Your prayers are urgently requested for one of our precious children.
This afternoon I received a call from a faithful prayer warrior, telling me that in one of the Montreal area hospitals, this toddler was removed from water and nutrition last week at the request mother and father.
Death may be imminent. According to Alex Schadenberg of the Euthanasia Prevention Coaltion, for the given circumstances, a child typically lives between four and seven days.
We pray that Our Heavenly be merciful to this little one and that she may be accompanied on her final journey home to meet Him.
I'm saddened to inform you that the little girl died late this Monday past. May she rest in peace.
Also, we continue to keep her grieving parents in our thoughts and prayers as well as the attending physicians in this ward. May the latter continue to work so as to safeguard the previous gift of life in all of their patients.Be the first to comment.
Would you have Adolf Hitler's mother aborted prior to his delivery?
This question was asked of me during the recent 40 Days for Life prayer vigil for the end of abortion. I responded in the negative for two reasons. First, we don't know what the future holds in store for each child in the womb. How do we know that the child in utero will be responsible for countless deaths and untoll suffering.
I believe that this answer does not do justice to the question. It accentuates that what is important is what one does with one's life - a utilitarian principle.
Second, and more importantly, every single life is important in itself, not by what one does during one's lifetime.
Below, geneticist and discoverer of Trisomy 21, Dr. Jerome Lejeune weighs in on this matter with a story taken from the pre-natal period of the German Chancellor. Enjoy.
http://www.youtube.com/embed/mloDMyp1QLQBe the first to comment.
The following commentary, written by Tasha Kheiriddin, is taken from them IPolitics site and contributes to current discourse about sex-selective abortions. Two things she does well. First, I believe she presents well how "progressive" types subordinate the live in the womb to inferred political motives - whether rightly or not.
It's a rite of passage for expectant parents worldwide: the 20 week ultrasound. And it's inevitably followed by two questions. First - is it healthy? Second - is it a boy or a girl?
Unfortunately, the answer to the second question often doesn't only determine the color of the nursery walls. In the case of female fetuses, it can mean the difference between life and death.
This latter danger has prompted MP Mark Warwara to bring forward Bill M-408, which would have the House of Commons condemn the practice of sex-selective abortion. Returning to Kheiriddin, therein lies the subordination and hypocrisy..
It seems impossible to object to this idea, yet some opposition members are doing just that. In the words of NDP leader Thomas Mulcair, "(A)t the end of the day, it's a new attempt by the Conservatives to reopen the debate on abortion and remove from women their right to choose."
Considering the Tories' unwillingness to go anywhere near the abortion debate lately, that's simply untrue. But Mulcair's statement also reveal the contradiction - the hypocrisy - many so-called "progressive" politicians maintain when it comes to abortion.
The abortion debate is informed by social mores and science, both of which evolve over time — and both of which are routinely mined by progressives as sources of new laws, on issues ranging from gay rights to drug injection sites. Yet abortion seems off-limits, even though much has changed over the years.
Next Ms. Kheiriddin dabbles in various solutions to the situation - medical, educational, economic, or legal.
Somewhere, in the grey area that frightens everybody, lies a solution. It may, as Mulcair suggested, be medical: the editorial board of the Canadian Medical Association Journal has called on doctors to withhold gender information until 30 weeks, "when unquestioned abortion is all but impossible". But this may just produce a black market for the information, as it has in countries that have officially banned sex-selection, such as China and India.It may be educational: Canadians need to stand up for the value of gender equality in the classroom, the workplace and the birthing room, and let Canadians of all cultures know that gender discrimination will not be tolerated. This, however is a longer-term solution and it won't help the girls being aborted today - and without the participation of the communities involved, it will not be effective.
Another long term solution may be economic. In a society where girls have the same opportunities as boys, they will no longer are viewed as financial burdens on their families, but as assets. Hvistendahl refers to ad at an Indian clinic "Better 500 rupees now than 5000 later" - alluding to the cost of a dowry.
Finally, there may be legal fix — and it may already have come before Parliament in the form of Bill C-510. "Roxanne's Law" was named for a young Winnipeg woman, Roxanne Fernando, who was killed after refusing her boyfriend's demand that she have an abortion. Introduced by Conservative MP Rod Bruinooge, it was torpedoed in large part by the Tories, 178-97, on the basis that, according to PMO spokesperson Andrew MacDougall, "the prime minister has always said he wouldn't support a bill that reopens the abortion debate" and that, in the words of Heritage Minister James Moore, "those protections already exist in the Criminal Code."
Perhaps it is time to revisit Roxanne's Law. Its context could just as easily by applied to gender selection abortions, which often are forced on women by others, including family members or religious leaders. Of course, mothers themselves might still decide to abort a female fetus, but after reading many harrowing accounts of women forced to do so, I would wager that it would happen less often - and such a law would give society the means to fight back.
The very fact that Warwara’s motion raises all these issues shows that the debate on sex-selection - and indeed, on abortion itself - should not be sidestepped again. Though it often lags behind, the law must try to keep pace with social and scientific changes. It's the responsibility of our lawmakers on both sides of the aisle to ensure that it does.
What's lacking in Kheiriddin's analysis is any reference to faith-based solutions. Hearts need to be changed. To save the child, whether male or female, we need to help the woman; not to remain indifferent to the plight which leads her to aborting her child.Be the first to comment.
Yesterday, MP Leon Benoit rose in the House of Commons and addressed the topic of the rights of the unborn. The following are his statements as recorded in official report of the House - Hansard.
41st PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 192 CONTENTS
Wednesday, December 5, 2012
Mr. Leon Benoit (Vegreville—Wainwright, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, a few months ago, my daughter, Jennifer, and her husband were devastated when they lost their unborn child through a miscarriage. She cried herself to sleep for weeks, and maybe still does.
My wife, Linda, and I experienced the same sense of loss and emptiness when we lost our first child to a miscarriage. People never really get over it.
I know that many parents experience this same pain but what I cannot square and what I need someone to explain to me is why the loss is any less when a child is aborted. Why is the loss any less, why does the child become less just because it is not wanted?Be the first to comment.
We live in a violent society. In an effort to address this violence particularly against women and girls, MP Mark Warawa and other MPs have banded together to raise awareness nationally. Their press conference, issued today and noted below, falls on Day 11 of the international campaign entitled "16 Days of Activism Against Gender Violence."
MP’s Join to Call on Canadians
to Help End Violence Against Women and Girls
Ottawa, ON – Today Mark Warawa, Member of Parliament for Langley, was joined by several other MP’s in announcing a national call to action for all Canadians to work together to end violence against women and girls, during the international 16 Days of Activism Against Gender Violence.
“As part of the activism being undertaken, we encourage Canadians to #protectgirls and Support #M408”, says Warawa. Motion 408 calls on Parliament to condemn discrimination against females occurring through sex-selective pregnancy termination. MP Warawa declared December 5, Day 11 of the campaign, as Protect Girls, Support M408 Day and launched a public campaign as part of the activism.
Kildonan-St. Paul MP Joy Smith says “"It is a human right not to be discriminated against under Canadian law. Gendercide is discrimination against females. I applaud MP Warawa for putting M-408 forward to raise awareness of this issue. I urge all Canadians to support it, to ensure the protection of girls."
“MPs are also seeing the issue of gendercide being talked about across Canada in all cultures,” says Mississauga South MP Stella Ambler. “Canada is a leader in human rights around the world, and that is because we take action when atrocities, like gendercide, are committed. All parties in this House have condemned sex-selection.”
Saskatoon-Rosetown-Biggar MP Kelly Block commended the groups and individuals that have worked very hard to raise awareness of M-408 and have lobbied for its passage. "By raising awareness on this issue, these groups and individuals truly are the defenders of gender equality and the protection of women and girls against discrimination. By supporting M-408 we are affirming our value of gender equality here in Canada", says Block.
“Canadian’s have been asking us for a cohesive venue to declare their support for this motion,” says Warawa. “We have responded with these calls to action:
- The creation of a facebook fan page “Protect Girls – Support M408” in order to give Canadians a voice in their desire to take action on this issue.
- A petition drive so that all Canadians can again be a voice to protect girls. Petitions can be downloaded at markwarawa.com, or supportm408.com.
- Using the hashtags #protectgirls and #M408 on Twitter to unite the conversation.
- And finally, Canadians can support M-408 on Youtube by posting a video using the title “I support M408”.
“The issue of female gendercide is being discussed openly across Canada and internationally,” says Warawa. “We are calling on all Canadians to work together to end violence against women and girls, to send a message of acceptance that women are valued in Canada and to stop this discrimination, protect girls and support M-408.”
M-408 is in response to numerous inquiries and concerns my office received after the CBC presented an investigation on gender selection last June. With hidden cameras, the CBC visited 22 private ultrasound clinics in Canada. They found that most of these clinics allowed ultrasounds to determine the gender so parents could choose to terminate the pregnancy if the unborn child was a female.
An Environics poll last year shows 92% of Canadians believe sex-selective pregnancy termination should be illegal.
Gender selection has been strongly condemned by all national political parties. As well, the Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Canada have vehemently opposed sex-selection pregnancy termination.
The international 16 Days of Activism Against Gender Violence started on November 25th . It began with the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women, and wraps up on December 10, International Human Rights Day. This period includes December 6, Canada’s National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence against Women.Be the first to comment.
Wednesday, December 5, 2012
Dear Friends of Life,
Blessed Christmas greetings to you and your loved ones.
I think God is smiling at us in the pro-life movement right here in Montreal.
As many of us are awaiting the arrival of the unborn Jesus on Christmas day, no fewer than four other unborn children have entered our lives over the past few weeks.
In the November newsletter, I wrote to you how during the recently completed Forty Days for Life prayer vigil for the end of abortion, we were visited by two pregnant moms seeking aid. Well, the dramas of these continue, for both good and ill.
In the first instance, mother and child have continued their course towards that day of their own nativity. A young woman came to us at about the mid-way point of the vigil. Anxious and alone, and frustrated by the treatment she had received at the Morgentaler mill, she sought our help and we have accompanied ever since. A couple within our prayer network have shouldered her along a bumpy road, helping where need be – sharing coffee and meals, shopping for winter clothing, and more. Their generosity has even covered various personal expenses. Though anxieties remain, she is cautiously progressing to that day of her delivery.
The second case is not as encouraging, reminiscent of the fate of the holy innocents which Sacred Scriptures narrates. The latter were those young children who were slain at the hands of an insecure and jealous king gone mad for fear of losing his kingdom at the hands of the Christ-child (Matthew 2:16-18). A similar fate occurred here in Montreal.
On the final weekend of the vigil we were visited by 20 year old Jean-Olivier. His girl-friend (18), four-weeks pregnant, was intent on aborting their child. He was crestfallen, recognizing the uniqueness of the child and desiring to be a father. He chain smoked during our conversation as well as in subsequent meetings.
His girl-friend, Linda busy with school and on a limited budget believed that now was not the right time, she could become pregnant at some future time, she reasoned. In the end, her academic ambitions reigned supreme and would not be usurped by the arrival of a little innocent one. She aborted her child two weeks ago.
The outcome of the third of these God sent children remains undetermined. Leila called at the beginning of this week. She was desperate. Eight-weeks pregnant, she was adamant about aborting her child. On calling a pregnancy resource centre, she was given a list of abortion mills. Fortunately, each had refused her because she lacked the $600 or $700 needed for the procedure. (As a foreign national, she does not have Medicare coverage and needs to pay up front.). She haggled; she would pay in instalments but was consistently refused. Providence led her with our phone number and so she called seeking to borrow money.
I listened to her story and mentioned that I would get back to her. I found a sympathetic woman, a female acquaintance, as pro-life as I am, and explained the situation to her. She agreed to call Leila. I subsequently learned that the conversation went well, that the issue was one of money for Leila wanted to keep the child but for lack of money she was desperate. I assured my acquaintance that money would be found to help her. The two were to meet the following day over coffee and discuss the matter more. Three children. Three stories.
At this time of the year we turn our attention ever more intently on the wonder of a new born, Our Saviour, nestled in the womb of his blessed mother. I think our pre-born Saviour is smiling at us, urging us along through these infants. Please use the accompanied Christmas gift to pray for these and other women who become dependent on the vultures found in our Culture of death.
May the Holy Spirit accompany you in your diocesan ministry in 2013.
Brian A. Jenkins, Outreach Coordinator (QLC)
p.s. Earlier, I had mentioned four pre-natal children. It is with delight that I learned that one of our faithful prayer warriors, Maria, is pregnant. Please pray for her during these early stages of her pregnancy.Be the first to comment.
The following is a text, appearing in yesterday's The Province, by ethicist Margaret Somerville, founding director of the Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law at McGill University. Though she presents a fair survey of the ground of beliefs among Canadians on the topic of abortion, I believe she does a disservice, namely, advocating the middle path so as to achieve consensus in the debate for a law against abortion, a consensus that she believes is feasible in the current political climate. In so doing, she is turning her back to the weak and defenseless. Her attempt to mitigate this outome by arguing for the establishment of counseling outfits for first trimester pregnancies allays little my concern.
Your editorial, “The abortion debate is over, so shut up” is very bluntly expressed pro-choice wishful thinking on your part. This debate is not going away. It’s gaining strength.
The editorial does, however, accurately reflect a belief of many Canadians that there seems to be no way for us to reach any consensus on the law that should govern abortion, as recent votes in Parliament have consistently demonstrated. I don’t agree, but note I’ve qualified the word consensus with the adjective “any”.
I believe a majority of Canadians can find some “common ground” regarding legal regulation of abortion, but this must be distinguished from finding unanimous agreement – that’s impossible.
For many of us, whether we are pro-choice or pro-life, this common ground will not be a “perfect” stance. That’s unavoidable because we live in a pluralistic society where people have vastly divergent worldviews; we don’t all share the same convictions about the intrinsic dignity and value of all human beings, from their conception to their natural death; and we disagree whether the value of respect for life or that of individual autonomy should take priority when they conflict.
The present legal situation, in Canada, defended to the death by some pro-choice advocates, is that there are and should be no legal restrictions on abortion. In stark contrast, some pro-life advocates believe that any law short of the total prohibition of abortion is unacceptable, because, agreeing to a law which still allows some abortions would constitute complicity in the evil of abortion.
Many pro-life advocates now recognize, however, that a total prohibition is not achievable, that the virtue of prudence requires them to implement the protection that is presently feasible, and protecting some unborn children is better than protecting none. Consequently, they would welcome some legal restrictions on abortion short of a complete prohibition. They rightly argue that government has an essential role to play in restricting certain activities, whereby unborn children’s human rights are violated.
Likewise, many Canadians, who would describe themselves as pro-choice, believe that some legal restrictions on abortion should be enacted.
Polls show that a majority of Canadians agree there should be some legal restrictions on abortion, whether on certain grounds such as sex selection (in one poll, 92 percent of Canadians agreed with prohibiting sex selection abortion, except for medical reasons), or after a certain period of gestation, ranging from 12 weeks to, at the latest, viability of the fetus, which the Canadian Medical Association guidelines set at 20 weeks gestation.
In short, most Canadians agree that some law to protect fetuses/unborn children is needed, although they don’t agree at which precise point it should apply.
To find some common ground, we have to stop allowing people with views at the far ends of either the pro-choice spectrum or the pro-life spectrum to dominate the debate, as they now do, especially in the mainstream media. For too long, the battles between those on each extreme have prevented the nuanced discussion with which most Canadians can identify. We need to work together and build on the existing consensus, rather than focus just on differences. In short, we need to start our discussions from where we agree, not where we disagree.
Most Canadians will agree that abortion is always a serious ethical issue, and that it is a separate question when it should become a legal issue.
We can also agree there is a big difference between not prohibiting something legally – for instance, first trimester abortion – and approving of it. Moreover, the absence of a legal prohibition does not mean that the conduct not prohibited is ethically or morally acceptable.
Choosing a 12 to 14 week cut-off, as in several European countries, before legal restrictions on abortion apply, is to focus our law on a point between having no legal restrictions on any abortion – our current situation in Canada – and having a total prohibition. I believe it’s an approach a majority of Canadians will accept, no matter on which side of the abortion debate they would classify themselves, because many Canadians hold a more nuanced position than the ones usually attributed to each side.
What I am proposing is that in the first trimester, the message that abortion is always a very serious ethical decision should be delivered through persuasion, that is, other than by using law, but after that law should be employed.
Allowing an early period in pregnancy, when women can seek unbiased counseling without fear of criminal prosecution, could help them to decide against having an abortion. That requires we ensure there are facilities readily available for crisis pregnancy counseling, which are not abortion clinics.
The most relevant analogy here is to the decriminalization of suicide to try to prevent it, because suicidal people and their families would be more likely to seek help, if they were not threatened with criminal prosecution.
And, just as we have supportive, non-coercive suicide prevention programs, we need to consider supportive, non-coercive abortion prevention programs. For instance, a woman with a crisis pregnancy should know that, if she decides against abortion, she will be offered fully adequate psychological and social support. Such an offer is required, if for no other reason, to obtain a valid – non-coerced – informed consent to abortion, should that be the woman’s decision.
Another reason not to use law in the first trimester includes a practical consideration, namely, that the availability of chemical abortifacients means the law won’t prevent abortions in that period. Ineffective law brings the law, in general, into disrespect.
Our current lack of any legal protection of unborn children results from a total failure of our ethical imaginations as to what abortion involves. That failure is demonstrated, I suggest, by a counter example, namely, prochoice advocates’ outraged reaction to an approach that activates our ethical imaginations and moral intuitions, the display of graphic images of aborted fetuses, for instance, on Canadian university campuses.
Unrestricted abortion in the 21st Century is the equivalent of the ancient practice of putting babies on rocks to die. Many people today seem to be as blind to the wrongs of the former, as people in the past were to infanticide. I believe future generations of Canadians will look back on our current approach to abortion as one of the great human tragedies.Be the first to comment.
The present article comes to us from Steven Mosher of the Population Research Institute. It is part of his weekely series of blogs. What are we, as a society, permitting our adolescents to put into their bodies, is one of the points that he brings up.
Parents are Not to Know (But They are Expected to Pay)
The day before Thanksgiving, I got a call from a harried reporter. “The American Academy of Pediatrics has issued a statement on “Emergency Contraception,” he said. “I’d like to get your take on it.”
The 10-page document turns out to be a full-throated endorsement of what is euphemistically called “Plan B” (levonorgestrel manufactured by Teva Women’s Health) for kids of all ages. The current FDA rules, which limit emergency contraception to young women 17 years or older, are too restrictive, the document argues.
Those of us (including, I am guessing, a number of pediatricians) who conscientiously object to flooding immature teenage bodies with powerful, steroid-based drugs will not accept this statement on multiple grounds.
First, as everyone who has had high school biology knows, pregnancy begins at conception. To claim that pregnancy begins a week later, when the developing fetus implants in the lining of the uterus is simply not true. Since the morning-after pill sometimes operates by preventing implantation, it is ipso facto abortifacient. Therefore it is not accurately described as "emergency contraception," but as an "early-term abortion," at least in some cases.
The AAP statement attempts to dodge these problems by suggesting that the evidence of the effect of hormonal emergency contraception on the endometrium (the lining of the uterus) are “conflicting.” While admitting that some studies show that “endometrial receptivity to the implantation of a fertilized egg is impaired,” it claims that other studies show “little effect.”
This is doubly disingenuous. First, as high school biology students know—but what the physicians who drafted the AAP statement have conveniently forgotten, what implants in the lining of the uterus is not merely a “fertilized egg.” It is rather a tiny human being who is already at the blastula stage of fetal development.
Second, it has long been generally accepted in the medical world that hormonal contraception operates, at least part of the time, by preventing implantation. To claim, as the AAP statement does, that the science is not settled is to deliberately obfuscate the matter.
I am sure that there are many pediatricians and other medical professionals who do not wish to counsel, prescribe, fill prescriptions for, or refer for drugs that violate their conscience. The AAP statement nonetheless asserts that pediatricians have an ethical responsibility to "inform/educate about availability and access to emergency-contraception services." There is no ethical basis for this assertion which, if enforced, would violate the conscience of all Catholic and many Christian physicians.
Perhaps the most egregious claim of a statement which makes many such claims is that "at the policy level, pediatricians should advocate for increased non-prescription access to emergency contraception for teenagers regardless of age and for insurance coverage of emergency contraception to reduce cost barriers." Allowing 13-year-olds to buy steroid-based drugs without their parents’ foreknowledge and consent is a violation of parents’ rights and is also not in the best interest of the teenagers themselves.
Finally, someone needs to realize how much of this is driven by the profit motive. Big Pharma pays for many of these studies which assert the purported benefits of providing drugs that they manufacture to as many people as possible at the expense of the taxpayers. Such rent-seeking is typical of the kind of bureaucratic capitalism that we now see coming to dominate the medical space under Obamacare.Be the first to comment.
The following comes to us from the Population Research Institute - PRI.
We at PRI are proud to announce the sixth episode of our highly popular YouTube cartoon series. Called “Urbanization: Who’s Afraid of the Big Bad City?” it talks about why people are crowding into cities in increasing numbers.
Over the past hundred years, half the world’s population has moved country to city. Megacities with ten million or more people have sprung up as countrysides have emptied out.
But urban overcrowding should not be mistaken for overpopulation. Heavy traffic, homelessness, and long lines are not symptoms of a global glut of people, but of people seeking the good life that cities offer.
“Urbanites often complain about overcrowding,” says Steven Mosher, PRI’s president. “Yet they enjoy the economic, educational and cultural benefits that come from living in the city. This video will help them understand that they can’t have the perquisites of city life without the people that provide them. If you don’t love your neighbors you can always move to North Dakota where you won’t have any.”
“The fight against the myth of overpopulation does not have to be a bare-knuckled brawl,” continues Mosher. “These videos are funny and easy to digest, the very opposite of Al Gore's dark and boring pronouncements on the 'dangers' of too many people. Our viewers end up considering the science that supports our pro-people position, often for the very first time. We say to our skeptics: watch, laugh, and learn.”
The latest video, two minutes long, is available below, or by visiting overpopulationisamyth.com. The series has, to date, garnered over 1,500,000 views in multiple languages.Be the first to comment.
The following interview comes from the Zenit news service. Written originally in Italian by H. Sergio Mora, it was translated by Oceane Le Gall into French and from French into English by Google Translator; I tweeked the final version.
ROME, Tuesday, Nov. 20, 2012 (ZENIT.org) - Human embryo based cosmetics, rampant euthanasia that ever gradually instills itself by "way of omission," rather than by the rule of law, and the cultural tendency to consider the patient like an oil well: all of these topics solicit the attention of the World Federation of the Catholic Medical Associations (FIAMC).
And among all these questions, one must not be forgotten, that relating to the problems of life from conception, says the president of the FIAMC, Mr. Jose Maria Simon, to the readers of Zenit during a break at the meeting of the Pontifical Council for Health Pastoral Care, the European Congress of Catholic Doctors (AMCI - FEAMC), the Italian Catholic Doctors Association (AMCI) and participants of the International Conference of Catholic hospitals, which took place last Saturday, November 17, in Paul VI Hall in the Vatican.
Zenit - Dr. Simon, first tell us what is the World Federation of the Catholic Medical Associations?
Jose Maria Simon - This is an old institution of Pontifical Law, that forms doctors on ethical issues, doctors as well as students and medical personnel. We also cooperate on issues related to maternity. Our work extends to the largest possible number of countries and international organizations, so that our Christian vision of medicine can be better understood and accepted.
Are there new challenges for today's medicine?
Yes, there are, but still around the same issues: not seeing his neighbor as a source of income; the defense of life from conception until natural death, and the transmission of life; respect for the dead or embryo death, which nonetheless still remains a symbol of the deceased and can not be used as we see fit.
What most worries Catholic doctors today?
To see embryonic tissue from fetuses used to make cosmetics, worries us considerably. This is a very serious thing, but that happens, and costs a lot to get evidence. When you accuse a company, it knows well how to defend itself, through lawyers and journalists. It is therefore very difficult to make specific charges; yet the facts are there, these worry us, and they must be fought.
Is there any real hope?
We expect a lot of this Charter for the medical profession, which for us is like a new Code of Ethics, the second version of which is in the process of being prepared by the Pontifical Council for Health Pastoral Care and the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The first was already rich in points, while the second will be updated to reflect medical changes.
We just talked about natural death and respect for life. What can you say about it?
There is first the problem of euthanasia which seems to be progressing, not so much in legislations but rather in practice. Currently, in many countries, we practice euthanasia by omission. Someone decides for you: family, an oncologist and so on, they determine that your life is over, it is not worth the trouble to live, so the person is sedated and dies.
So, death is induced?
Yes, and sometimes unnecessarily. It is important to understand that the mission of the physician is to eliminate the pain, the anguish, the suffering, and this must of course be done with all possible means, but without precipitating death, as it is very well stated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, about euthanasia - prohibited is every action taken to avoid suffering, procures death.
Alas, this practice is gaining ground and progresses as the culture of death progresses in various areas: judicial, legislative, media, culture, including art, and so on ...
So the question is not only religious in nature?
There are many doctors in the world who respect human life, Catholic or otherwise, who need the support and arguments on which to build.
And where do we find these arguments?
We have a lot of resources on our website - links, public statements, taken from our conference where we work with scientific publications, present progresses, science, and social studies, and interface with the media.
With Catholic doctors, we pray. We provide an ecumenical space and ethical training in medical problems. Congresses are very useful, even the free time during which it is possible to consult a colleague so as to understand how thinking on a particular issue varies from one country to another.
How are aggressive therapies lived out today?
This is something that must be fought. Any medicine, whether offical or lay, Catholic or other churches agree that abuses exist. In fact, sometimes, certain diagnoses or therapies are disproportionate to the results that may be expected.
And what of the transmission of life?
We are worried about that too. The Encyclical Humanae Vitae presents a very good doctrine in the sense that it solves a lot of the problems. Who respects it, respects his wife, and is faithful, does not kill his children via abortion, does not beget them in vitro, but procreates them naturally, and respects the fact that the embryo may die naturally.
The Humanae Vitae is the way to go?
Absolutely, it is prophetic. It may be found on the FIAMC website. Also, we are currently preparing a second document which can help a Lutheran for example. I hope that next year, on the anniversary date of the propagation of the Apostolic Letter Mulieris dignitatem, it is possible to spread this scientific paper that supports the encyclical.
What has the FIAMC brought to the synod?
FIAMC has received more than it has given. We were able to attend the meeting of the Synod of Bishops, speak with each as well as with auditors. We met with the Catholic Medical Associations of different countries and made ourselves known. Not to mention the honor of being in contact with the Holy Father. Yet what we mainly did at the Synod was pray and in itself this was very helpful.
About abortion, today there is a lot more information and matters are clearer, yet the practice is still widespread ...
Abortion is a topic that we studied extensively. Unfortunately when the devil enters something, it is difficult to resolve it by laws or arguments; we need help from on High.
Today science clearly shows that human life can be supressed...
Today more than ever we know that from the first moment of conception, the life is a separate being, distinct from father and mother, developing in a coordinated manner, progressive, who needs "fuel" and that implanting in the mother's womb, so as to take this fuel and grow to become one of us.
Concerning embryos, is there less public awareness ...
Yes, awareness is less, although we have a visible human form. I think conscience is hindered by evil.
The cryopreserved also have human form?
Genetically, they have a human form; their DNA says: this is a human being. Here, too, conscience is blinded by evil; everyone can understand that this embryo is a human being, microscopically.
In conclusion, what is key to properly treating a patient?
I believe that good professional competence consists much more in treating patients as brothers, as children, and parents, rather than as oil wells.Be the first to comment.