| A Call to Doctors concerned with the drift
of ethics away from moral absolutes – médecine
sans moralité.
Lachlan Dunjey. March 2006
Email: lachlan@medicinewithmorality.org.au
 The
RU486 debate and the Lockhart Review Committee Report have highlighted
a drift of ethics from what we might call moral absolutes, effectively
resulting in medicine without morality.
The problem was highlighted in the RU486 debate by doctors arguing
that any decision must only be made on grounds of Evidence Based
Medicine (EBM) and not by politicians and not on grounds of
religion. The argument was that EBM would support that RU486 is
as safe as surgical abortion and therefore should be available.
But this approach totally ignores the ethics of outcomes.
EBM without consideration of outcome morality is bad medicine and
could be used to consider euthanasia techniques or even the transplanting
of organs from clones bred for that purpose. How to do it ‘best’
and ‘legal’ is not all that matters.
The problem of relative ethics is also highlighted by the Lockhart
committee having given undue weight to scientists wishing to further
advance their research and disregarding moral absolutes. The committee
talks in terms of relative ethics and uses distortion of language
(italics mine)
current ART arrangements already sanction the possibility
of the destruction of embryos, in the process of helping people
to have a family, and hence not to allow embryo destruction to
help people with other medical problems would be unfair
(Executive Summary p.xiv).
Thus, to permit one (production and destruction of ART
embryos) but not the other (production and destruction of nuclear
transfer and other bioengineered embryos) would be inconsistent
and appear to attach more importance to the treatment of infertility
than to the treatment of other diseases and conditions
that could be helped as a result of this activity. (p170)
However, a human embryo clone created to extract stem cells is
not intended to be implanted, but is created as a cellular
extension of the original subject. The Committee therefore
agreed with the many respondents who thought that the moral significance
of such a cloned embryo is linked more closely to its potential
for research to develop treatments for serious medical conditions,
than to its potential as a human life (p170)
…SCNT only aims to copy a person’s cells;
therefore… there is no objection to this (p171)
One contributor said:
…that it was not clear that an SCNT clone should be called
an ‘embryo’. If it were not defined as an embryo,
there would not be a problem with creating one. (p97)
The drift is well illustrated by 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.
There is a need then for ethics in medicine to be re-anchored to
those inherent moral standards in the human consciousness that we
call natural law or moral law.
In the interests of our nation we cannot afford medicine without
morality.
Even if we want to stay out of the debate, we cannot unless we
are also prepared to compromise in our own practice of clinical
medicine. There are already significant voices around the world
arguing that doctors who will not offer care that is legally permitted
because it conflicts with their values, should not be doctors.
It is time for concerned doctors to have the opportunity of joining
together in a simple statement of solidarity for the respect
of human life in all states of dependency and disability from fertilisation
to life’s natural end.
If you share this concern and agree
for the following statement of belief to be given to our Members
of Parliament then you are invited to sign in (see below).
Privacy Statement:
Signatories to this manifesto will be submitted to Australian members
of Parliament only .
The required fields are necessary for validation except email which
will not be submitted.
Names and other details will not under any circumstances be disclosed
to any other party or for any other purpose.
Lachlan Dunjey. March 2006
Related papers: www.medicinewithoutmorality.info
Addendum July 2006: The specific wording
of the manifesto has been in progress for some four years and leans
heavily on the work of countless others – the latin on the
logo is part of the Hippocratic Oath! It is possible that with input
from the various disciplines of medicine there might need to be
minor variation of the statement without diluting its power. I suggest
that those whose conscience does not allow them to sign at present
but agree with the basic thrust of the statement to please email
me and I will keep you informed of any developments. No changes
will be made without the full permission of present signatories.
Letters sent to MPs on behalf of the list will always be short –
simply highlighting one aspect of the belief statement – and
copies sent to list members. Some letters will be put on medicinewithoutmorality.info.
Addendum February 2007: Associate
List
For professionals in Australia other than medical graduates who
are working or have worked in the broad fields of ancillary medicine,
nursing, medical science, biology or ethics. To
sign on to the manifesto go to Associate List.
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)
|