Eugenics, Genetics Archives - Page 2 of 5 - Protection of Conscience Project Library

Physicians’ beliefs about conscience in medicine: a national survey

Ryan E Lawrence, Farr A Curlin

Abstract
PURPOSE: To explore physicians’ beliefs about whether physicians sometimes have a professional obligation to provide medical services even if doing so goes against their conscience, and to examine associations between physicians’ opinions and their religious and ethical commitments.

METHOD: A survey was mailed in 2007 to a stratified random sample of 1,000 U.S. primary care physicians, selected from the American Medical Association Physician Masterfile. . . .

RESULTS: The response rate was 51% (446/879 delivered questionnaires). Forty-two percent and 22% believed they are never and sometimes, respectively, obligated to do what they personally believe is wrong, and 36% agreed with both statements. Physicians who are more religious are more likely to believe that physicians are never obligated to do what they believe is wrong (58% and 31% of those with high and low intrinsic religiosity, respectively; multivariate odds ratio, 2.9; 95% CI, 1.2-7.2). Those with moral objections to any of three controversial practices were more likely to hold that physicians should never do what they believe is wrong.

CONCLUSION: A substantial minority of physicians do not believe there is ever a professional obligation to do something they personally believe is wrong.

Lawrence RE, Curlin FA. Physicians’ beliefs about conscience in medicine: a national survey.. Acad Med. 2009;84(9):1276-1282.

Accessing Reproductive Technologies: Invisible Barriers, Indelible Harms

Judith F Daar

Berkeley Journal of Gender, Law & Justice

Extract
Conclusion
The constitutional jurisprudence surrounding assisted conception is only beginning to take shape . . . . When conception occurs naturally, both positive and negative rights surrounding procreation are fairly clear, but grow murky as the reproductive process invites third parties to assist. As methods of assisted conception show increasing technological promise for those whose physical characteristics, social status, or both require they look to ART for family formation, worrisome trends suggest that third party actors are quietly mounting status-based barriers to fertility treatment. Barriers to ART are taking shape on the basis of patient characteristics including wealth, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and marital status, all under the guise of preventing harm to offspring and society at large. However, judgments by ART providers and public lawmakers that certain individuals will be unfit parents, veer dangerously close to the coercive eugenics practices of early twentieth century America, practices whose only positive legacy is the extreme caution with which we now approach state-sponsored limitations on reproduction.

Like a pentimento, ART barriers are only beginning to come into view from the experiences of an increasingly diverse and nontraditional reproductive medicine patient population. As each barrier emerges-whether it be a provider refusing treatment to a single or gay or lesbian prospective parent, or a lawmaker attempting to limit the availability of a reproductive technology for reasons unrelated to human health-it is essential to evaluate these actions by the same standards we would evaluate barriers to natural conception. . . . State-sponsored or state-approved limitations on any individual’s right to procreate simply cannot stand in a society that acknowledges the preeminence of reproductive freedom. Justice Douglas’ selfevident observation that reproduction is a basic human right is as durable and universal as the human race-it simply must be nurtured in order to continue to thrive.

Daar JF. Accessing Reproductive Technologies: Invisible Barriers, Indelible Harms. Berkeley J Gender Law Just. 2008 Mar;23(1):18-82.

“Who Should Survive?: One of the Choices on Our Conscience”: Mental Retardation and the History of Contemporary Bioethics

Armand H Matheny Antommaria

Abstract
The film “Who Should Survive?: One of the Choices on Our Conscience” contains a dramatization of the death of an infant with Down syndrome as the result of the parents’ decision not to have a congenital intestinal obstruction surgically corrected. The dramatization was based on two similar cases at The Johns Hopkins Hospital and was financed by the Joseph P. Kennedy, Jr., Foundation. When “Who Should Survive?” was exhibited in 1971, the public reaction was generally critical of the parents’ decision and the physicians’ inaction. Although technological developments in medicine were a necessary condition for the production of this film and its unanticipated reception, they were not a sufficient condition. The proximate cause was a changed understanding of the capabilities of individuals with Down syndrome. Part of the impetus for this change was data showing the adverse effects of institutionalization on normal children.

Antommaria AHM. “Who Should Survive?: One of the Choices on Our Conscience”: Mental Retardation and the History of Contemporary Bioethics. Kennedy Inst Ethics J. 2006;16(3):205-224.

(Correspondence) Conscientious objection in medicine: Doctors’ freedom of conscience

Vaughn P Smith

British Medical Journal, BMJ — British Medical Journal

Extract
Since visiting Auschwitz, I have grappled with the question of how I would have behaved as a doctor in Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia. I hope I would have had the moral courage to refuse to participate in the various perversions of medicine that these regimes demanded — for example, respectively, eugenic “research” and psychiatric “treatment” of dissidents. . . . My chances of behaving honourably would have been
greatest if I had felt part of an independent medical profession with allegiance to something higher and more enduring than the regime of the day. They would have been least if Savulescu’s opinions had prevailed . . .After 30 years of reading the BMJ, Sava-
lescu’s article was the first one to make me feel physically sick.

Smith VP. (Correspondence) Conscientious objection in medicine: Doctors’ freedom of conscience. Br Med J. 2006 Feb 18;332(425)

Without Conscience

Elie Wiesel

New England Journal of Medicine, NEJM — New England Journal of Medicine

Extract
Inspired by Nazi ideology and implemented by its apostles, eugenics and euthanasia in the late 1930s and early 1940s served no social necessity and had no scientific justification. Like a poison, they ultimately contaminated all intellectual activity in Germany. But the doctors were the precursors. How can we explain their betrayal? What made them forget or eclipse the Hippocratic Oath? What gagged their conscience? What happened to their humanity?

Wiesel E. Without Conscience. N Engl J Med.. 2005 Apr 14;352(15):1511-1513.

Pre-implantation genetic diagnosis and ‘savior siblings’

Bernard M Dickens

International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics

Abstract
From its emergence, preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) has been opposed by religious, feminist, and disability-rights advocates. PGD has developed, however, to extend beyond genetic diagnosis of embryos to diagnose chromosomal abnormalities. Evidence shows that PGD is safe, children born after in vitro fertilization (IVF) and PGD having no higher rate of birth defects than children of normal pregnancies. Laws may accommodate PGD directly or indirectly, but some prohibit PGD totally or except to identify sex-linked genetic disorders. When children suffer severe genetic disorders and require stem-cell transplantation, compatible donors may be unavailable. Then, IVF and PGD of resulting embryos may identify some whose gestation and birth would produce unaffected newborns, and placental and cord blood from which stem-cells compatible for implantation in sick siblings can be derived. Ethical issues concern conscientious objection to direct participation, discarding of healthy but unsuitable embryos, and valuing savior siblings in themselves, not just as means to others’ ends.

Keywords:

Dickens BM. Pre-implantation genetic diagnosis and ‘savior siblings’. Int J Gynaec Obstet. 2005;88(1):91-96.

The Killing of Psychiatric Patients in Nazi-Germany between 1939-1945

Michael Von Cranach

Israeli Journal of Psychiatry and Related Sciences

Abstract
Between 1939 and 1945, 180,000 psychiatric patients were killed in Nazi Germany. This paper opens with a brief discussion of the reasons for addressing this issue today; it is followed by the details of the so-called euthanasia program that entailed killing of patients by gas in special hospitals in the years 1939-1941, and in psychiatric hospitals in the years 1942-1945. In this latter period, patients were killed with lethal injections and through the introduction of a starvation diet. The fate of the Jewish patients and forced laborers, as well as the experiments conducted on the patients, are mentioned. Finally, some thoughts are presented to answer the question of why this could have happened. To me, the giving up of individual responsibility in an authoritarian system leads to the loss of the individual conscience and soul, including those of a psychiatrist.

Cranach MV. The Killing of Psychiatric Patients in Nazi-Germany between 1939-1945. Israeli J Psych & Related Sciences. 2003;40(1):8-18

A presentation by the same title with a similar abstract was presented at a meeting of the Israel Psychiatric Association, Jerusalem, 6th of December 2001.

Prenatal screening, autonomy and reasons: the relationship between the law of abortion and wrongful birth

Rosamund Scott

Extract
This article focuses on . . . the locus and extent of legal decision-making power as regards the disabled fetus. It does this by exploring how the relationship between the law of abortion and that of wrongful birth affects the scope of a pregnant woman’s decision-making abilities in this context. . . .In order to reflect on how the law shapes and controls a woman’s (or couple’s) autonomy in this context, the article considers both the non- rights-based English legal position on abortion and its rights-based US counterpart, in addition to exploring aspects of the law of wrongful birth in both jurisdictions. It also makes some suggestions as to the value of autonomy in this context and how extensive it should be at law, although the opportunity to do so here is limited. The discussion entails reflection on the role of the medical profession, the relationship between autonomy and reasons and the interests of people with disabilities or impairments.

Scott R. Prenatal screening, autonomy and reasons: the relationship between the law of abortion and wrongful birth. Med Law Rev. 2003 Jan 01; 11(3):265-325.

(News) “Democracy was never intended for degenerates”: Alberta’s flirtation with eugenics comes back to haunt it

Richard Cairney

Canadian Medical Association Journal, CMAJ — Canadian Medical Association Journal

Abstract
An Alberta woman recently won a lawsuit against the government of Alberta for wrongful sterilization that took place when she was a 14-year-old ward at the Provincial Training School for Mental Defectives. It was the first time the province has been held accountable for actions taken under the Sexual Sterilization Act, a 1927 law that promoted the theory of eugenics and led to the sterilization of more than 2800 people. It has since been repealed. A physician who served on the province’s Eugenics Board said the decisions were based on the best scientific advice and medical techniques available at the time. Today, she added, eugenics is being practised in a different way through prenatal diagnosis and therapeutic abortion..

Cairney R. “Democracy was never intended for degenerates”: Alberta’s flirtation with eugenics comes back to haunt it. Can. Med. Assoc. J.. 1996;155(6):789-792.

Abortion: the limits of moral repugnance

Leah L Curtin

Abstract
A 28-year-old married woman, gravida 3 para 2002, was transferred to a tertiary care hospital at 27 2/7 weeks gestation for verification of gross fetal anomalies. Ultra-sonography studies showed the child she carried had a dramatic gastroschises, an enlarged heart, and small limb buds for arms. The patient was informed of her fetus’ condition and, after she discussed the situation with her husband, both parents asked that the pregnancy be terminated.

Using prostaglandin, the physician induced labor prematurely in a labor and delivery room suite. Both parents held the child until shortly before its death.

A voluntary abortion this late in pregnancy for nonlethal birth defects caused considerable concern and even distress among the nursing staff on this unit. As a matter of conscience, almost half of the nursing staff refused to care for any patients having elective abortions, and this case raised even more moral questions than usual. Moreover, this couple—and even their family members—received threatening phone calls and letters while the woman was still in the hospital, and the couple reported receiving even more after she returned home.

Curtin LL. Abortion: the limits of moral repugnance. Nurs Manag. 1994 Oct;25(10):22-25.