Biblical Reflections on Modern Medicine
Vol. 8, No. 5 (47)
Contents:
or
Exposing the Dishonesty of Political Correctness
Ed's Note: The following is a brief message that I
gave as part of a panel discussion at the 54th Annual Meeting of the
Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) in Chicago,
September 18, 1997. The panel was planned after an article that I
wrote for the Medical Sentinel in the Spring of 1997 caused
some reaction from the American Medical Association, within AAPS,
and from individual physicians.
The crisis of American medicine is not tobacco,
AIDS, silicone, the Gulf War Syndrome, breast or any other form of
cancer, physician-assisted suicide, euthanasia, licensure, medical
care for the poor, or any other specific medical or ethical issue.
The crisis of American medicine is far greater than any one of
these problems; indeed, it is far greater than all of them combined,
because the answers to these problems do not come from within them,
but from medical ethics. It is the same crisis that faces our
culture in every other area: How do we decide ethics? That is, how
do we decide what is right and what is wrong? Is there a method
which will stand the test of time, or do ethics change with changing
cultures? How are medical-ethical decisions made today?
Few Are Consistent
1) What is needed is a standard or a method whereby
to determine ethical decisions. Since the Hippocratic Oath is our
focus today, I will start there. The Hippocratic Oath has had an
amazing longevity, if not impact over medicine for more than two
millennia. However, in recent times, many ethicists pick and choose
from it, rather than endorse the whole. Occasionally, I read an
ethical opinion that appeals to the Hippocratic Oath. For example,
there might be an appeal for the responsibility of students to their
teachers or physicians not taking advantage of the sick in their
vulnerable circumstances. However, I know that those writers would
never embrace the Oath's prohibition against abortion or euthanasia.
So the Oath is really no standard at all when one has a freedom to
pick and choose what one does or does not like about it.
2) Many, if not most, people would argue for the
democratic approach. Indeed, this may be the major direction of
American medicine. Consensus panels are determining treatment for
every problem from otitis media to myocardial infarctions to lung
cancer. Standards are set by experts.
However, there is not a person in this room or
anywhere else who will not disagree with more than one of these
consensus statements, whether they concern medical treatment or
medical ethics. Obviously, there is some other standard that we are
following when we stand as an individual against "consensus."
3) Or there is the approach that "Might makes
right." Few people would openly choose this method, especially using
these exact words. However, we all are quite willing to use
authority when we think it right. Recently, one physician called on
state licensure committees to take away the licenses of any
physician who attempted to help a homosexual change his sexual
orientation.
Pro-abortionists went after the Supreme Court to
make their position law, and now pro-life people want the law
changed. While we shy away from the label, "Might makes right," we
are quite willing to use it to promote what we believe.
4) Many today argue for pluralism. Pluralism also
has other names: multi-culturalism and cultural diversity. Pluralism
sounds loving. It sounds accepting of every opinion and approach.
However, in practice, pluralism is not practical, and those who
advocate it are dishonest.
Pluralism is impractical because it cannot decide on
a course of action. Pluralism cannot decide the abortion issue. If
you and I disagree about abortion, both our ideas cannot be
implemented. That is indeed why abortion continues to be a dividing
force in the United States. Pluralism on a serious issue does not
work. Neither side is willing to give up its position. And, each
should not.
Most who advocate pluralism are dishonest. They
actually advocate only those positions with which they agree. For
example, those who are "pro-choice" on abortion are often accepting
of homosexuals, radical environmentalists, and advocates of gun
control, but will vigorously deny even the right of Christian
fundamentalists to speak.
Note the words of one who wrote against my article
in the Medical Sentinel, "Fundamentalism is moral arrogance
and moral imperialism whether in Afghanistan, Iran, or the Christian
Right in the U.S.A."
May I ask, simply, why my opinion is "moral
arrogance and imperialism" and his is not? The worst totalitarian
regimes of the 20th century were profoundly and consistently
atheistic, not religious fundamentalism. If we are a pluralistic
society, why is my opinion condemned and his is not?"
It may startle you from what I have just said to say
that I think that true pluralism would be a start in the right
direction. When, however, have you seen a condemnation of evolution,
abortion, or homosexuality in The New England Journal of Medicine
or JAMA or any medical publication? Our medical journals are
not pluralistic, they are decidedly and consciously pro-abortion,
anti-Christian, and anti- other issues. They are narrowly
close-minded while advocating pluralism. Any opinion on
medical-ethical issues is permitted as long as it is not fundamental
religion. That, my colleagues, is dishonest!
A blinded reviewer of my article for the Medical
Sentinel wrote:
"AAPS does not pretend that religious beliefs
are irrelevant, as anyone who reads our publications carefully
or attends the annual meeting can attest. The people who are
hostile to religion certainly get the message, and they do not
hesitate to tell us that they are offended. But, it is not
our purpose to preach. We accept certain principles and live
by them.... The Medical Sentinel is a medical journal,
not a religious tract."
Is he (or she) correct that the Sentinel,
indeed, any medical journal is "not a religious tract?" Let me
expand my question, "Can medicine be practiced apart from one's
religious beliefs?"
The
Practice of Medicine Is Inherently Religious
I would contend that the practice of medicine is
inherently and inescapably religious. I would also contend that
medicine's failure to recognize and apply this connection has caused
more morbidity and mortality than it has alleviated.
Let me see if I can back up this profound statement.
1) Medicine has failed to endorse the marriage of a man and a woman
for life as the most healthy pattern. My own organization, the
American Academy of Family Physicians, destroys its own raison
d'etre by accepting whatever couples or groups of people decide
to live under the same roof or associate together.
Yet, scientifically, marriage of a man and woman is
far and away the most healthy situation. Should not we physicians
be interested in the health of our patients and the American
population?
a) In a recent report from the CDC, 87 percent of
reportable disease were sexually transmitted. Sexual abstinence
before and fidelity in marriage prevent all sexually transmitted
diseases.
b) Hundreds of studies show that children from
broken homes have more medical problems, cause more social
disruption and even criminal activity, and are poorer achievers.
Yet, over and over from so-called medical authorities I have heard
the "Ozzie and Harriet" families made fun of and unnatural marriages
of homosexuals endorsed.
c) Homosexuality promotes a morbid and deadly
existence. Homosexuals have a high prevalence of STDs and other
diseases, psychiatric problems, violence, and criminal activity.
However, as I mentioned above, in major medical publications
so-called experts have called for the de-licensure of any physician
who advocates or helps a homosexual to change his lifestyle.
With its endorsement of homosexuality in 1973, the
medical profession opened the way for the AIDS epidemic. I would not
go so far as to say that the AIDS epidemic would never have happened
without that endorsement, but certainly the epidemic was enhanced by
that decision.
d) In 1977, Dr. James Lynch wrote a book, The
Broken Heart, which demonstrated that married couples had better
health and longevity, less disease, and fewer psychological problems
than single people.
2) Medicine has failed to condemn abortion. Abortion
wreaks havoc on life expectancy. If life expectancy is considered to
be 75, and abortion deaths are factored in, life expectancy becomes
about 43 years (2 million natural deaths and 1.5 million abortions).
3) Medicine has essentially left religion out of
psychiatry. Answers to family and social problems are sought in a
pill, rather than religion, which is often the only answer to those
problems. I do not deny real organic psychiatric problems, but
millions of Americans are needlessly medicated with the serious side
effects and morbidity and mortality that those medications cause,
while having their real situational problems camouflaged.
4) Medicine has been an accomplice to increasing
crime. The evolutionary view of man cannot accept that some people
are just mean and evil. Thus, anyone and everyone has the potential
for "rehabilitation." Yet, repeated studies show that psychiatrists
are no better predictors of behavior than flipping a coin.
I could go on, but I have probably dropped enough
bombshells for now. Perhaps, we can come back to them in the
discussion later.
The point I want to make here is that medicine is
inherently religious, because health, disease, and injury have a
great deal to do with behavior. Should our medical journals become
"religious tracts"? Should physicians "preach"?
No, our medical journals should not become religious
tracts, but there ought to be open and honest debate about
behavioral issues that are religious with medical consequences.
Apart from purely religious journals, that debate is not allowed
today. And, as I have pointed out, ill health and poor medicine have
been a result.
Please understand, I am not advocating any more than
what our medical leaders and editors advocate; that is, the open and
honest debate allowed by true pluralism. That openness must
necessarily include discussions of religion.
Conclusion
Medical ethics is in a state of chaos today.
"Everyone does or advocates what is right in his own eyes." While
science may help us figure out how to help our patients medically,
it cannot tell us what is right and wrong. What can? Public opinion?
The force of law? Expert panels? Consensus of the AMA or AAPS?
None of us finds the ethical guidance that we
require of ourselves or our patients from any one group or even a
variety of groups. How, then, do we decide?
For medicine to become the potent force for healing
of which it is capable with modern technology, it must return to
some older ways -- those of religion. Only people with extreme
biases can ignore that the United States was forged in the crucible
of religion, specifically Christianity. Our weakness has come as we
have denied God and denied our roots in Him and His Word.
Yes, I think that substantial portions of our
medical journals should carry religious debate over both ethical and
medical issues. Science has shown that marriage is healthy, but God
told us that several thousand years ago. God told us that "all
things in moderation" are healthy, long before the dietary
confirmation of modern science. God told us that exercise was
healthy, but spiritual health was more important to true health.
If anyone is disturbed by this direction, and I
suspect that more than one here today is, let me state that
religious opinion is unavoidable. Absolutes are unavoidable. For
example, "There are no absolutes" is an absolute statement that
contradicts itself. Or, "Everything is relative," another absolute
that contradicts itself. If, then, there are absolutes, where do we
find them? Not in science, which is conditioned by the specifics of
its design; not in the vagaries of politics, public opinion,
so-called "experts," etc.
Absolutes are found in religion. For example, the
Ten Commandments are not 10 suggestions! I challenge the AMA and the
AAPS to return us to our God and to our roots for the health of our
patients and our nation!
When Physicians Err: Should They Tell?
The front page of the Sunday Magazine of the
Chicago Tribune (May 4, 1997) presented the situation, "When
Doctors Err." Inside the magazine, discussion focused on when and
whether physicians should tell patients/family when they make
mistakes. The range of effects can be from the benign to the fatal.
Recently, I ordered amoxicillin (in the penicillin
family) on a patient who was allergic to penicillin. Both the
medication nurse and myself missed the alert notice on the front of
the patient's chart. The pharmacy, even with its computerized
records, also missed the error for three days. The patient had no
demonstrable ill effects.
The following case was cited in the article above.
"A 39-year-old woman (in Boston) was being
treated for breast cancer and doing well. During her last course
of chemotherapy,she was inadvertently given four times the dose
of Cytoxan for four days running. She developed severe vomiting,
became dehydrated and died. The mistake was not discovered until
two months later...."
The question is, "Should the patient/family be told
of mistakes made by health-care workers?" If there are minimal or no
ill effects, the answer seems to be "No." However, what if there is
significant harm, and (in today's legal climate), telling could
easily result in a malpractice suit. Suppose there were no threat of
a lawsuit. Are health professionals morally obligated to tell? Do
they tell only if there is likelihood that the mistake will be
discovered?
A lawsuit can ruin a physician financially and
destroy his career. However, a mistake not admitted early will
appear worse in the courts of both law and public opinion.
I can see both sides of the issue. Physicians (and
other health professionals) are not infallible, but today's courts
often hold them accountable in that way. Further, we seem morally
responsible for the harm that we cause.
As you see, this question has several nuances.
Admittedly, I have not pondered this question as thoroughly as
necessary. Therefore, I throw it out to readers for their responses
before I weigh in with my thoughts. I know that many physicians out
there have made mistakes. How have you handled your mistakes? For
patients, what moral obligation do you have from your physician in
this regard?
Terrell's Treatises
A Willy, Nilly Application of Responsibility and Law Relative to
AIDS Patients
The trumpet of the AIDS-apologists sounded an
uncertain note in a recent article of The Journal of the American
Medical Association (Rebecca Voelker, "Protease Inhibitors Bring
New Social, Clinical Uncertainties to HIV Care," April 16, 1997, pp.
1182-1184). Expressing some hope that new anti-AIDS drugs may
lengthen the life of the HIV-infected, the author noted some
problems that could come with living past an expected date of
death.
These HIV patients have either never developed a
career, or have interrupted it for years due to their infection.
They have run up debts, sold their life insurance policy, and
undertaken a chronic pharmaceutical bill amounting to thousands of
dollars per year. Some applied for and received disability under the
Social Security Administration.
Under present federal court rulings, anyone who has
successfully argued with his government that he is disabled from any
"substantial, gainful" work cannot then claim discrimination from a
potential employer under the Americans with Disabilities Act. A
claimant would first have to let go of his grip on the federal
disability benefits, which is not popular in his economic straits.
It is called a "catch-22." The Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission is said to be seeking to relieve the situation by special
dispensation allowing one to be officially totally and permanently
disabled on the one hand, and yet discriminated against illegally
when not accepted for employment on the other hand.
The catch-22 here would seem rather to apply to the
hapless employer, who must pay taxes to support the "disabled" and
yet also pay wages to these same "disabled." Employers, of course,
are widely known to be unscrupulous and hard-hearted, so their
dilemma is unworthy of mention. The victimized HIV are not held
responsible. The author further points out that "people with HIV who
are substance abusers or homeless find it nearly impossible to
follow medication schedules...." The passive phraseology, as if they
awoke to "find themselves" in an earthquake-collapsed building, is
unwarranted.
If the substance abuser chose not to abuse
substances he might find it much more possible to follow a
medication schedule. Why may not an employer be compassionately
understood? Why may not the employer "find himself" unable to employ
a disabled person? Why is his action going to be illegal, as soon as
the federal government figures out how to extricate itself from
contradictions of its own making? Who are these people that think
that mercy and compassion should and can be made matters of
compulsion and civil law?
Ironically, the author began her essay with an
explicit reference to the resurrection of Lazarus, who, she says,
did not have to concern himself with a large credit card bill or
going back to work while maintaining a complex medication regimen.
Methinks she missed some points regarding Lazarus. Whom Jesus saves,
He saves. Jesus healed Lazarus.
Modern medicine much more often palliates and
delays, if not actually just dithers around with dangerous drugs.
This point is often missed by those who too glibly equate Jesus'
healing miracles with medicine's healing intentions and practices.
Sanctification proceeds, and had Lazarus a prior drug habit, after
his resurrection he would have "found himself" under conviction by
the Holy Spirit on the matter, not excused into impotence and
perpetual dependency. Furthermore, we do not know what were the
financial circumstances into which Lazarus was returned when he was
resurrected.
Ms. Voelker cannot be accused of underrating the
importance of her topic. She quotes a California psychologist who
claims that socially, economically, and psychologically "[new
anti-AIDS drugs] and HIV will define America and its values."
(Emphasis added). Only for a nation whose society, economics, and
psychology is not rooted in Biblical religion could this appear to
be so. A nation which could be defined by one disease and the
chemical used to fight it is surely one coming under God's judgment.
HIV and its drugs may substantially exemplify or mark what we
are nationally. The definition, however, would have to be
"Godless."
Legalized Murder In Holland
"Virtually every guideline set up by the Dutch -- a
voluntary, well-considered, persistent request; intolerable
suffering that cannot be relieved; consultation; and reporting of
cases -- has failed to protect patients or has been modified or
violated." So says an article on physician-assisted suicide and
euthanasia (surprisingly) published in JAMA.* The commentary
article looks closely at data from another article and concludes
that the Dutch are indeed sliding down a slippery slope in
euthanasia.
Euthanasia deaths increased from 1.9% to 2.3%
between 1990 and 1995, amounting to about a thousand deaths from
euthanasia in Holland in 1995. Regulatory "safeguards" are often
ignored. In about 0.7% of the deaths in Holland, "physicians
admitted they actively caused death without the explicit consent of
the patient." When all deaths are totaled -- assisted suicide as
well as euthanasia with and without consent -- the toll may run as
high as 4.7% of all deaths in that nation, and climbing.
A doctor ended the life of a nun in excruciating
pain because her religious convictions would not allow her to ask to
be put to death. Another patient who had said she did not
want euthanasia was killed anyway. The physician said, "It could
have taken another week before she died. I just needed this bed." A
healthy 50-year-old woman, who lost her son recently to cancer,
became depressed, refused treatment for depression, and said she
would accept help only in dying..." Her psychiatrist helped her
commit suicide within four months of her son's death.
There is no right way to do a wrong thing.
There is no way to "regulate" murder.
The Reformation, once so strong in Holland as to be
substantial salt in society, clearly is not now. What an opportunity
for those Christians who remain in medicine there -- to promise
their patients that they will not under any circumstances assist in
murder! As the dead bury their dead, perhaps they could take a
lesson as they glance over into another community and see how they
love one another, and God.
* Hendin, Herbert, Rutenfrans, et al,
"Physician-Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia in the Netherlands:
Lessons from the Dutch," The Journal of the American Medical
Association, June 4, 1997, pp. 1720-1722.
Larry Dossey, M.D., has written six books and "has
been in demand" as a lecturer on the premise that "people who are
prayed for heal faster than those who are not."
"I began to go to my office early every day and
invented a prayer ritual for my hospitalized patients as well as
those coming to the office that day. The prayers were
non-specific. I simply entered a meditative frame of mind
and prayed for the best to happen. I did not ask specifically
for the cancer or heart problem to go away." (Ed's emphasis)
Dr. Dossey considers prayer "complementary therapy."
He became the first cochairman of the National Institutes of
Health's Panel on Mind/Body Interventions for The Office of
Complementary and Alternative Medicine. In one of his books, he
cites 131 studies in the "general area of prayer" that "present a
compelling case for the power of the mind." (Hippocrates, May
1997, pp. 24-28)
Commentary: It is amazing the extent to which people
will borrow from the Truth. Christianity, more than any other
religion, has prayer as one of its core activities. But prayer for
Christians is not just for material things, like healing, but
worship, praise, thanksgiving, confession, direction for one's life,
etc.
Moreover, Christian prayer requires a Mediator to
plead our prayers before God. And, prayers must be made by those who
are born-again through salvation in Christ. This specificity of
design and context are in stark contrast to Dr. Dossey's prayers
which are "general" and are no more than "mind/body" experiences.
This article gives no indication that Dr. Dossey is
a professing Christian. Indeed, it give specific evidence that he
believes in no supernatural person, only some epiphenomenon (my
word) or "Force" (my word). He has not given up the worship of
science because he became convinced of prayer through "studies."
However, even professing Christians are caught up in
this scientific and generic approach to prayer. I have previously
written of Dr. David Larsen and the National Institute for
Healthcare Research (Reflections, May 1997). The Christian
Medical and Dental Society has promoted this approach on occasion.
There are others.
The quest to "prove" that prayer is efficacious is a
denial of one's faith in the Bible. It is a serious misunderstanding
of "proof" both evidentially and philosophically. It is a naive hope
to convince secularists that Christians are not duped in their
belief in prayer.
The proof of prayer, as Abraham Kuyper stated, has a
two-fold starting point: regeneration of one's heart, and inerrant,
infallible Scripture. This same starting point provides the basis
for proof of all Christian actions. We live in a generic age. It is
the spirit of New Age and world-oneness (better described in the
Bible as the spirit of this "world" and the Angel of Light). Many
Christians have fallen prey to it. They fail to understand the
nature of truth and the limited vision of the unregenerate mind.
May I be so bold? Prayer, outside of Biblical
parameters, invokes the occult by definition. Prayer is to a
supernatural power, be it generic or a person. It is giving Satan
another portal of access into man's world. As such, prayer is not
"for the good of patients," but for increased evil.
This prayer is another example that medicine is
inherently religious. Generic prayer may make patients "better," but
it is Biblically unethical and dangerous. Duped Christians are
actually aiding and abetting the Enemy and denying their Lord.
Creating Disease and Fear for Profit
"At your age, with your high cholesterol, what's
your risk of a first heart attack?" Thus began the advertisement
in Parade magazine, which goes to hundreds of newspapers in
the country each Sunday.
Following that question was a point list by which
one could determine his/her risk. If one had a total of 4 or more
points, one "could be at above average risk of a first heart
attack."
What was the first "risk?" Sex and age. All men
over 50 get 4 risk points. Other risk points included: family
history, inactive lifestyle, weight, smoking, diabetes, cholesterol
levels, and blood pressure. (Parade, September 14, 1997, pp.
18-19)
Commentary: This check list was an advertisement for
Pravachol, "the only cholesterol-lowering drug of its kind proven
to help prevent first heart attacks" (ad's emphasis).
I don't know how many men in the United States are
over 50, but every one of them by this check list has at least four
points based upon age alone. All these men by this
"scientific method" should be on Pravachol. It does not matter how
healthy you are in every other way, you are "at risk" for a first
heart attack and need Pravachol.
Thus, a disease has been created simply by being
in a particular age group. Dear readers, such subtle advertising
will create millions of dollars of income for Bristol-Myers Squibb
Company, the makers of Pravachol. And, the ad is endorsed by the
American Heart Association.
This ad is fear-mongering for profit at its worst.
Yes, the drug has been shown to reduce heart attacks but minimally
and by the application of strict criteria (which will not be applied
by physicians to most patients).
One estimate is that the prevention of one death from a heart attack
would cost $858,000 for a man and $3.4 million for a woman. (The
New England Journal of Medicine, May 16, 1997, p. 1333)
This misrepresentation and malpractice is what
happens when one worships physical life and the god, Medical
Science. Thus, modern medicine blunders down the broad road with
blinders in place.
"Free"
Sonograms and Abortions in Canada
Since 1989, Women's Hospital in Vancouver, British
Columbia, has refused to tell pregnant women the sex of their baby
until after the 20th week of pregnancy. The reason? Abortion in
Canada, as well as the sonogram, are "free" under their pre-paid
system. Women can abort with no questions asked before those 20
weeks. So, if the sex of the baby is not what the mother wanted,
then she can have an abortion.
"Nobody involved in ultrasound," says Roger Goodall,
a Vancouver gynecologist who speaks for Vancouver's 160 ob/gyns,
"wants to be in the position of doing sex determination so people
can go right away and have an abortion if the fetus is not the right
sex." However, some patients cross the border into the United
States, find out the sex of their unborn babies, and then go back to
Canada to abort them. (Chicago Tribune, August 3, 1997,
Section 13, pp. 1, 8)
Commentary: A simple solution is to make abortion
illegal!
Heather Has Two
Mommies -- and a Daddy!
A lesbian used the sperm from a "longtime friend" to
become impregnated and has allowed her partner to adopt the baby.
The "friend" now claims parental rights over the baby. (Chicago
Tribune, August 12, 1997, Section 1, pp. 1, 8)
Commentary: As Dr. Terrell said elsewhere in this
newsletter ("Terrell's Treatises"), "There is no right way to do a
wrong thing." With the absence of right and wrong in American law,
as well as ethics, this case will be decided by the power of the
judiciary, "Might makes right."
An
Improvement Over God's Design: The Human Knee
"Chicago scientists didn't set out with an elbow
obsession to rearrange anatomy willy-nilly, but they did begin
with the notion that nature's design of the human knee was
flawed.
"Because natural evolution depends upon
incremental changes in the structures of existing animals, it is
limited in the materials and designs available to accommodate
new functions. Working up from crawling, hopping reptiles to
four-legged mammals to two-legged primates that walk upright
proved a major challenge for the natural evolution of the knee."
(Chicago Tribune, August 24, 1997, Section 5, pp. 1, 6)
Commentary: With this introduction, this article
proceeds to tell of a design for a new prosthetic knee joint. We in
medicine have heard such wonderful descriptions before, and the
product is rarely as good as its claim. Even if it is, these
comments show the inherent belief in evolution that is a tightly
held tenet of modern medicine.
Vol. 11, No. 6 (72) September 1997
The Priority of HIV/AIDS in Research
The budget of the National Institutes of Health in
total amounts is one way to reflect its priorities. Its funding
per patient who has the disease in the American population is
another. On this basis, funding is: HIV/AIDS ($2403), breast cancer
($209), Alzheimer's disease ($78), Parkinson's disease ($34), heart
disease ($20), and diabetes ($20). (Vital Stats, July 1997,
p. 3, commenting from an article from the April 26, 1997 Lancet)
Commentary: Many people look to science for answers
today. But, how does science determine how research money is spent?
That science can answer ethical questions (which is what
determination of funding is) is philosophically untenable.
The funding priorities of the NIH clearly show the moral and
political biases that control the purse strings.
STDs,
HIV/AIDS, and Other Infectious Diseases
(1) In 1995, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC)
reported that sexually transmitted diseases accounted for 87 percent
of all newly reported infections!
"The Institute of Medicine has just issued a
major report titled The Hidden Epidemic.... It estimates the
overall economic cost in 1994 at nearly $17 billion. Although
STDs cause untold suffering and death for millions of Americans,
the report says awareness of the risks is dangerously low, and
nothing is being done on a national scale to heighten it." (Accuracy
in Media Report, January-A 1997)
(2) The CDC, alarmed at increasing rates of HIV/AIDS
in women, has launched prevention and research activities towards
this population. These efforts include: counseling and testing for
pregnant women, sexual "health" seminars, a female condom project,
and support groups for those infected. (HIV/AIDS Prevention,
July 1997, pp. 3-4, 14)
Commentary: I have a preventive strategy! Put on a
seminar with each freshman class at all colleges and universities
showing the statistics on sexually transmitted diseases, present
graphic descriptions of the effects of these diseases, have a
physician honestly describe what treatments are and are not
available, and introduce testimonies from students whose lives have
been destroyed by these diseases. After this seminar, have student
health services track the incidence of STDs for the next year. What
do you think the result would be?*
As stated above, "awareness of risks is dangerously
low." Student health services and administrations virtually
guarantee the spread of STDs on campus with their current policies
of open dorms, dishonesty about treatment of STDs, birth control and
condoms given to anyone who asks, and sex "education" (if any
exists).
And, thus the "hidden epidemic" continues. The
obvious is not allowed to be said, and political correctness paves
the ways for this continued epidemic. Might, "Just say no" be more
effective?
* Obviously, sexually transmitted diseases would
still occur, but I would at least expect some reduction. My program
would be far more effective than all the tiptoeing around the real
issues that occurs today. After all, fear is a deterrent to
behavior.
Seeing
the Glass Half-Empty -- Even When It Is Full
"New data released by the CDC this July seemed
to present pessimists with the ultimate challenge. For the first
time, in addition to the plummeting death rates for men with
AIDS, the number of women dying from AIDS was no longer slowly
growing or holding steady -- it was decreasing....
"Yet on the July 14th ABC World News Tonight,
Peter Jennings termed 'the good news and the not-good news about
AIDS today.' A July 20th New York Times story about the
new AIDS numbers was headlined, 'The Better Half Got the Worse
End.' The gist of the complaint is that, while AIDS death rates
fell a remarkable 17% over the previous year, they fell 'only'
7% for women, and thus represent 'bad' or at least 'not good'
news." (Vital Stats, August 1997, p. 3)
Commentary: It is the nature of the news to be
negative. But, with AIDS, the news must always be that of a victim
class, an epidemic that threatens everyone, and never enough money
for those already infected. Further, researchers in both the private
and academic settings depend upon bad news for continued funding.
Thus, even if the last AIDS patient were cured and HIV spread
prevented by a vaccine, the news would still be bad because of the
potential threat of another outbreak!
AIDS
Virus Grows More Aggressive
"Researchers compared people who became infected
with HIV between 1985 and 1989 with those who became infected
after 1989. Those with more recent infections had a higher
probability of decline in immune system function and a faster
progression in AIDS than those who had been infected in the
1980s." (Advance/Laboratory, June 1997, p. 17, reported
from the British Medical Journal, 314:1232-1237, 1997)
Commentary: Stay tuned! This virus has an uncanny
ability to "adapt itself to individual immune systems." I continue
to doubt any major changes in its route of infection or its
pathological effects. However, some variations are to be expected
with any infectious agent -- perhaps more so with this rapid
mutator.
Except...
At the AAPS meeting where I participated in a panel
discussion (see front page of this newsletter), Dr. Paul Byrne
presented the physiological defense that "brain death" is a
misnomer, created to allow transplantation of major organs. I review
only a few of his points here, but his talk was thorough and, I
think, indisputable. You can obtain an audio or video tape from
AAPS, 1601 N. Tucson Blvd., Suite 9, Tucson, AZ 85716.
First, and foremost, brain death is a nebulous and
changing concept, adaptable to moral and political agendas. Beyond
that, a brain-dead body continues to retain almost all its functions
(not too different from deficits and deformities caused by disease
and aging). The skin blanches, and blood flow returns after
pressure. The endocrine system still coordinates complex functions
throughout the body. Food is digestible. Pregnant women have carried
and delivered live babies after being brain dead. And so on.
All these functions are quite different from a
cadaver in which all functions have ceased to exist. Dr. Byrne's
point is that it is the removal of the heart (or lungs) that
causes the death of the donor. The person is alive until that
happens.
Commentary: The presence of life and death are
foundational Biblical (moral) issues. The presence of the human soul
is the presence of human life. However, since we have no direct
method to detect the presence of the soul, then we are left with
physiological parameters.
I remember the moment about 10 years ago when I
first grasped the error of "brain death." However, I was greatly
impacted by Dr. Byrne's talk as to the profundity of this issue. I
have not taken a sufficiently hard stand against the concept of
brain death.
The issue corresponds to the unborn (abortion), and
indeed, the presence of life throughout its course. Since the Garden
of Eden, no human body has been without its defects, from skin
blemishes to missing limbs to holes in the heart to the absence of
the cerebral cortex in anencephalics. But, regardless of defects
or absence of specific functions, they are alive and they must not
be killed, even to "save" others.
We must take as hard a stand against the concept of
brain death as against abortion. The same principles apply.
However, that stand may not preclude heart (or other
organ) transplantation. Jesus said, "Greater love than this has no
one, that anyone should lay down his soul (life) for his friends"
(John 15:13). What is the difference between a soldier's throwing
his body over a grenade to save his buddies and a person's donating
his heart to someone else? Or, a family who has moral responsibility
for a severely brain injured person to decide to donate the heart to
someone else?
Answers to these questions, however, do not depend
upon brain death, but upon considerations of love for others and
moral responsibility within families. These are new looks at old
issues for me. Let's think through them carefully.
"Recent approval by the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration of abortifacient drugs and the publication of
protocols for their use make medical abortion a procedure that
most family physicians can now consider offering to their
patients." (American Family Physician, August 1997, pp.
351-364, 533-538)
While RU-486 (mifepristone) is not yet on the U.S.
market, a combination of methotrexate followed by misoprostol "are
more than 90 percent effective in terminating pregnancies of less
than seven weeks gestation." Methotrexate has been around for
decades. Misoprostol has been around less time. However, only
recently have the two been used in combination to cause abortion.
Two editorials appear along with the "how to"
article. The intent of the editorials are obvious: to present the
case that abortion is opposed by a significant number of family
physicians. After all, medical abortion is not "merely a medical
procedure," but a "moral issue... because abortion takes the life of
a baby after it has begun."
The editorials have a positive value. Heretofore,
the American Association of Family Physicians (AAFP), has generally
taken a "neutral" position, allowing little discussion in its
publications about abortion, and certainly not allowing a pro-life
point of view to be presented. This editorial is clearly pro-life
and will take much criticism from some AAFP members over its being
published.
However, beyond that pro-life position, the article
is "praising by faint damns." It says that pro-choicers (a term that
is itself ingratiating) want abortion to be "rare," when they do
nothing to make it less frequent than it is. Indeed, they do the
opposite. This desire to "make it rare" and the pro-life position to
"'make it illegal' are not that far apart." Oh? I believe each
represents opposite sides of an unbreachable chasm.
Other sops are tossed to the "pro-choice" crowd. The
argument that the "developing baby is not a person" is infrequently
presented. "Abortion rights of today do not conflict with the
Constitution." "Society should not sit in judgment on a pregnant
woman who decides an abortion is justified in her situation." "The
high rate of abortions in the United States is evidence of a social
failure."
Abortion is murder. Pro-abortionists are vehemently
opposed to any lessening of the liberal abortions laws in this
country, as evidenced by their defense of third-trimester
abortions.
I withdrew from the AAFP because of their acceptance
of abortion, homosexuality, and other such policies. (Neutrality is
a myth!) I also withdrew because they have failed to endorse their
reason d'etre, the Biblical family.When a medical
organization will not condemn the killing of 1.5 million unborn
children a year, all the health and medical care that it can
otherwise provide is virtually meaningless. The life expectancy of a
conceived child who would otherwise live to term and expect to live
75 years becomes 43 years.
Within the AAFP, a few have been allowed a voice
because they pad their barbs of condemnation to the point that
consciences are not bothered. These editorials are a slight
loosening of the stranglehold of the AAFP towards abortion, but it
is a pitiful step after 24 years and 36 million abortions.
We must be careful only to proclaim God's judgment.
It is difficult to imagine Jesus saying on Judgment Day, "Well done,
thou good and faithful servant" to those who have eased the
consciences of their colleagues by softening language towards grave
evils clearly condemned by Scripture.
|
