Re: OB: Stuart Campbell Op Ed
From: Andrew Folley (agfolley@hotmail.com)
Sat Oct 7 15:07:54 2006
Sorry ef but there are absolutes in this world.They have been determined by
the creator of this universe and they are imprinted in the heart and
conscience of every person.
Moral values are not relative. Killing babies is wrong. You as a physician
should have the courage to stand up for the sanctity of life. You have been
given the responsibility, honor and privelge of healing, saving and
protecting life. Instead you choose to remain silent or condone what you
know is wrong. I suspedt that you do not do abortions yourself do you??
Why not?agf
>From: eramirezt@coqui.net (Efrain Ramirez)
>Reply-To: ob-gyn-l@obgyn.net
>To: Multiple recipients of list OB-GYN-L <ob-gyn-l@dns.obgyn.net>
>Subject: Re: OB: Stuart Campbell Op Ed
>Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2006 14:17:15 -0500
>
>Andrew..right and wrong are not absolutes..we as physicians must be
>courageous to accept other people’s beliefs so we can help them …
>accusing a patient of murderer when seeking termination is the least
>that patient needs…. denying treatment because you think is morally
>wrong is ... well…. wrong? Have a nice day! ..
>
>Ef
>
> At Thu, 05 Oct 2006, Andrew Folley wrote:
> >
> >I think as physicians we have to be judgemental. Is abortion right or
> >wrong? Are their absolute truths and values in the world or is
>everything
> >"relative"?. Ie is abortion relatiev to thesociety one lives in or to the
> >time in which one is living? As OB-Gyns we have a problem as most of us
> >belong to ACOG and our organization has not come out against abortion.
>We
> >have failed women and children and society by not saying no to the 1.6
> >million murders commited each year by our fellow physicians.
> >More of us need to be judgemental.
> >"Do no harm"
> >andrew
> >
> >>From: eramirezt@coqui.net (Efrain Ramirez)
> >>Reply-To: ob-gyn-l@obgyn.net
> >>To: Multiple recipients of list OB-GYN-L <ob-gyn-l@dns.obgyn.net>
> >>Subject: Re: OB: Stuart Campbell Op Ed
> >>Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 06:22:42 -0500
> >>
> >>Excellent editorial .. abortion issues are very personal - unique for
> >>every individual and circumstances - with profound repercusions....both
> >>to the patient and to society.. I as a physician can not be judgemental
> >>but again .. just my opinion..
> >>
> >>Ef
> >>
> >> >Wed, 4 Oct 2006, art fougner, md wrote:
> >> >
> >> >X-Posted from the Ultrasound List ( Flame - Retardant Hazmat Suit in
> >> >place )...
> >> >
> >> >Don't tear a smiling foetus from the womb
> >> >
> >> >By Professor Stuart Campbell (Filed: 04/10/2006)
> >> >
> >> >There is something deeply moving about the image of a baby cocooned
> >> >inside the womb. When four-dimensional scans first became available
> >> >three years ago, I sat with parents who trembled at the sight of their
> >> >soon-to-be newborn. They told me they wanted to stroke its downy
>head.
> >> >
> >> >Advanced scanning means we have a window on the secret life of
>foetuses.
> >> >At 11 weeks we can see them yawn, and even take steps. At 22 weeks,
> >> >they begin to open their eyes.
> >> >
> >> >Between 20 and 24 weeks we watch as they seem to cry, smile and frown.
> >> >Understandably, these incredible images have influenced the debate on
> >> >abortion. I pioneered the 4-D scanning technique in the UK and it has
> >> >certainly caused me to question my own opinions.
> >> >
> >> >I now believe the maximum age for abortion should be cut to 18 weeks
>so
> >> >we do not abort foetuses who exhibit the signs of humanity these
>images
> >> >portray. Of course, I have been accused of "sentimentality". Maybe
> >> >this is right, but I defy anyone to see these pictures and not pause
>to
> >> >wonder if they might be wrong.
> >> >
> >> >With the 1967 Abortion Act, terminations could be performed up to 28
> >> >weeks for "social" abortions. In 1990, the law was changed to 24
>weeks.
> >> >At that time, a baby born at 23 weeks had less than a 10 per cent
>chance
> >> >of survival. Now, it has a 66 per cent chance and we must change the
> >> >law again.
> >> >
> >> >My most vocal critics, Dr Donald Peebles at University College,
>London,
> >> >and Dr Huseyin Mehmet at Imperial College, London, claim that these
> >> >facial expressions are developmental reflexes. They are defending the
> >> >abortion law as it stands.
> >> >
> >> >But I am equally keen to protect a woman's right to choose. I've
> >> >watched women die from the after-effects of backstreet abortions. But
> >> >we have to draw the line somewhere and 24 weeks is too late.
> >> >
> >> >Pain is a very difficult thing to measure in an unborn baby. Foetuses
> >> >have no memory of pain, and no anticipation of it. But if you stuck a
> >> >pin into a foetus, I believe it would make a crying face and flinch.
> >> >Clearly, that's an experiment we can't carry out, but we can weigh up
> >> >the evidence we have and make the best judgment possible.
> >> >
> >> >Babies born at 22 weeks are never treated without analgesics. Why, if
> >> >there is scientific evidence to prove their brains are too
> >> >under-developed to feel pain or distress, would they be given
>medication
> >> >to protect them from pain? And if we accept that these babies may feel
> >> >pain, why is it so difficult to imagine they would feel the same
> >> >sensation inside the womb?
> >> >
> >> >I know if I gently push a baby in the womb at 28 weeks, it will make a
> >> >crying face because it has been disturbed. How can we tell so
>precisely
> >> >the point at which these expressions stop being simple reflexes and
> >> >start to mean something?
> >> >
> >> >And even if they can't feel pain, they can certainly survive outside
>the
> >> >womb. A study at University College Hospital found that 72 per cent
>of
> >> >babies born at 24 weeks survive. Another study in Minneapolis between
> >> >1996 and 2000 reported that at 23 weeks, 66 per cent survive and,
>though
> >> >they may suffer serious medical complications, 30 per cent of babies
> >> >born at 22 weeks will live.
> >> >
> >> >Those casting doubt on whether a smile is really a smile are, in my
> >> >opinion, defending the indefensible. If a baby has reached a stage
> >> >where it could survive in a neo-natal unit, then the pregnancy
>shouldn't
> >> >be terminated for social reasons.
> >> >
> >> >And we must focus on terminations for social reasons if we are talking
> >> >about amending the law. There are 1,200 terminations a year between
>22
> >> >and 24 weeks, 70 per cent of which are for non-medical reasons.
> >> >
> >> >We must grasp the nettle now. These are healthy babies, not
>brain-dead,
> >> >feelingless creatures. When I see a foetus that can smile at me, I
>know
> >> >absolutely that we should not tear it from the womb.
> >> >
> >>
> >http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/10/04/do0403.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2006/10/04/ixopinion.html
> >> >
> >> >For any Listers or Lurkers unfamiliar with Stuart Campbell, please
>look
> >> >here ...
> >> >
> >> >http://www.ob-ultrasound.net/campbell.html
> >> >
> >> >Respectfully posted to generate discussion ...
> >> >
> >> >Art
> >> >
> >> >--
> >> >art fougner, md
> >> >"May The Wings of Liberty Never Lose a Feather." - Jack Burton
> >> >
> >>
> >>--
> >>“ The greatest obstacle to knowledge is not ignorance,
> >>it is the illusion of knowledge.” Daniel J. Boorstin - Historian
> >
>
>--
>“ The greatest obstacle to knowledge is not ignorance,
>it is the illusion of knowledge.” Daniel J. Boorstin - Historian
|
|
