Political Definitions: Born Alive and Global Warming:Where is the Science?
Excerpted from the Washington Post: "The Bush administration issued guidelines yesterday advising physicians and hospitals that under a 2002 law they are obligated to care for fetuses 'born alive' naturally or in the process of an abortion, and medical providers could face penalties for withholding treatment.
The law, signed by President Bush nearly three years ago, conferred legal rights on fetuses 'at any stage of development.' It specifies that a fetus that is breathing, has a beating heart, a pulsating umbilical cord or muscle movement should be considered alive and entitled to protection under federal emergency medical laws and child abuse statutes."
Is there no more science in the standards of medical practice? Is a live birth that which is defined by the politicians and the President? What are the treatments that the President and the politicians have prescribed which if withheld will penalize the medical providers? Remember that a fetus of 14 to 16 weeks cannot live out of the womb. What about an anencephalic fetus who has a heartbeat but NO brain to know or think? Where is the science and where are the scientists? And on top of all this we are told by our government that "global warming is an exaggeration"!
I worry that this U.S. administration is forgetting about science and are only concerned with political advantage. Am I mistaken? ..Maurice.
posted by Maurice Bernstein, M.D. @ 11:02:00 AM
3 comments
3 Comments:
The press has ceased informing the public. It is too complicated to do science/medical reporting. Go for the bottom line. Don't publish things that can cause ads to be pulled or negative reaction. Stick with the Jackson case. The public can't react to things they don't know.
As a result, this administration has been given a free hand. At least we have the web. Thanks for your efforts.
And thanks to all the efforts of others on the Web, including those presenting the opposing views where there is no worry about "negative reaction".
But what bothers me is that the people who have the time and responsibility for procuring and digesting the scientific consensus, the Congress and our President, don't seem to be doing their job in this regard. For example, time spent to evaluate the Terri Schiavo case with knowlegable physicians, scientists, lawyers and ethicists (I'm sure they could have gathered a local group quickly) would have hopefully changed the behavior of Congress and allowed President Bush to continue on his ranch vacation. But no.. science and law and ethics were not on the minds of Congress-- it was votes, votes, votes. We know, based on experience of what has been going on with thousands of similar patients these many years that there was nothing in the Congressional behavior which demonstrated informed, rational thought or consideration of doing something beneficent toward the body and soul of Terri Schiavo.
Of course, education of the general public in science issues which can readily affect the life of society should be a goal. But, I think our leaders who are making the laws and decisions for our country should make an effort and make it their goal to be fully aware of scientific consensus and incorporate real science into their decision-making. ..Maurice.
My interpretation of this news article appearing at this time is wildly different. Recent news articles have highlighted the frequency of infant euthanasia in the Netherlands. I'm pretty sure that the administration is saying, emphatically, that we will not be skating down that particular slippery slope.
Post a Comment
<< Home