Oxford University has published a statement signed by prominent bioethicists calling for doctors to yield their moral convictions to their patients’ desires/needs. They want all doctors to either perform morally contested services or refer patients to those who will. The direction is clear: you must violate your moral conscience or get out of medicine. This point of view is gaining wide traction. It won’t be long before it is legislated and morally sane doctors will find themselves forced out of their professions.
HT: Wesley J. Smith
Thinking to Believe 
September 19, 2016 at 8:56 am
Number 1:
The revised Hippocratic Oath has been revised several times since its inception. It, like other laws, statutes and societal changes, need to be revised from time to time to reflect the changing values of society keeping in mind that nothing in Society is “written in stone”. For example the Commandment “Thou shalt not kill” yet the Crown or Government can decide to exempt itself from such commandment by carrying out human executions; …..or, “Thou shalt not steal”, yet the Crown or the Government can confiscate private property on the grounds of “Eminent Domain”; ….or, “Thou shalt keep holy the sabbath day without work”, changed by explaining the rationale for his decision, by Jesus when he noted that He, his Disciples, David and David’s men and the Son of Man are the masters of the Sabbath and not the dogmatic rules of religion that give rise to pseudo-conscientious objection by religious adherents.
Here, it is worth noting that the first sentence in the original Hippocratic Oath would be argued against for inclusion by Christian Apologists on the grounds of conscientious Objection if it had not already fallen by the wayside. In its original form, it requires a new physician to swear, by a number of healing gods, to uphold specific ethical standards. The original Oath reads thusly:
“I swear by Apollo The Healer, by Asclepius, by Hygieia, by Panacea, and by all the Gods and Goddesses, making them my witnesses, that I will carry out, according to my ability and judgment, this oath and this indenture.”
Does any Christian here believe that the rationale for swearing to the healing Gods and Goddesses to uphold the ethical standards of health practitioners shoot remain as the original Oath stands? I don’t think so. Why? or Why not?
Keeping in mind your own conscientious objections to changes currently being offered considered then. If the Gods can be thrown out then why not religious dogma. No health practitioner can or should even try to interfere in the motives of their patients because patient motives are just as private and important and conscientious as the health practitioner despite the belief in the ethical standards of the healing Gods.
NEWEST REVISED HIPPOCRATIC OATH
1. Healthcare practitioners’ primary obligations are towards their patients, not towards their own personal conscience. When the patient’s wellbeing (or best interest, or health) is at stake, healthcare practitioners’ professional obligations should normally take priority over their personal moral or religious views.
2. In the event of a conflict between practitioners’ conscience and a patient’s desire for a legal, professionally sanctioned medical service, healthcare practitioners should always ensure that patients receive timely medical care. When they have a conscientious objection, they ought to refer their patients to another practitioner who is willing to perform the treatment.
In emergency situations, when referral is not possible, or when it poses too great a burden on patients or on the healthcare system, health practitioners should perform the treatment themselves.
3. Healthcare practitioners who wish to conscientiously object to providing medical treatment should be required to explain the rationale for their decision.
4. The status quo regarding conscientious objection in healthcare in the UK and several other modern Western countries is indefensible. Healthcare practitioners can conscientiously refuse access to legally available, societally accepted, medically indicated and safe services requested by patients in practice for any reason. This is in part due to the cost-free environment in which practitioner choice of service occurs, and in which the practitioner bears no substantive burden of proof. The burden of proof to demonstrate the reasonability and the sincerity of the objection should be on the healthcare practitioners.
p. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 & 10 committed in this commentary. can be seen in Jason’s intro
“published a statement signed by”
LikeLike
September 20, 2016 at 6:28 pm
I don’t see this consensus holding validity for a country such as the U.S. for it requires relinquishing one’s autonomy. Unless you’re willing to participate in a socio/governmental structure such as the EU where sovereign national authority becomes forsaken then this proposal proves unworkable. Notwithstanding its adoption there’s no indication of successful implementation in any litigious framework. We only need look at the migrant invasion catastrophe currently encysting Europe to witness the hazards/damage that result from surrendering sovereign national identity to rule by elite fiat.
From the CONSENSUS STATEMENT ON CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION IN HEALTHCARE:
4. The status quo regarding conscientious objection in healthcare in the UK and several other modern Western countries [specifically which countries?] is indefensible [by whose authoritative definition and decree?]. Healthcare practitioners can conscientiously refuse access to legally available, societally accepted, medically indicated and safe services requested by patients in practice for any reason [Who’s best qualified to determine medical necessity – the doctor, the patient, government regulators or the insurance company?]. This is in part due to the cost-free environment in which practitioner choice of service occurs, and in which the practitioner bears no substantive burden of proof [like Obamacare?]. The burden of proof to demonstrate the reasonability and the sincerity of the objection should be on the healthcare practitioners [; who have been demanding tort reform for decades in the U.S. to little avail (re: malpractice insurance controversy)].
5. Accordingly, in such countries, the reasons healthcare practitioners offer for their conscientious objection could be assessed by [MULTINATIONAL ELITE FIAT?] TRIBUNALS (emphasis added), which could test [by what verifiably effective mechanisms & honest rationale?] the sincerity, strength and the reasonability of healthcare practitioners’ moral objections to certain medical services.
Let’s consider the tenet:
Do no harm
Jonathan Baron
University of Pennsylvania
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~baron/papers.htm/chicago.html
From the above article:
Ethics, including business ethics, is often seen as a kind of constraint, like the law. We desire to do something, but first we must ask whether it is unethical. Even if it is the best thing to do, the ethicist, like the lawyer, can tell us that we shouldn’t do it. For example, it is “unethical” for doctors to inform someone that her lover is infected with HIV. In some states, it is illegal too.
Ethical systems based on constraints imply an asymmetry between action and inaction. They hold us responsible for harms that we cause through action but not for harms that we fail to prevent. More specifically, they hold us responsible for all harms that we cause through action but only for some harms that we fail to prevent. Codes of ethics for business, medicine, law, psychology, and so on, do contain positive obligations that are contingent on certain relationships, such as that between a practitioner and a client, or a buyer and a seller.
But these obligations are limited. They can be seen as the result of certain social conventions, which create expectations. I expect my doctor to look at my blood-test results before filing them, although I would not expect another doctor who happened to see them lying on the table to inform him or me of any problems. My expectation is a consequence of what it means to be a doctor in my culture. The law of torts recognizes such expectations. I can sue my doctor for failing to alert me to a condition that needs attention, but I can’t sue you for the same thing (unless you are him). It is important here that he agreed to be my doctor. So if he fails in his role, it is a broken promise. The promise is not explicit, but contained in the definition of the role. In sum, the positive obligations that stem from ethical codes are almost always contingent on VOLUNTARY (emphasis added) promises and agreements. Likewise, in business, almost all positive obligations arise from contracts, even if the contracts are only implicit.
This kind of constraint-based ethical system can be contrasted with simple utilitarianism. Simple utilitarianism holds that moral obligations depend on expected consequences. We should always choose the option that yields the best expected consequences overall. We are free to consider all sorts of consequences in making this judgment, including the effects of our choices on the choices of others. But utilitarianism makes no distinction between acts and omissions. For example, decisions about life-sustaining medical therapy should be based primarily on a judgment of whether it is better on the whole for the patient to be dead. If we judge that it is, and if the outcome is in our power to control, then it does not matter whether our decision is whether to initiate therapy, whether to withdraw therapy that has already been initiated, or whether to kill the patient (painlessly). Of course, when we actually consider the effects of our choices on others and the possibility of error, these distinctions may turn out to matter. But they do not matter in themselves. They matter just in case they affect the expected consequences.
The American concept of autonomy is part of their concept of individual rights. When Americans engage in moral discussions with other nations about human rights [bioethics], they may do well to consider the fact that other cultures do not have quite the same concept. The idea of paternalism, of breaking the line of authority of individuals over themselves, may be more acceptable elsewhere [like the EU?]. For utilitarians, this is indeed a contingent matter. If the ideal of autonomy is important to a culture, outsiders should be hesitant to weaken that culture’s way of functioning. But if a culture gets along without it, it is not a fundamental moral concept that anyone needs to impose on them. The question of where to draw the line between paternalism [Big Brother/1984] and autonomy is a difficult one, and Americans may well be at one end of a continuum of answers.
LikeLike
September 20, 2016 at 6:34 pm
Science Against Abortion
InspiringPhilosophy
Published on Aug 5, 2016
Join us at: http://www.inspiringphilosophy.org
There is overwhelming scientific evidence life begins at conception and therefore abortion is immoral. There is no valid scientific reason to assume abortion is logical or ethical, and this video explains why.
LikeLike