. In
1977, in America, a physician could perform an abortion with legal sanction. In Germany,
he would have been a murderer. We have come 360 degrees on the moral compass." M. Baten & W. Enos, "Questions of Authenticity and
Situational Ethics," Cancer Bulletin, vol. 29, no. 4, 1978
How did the AMA deal with physician abortionists back in the 19th
century when it was first formed?
In 1871 the AMA recommended dealing with medical abortionists in the
following manner:
"These men should be marked as Cain was marked;
they should be made the outcasts of society . . . respectable men should cease to consult
with them, should cease to speak to them, should cease to notice them except with contempt
. . . Resolved, That we repudiate and denounce the conduct of abortionists, and that we
will hold no intercourse with them professionally or otherwise, and that we will, whenever
an opportunity presents, guard and protect the public against the machinations of these
characters by pointing out the physical and moral ruin which follows in their wake." W. Brennan, "The Abortion Holocaust," Landmark Press, p.
189
This is quite a
contrast with today.
Yes, and its comparison is chilling.
The American Medical Association on Abortion: An Anatomy of
Contrasting Policy Statements
————When
Does Human Life Begin?———— |
| 1871 — "No other doctrine appears to
be consonant with reason or physiology but that which admits the embryo to possess
vitality from the very moment of conception." |
The AMA abortion policy statements of 1967 and
1970 include no references to the scientific fact that human life begins at conception. |
————What
is Abortion?———— |
| 1859 — "The slaughter of countless
children; such unwarrantable destruction of human life." |
1967 — "The interruption of
pregnancy; the induced termination of pregnancy." |
| 1871 — "The work of destruction; the
wholesale destruction of unborn infants." |
1970 — "A medical procedure." |
———What
Should the Ethics of Abortion Be?——— |
| 1871 — "Thou shalt not kill. This
commandment is given to all without exception . . .it matters not at what stage of
development his victim may have arrived." |
1967 — "This is a personal and moral
consideration which in all cases must be faced according to the dictates of the conscience
of the patient and her physician." |
———Who
Should Perform Abortions?——— |
| 1871 — "It will be unlawful and
unprofessional for any physician to induce abortion." |
1970 — "Abortion should be performed
only by a duly licensed physician." |
———Who
Are Physician Abortionists?——— |
| 1871 — "Men who cling to a noble
profession only to dishonor it; false brethren; educated assassins; modern Herods; the
executioners." |
1967 — "Conscientious practitioners;
conscientious physicians." |
——What
Should Be Done to Physician Abortionists?—— |
| 1871 — "These men should be marked as
Cain was marked; they should be made the outcasts of society." |
1970 — They should be permitted to perform
as long as they take place "in an accredited hospital." |
Can You draw a parallel between today’s abortionists and the
Nazi doctors?
Yes! There is a direct parallel between the two
holocausts, neither of which could have happened without doctors. Excerpted from The Abortion Holocaust, W. Brennan, Landmark Press,
1983.
THEN |
TODAY |
| "A doctor may interrupt
a pregnancy when it ‘threatens the life or health of the mother [and] an unborn child
that is likely to present hereditary and transmissible defects may be
destroyed.’" (German Penal Code and Hamburg Eugenics Court, 1933) |
"A licensed
physician is justified in terminating a pregnancy if he believes that pregnancy would
gravely impair the physical or mental health of the mother or that the child would be born
with grave physical or mental defects." (American Law Institute Model Penal Code,
1962) |
| "Only persons of
‘German or related blood’ can be citizens; this does not include Jews."
(Reich Citizenship Law, 1935) |
"The word
‘person’ as used in the fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn."
( U.S. Supreme Court, Roe vs. Wade, 1973) |
| "The authority of physicians
is enlarged to include the responsibility for according a ‘mercy death [to]
incurables.’ " (Hitler’s Euthanasia Order, Sept. 1939) |
"The abortion decision in all
its aspects is inherently and primarily a medical decision and basic responsibility for it
must rest with the physician." (U.S. Supreme Court, Roe vs. Wade, 1973) |
Obedience to
Authority |
| "The accused did not act wrongly because
they were covered by law [and] were carrying out the laws of the land." (Hadamar
Euthanasia Hospital Trial, 1945) |
"I did nothing which was illegal,
immoral or bad medicine. Everything I did was in accordance with law." (Dr. Kenneth
C. Edelin, 1975) |
| "The physician is merely an
instrument as in the case of an officer who receives an order." (Dr. Karl Brandt,
Doctors’ Trial, 1947) |
"The physician is only the
instrument of her decision." (Dr. Bernard N. Nathanson, 1974) |
Subhumanity of
the Victims |
| "The Jewish-Bolshevik Commissars
personify a repulsive yet characteristic subhumanity." (Dr. August Hirt, 1942) |
"For the first four and one-half months
the fetus is subhuman and relatively close to a piece of tissue." (Amitai Etzioni,
Ph.D., 1976) |
| "It had nothing to do
with humanity — it was a mass. I rarely saw them as individuals. It was always a huge
mass." (Franz Stangl, former commandant of Treblinka, 1971) |
"What is aborted is a protoplasmic mass
and not a real, live grown-up individual." (Drs. Walter Char & John McDermott,
1972) |
| "Whenever Jews are left to themselves they bring brutal
misery and depravity. They are pure parasites." (Adolf Hitler, 1943) |
"A parasite can commit murder, what attention has
Catholic thinking or the law given to the fetus’s capacity to murder its
mother?" (Dr. Natalie Shainess, 1968) |
| "If it is now pointed out that the Jew is human, I then
reject that totally." (Antisemitic speech, Reichstag, 1895) |
"It is a wild contention that new-born babies are
persons." (Dr. Michael Tooley, 1972) |
The Language of Killing |
| "Fifty-nine thousand persons
were evacuated by July 31." (Warsaw, Poland, 1942) |
"The uterus was
evacuated." (Dr. David Edelman & Colleagues, 1974) |
| "The Baron de Hirsch ghetto
would have to be emptied." (Max Merten, 1943) |
"The uterine cavity was
emptied." (Dr. A.K. Mukerjee, 1973) |
| "The removal of the Jewish
element." (Hans Frank, 1943) |
"Remove the products of
conception." (Dr. Thomas Dillon & Colleagues, 1974) |
| "The treatment was
administered to the children of the Haar-Eglfing Institution." (Dr. Pfannmuller,
1945) |
"Abortion as treatment for
the sexually transmitted disease of unwanted pregnancy." (Dr. Willard Cates &
Colleagues, 1976) |
| "The method of
injection is a completely painless method." (Dr. Adolf Wahlmann, 1945) |
"Evacuate the conceptus
painlessly within 45 seconds." (Dr. Harvey Karman, 1972) |
Experimental Exploitation |
| "If you are going to kill all these
people, at least take the brains out so that the material could be utilized."
(Testimony of Dr. Julius Hallervordan, 1947) |
"In the case of abortion the fetus cannot
be ‘helped’ by being experimented upon since it is doomed to death anyhow, but
perhaps its death can be ennobled . . . when the research has as its objective the saving
of lives (or the reduction of defects) of other wanted fetuses." (Drs. Willard Gaylin
& Mark Lappe, 1975) |
| "The victims of this Buchenwald typhus
test did not suffer in vain and did not die in vain . . . people were saved by these
experiments." (Dr. Gebhard Rose, Doctors’ Trial, 1947) |
"With changes in the abortion laws fetuses
as valuable research material is on the increase." (Dr. Leroy Jackson, 1975) |
Dr. Leon Alexander, an authority writing after the Nuremberg
trials, said it well, and the parallel with the creeping deterioration of today's societal
ethics is telling. "The beginnings were at first merely a subtle shift in emphasis in
the basic attitude of the physicians. It started with the acceptance of the attitude,
basic in the euthanasia movement, that there is such a thing as a life not worthy to be
lived. This attitude in its early stages concerned itself merely with the severely and
chronically sick. Gradually, the sphere of those to be included in this category was
enlarged to encompass the socially unproductive, the ideologically unwanted, the racially
unwanted, and finally all non-Germans. But it is important to realize that the infinitely
small wedged-in lever from which this entire trend of mind received its impetus was the
attitude toward the nonrehabilitable sick." L. Alexander, "Medical
Science Under Dictatorship," New England Jour. Med., vol. 241, July 14, 1949, pp.
39-47
And in the
modern Western world?
The first public admission of this change of basic ethic was
an editorial: "The reverence of each and every human life has been a keystone of
Western medicine, and is the ethic which has caused physicians to try to preserve,
protect, repair, prolong, and enhance every human life. "Since the old ethic has not
yet been fully displaced, it has been necessary to separate the idea of abortion from the
idea of killing, which continues to be socially abhorrent. The result has been a curious
avoidance of the scientific fact, which everyone really knows, that human life begins at
conception, and is continuous, whether
intra- or extra-uterine, until death. The very considerable semantic gymnastics which are
required to rationalize abortion as anything but taking a human life would be ludicrous if
they were not often put forth under socially impeccable auspices. It is suggested that
this schizophrenic sort of subterfuge is necessary because, while a new ethic is being
accepted, the old one has not yet been rejected." Editorial, Jour. CA State
Med. Assoc., Sept. 1970
Don't doctors know abortion kills a human being?
Several decades ago many did not. Doctors are narrowly
specialized. Just because M.D. or D.O. appears after their names, don't assume they know
everything about fetal development. Remember, most clergymen aren't scripture scholars,
and few attorneys know much about copyright law. In the last decade or so, this ignorance
no longer holds true. Today it is common at a baby shower for the expectant mother to show
the guests an ultrasound picture of her baby. Today all doctors, even those most distanced
from biological facts, such as psychiatrists, know this basic scientific fact.
Why do doctors do abortions?
A few do them for ideologic reasons, but their numbers are
dwindling. Most do them because of the money. Many abortionists are unable to earn a
living in regular medical practice, so they turn to this.
What
training is needed to do abortions?
None! There are no laws requiring certain qualifications if
done in free-standing facilities. In-hospital abortions involve all of the rules and
supervision of regular surgery, but the trend is sharply away from hospital abortions.
Today few hospitals do abortions in the U.S. This is not true in many other countries.
What
do people think of abortion doctors?
At best, they are regarded as a necessary evil by most
citizens. Commonly they are social outcasts, ostracized by most in their community. People
avoid them, and their children often suffer. A nationwide survey showed that, by their own
admission:
- 69% of abortionists say they are not respected in the
medical community.
- 65% feel ostracized.
- 87% have been harassed.
- 50% have problems retaining staff.
- 20% have been denied hospital privileges because they do abortions.
-64% say that the non-abortion part of their practice has suffered because they do
abortions.
M. Crutcher, Project Choice, Feb. 1993
How about psychic stress?
For nurses, this has been a real problem. Except for the
unusually high salaries paid, few nurses would work in an abortion chamber.
A detailed accounting of the psychic stress, selfdoubts,
nightmares, recourse to alcohol and drugs, and the personality deterioration of those
doing abortions is described in "Vacant Souls," a chapter in the book, Lime 5.
M. Crutcher, Lime 5, Genesis Pub., 1996, pp. 171-222
Is this true in other countries?
It varies - some yes, some no. Certainly the trend in the
U.S. is clear. Few hospitals do abortions. Fewer doctors want to do them. Fewer medical
schools teach how to do them. The abortionist remains an outcast.
Malpractice lawsuits against them are more frequent.
Does euthanasia follow abortion?
Yes. A classic example of this was the landmark U.S.
Appellate Court decision in California legalizing assisted suicide.
In re: Wash. State, U.S. 9th Circuit, Mar. 6, 1996
|
