“I swear by Apollo the physician, and Asclepius, and Hygieia
and Panacea and all the gods and goddesses as my witnesses, that, according to
my ability and judgement, I will keep this Oath and this contract…I will use
those dietary regimens which will benefit my patients according to my greatest
ability and judgement, and I will do no harm or injustice to them. I will not
give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and
similarly, I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion. In purity
and according to divine law will I carry out my life and my art. I will not use
the knife, even upon those suffering from stones, but I will leave this to
those who are trained in this craft. Into whatever homes I go, I will enter
them for the benefit of the sick, avoiding any voluntary act of impropriety or
corruption, including the seduction of women or men, whether they are free men
or slaves. Whatever I see or hear in the lives of my patients, whether in
connection with my professional practice or not, which ought not to be spoken
of outside, I will keep secret, as considering all such things to be private.
So long as I maintain this Oath faithfully and without corruption, may it be
granted to me to partake of life fully and the practice of my art, gaining the
respect of all men for all time. However, should I transgress this Oath and
violate it, may the opposite be my fate.” ~ October 11, 2020 - National
Institutes of Health (NIH)
I pose this conundrum to all my liberal or pro-abortion friends. There
is something that I really don't understand. I hope one of you can explain this
to me. It concerns doctors who perform abortions as a form of birth control or as
Margaret Sanger encouraged...as a means of population control or limiting the
offspring of 'undesirables' in society. Sanger implied the undesirables to be
minorities, specifically blacks and the mentally challenged/ill in the frequent contributions to 'science', societal
magazines and 'ladies' journals in the early 20th century.
The original Hippocratic Oath explicitly forbade harming a
patient(s) either through euthanasia or abortion regardless of race or mental state by saying:
"... I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am
asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly, I will not give a woman a
pessary to cause an abortion."
How does a doctor reconcile this practice with the principle underlying a Hippocratic Oath?
What happened to adherence to the original doctor’s Hippocratic Oath? The oath was essentially one of the oldest known binding documents or contracts in history. It is a contract of benevolent intent to a patient(s) from the one that treats them. The oath was intended as a set of standards and principles that unified all physicians under one moral principle. The Hippocratic Oath states three key principles:
(1) The continuance of the education of medicine.
(2) The use of skills for the good; and
(3) To uphold behavior to the religious standards of society in practice.
The last point being the most
intriguing morally. We live primarily in a godless society whose religion is humanism. Humanism that makes mankind the ultimate moral/ethical authority. Therein lies some of the
moral thorn that is abortion in modern times. Thus, abortion is an ongoing moral dilemma / problem.
The original Oath actually goes into something far deeper than the initial implications of, “I will do no harm or injustice to them. Neither will I administer a poison to anybody when asked to do so, nor will.” Do no harm or primum non nocere. Both of these statements are glaring announcements of a doctor’s responsibility to only do things to the benefit of a patient or patients self-interest. In the case of a pregnant mother there are two patients being treated at that point. The child being symbiotically linked to the mother. In essence they could be considered one-and-the-same considering they are linked via umbilical cord. So that which harms the child harms the mother and vice versa. Additionally, I should define a patient as being derived from the Latin verb "patior" meaning "to suffer". It is a person(s) who suffer(s) or requires medical care. A person receiving medical or dental care or treatment, under a physician's care for a particular disease or condition or who is waiting for or undergoing medical treatment and care.
What human beings suffer more than a child being murdered
via dismemberment, burned chemically and a mother who might later loathe or regret the willful
slaughter of her own offspring? I posit none suffer more greatly. Furthermore, it is a 'doctor' inflicting this suffering.
Furthermore, the deepness to which I refer to in the oath is the superscript of the oath's introductory phrase. “I swear by Apollo the physician, and Asclepius, and Hygieia and Panacea and all the gods and goddesses as my witnesses...". It is making appeals to a greater moral authority in terms of those who will bear witness to their actions and their ethos...to God/gods. It is in essence appealing to a higher moral authority outside of one’s self. It doesn’t mean modern doctors are asking fake gods to bear witness to their deeds or basing their moral authority on them. It is a pattern of thought or principle. In essence a doctor is appealing to an authority outside of themselves to do good at all times. They are being held accountable for their actions.
For a Christian it is the God of the Bible. A Jew appeals to the God of the Hebrew Bible. An Islamic doctor appeals to Allah, etc. But what of the atheist or humanist doctor? He would need to appeal to humanity or himself. He would need to make himself his own highest moral authority. Inherently a conflict of self-interest. He would essentially need to self-deify. This of course would be in contradiction to the principle of the oath’s original superscription. Therefore the original oath becomes a moot point to a godless doctor. The oath they swear to would be morally meaningless to them even though they create the illusion that they abide by an oath.
Surprisingly, in modern times this is exactly what we’ve seen happen. So that there is no contradiction to the oath yet still be able to appeal to an oath in an informal contract with a patient. Some medical institutes and associations have rewritten the oath to remove appeals to God/gods yet ironically thereby swear not to ‘play God’. Hypocritical and ironic if you ask me. That is why I kept referring to the ‘original oath’ prior to this. What most doctors swear by at the present time isn’t the original oath nor does it have the same principle anymore. Having removed the appeal to a higher moral/ethical authority (God) they’ve made the oath mean nothing. Its whole purpose of being spoken aloud or written down was to hold the doctor accountable. Just as a witness swears an oath on a Bible or Qur'an in a court of law. The modern version now uses equivocal religious language like covenant and God but it is merely religious window-dressing on a contact that has no true morally binding undergirding. It is literally Jesus' whitewashed tombs.
Matthew 23:27 ~ “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead people’s bones and all uncleanness.
A version of the new Hypocritical Hippocratic Oath as follows:
“I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment,
this covenant: I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians
in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those
who are to follow. I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures
[that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic
nihilism. I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and
that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon’s knife or
the chemist’s drug. I will not be ashamed to say “I know not,” nor will I fail
to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient’s
recovery. I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not
disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care
in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But
it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must
be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I
must not play at God. I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a
cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person’s
family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related
problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick. I will prevent disease
whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure. I will remember that I
remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human
beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm. If I do not violate
this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with
affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions
of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my
help.”
So therefore, someone, please...explain or justify these abortion doctors’ actions. The deceptive but false statement that an abortion doctor is doing the abortion in benevolence or for the benefit of the patient is only taking into account the welfare of one of two patients. It only takes into account the mother that seeks the abortion. The child in the womb has no say, no confidentiality in the matter (nor usually the father either). The taking of the child's life is not being taken as an 'awesome responsibility' nor is that life being approached with 'great humbleness' or an 'awareness of... the frailty' of human life. The child's life is being approached with compete insensitivity and casual disregard of that life's worth. There is no justice here. This of course violates the right of life to the child. The abortion itself is often initiated and performed on the child by either (1) poisoning or (2) dismemberment. Both cause harm and both violate even a liberal interpretation of the modern oath let alone the old oath as it is clearly doing harm.
As stated, by appealing to themselves as their own highest
authority in the oath mankind then makes themselves only accountable to
themselves. This means that the highest authority that governs doctors isn’t their conscience or God, a morally perfect being. The appeal is to the lex terra or law of the land. In this
way the doctors have sidestepped the ethical trap they create for themselves by
using the original oath. Just as government has removed God from Government
making government God, so too medicine has removed God and supplanted themselves in His rightful place. They can then
immorally appeal to Roe vs Wade in absence of God.
Abortion doctors or purveyors of this type of slaughter
cannot really adhere to the true original life preserving Hippocratic Oath because they are in
direct contradiction to it in multiple principles. So, they
changed the wordage. They changed the rules to the game to make
themselves morally god and allow themselves to act as gods in God’s stead. The
very thing that the new oath actually speaks of and wishes to avoid…making a
single person their own moral authority accountable to no one. Hence the need
of the oath in the first place. They changed their moral obligations to nothing
and thereby make the revised oath worthless and contradictory.
In truth abortion doctors are still in violation of their own modern oath. How? They’re not to play God. In taking a life that is perfectly healthy and deeming that life not worthy to live...how else can that ever be construed as anything other than playing God? All this to say something I’ve said before. Abortions are barbaric and a horrendous wrong perpetrated on the most defenseless members of society…even though many wouldn’t even consider them human let alone members of society.
The Bible is clear, we are all a person at the point of conception (Jeremiah 1:5, Psalm 139:13-16, Psalm 139:13). A unique creation. Life begins at conception. Morally and ethically there is no way around the Biblical language or the language as written in the original Hippocratic Oath. Abortion that is not performed with the understanding it is saving the mothers life is a murder and unethical taking of life. Medically unjustified abortion and euthanasia are a violation of both the Bible and the oath. A person who performs an abortion is neither Biblical, moral or a doctor. They deny God in their oath but act as Him in His stead. In the very acts they're perpetrating they reveal themselves to be anything but Godly. They reveal themselves to be godless hypocritical monsters. They claim to preserve life but do just the opposite (Romans 1:29). The very definition of hypocrisy.
No comments:
Post a Comment