| A Call to Australian Doctors concerned with
the drift of ethics away from moral absolutes.
 |
VISION
To preserve, in an age of rapid scientific and technological
change, traditional medical ethics consistent with absolute
values and to preserve the liberty of medical professionals
holding these values to practise medicine according to their
conscience.
WHAT WE DO
Medicine with Morality seeks to respond to influences
eroding these ethical standards. We do this by way of letters,
submissions and statements to Members of Parliament and parliamentary
committees considering legislation impacting on these ethical
standards. We may also need to make submissions to medical
organisations and boards when such matters come before them
for consideration.
|
Medicine With Morality was formed in early 2006
to unite doctors across Australia in response to an increasing drift
of medical ethics away from moral absolutes.
The actual trigger was the argument in the RU-486 debate that evidence-
based medicine alone should govern the use of such drugs. But
this line of
reasoning ignored consideration of intent and outcome morality.
The
application of evidence-based medicine in an ethical vacuum reduces
human life to its biological function. It is not enough, for instance,
to
simply discuss the `best´ technique for euthanasia without
consideration of
its significance for the individual, the doctor-patient relationship,
and the
community.
Unless we are prepared to compromise in our own practice of clinical
medicine we cannot stay out of the debate. There are already significant
voices around the world arguing that doctors who, for reasons of
conscience, will not offer services that are legally permitted should
not be doctors. But how to do it ‘best’ and ‘legal’
is not all that matters.
The erosion is also evident in the work of prominent bio-ethicists
who argue for delayed personhood on the basis of self-awareness.
This philosophy then legitimises all destructive embryo research,
abortion and is extended to infanticide. This definition of personhood
– and its absence – can also be used to legitimise euthanasia.
Concerned doctors have the opportunity of joining together in solidarity
for the intrinsic value of all human life by signing in
to the statement of belief below. The specific wording leans heavily
on the work of countless others – the latin on our logo is
part of the Hippocratic Oath. Those who feel they cannot sign but
are supportive of the basic thrust of the statement are free to
email me and I can place you on an ‘interest’ list.
Letters and submissions on behalf of the list will be sent to list
members and also put on www.medicinewithoutmorality.info.
Except where a rapid response is needed (e.g. when a bill unexpectedly
comes up for voting and we have already made similar statements)
submissions will be sent to members before sending.
Professionals in Australia, other than medical graduates, who are
working or have worked in the broad field of medical science, biology
or ethics, and who agree with the manifesto can sign in to the associate
list.
Signatories names will not be released to media. Telephone numbers
and email addresses will not be included in letters nor given to
any third parties.
The original home page of Medicine with Morality can be viewed
here.
Lachlan Dunjey
July 2008.
We, the undersigned medical graduates resident in Australia,
affirm the following statement:
Medicine with Morality – a Manifesto of Human
Life for the 21st Century.
We affirm that human life begins
when a cell containing human chromosomes first has the ability
to replicate and differentiate into individual tissues, as
occurs at fertilisation. The genetic pattern of such a cell
is uniquely human and determines its adult characteristics.
We deny that any other definition
of the beginning of human life is acceptable. We believe this
to be a line that must not be crossed.
We affirm that human life has intrinsic
value at every stage of life and dependency from its beginning
to its natural end and must be protected against experimentation
or exploitation.
We deny that concepts of personhood
and self-awareness, being arbitrary and capable of varying
definition, are acceptable as indicators of the presence or
absence of human life.
We affirm further that the human
embryo, being human life in the truest sense, has intrinsic
value and that the extraction of stem cells from it is unacceptable.
We deny that cloning technology
is acceptable whether for so-called therapeutic or reproductive
purposes. We also deny that fertilisation attempted between
human and non-human cells (to create a ‘chimera’)
is acceptable.
We affirm from the evidence of
many scientists that stem-cell research on adult tissues and
other non-embryonic tissues (e.g. umbilical cord) already
has proven benefits and safety as well as increasing promise
for the future and that research on embryos is not as necessary
as other scientists make out.
We deny that it is acceptable to
do harmful research on human life at any stage regardless
of impairment or impending death or to terminate such life
before its natural end. We further deny that it is acceptable
to do destructive research on so-called 'spare embryos'.
We affirm our right – and
indeed obligation – to speak for the future of our society.
We hold that ‘natural’ Law is present in the heart
of mankind; that this law exhorts us to protect the innocent
and helpless and to uphold the sanctity, preciousness and
intrinsic value of life at all stages. We further hold that
these are eternal and immutable principles.
We assert our right and obligation to practice medicine according
to our conscience. We will not engage in or facilitate procedures
or practices that we believe are inconsistent with the above
manifesto.
|
 Download
Manifesto of Human Life for the 21st Century (59k)
|