Religion Archives - Page 11 of 12 - Protection of Conscience Project Library

Who is worse? Fanatics or their followers?

Douglas Waugh

Canadian Medical Association Journal, CMAJ — Canadian Medical Association Journal

Extract
When Dr. Garson Romalis was shot in Vancouver in November – police have suggested there is a link between the shooting and his performance of abortions – I realized there are certain aspects of human behaviour that I will never figure out. What could give rise to such hatred? What mysterious willingness causes people to let themselves be led into destructive and pointless violence? . . . Although the motives in these cases are undoubtedly complex, it seems clear that each of the fanatic snipers intended to kill, maim or scare the daylights out of these physicians and others like them. And although society as a whole reacted to the events with revulsion, there were without doubt people who said of each case: “Right on! That’s the proper treatment for those baby killers.” . . . Even if we must accept the occasional appearance of a misguided or mad killer among us, must we also accept the frightening cluster of approving supporters who almost inevitably turn up to endorse the madman and his ideas?

Waugh D. Who is worse? Fanatics or their followers?. Can Med Assoc J. 1995 Jan 01;152(1):90.

Moral and Religious Objections by Hospitals to Withholding and Withdrawing Life-Sustaining Treatment

Anna Maria Cugliari, Tracy E Miller

Abstract
A patient’s right to decide about life-sustaining treatment may conflict with the policies of health care facilities that refuse on the basis or religious or moral convictions to honor certain decisions to forgo treatment. The New York State Task Force on Life and the Law examined the prevalence and nature of facility conscience objections to the refusal of life-sustaining treatment by conducting a survey of New York hospitals. Written questionnaires were distributed to hospitals in New York State. Fifty-eight percent of the New York State hospitals responded. Twenty-nine percent of the respondents indicated that their hospital would object on grounds of conscience either to withholding or to withdrawing life-sustaining treatment in at least one of the twelve hypothetical cases presented. Hospitals were more likely to have “no policy” for withdrawing than for withholding treatment. Only 10% of the hospitals that would object to decisions to forgo treatment on religious or moral grounds had stated the objections in writing. The patient’s medical condition and the type of life-sustaining treatment to be withdrawn or withheld are important factors in determining whether a hospital will object on grounds of conscience. The imminence of death appeared more decisive than the degree of debilitation or disability as a factor in the willingness to accept decisions to forgo life-sustaining treatment. Hospitals should establish clear, written policies about their objections to forgoing treatment so that patients and their families can evaluate whether the facility meets their needs.

Cugliari AM, Miller TE. Moral and Religious Objections by Hospitals to Withholding and Withdrawing Life-Sustaining Treatment. J. Community Health. 1994 Apr 01;19(2):87-100.

(Correspondence) Abortion debate continues

Linda Spano, Michael Brennan

Extract
. . . we all – including Reynolds – operate from a biased set of basic assumptions. Is it really antireligious to suggest that the antiabortion forces are largely motivated by fundamental religious views that represent fixed basic assumptions? We think not. . . . Medical intervention includes helping people achieve their potential according to their own objectives as well as many other “appropriate” activities, such as the therapeutic termination of pregnancy. . . .The abortion debate is not entirely about abortion or religion, nor is it even a debate. . . the argument is about the freedom of choice and the access of all Canadian women to safe, competent medical care and about the refusal of most Canadians to submit to the irrational demands of a vociferous minority. . .

Spano L, Brennan M. (Correspondence) Abortion debate continues. Can Med Assoc J. 1993 Jun 15;148(12):2112-2113.

Religious Ethics and Active Euthanasia in a Pluralistic Society

Courtney S Campbell

Abstract
This article sets out a descriptive typology of religious perspectives on legalized euthanasia — political advocacy, individual conscience, silence, embedded opposition, and formal public opposition — and then examines the normative basis for these perspectives through the themes of sovereignty, stewardship, and the self. It also explores the public relevance of these religious perspectives for debates over legalized euthanasia, particularly in the realm of public policy. Ironically, the moral discourse of religious traditions on euthanasia may gain public relevance at the expense of its religious content. Nonetheless, religious traditions can provide a context of ultimacy and meaning to this debate, which is a condition for genuine pluralism.

Campbell CS. Religious Ethics and Active Euthanasia in a Pluralistic Society. Kennedy Inst Ethics J. 1992;2(3):253-277.

Giving death a helping hand

Mina Gasser Battagin

Extract
Can Christians accept martyrdom on the one hand and reject euthanasia on the other? What makes one form of killing acceptable, the other reprehensible? What judgements are to be made, for example, if, during childbirth, a choice must be made between saving the life of the child or the life of the mother? How do we decide whose life is more important and, therefore, whose life must be saved? Who has the most to lose or the most to gain? What is fair? And who makes that decision?

Battagin MG. Giving death a helping hand. Can Med Assoc J. 1991;144(3):358-359.

(Correspondence) When passion displaces logic (Dr. Waugh responds)

Douglas Waugh

Extract
Unlike Dr. Heaton I am a born-again nonbeliever and therefore do not accept his version of where it all begins. With that as a “given” my logic is flawless, as is his with a different “given”. Unhappily, the two positions remain irreconcilable.

Waugh D. (Correspondence) When passion displaces logic (Dr. Waugh responds). Can Med Assoc J. 1990 Jan 01;142(1):12.

(Correspondence) “Universal” moral principles

Wendell W Watters

Extract
Apart from such simple principles as the Golden Rule and the Greatest Good for the Greatest Number of People, what universal moral principles are there? Apparently Lemoine’s value system would compel unwilling pregnant women to become mothers against their will (the view of the Roman Catholic Church and other antichoice groups); this is in direct opposition to the position that couples should be allowed to regulate their own reproductivity, the view of the United Nations declaration on family planning, to which Canada was a signatory. Neither of these moral positions is universal or based on absolutes. The first arose out of the Christian Church’s desire to implement policies of demographic aggression against all other groups. The second arose in this century out of our collective appreciation that such policies may spell extinction for all forms of life on this planet. Many of the bloodiest episodes in history came about as a result of one group’s seeking to impose “universal” moral principles on others.

Watters WW. (Correspondence) “Universal” moral principles. Can Med Assoc J. 1989 May 01;140(9):1016.

(Correspondence) Abortion

Philip E Shea

Extract
In his article “Abortion: The CMA’s new policy is a good one” (Can Med AssocJ 1988; 139: 991) Dr. John Lamont misinterprets the Catholic Church’s constant moral teaching on this critical issue. The misinformation could promote prejudice against Catholics who uphold the traditional doctrine that abortion at any stage is a serious sin against God, the creator of all human life. Lamont’s pontifical reference could not have been authenticated by a qualified Catholic scholar.

Shea PE. (Correspondence) Abortion. Can Med Assoc J. 1989 Apr 1;140(7):789.

Ecumenism and Abortion: A Case Study of Pluralism, Privatization and Public Conscience

James Kelly

Abstract
This paper uses the Churches’ responses to the controversy over abortion as a measure of the internalization of ecumenism. The data used in the essay include interviews with ecumenical officers and the minutes of the American Bishops Pro-life Committee. The main conclusion is that during the controversy “mainstream” Protestantism and Roman Catholicism reverted to post-Reformation and pre-Vatican II ideological roles, with Catholicism opposing under the banner of objective moral truth the legalization of abortion and liberal Protestantism under the banner of subjective conscience providing a belated religious justification to the legalization promoted first by secularist activists. This reversal to historic ideological roles actually distorted the more nuanced positions of these Churches in the controversy, but the lack of an ecumenical context obscured these shared tensions and prevented the Churches from contributing to a better public structuring of the moral ambiguities most Americans felt and still experience about abortion and the extent of its legalization. The essay concludes that only in an ecumenical context can religious pluralism lead to more inclusive moral commitments rather than to a further privatization of religion.

Kelly J. Ecumenism and Abortion: A Case Study of Pluralism, Privatization and Public Conscience. Rev Relig Res. 1989 Mar;30(3):225-235.

(Correspondence) Abortion

Wendell W Watters, May Cohen

Extract
The statement on abortion sponsored by the Canadian Physicians for Life and Les Medecins du Quebec pour le Respect de la Vie (Can Med Assoc J 1981; 125: 922) is an insult to all physicians who support the position of the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) on abortion, including physicians who are members of the Canadian Abortions Rights Action League (CARAL). We categorically reject the charge that we “promote the destruction of the unborn”. The use of the epithet proabortion in reference to either the CMA or the prochoice position is one of many examples of deliberate misrepresentation of the facts surrounding abortion. “Proabortion” applies to those who promote abortion, who favour it as a population control measure; such people live chiefly in India and China. Antichoicers do not recognize this crucial distinction between proabortion and prochoice . . .Are antichoicers now prepared to guarantee that the emotional and physical needs of all unwanted children will be met; to ensure that each one is able to make a life out of the existence that antichoicers would force on it? Hardly. They are interested only in “protecting” the fetus until it is too late for an abortion. They feel no responsibility for the aftermath of compulsory pregnancy for either the mother or the offspring. Their interest is in quantity, not quality of life. . . .These prolife physicians endorse the “moral rights of hospital boards” to protect the “unborn” by depriving women of their legal right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. History teaches us that whenever the rights of institutions are allowed to ride roughshod over the rights of individuals, humanity as a whole suffers. No publicly funded hospital in this country has any moral right to deprive the women it serves of their legal right to an induced abortion. . . .As long as our laws make it possible for antichoice groups to impose their notions of reproductive morality on other Canadians in this arbitrary fashion, we should all blush in referring to Canada as a democracy.

Watters WW, Cohen M. (Correspondence) Abortion. Can Med Assoc J. 1982 Mar 01;126(5):465. Available from: