Religion has always been a sore subject for me. Many times I have logged heads with family and friends on this issue. It came to a point where I could only express what I believed in, hope for others to open their eyes and to ask questions. Since then, I have ceased to discuss religion at length for fear of tension and friction. Reading an article on msnbc.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19190916/page/4/) however, compelled me to express myself once again about religion and how most humans have lost reasoning for themselves. It is as though they have reverted to a learning process of "Monkey see, monkey do".
Most religion advocates life and does not condone destroying lives. The Catholic position begins with the statement that human life must be respected and protected. With this belief, the official Church teaching forbids direct abortion and birth control for it is at the moment of conception that the tiny being is a human life and thus must be respected and protected. By itself, this belief is positive but a tad short from being realistic and practical in today’s life.
Medical science has developed emergency contraception (EC) also known as ‘morning after pills’ to help prevent unwanted conception hence prescription as such is most useful to women who fall prey to rapists. The concern is that these women were denied EC and some even as far as referrals because some physicians chose to uphold the Church’s teaching that forbids birth control.
What then is the right answer for women who find themselves in such circumstance?
Based on this belief, perhaps the fitting answer is to let God decide if the unwanted pregnancy should take place. If the pregnancy does take place, the mother will give birth to the child. At this juncture, she will either send the child for adoption or keep the child but be reminded of the inhumane incident that took place each time she looks at the child’s face. In the midst of upholding this belief, the rest of world should also forget about the financial situation of the mother or her conscience when one day and God forbid her child should question his or her origins. One with a logical mind can clearly comprehend that upholding the belief and not weighing potential issues does not benefit any women in this particular situation. In this instance, the physician who denied her the EC and referral was clearly judging and not thinking.
One would also sense that perhaps there are exceptions to the rule. Perhaps that is not the case.
A married woman 14 weeks pregnant had her water broken needed an abortion to prevent serious infection that could lead to infertility or death. The nearest hospital under Catholic administration denied care for this woman by requesting her physician to wait for an onset of an infection before carrying out the necessary procedure. Her physician fearing for the patient sent her to a secular hospital 80 miles away for the procedure. In another instant, a woman with ectopic pregnancy had a choice of an invasive procedure to remove the embryo implanted in her fallopian tube or a less risky method that administer methotrexate, a drug used for cancer to dissolve the pregnancy that spares the tube. The directive from the Catholic hospital was to perform the invasive procedure as the latter is a “direct abortion” as oppose to the former that is a lifesaving method that indirectly kills the embryo. Like any logical individual, the patient checked into another ER.
As a reader who stumbled upon this article, I tried to understand the need for doctors to be respected for their beliefs. While there is a need to provide healthcare to patients, one cannot deny out of respect for doctors that they are certainly faced with an ethical dilemma. Some procedures pointed out by them are indeed in conflict with their moral ideology and they should have the right like any individual to freedom of religion.
I like many others advocate the freedom of speech, belief and religion. The matter at hand is not the issue of freedom but to what extent one should exercise their belief? What is the boundary? Have humans lost the reasoning for themselves that they uphold teachings that are shaped by institutions, leaders of religion consisting of everyday people like you and I without questioning the basis of these beliefs?
Perhaps to some, it is much easier to abide by what others tell them to trust even to the extent of exercising moral judgment on others as long as the belief is deemed inspiration from a higher power. Conceivably, it is more difficult to deliberate and contemplate of what is true and not. By challenging one's belief for the purpose of seeking the truth is liken to having the security blanket being pulled from the bottom of one's feet and being placed out of the comfort zone.
The question is how many are willing to extract themselves out of the comfort zone for a period of time to seek the truth? Would you be comfortable?
Most religion advocates life and does not condone destroying lives. The Catholic position begins with the statement that human life must be respected and protected. With this belief, the official Church teaching forbids direct abortion and birth control for it is at the moment of conception that the tiny being is a human life and thus must be respected and protected. By itself, this belief is positive but a tad short from being realistic and practical in today’s life.
Medical science has developed emergency contraception (EC) also known as ‘morning after pills’ to help prevent unwanted conception hence prescription as such is most useful to women who fall prey to rapists. The concern is that these women were denied EC and some even as far as referrals because some physicians chose to uphold the Church’s teaching that forbids birth control.
What then is the right answer for women who find themselves in such circumstance?
Based on this belief, perhaps the fitting answer is to let God decide if the unwanted pregnancy should take place. If the pregnancy does take place, the mother will give birth to the child. At this juncture, she will either send the child for adoption or keep the child but be reminded of the inhumane incident that took place each time she looks at the child’s face. In the midst of upholding this belief, the rest of world should also forget about the financial situation of the mother or her conscience when one day and God forbid her child should question his or her origins. One with a logical mind can clearly comprehend that upholding the belief and not weighing potential issues does not benefit any women in this particular situation. In this instance, the physician who denied her the EC and referral was clearly judging and not thinking.
One would also sense that perhaps there are exceptions to the rule. Perhaps that is not the case.
A married woman 14 weeks pregnant had her water broken needed an abortion to prevent serious infection that could lead to infertility or death. The nearest hospital under Catholic administration denied care for this woman by requesting her physician to wait for an onset of an infection before carrying out the necessary procedure. Her physician fearing for the patient sent her to a secular hospital 80 miles away for the procedure. In another instant, a woman with ectopic pregnancy had a choice of an invasive procedure to remove the embryo implanted in her fallopian tube or a less risky method that administer methotrexate, a drug used for cancer to dissolve the pregnancy that spares the tube. The directive from the Catholic hospital was to perform the invasive procedure as the latter is a “direct abortion” as oppose to the former that is a lifesaving method that indirectly kills the embryo. Like any logical individual, the patient checked into another ER.
As a reader who stumbled upon this article, I tried to understand the need for doctors to be respected for their beliefs. While there is a need to provide healthcare to patients, one cannot deny out of respect for doctors that they are certainly faced with an ethical dilemma. Some procedures pointed out by them are indeed in conflict with their moral ideology and they should have the right like any individual to freedom of religion.
I like many others advocate the freedom of speech, belief and religion. The matter at hand is not the issue of freedom but to what extent one should exercise their belief? What is the boundary? Have humans lost the reasoning for themselves that they uphold teachings that are shaped by institutions, leaders of religion consisting of everyday people like you and I without questioning the basis of these beliefs?
Perhaps to some, it is much easier to abide by what others tell them to trust even to the extent of exercising moral judgment on others as long as the belief is deemed inspiration from a higher power. Conceivably, it is more difficult to deliberate and contemplate of what is true and not. By challenging one's belief for the purpose of seeking the truth is liken to having the security blanket being pulled from the bottom of one's feet and being placed out of the comfort zone.
The question is how many are willing to extract themselves out of the comfort zone for a period of time to seek the truth? Would you be comfortable?
2 comments:
alicia here. from a catholic doctor's point of view, i would have done what the patient's wanted.. after all, mother's life comes first even before the baby. And form a paediatric dr point of view, we have withdrawn or with held treatment to reduce suffering to the baby if we deem (after consulting 2 paediatricians) further medical treatment would only prolong the heartbeat but not the 'life' of the baby especially in severe preterm babies or severly asphyxiated babies. I once went for confession as i thought that i had performed euthanasia in the above situations but in stead was told by the priest that it was ok in those circumstances. About EC, well, i've seen O&G Drs giving it (but only in rape cases) and i'm ok by it.well, just a personal opinion.
Post a Comment