Biblical Reflections on Modern Medicine
Vol. 7, No. 5 (41)
Contents:
or
"C-a-r F-i-f-t-y F-o-u-r W-h-e-r-e A-r-e Y-o-u?"
"I have been very zealous for the LORD God of hosts;
for the children of Israel have forsaken Your covenant, torn down
Your altars, and killed Your prophets with the sword. I alone am
left; and they seek to take my life" (I Kings 19:10, NKJV).
I often feel like Elijah in this passage. Perhaps
you do too. What follows for him is God's revelation of "seven
thousand in Israel, all whose knees have not bowed to Baal, and
every mouth that has not kissed him" (I Kings 19:18, NKJV). Elijah
was encouraged and went about the Lord's work.Where are the "seven
thousand" today? Polls indicate tens of millions of "evangelical
Christians" in the United States, but we are formally and
practically a pagan country where Jesus Christ's name cannot be
officially spoken in public. But, I want to focus more narrowly
to Christians in medical leadership.
From time to time and in various ways, I learn of
Christian physicians on various medical boards of medical
organizations and government agencies. (I won't name names, but I
could name a few!) Yet, I don't hear their voice! No major
medical organization has rejected abortion on demand, and no one is
pushing for that position. Christians, where are you?
Now, I don't want to be unfair. I was once on the
Medical Ethics Committee of the Medical Association of Georgia
(MAG). We tried to send out a mailing for a poll to find out the
beliefs of the members on the issue of abortion. The governing board
of MAG would not allow this mailing, even if paid for with
non-MAG funds!
And, other examples of the dictatorial powers of
medical organizations on abortion, AIDS, and other issues could be
cited. So, I recognize that there is often not much maneuvering room
for "politically incorrect" ideas.
However, at the least, where are the martyrs? Where
are those making such waves that they are thrown overboard? Some are
chairman of committees or departments who would seem to be the
agenda setters? Are not a few willing to stand and take the arrows?
I fear two problems. First, even Christians love
power and the acclaim of their professional peers. I know. I am
subject to these desires. Second, these Christians lack discernment.
They lack discernment about medical facts and Biblical truth. The
fact is that modern medicine is mostly an emperor without clothes.
The pages of Reflections are full of examples. And, a
systematic understanding of Biblical theology and ethics is almost
unknown today among activist Christians, even my own readers. (See
Letters-to-Ed.)
I lament without much hope. However, this article is
not to portray me or my work as the only right way. This article is
to perhaps awaken one person in some position of power or governance
to be a little more bold -- a little more discerning of the issues
-- to do a great deal more study to make his ideas correspond to
Biblical teaching.
And, to prod others. If you know of such a person,
challenge him (or her) to be more of a witness to Biblical ethics
than he currently is. You never know. You may awaken a George
Whitefield who starts a Holy fire that will not easily be quenched!
Kudos to Dr. Laura and... a Note to Nouthetic Counselors
When a local radio station announced that Dr. Laura
Schlesinger, a psychologist, would be on for two hours a day. I
cringed. Christians in psychology anger and nauseate me. (See
Letters-to-Ed herein.) "Oh boy," I thought. "More depraved and
misdirected guidance for the masses."
Not so! Strong kudos to Dr. Laura (as she
calls herself). To her, all men and women who live together without
being married are "shacking up" and "getting the goodies without the
cost of commitment." She is strongly against day-care. "Why have
children and then give them to someone else to raise?" Struggling
marriages should be kept together for the sake of the children!
Oh, I only pray that Christians on the radio who
promote themselves as psychologists were half as Biblically directed
as Dr. Laura. And, amazingly she is popular. (What does that
say about people's desire for strong, moral, directive guidance?)
If I remember correctly, she is second only to Rush Limbaugh in
audience.
Now, this endorsement is not 100 percent. She is
Jewish, not Christian. She believes that parents' primary
responsibility is to their children, while I believe that the
marriage is primary and children are secondary. (Children are
temporary residents in the home, and the greatest influence on their
early lives is the relationship of their parents.)
And, I would probably have some other disagreements.
Actually, my work precludes my listening very much. But, she is a
breath of fresh air in a cesspool of secular and Christian
psychologists.
Nouthetic counselors need to listen to her. She
deals with complex and painful problems quickly, directly,
confrontatively, compassionately, and (mostly) morally. You can
learn from her. Screen what she does and says with your Biblical
grid, and you will be a better counselor.
I wonder if God has brought her to prominence
because His people have bowed the knee to Baal (worshiped at the
altar of secular psychology)?
The Reduction
of Patient-Physician Conflict
Another bright light appeared among non-Christians
with an insight that I wish would appear in the Christian community.
Almost on a whim, I bought a copy of Healing Wounded
Doctor-Patient Relationships by Linda Hanner (Kashan Publishing,
1995). While I cannot take the space here to comment on the entire
book, and I do not fully endorse it, one emphasis by the author
deserves recognition.
The first chapter is "The Uncertainty of
Medicine." Ms. Hanner states that "three-quarters of those who
visit a doctor have ailments that can't be immediately diagnosed or
effectively treated." "Diagnostic technology is far from perfect and
the margin for human error is staggering." "The ability to cure most
ailments is also disputable." And so on.
We spend about 1 trillion dollars a year on an
enterprise for which little efficacy can be demonstrated. By
analogy, what if all the money spent on airplane technology produced
no better results that the first plane of the Wright brothers? How
long would that money continue to be spent? Not long.
While Ms. Hanner places this lack of efficacy of
modern medicine in the context of patient-physician conflict, it is
also one of the greatest hurdles to medical ethics and medical
economics. But, alas, alack. Rarely is this reality perceived by
either Christians or non-Christians.
A Body of
Disjointed Parts
Where can a man buy a cap for his knee?
Or a key to a lock of his hair?
Can your eyes be called an academy
Because there are two pupils there?
What jewels are in the crown of your head?
Who walked the bridge of your nose?
Can you do the shingling in the roof of your mouth
With the nails on the ends of your toes?
Can the crook of your elbow be sent to jail?
If so, what did it do?
Can you sit in the shade of the palm of your hand?
Be darned if I know, do you?
Did you ever sharpen your shoulder blades?
Can you beat the drums in your ears?
Do the calves in your legs eat the corn on your toes?
Then why not grow corn on the ears?
Author Unknown
My thanks to Sally Brueggemen for sending this
parody.
O LORD, our Lord,
How excellent is Your name in all the earth,
You who set Your glory above the heavens!
Psalm 8:1 (NKJV)
More on
"On Being Incompletely Prolife"
I was reading the May 1996 issue of Biblical
Reflections and came across the item, "On Being Incompletely
Prolife." Two things: Is it really true that all organ transplants
come from people who are still alive? The other has to do with the
comment about pro-lifers embracing psychology and its diagnosis of
post-abortion syndrome (other psychological labels) that are "purely
humanistic and guilt-avoiding."
I don't know where you are getting your information,
but the articles and books that I use with women going through the
aftermath of abortion all deal forthrightly with guilt, and from a
spiritual basis. Moreover, as a counselor, I have yet to meet a
woman (or a man for that matter) who is troubled by an abortion and
is not troubled deeply by guilt, shame, grief, and
remorse.
Four books that come to mind immediately are Susan
Stanford-Rue's book, Will I Cry Tomorrow? (Revell 1986),
David Reardon's Aborted Women: Silent No More (Crossway
1987), Reardon's Making Abortion Rare (Acorn Books 1996), and
Nancy Michels' book, Helping Women Recover From Abortion
(Bethany House 1988). All are very explicit about guilt, shame,
repentance, and faith in Jesus Christ.
This is also true of books and pamphlets dealing
with post-abortion trauma put out by Focus on the Family and
Post-Abortion Ministries of Memphis, Tennessee. Every crisis
pregnancy center that I am personally aware of that offers
counseling for women (and men) who have had an abortion deal with
guilt, forgiveness, faith in Christ, and His redemptive work on the
cross.
I think this should be noted in your newsletter.
John Brown
Minister of Counseling
Shepherd of the Hills Church
Bechtelsville, PA
Ed's
(Short and Long) Responses
In answer to his question, all major organ
transplants (heart, lungs, liver, and kidneys) do indeed come from
donors who are still alive. If transplant teams wait until cessation
of the heart beat and respiration, those organs have deteriorated
with the dying process to the extent that they are not viable for
transplantation.
In response to Mr. Brown's second concern, I was
hopeful. "Surely," I thought, "This minister has introduced me to
some books that are Biblical to give counsel to women who have had
abortions." However, as you readers know, I am always a bit
skeptical and have to investigate others' writings for myself. As to
where I was "getting my information," my comments on post-abortion
syndrome" were triggered by the article "Post-Abortion Syndrome" in
the March 1996 issue of Life Issues Connector, written by its
President and Publisher, J. C. Wilke, M.D. I did not name that
source in my comments because the use of psychological concepts
among those who are pro-life is far broader than that one publisher
and the one "diagnosis," Post-Abortion Syndrome.
For the second time in as many issues of
Reflections, I am having to take issue with faithful supporters
of Biblical medical ethics. The first time concerned the concept of
faith. (See May 1996 issue.) Now, I take exception to Mr. Brown's
analysis.
Reardon's two books are out of print, so they were
not available to me. I bought the other two and reviewed them.
The Blending
of Psychology with Christianity
Susan Stanford-Rue's book, Will I Cry Tomorrow?:
Healing Post-Abortion Trauma, is basically an autobiography of
her own sexual immoralities that led to an abortion, religious
experience, and counseling ministry. The book ends with "Healing
Steps for Post-Abortion Trauma."
The problem with the book is summed up with one of
those (nine) steps, "The Blending of Psychology with Christianity"
(p. 166). It is the old, tired, and heretical attempt to integrate
psychology with Christian beliefs. Even without specifics (below),
the general concept is a violation of God's authority and a clear
admission that His truth and practical application are inadequate.
I have written several times on this subject. I must
be brief here. (See my Biblical Healing for Modern Medicine,
pp. 73-88 for more information.) Relative to authority, "I am
the LORD, that is My name, I will not give my glory to another, Nor
my praise to idols" (Isaiah 42:8, NASB). Modern Christians are not
familiar with the jealous nature of God. That jealousy is
graphically and mightily portrayed in the Old Testament.
Jesus identified with this jealousy with His
response, "I AM" in numerous places. The angry response from the
Jews of His time reveals their understanding that He had equated
Himself with God, a blasphemous statement to them because they did
not recognize that it had been uttered by God Himself. That God's
authority can be "blended" with another authority is blasphemous.
That blasphemy is the primary problem. Finally, all authority is
derivative from God's authority.
Relative to practical application, we must
pity the Christians of the 1st through the 19th centuries. They had
only the Bible and the Holy Spirit with which to face their
problems. They did not have the "integration" of psychology with
Christian beliefs as modern Christians have. I guess God's promise
of "abundant life" was inadequate until 20th century psychology.
Hogwash!!!
Show me one verse in the Bible that says that
anything other than God's plan of salvation and His
principles of Holy living is necessary for "love, joy, peace,
patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and
self-control" (Galatians 5:22-23) and all the other "abundant"
qualities of Godly living.
So, the attempt to "blend" Christianity and
psychology is first a strike against God's character, and second, a
frank admission that God's directives for a holy and abundant life
are inadequate without psychology.
Some Specifics
The concept of "healing memories" (p. 166),
specifically, "abortion memory," is unbiblical. First, there is no
Biblical injunction to "heal memories." Again, this step denies
God's promise of joy, peace, etc., by His plan alone.
Second, the process focuses on false images, i.e.,
lies, a violation of the Ninth Commandment. The post-abortion mother
is to imagine Jesus holding the aborted baby (intact, not shredded,
of course) and to talk to that image of Jesus.
This process is appealing and sentimental. From the
author's own experience and those of her "clients" (interesting
label for the recipient of supposedly spiritual guidance), this step
produces "happy tears" (p. 146) and "healing" (pp. 144, 150, 166,
etc.).
There is a subtle, but powerful, effect here.
Outcome (positive emotions) proves process. Or, the end justifies
the means. The means is unbiblical, dealing with fantasy and
imagined images. The end is strongly positive emotions. A comparison
would be the warm feelings and sometimes life-changing experience,
that accompanies out-of-body experiences by those who have had
near-death experiences. The end justifies (proves) the means.
Another error is the misuse of God's promise where
"two or more are gathered in Your name" (p. 167). The Biblical
context is one of church discipline, not a promise of answered
prayer (Matthew 18:15-20). This misinterpretation, however, is
common among evangelicals.
Other confusion about psychological concepts and
Biblical truth include "feelings of failure" (p. 133), "guilty
feelings" (p. 135), "catharsis" (p. 3), and others (p. 135).
Dr. Stanford-Rue misses a great opportunity to
praise God. From her story, it is obvious that God sought her out
and saved her because "all of my professional training as a
psychologist could not help rescue me from the abyss of self-hatred
and guilt." Instead, she encounters Francis and Judith MacNutt (pp.
139-146) and Father Bob Sears (pp. 150-153), from whom she learned
and experienced "guided mental imaging."
What began as a great testimony of God reaching into
her life and saving her became a psychological mishmash of good
feelings and Jesus' loving presence -- a reality of salvation to an
imagined experience. God's wonderful forgiveness and grace is
savaged in the process.
Something else is missing. "Father, forgive me for
murdering my unborn child." Almost universally in the pro-life
community, the mother who aborted is portrayed as a victim. Partly,
she is deluded by society. But, she had her unborn child murdered!
Now, don't get me wrong. God can forgive murder as surely as any
other sin, but let's call abortion what it is and get the focus off
pity for the mother!
(As a minor note, is the hyphenation,
"Stanford-Rue," a statement about her acceptance of Christian
tradition that denotes "one-flesh" in marriage?)
Michels'
Helping Women Recover From Abortion
Michels' book also contains psychological distortion
of Biblical concepts. For 108 pages (of a total of 186), she gives a
lengthy overview of the psychology of aborted women. Finally, she
gets to forgiveness by God (p. 109ff). However, she psychologizes
even this concept. After presenting the possibility of God's
forgiveness through Jesus Christ, she then lists numerous reasons
that aborted women "need" forgiveness: for joy and peace, her own
safety, her attitude toward other people, and the wrong of her
abortion.
Forgiveness from God is not sought for personal
benefit but a compelling conviction that there is nowhere else to
turn and that His great plan of salvation provides the answer to
guilt. The cry of sinners has nothing to do with the needs that
Michels names, but a desperate plea for release from the awful guilt
of offense before a Holy God. What she names as "needs" are actually
blessings that follow forgiveness and repentance, not needs to be
sought.
Her concept of forgiveness gets worse. The aborted
woman is told to forgive others -- Mom, the aborted baby's father,
the staff of the abortion clinic, and friends who gave bad advice
(pp. 118-119). This forgiveness can be accomplished without ever
speaking to the one forgiven! "Forgiveness always involves the two
parties involved in the offense" (Jay E. Adams, Theology of
Christian Counseling, Presbyterian and Reformed, 1979, p. 193).
This one-sided concept of forgiveness is common among evangelicals
because of the influence of Christians in psychology and psychiatry.
Forgiveness also involves a personal liability
(accountability) and threat of punishment for one's sins and the
release from that liability at great cost to the one who forgives
(Adams, pp. 190-192). These elements are mostly missing from
Michels' discussion, but are critical for a Biblical understanding
of forgiveness, most importantly God's work of forgiveness for His
own.
Michels further errs in the concept of forgiving
oneself and self-image (Chapter 8). Nowhere, nowhere is the
Christian ever directed in the Bible to forgive oneself. In fact, we
love ourselves too much. We are directed to love others as we love
ourselves (e.g., Matthew 22:34-40 and Ephesians 5:28-33).
Admonitions are directed toward love of others, not self (e.g.,
Matthew 6:33, 10:38-39, 16:24-28; Acts 20:35).
Other psychological descriptions appear: "verbalize
feelings and emotion," "being sensitive and open," "how to be
vulnerable," and "be happy with yourself" (pp. 141-144). Suggesting
that women who have had an abortion counsel others (p. 146) is
dangerous without strict qualifications (as we are seeing in these
books).
Michels' books has considerably more Biblical
substance than Stanford-Rue's. What she gains there, however, she
loses with her psychologizing.
I cannot comment on the "books and pamphlets" put
out by others except that I am suspicious, since this psychologizing
runs through most pro-life literature that I have seen. I do know
that Dr. James Dobson (Focus on the Family) has directed Christians
to forgive God (a worse concept of forgiveness than those
above) and consistently talks about self-image and self-love. Thus,
I suspect that their materials reflect Dobson's own errors.
In Summary
This critique was prompted by a letter from a
subscriber (Mr. Brown). My response is a severe attack on pro-lifers
and their concepts. However, virtually the entire Church of Jesus
Christ is as much in error relative to the attempt at wedding
Biblical truth with secular psychology. So, while this attack is
particular, it is also general.
Dr. Paul Vitz writes that psychology is religion (Psychology
As Religion, Eerdmans, 1977). It most definitely is and, as
such, is competitive to, not complementary of, Christianity.
Perhaps, there is no greater evil in the Church today. Psychology is
far more subtle and powerful than liberal Christianity because
liberals (for the most part) simply deny the authority and
infallibility of Scripture, God's sovereignty, and the reality of
salvation. "Christian psychology" attempts to "integrate" and
equivocate the two.
This latter merging is subtle, often based upon
"good feelings" and a superficial identity with Biblical concepts.
But, it is no less error and heresy, deadly to spiritual life and
growth of individuals, families, and the Church.
Mr. Brown's letter is representative of this
widespread delusion. He writes to criticize and chastise me for my
painting pro-lifers with a broad and unfair brush. What he does is
legitimize what I said and give me more ammunition.
Again, I muse. If God is indeed a jealous God, is
not the weakness and irrelevancy of the modern Church in modern
society a reflection of Christians' own superficial and distorted
understanding of God's nature and His Book?
On Funerals
for Babies Who Die Before Birth
Dear Ed,
Please accept my sympathies at the death of your
grandson. I know it is a sad loss particularly for your daughter. I
hope this is not indelicate (It is not - Ed.), but the death notice
in your newsletter prompted thoughts I have had specifically abut
proper funeral and burial for stillborn or spontaneously aborted
babies.
The experience sticks in my mind of a woman I saw in
the emergency room who had a spontaneous abortion at about 2 months
gestation. She brought in a "specimen" of what she had passed and my
gross examination revealed an inch long baby with torso, limbs, head
and eyes easily recognized. Indeed she had already recognized it as
a baby. I remember not knowing exactly what to do with the baby. I
may have asked the mother if she wanted the "tissue" which certainly
was the baby and she gave me one of those "Well you are the doctor
-- I don't know what to do" looks, so I told her that we would
dispose of it.
You seem to think about everything else in Biblical
medical ethics, so I wonder if you have ever written about proper
funeral or disposal/burial of unborn babies. 1) Should all have a
funeral and burial? 2) Is it just up to whatever the parents desire?
3) Does it matter how old the baby is? 4) In some early spontaneous
abortions you might have only menstrual-looking tissue that has come
out in the toilet. 5) Should the fetal tissue be fished out for
proper burial? I think your comments would be of interest to your
readers or at least this reader.
Tom Farmer, M.D.
Columbia, TN
Ed's Note
Dr. Farmer has raised questions which I had not
considered before. It is an important question for pastors and
physicians to advise those with whom they are involved. I will place
some initial reflections before readers and perhaps together arrive
at a Biblical frame of reference. One caveat. Individual human life
begins at conception. While I will discuss personal preferences, we
are not discussing the question of the person of the unborn child.
That is a settled issue for me, as ongoing readers know.
The Bible does not require either a funeral or a
burial. That is, there is no specific reference or directive for
either. Some have made a case for burial vs. cremation, but there is
no consistent Biblical interpretation among past or present
theologians to make burial the Biblical norm. (I have checked
numerous theological texts and talked to one knowledgeable
pastor-theologian.)
This (lack of) Biblical frame of reference is one
place to start to answer Dr. Farmer's questions. Another place to
begin is at the end of the spectrum of pregnancy. Surely, a near
term or full term baby should have a funeral. But, a funeral for an
embryo of 3-4 weeks which hardly appears human seems inappropriate
(without denying its full humanness and right to life). So, where
does one draw the line at a funeral or no funeral?
Perhaps, the answer lies in Dr. Farmer's reference
to "what the parents desire." What is the purpose of a funeral? For
Christians, it is a great loss, a celebration, a farewell, and an
expectation of renewed relationships in Heaven. For non-Christians,
it may be many other things, depending upon their religious beliefs.
At least, however, it is a reconciliation with the dead person and
with the fact of his final departure.
Reconciliation is a Biblical concept that binds up
the loose ends of broken relationships. Marriage violated and
strained by adultery may be divorced (Matthew 19:1-10).
Relationships where one or more has harmed another are restored
personally or corporately (Matthew 18:15-20). Loose ends also
involve strong emotions. Anger is to be limited to the day that it
occurs (Ephesians 4:26), as is worry (Matthew 6:25-34).
God is a God of order, providing principles of order
for His people. Loose ends are to be tied up and unrestrained
emotions harnessed to proper and productive activities.
Thus, reconciliation and strong emotions are at
least two dimensions relative to funerals of unborn children. Strong
emotions are generated with the death of a person within the family
or a close friend. We usually don't go to the funeral of a casual
acquaintance.
Grief associated with an ectopic pregnancy or early
miscarriage (unless it is a recurring problem) is variable. However,
there is a great deal of grief once the woman has begun to develop a
relationship with the unborn baby by hearing its heartbeat, knowing
its effects on her body, feeling its movements, and more and more
planning and provision for its comforts once it is born.
So, my initial reflection is that the parents do
indeed need to decide whether a funeral is appropriate. Only they
can determine to what extent the loss of the unborn child has
affected them, and their need for reconciliation with their unborn
child. A pastor could help them resolve this desire. And, the need
may not be known at the time. If the loss over the next several
weeks seems greater, a funeral could still be held without the body
of the baby.
Disposal of the body would also be the option of the
parents. Personally, I would find little attachment to an embryo,
early fetus, or an ectopic pregnancy. However, I found a great deal
of attachment to my grandson who died at 31 weeks of pregnancy. His
funeral was strong reconciliation for us as a family with him and
with God.
Many Christians are uncomfortable with freedoms that
the Bible (God) allows. However, God in His Wisdom has allowed us to
be individuals. He gives us choices in many areas. Parents of a
child who dies before birth have the choice of a funeral and/or
burial. Pastors, physicians, and others may help them decide. The
further along is gestation, the more I would urge a burial and
funeral.
I am glad that Dr. Farmer raised the question. I did
not realize my own ignorance in this area until he did. This issue
needs more attention among evangelicals so we can be prepared for
the situation when it arises. Or perhaps, pastors have long since
dealt with this issue and we medical ethicists are only lately
discerning the issue.
Note: I have not dealt with the issue of a
funeral for the baby of a woman who has had an abortion and later
repents. That situation is more complex, and church discipline is a
central issue.
Vol. 10, No. 5 (66) September 1996
See, I Told You
So!
I have made various predictions about the AIDS
epidemic over the years. Many have been accurate. Whenever a
prediction is fulfilled, I like to toot my horn -- not just to
stroke my ego, but to laugh at the absolutist notions about AIDS
that have come crashing down.
Thank you, Dr. Dean Edell! (Dr. Edell is a
syndicated radio talk show about health/medical matters.) An
absolute mantra of the politically correct AIDS "officials" was the
threat of HIV to all people. When Michael Fumento wrote his
book, The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS, he was widely and loudly
condemned by these "officials" and their lap dogs in the media and
in medicine. Our Christian Surgeon General, Dr. C. Everett Koop was
one of these "officials."
However, a frequent admission on Dr. Edell's show is
that "We have directed 'education' about AIDS to the wrong people."
The transmission of AIDS in "typical" heterosexual relationships is
almost unknown. HIV infections now occur almost entirely in
homosexuals and IV-drug abusers, their sexual consorts, and their
unborn children.
From the beginning of AIDS statistics, these
behavioral modes of HIV transmission were known. There was never any
evidence of significant spread outside these groups. Yet, most of
the Public Service Announcements (PSAs) have and continue to
portray heterosexuals in their warnings against HIV transmission.
A recent example appeared in my own campus newspaper, The Beeper
(August 14, 1996, p. 10). It showed a teenage couple necking in a
car with a typical warning about AIDS.
I send a small kudo to Dr. Edell. If he would only
open his mind to the evils of abortion, as he has to the facts about
AIDS.
The New
"Hope" in Treating HIV/AIDS
Many who attended the 11th International Conference
on AIDS (July 1996, Vancouver, Canada) were excited about multiple
drug therapy for HIV/AIDS. "Within a year, up to 18 antiretroviral
drugs might be available, yielding as many as 1800 different
combinations (of therapy)," one speaker announced. (American
Medical News, July 29, 1996, p. 1)
Commentary: Yawn. In the past such hope in the
treatment of HIV/AIDS has been mostly hype (with the possible
exception of reducing transmission of HIV in unborn children).
Likely, such expectations will exceed the reality of proven
treatment, yet researchers will continue undaunted, as "thar's gold
in them thar hills (research)!"
Further, how long will it take to test 1800
combinations of drugs? It has taken 10 years to evaluate AZT.
Dear readers, I remain pessimistic. Yes, I hope for
an effective treatment of HIV/AIDS, as I hope for an effective
treatment (there aren't many) of other illnesses. So far, however,
any efficacy in the treatment of HIV/AIDS has been more illusory
than real. The "politically correct" want a treatment so badly that
they hype any possibility of progress far beyond its reality.
And, then, there is the priority of HIV/AIDS
research and treatment relative to innocent victims of other
diseases -- but that is another sermon which you have already heard.
Modern
Medicine Gets Credit for Conquering AIDS
CDC Director Dr. David Satcher states:
"As a nation, we have made significant progress
in slowing the spread of the epidemic. Annual increases in new
AIDS cases have slowed from more than 85 percent in the
mid-1980s to the current rate of less than 5 percent." (HIV/AIDS
Prevention, August 1996, p. 6)
Commentary: Oh, the arrogance and ignorance (or
bald-faced lie) of Dr. Satcher!!! What our nation has done against
AIDS has worsened the epidemic, if it has had any effect at
all. The decline that Dr. Satcher notes, first of all was never
predicted by AIDS officials. If fact, they engaged in fear
mongering, predicting that the epidemic would be more widespread and
in greater numbers that it currently is. (See first article above.)
What he is doing is taking credit for the natural
course of the epidemic. Epidemics begin with an explosive spread
followed by a leveling of numbers over time.
Modern medicine gained most of its credibility by
such false conclusions. Tuberculosis, scarlet fever, diphtheria,
rheumatic heart disease, whooping cough, and measles declined before
there were effective treatments or immunization. Mortality for
atherosclerotic heart disease has declined by unexplained reasons.
But, modern medicine gets the credit, and gladly credits itself for
these natural changes in disease patterns!
Now, "officials" are starting to claim efficacious
programs for AIDS. Are they just ignorant or bald-faced liars? You
tell me!
Needle Exchange
Is Not a Panacea After All
In Willimantic, Connecticut, a 2-year old girl was
reportedly pricked by a discard hypodermic needle. More than 350
others were collected from the city's streets, lots and alleys,
"prompting officials to take a closer look at the local
needle-exchange program. (AM News, 9/9/96, p. 31)
Commentary: Wrong means intended for good ends
always have negative consequences. The experience of this one town
demonstrates that needle-exchange programs for to prevent the spread
of HIV/AIDS among IV-drug abusers is not a panacea but Pandora's
box.
(1)
Competing for Medical Dollars
Hilton P. Terrell, Ph.D., M.D.
According to a report in the June 20, 1996,
Medical Tribune, the American Association of Retired People
(AARP) will offer its "imprimatur" on certain managed care plans
which meet its criteria. It is stated that this "imprimatur" will
cost the managed care corporation lots of money. Endorsements of
auto and home insurance companies added $146 million to the AARP's
coffers in 1994. The AARP will apparently use (as part of its
criteria for endorsement beyond the cash transfer) quality standards
established by a nonprofit group called the National Committee for
Quality Assurance.
On the one hand, one is inclined to be encouraged by
the development of nongovernmental agencies such as these
which could inform the public about the qualities of products and
services which are widely thought to be too complex for the average
"consumer" to evaluate. There is room for an Underwriters'
Laboratories kind of evaluation. For a century or so we have relied
on medical licensure granted by state governments to secure the
public from harm and neglect. This reliance is wrongly grounded
ethically and unproven in effect. If it really worked, there would
be scant market for these other contenders. Since God never granted
authority over individual medical care to the civil ruler, would one
not expect a good effect of government licensure.
On the other hand, these early vendors of quality
assurance in medical care are not reassuring, either. Quality in
medical care is highly individualistic. Some people value
personality in their doctor. Others value doctors who prescribe
freely. A few value impressive academic credentials, and so forth.
Valid outcome measures in medicine are nearly impossible to achieve.
A surgeon who has a worse outcome measure may be working with more
desperately ill patients than another surgeon who operates only on
the safer few.
The medical profession came under assault in
legislatures and courtrooms and before the bar of public opinion
suspiciously in proportion to the enrichment of the profession due
to its licensure monopoly combined with public programs such as
Medicare. A growing host of other entities wish to drink from these
fountains -- HMO's, huge lobbying organizations, government
regulators, plaintiffs' attorneys, pharmacies, and so on.
(2)
Help Yourself or Hope in God?
For a long time I have collected in a file the names
and purposes of "self-help" organizations. They appear to have
proliferated in recent decades, offering support, information, and
group lobbying efforts. I was cleaning out the file recently and ran
across a small sampling from 17 years ago. The clippings included
groups addressing bereavement, overeating, alcoholism in women,
breast feeding, twins, childbirth, infant care, divorce, mental
illness, sudden infant death, marriage, child abuse, runaway
children, laryngectomy, and venereal disease. From memory I can add:
breast cancer, rape, parents of homosexuals, diabetes, epilepsy,
mental retardation, autism, hyperactivity, learning disabilities,
lupus, children of alcoholics, families of prisoners. With five more
minutes I could probably recall another dozen or two. Under threat
of torture, I could identify more than two hundred.
Initially mildly positive, my assessment of these
efforts has become steadily more pessimistic. On the positive side,
they are inexpensive sources of information which, though it is
biased, often is biased in a way opposite to the medical profession
and perhaps restores a little balance and needed competition to the
medical party line. They may be a means of common grace through the
solace of the "milk of human kindness." They may be an echo of the
voluntary associations which once carried the burden of charitable
community work a century ago, though one recalls that the earlier
associations actually did or paid for the care, whereas the modern
echoes tend to coerce others through law to do the difficult work.
On the negative side, they sometimes become a
substitute for what families and churches can provide, soaking up
resources and instilling wrong attitudes. Many see their target
problem as something wrong exclusively in the environment. The human
heart is omitted as a root of some of the problems or as the locus
of the primary resource for healing.
They are radically environmental. The problem
is the school, the medical profession, the condom, the prison
system, the parents, the spouse, and the genes. Of course, the
material environment is central to some of the concerns, such as
cancer. A serious mention of sin, repentance, grace, or restitution
at some of the self-help meetings might cause mass fainting or a
riot.
Attention and sympathy, however, are granted to
agitation for changes in law, appropriation of tax revenues, or
boycotts. One doubts that a serious consideration of how one's own
misbeliefs and misbehavior helped to produce the problem are common
fare. Does the offered compassion omit the Truth of God which bears
on the matter, and therefore, is not really compassion? Does
confession to others in like plight substitute for confession to God
and to a particular person who was actually wronged? Is there
interest in reconciliation, restitution, and justice or in
fortifying one's self-defense?
Paul, in II Corinthians 1:3-4 speaks of the "God of
all comfort, who comforts us in all our tribulation that we may be
able to comfort those who are in any trouble, with the comfort with
which we ourselves are comforted by God." Modern self-help groups
routinely omit reference to any but the most generic of gods.
Instead, the misbelief is portrayed that you are disqualified from
assisting another unless you have also partaken of exactly the same
calamity. We even seek special training for ministry in calamity
now. If you haven't been an alcoholic or drug addict or rape victim
or had an autistic child or whatever, you can't understand. This
attitude makes experience the only teacher; nor can the experience
generalize very far. The revelation of Scripture is not considered
the teacher.
Now the Savior was indeed tested in all points as we
are and tasted our afflictions. Yet, it does not follow that He had
to experience exactly the same life history in order to be our
Teacher or to send the Comforter. The Corinthian Christians were not
being told by Paul that they should comfort the afflicted by means
of reciting their credentials or tales of suffering. It is not
recorded that they pressured Rome for money or lobbied for state
certification of day-care center workers. The comfort came by
reciting the care, counsel, and credentials of Christ. The comfort
is in God, not in the conduits and their stories. With repentance
and belief in the Gospel, the Comforter Himself is provided, Who
guides into us into all truth in Scripture, not in our experiences.
God's provision for a community to heal broken
hearts is Christians individually, Christian families as we have
opportunity, and the Church corporately. The balm is the Gospel,
accompanied by practical ministrations of the sort that the Good
Samaritan used. It is true that none of the above resources are
today widely experienced in helping. We won't improve the situation,
however, when we turn to groups which eschew the God of all comfort.
Misery does love company, but miserable company is
not the remedy for misery.
Ed's Note
Tragically, these self-help groups are forming in
the Church. As Dr. Terrell said, you just can't understand unless
you have had the same experience that I am going through. What role
does this approach allow for pastors? Those with the spiritual gifts
of mercy? The Holy Spirit Himself Who is the Comforter?
These groups have the potential to be destructive to
the unity of the Church. They say, "We are different. We need
special treatment. We are unique. We must separate ourselves from
the general group."
Clearly, these groups come from the influence of
psychology and its "group therapy." Psychology is a rot in the roots
of the Church. The Church will never be healthy until that canker is
radically sought out and excised.
|
