Once again, the supposed Superior Morality of our Secularist overlords strikes again.
When it comes to state-sanctioned murder, “Bet you can’t just stop at one!”
If anyone is upset about this, remember that the development is only logical. (I hope people are upset. These days, who knows?) If killing is a “medical treatment,” how can it be denied to anyone based on age or competency?
Expect child- and infant-euthanasia legalization soon in Canada, by the way, where enthusiasts are already talking about it. Such horrors will happen here, too, if we ever acquiesce fully to euthanasia consciousness. As I said, it’s only logical.
Short term? It’s a horror story.
- Societies that are so very eager to kill their children do not inherit the future.
- Societies that are so very eager to kill the genetically imperfect can expect no mercy when their own diseases and flaws come up for judgement.
- Christians are to shun the way of death, and walk on the way of life.
It is shocking how enthusiastically Canada has embraced the culture of death — to the point that little dissent is allowed. For example, Ontario passed a law requiring all doctors to either kill a legally qualified patient or procure a doctor willing to commit the homicide, a law specifically approved by a court even though the judge acknowledged it violated the Charter-protected religious and conscience rights of dissenting physicians.
The idea of the conscientious objector was only useful when Christians ruled, and their enemies were weak.
Now that the enemies of Christ are strong, there just isn’t any place for it. All must agree, and all must conform.
An “expert group” of abortion activists has launched a strong attack on the concept and practice of conscientious objection (CO) in healthcare. “The practice of refusing to provide legal and essential health care due to a doctor’s personal or religious beliefs is a violation of medical ethics and of patients’ right to health care,” says the International Women’s Health Coalition (IWHC) in conjunction with Mujer y Salud en Uruguay.
To counter-attack against the growth of CO, the report recommends three avenues:
Reframe and rename. Reframe the debate to clarify and emphasize that “conscientious objection” is a misnomer that subverts the ethics, obligations, and standards of the health care profession.
Reclaim the concept of conscience. Do not cede the term “conscience” to those who prioritize individual beliefs over professional conduct and the right to access or provide health care. Shine a light on the harmful health consequences of conscience claims in the context of abortion care. Emphasize the “conscientious commitment” and professional conduct of health care providers who prioritize patients’ rights.
Quantify the costs incurred by health systems due to claims of “conscientious objection” to abortion. Managing conscience claims can be costly and can create inefficiencies in the allocation of scarce health care resources. Quantifying the costs would fill a gap in our understanding of the consequences of refusal to provide abortion care due to conscience claims.
Orwellian Newspeak is an important part of the activists’ campaign. Instead of “conscientious objection”, they suggest that it be called “refusal to provide services,” “denial of services,” or even “dishonourable disobedience”.
The most bizarre aspect of the report is that it never defines what a conscience is or asks why some people might think that it is an important dimension of an authentic human existence. Conscience is a key element in the “medical ethics” that the report purports to defend. How can the IWHC possibly make the extraordinary claim that CO violates medical ethics without appealing to reason and evidence? Its argument, if it is an argument, is absurd.
Dishonourable disobedience to a child-killing State?
Sounds very, very Christian to me!