Wednesday, 23 April 2014

RCOG faculty bars prolife doctors from receiving its degrees and diplomas

Doctors and nurses who have a moral objection to prescribing ‘contraceptives’ which act by killing human embryos are to be barred from receiving diplomas in sexual and reproductive health even if they undertake the necessary training according to new guidelines.

Under new rules issued by the Faculty of Sexual and Reproductive Health (FSRH) earlier this year these doctors and nurses are also to be barred from membership of the faculty and from specialty training.

The FSRH is a faculty of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists established on the 26th March 1993 as the Faculty of Family Planning and Reproductive Health Care. In 2007 it changed its name to the Faculty of Sexual and Reproductive Healthcare.

Whilst many contraceptives act by preventing the union of sperm and egg, some, including most IUCDs (intrauterine contraceptive devices) and the morning-after pill EllaOne (ulipristal acetate), also act by preventing the implantation of an early embryo. In other words they are embryocidal or abortifacient, rather than truly contra-ceptive.

Many doctors, of all faiths and none, have a moral objection to destroying human life and wish therefore to avoid using drugs or methods which act after fertilisation.

In fact this position was once held by the British Medical Association (BMA) when it adopted the Declaration of Geneva in 1948. This states, ‘I will maintain the utmost respect for human life from the time of conception even against threat’.

But in 1983 the words ‘from the time of conception’ were amended to ‘from its beginning’ due to sensitivities about increasing medical involvement in abortion. The word 'beginning' was left undefined, giving doctors the opportunity to argue, contrary to the biological reality, that early human life was not actually human life at all. 

Now it seems that doctors who wish to abide by the original wording of the Declaration of Geneva are to be barred from practising in certain medical specialties. This is an extraordinary about face. 

The Faculty may argue that they are not barring doctors and nurses from practising, but simply from obtaining certain qualifications. But as many job appointments will be conditional on applicants having these qualifications this is effectively also a bar on practice.

Interestingly doctors who have a moral objection to abortion are still able to complete the Faculty’s qualifications because the Abortion Act 1967 contains a conscience clause which protects them. But there is no law protecting those who object to destroying human embryos. 

Many Christians believe that every human life, regardless of age, sex, race, degree of disability or any other biological characteristic, is worthy of the utmost respect, wonder, empathy and protection.

This is based on the idea, taught in the Bible, that human beings are made in the image of God. In a society which is becoming more hostile to Christian faith and values it is perhaps not surprising that we are seeing institutional discrimination of this kind.

Perhaps it is time for Christian doctors and nurses, and others who share their prolife views, to set up an alternative training programme.

30 comments:

  1. Good for them. Pro-life doctors are like KKK members for racial harmony.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The KKK burn, intimidate and murder.

      Pro-life is for life.

      Delete
    2. Until the baby is born. Then neglect and oppression are the order of the day.

      Delete
    3. 'Until the baby is born. Then neglect and oppression are the order of the day.'

      In this context, that doesn't make any sense.

      Winston your thought processess are knackered.

      You need help - far better to get it now - before your condition degrades.

      Delete
    4. Oh, really? Last time I checked, pro-choicers weren't the ones calling for massive cuts to welfare programs.

      Delete
    5. "Pro-life doctors are like KKK members for racial harmony."

      That's funny, because pro-life doctors are the ones who oppose murdering dark-skinned children in the womb.

      Delete
    6. Winston

      'Oh, really? Last time I checked, pro-choicers weren't the ones calling for massive cuts to welfare programs.'

      You liberals are becoming progressively worse (progress is progress!).

      Can you tell us why you can't stay on topic?

      Delete
    7. Most conservatives I am aware of (especially those who abrogate the mantle of "pro-life") are very staunchly opposed to social welfare programs.

      That's not pro-life. That's pro-torture and pro-slavery.

      So no, I don't think it's off-topic in the slightest.

      Delete
  2. Doc

    Outstanding analysis:

    'In fact this position was once held by the British Medical Association (BMA) when it adopted the Declaration of Geneva in 1948. This states, ‘I will maintain the utmost respect for human life from the time of conception even against threat’.'

    'But in 1983 the words ‘from the time of conception’ were amended to ‘from its beginning’ due to sensitivities about increasing medical involvement in abortion. The word 'beginning' was left undefined, giving doctors the opportunity to argue, contrary to the biological reality, that early human life was not actually human life at all.'

    ReplyDelete
  3. 'This is based on the idea, taught in the Bible, that human beings are made in the image of God.'

    The alternative idea is that homo sapiens are the product of: material + time + chance = evolutionary theory + practice.

    That 'formula', of course, is contradicted by the Second Law of Thermodynamics: material degrades over time.

    That means it is not possible to believe, for any self-respecting scientist, that a wrist-watch (much less the human eye) could be the product of that formula.

    This is one of a range of rational theses that leads to pupils and students in the modern world beginning to question Atheism.

    ReplyDelete
  4. It is shocking that the RCOG has voted to bar any medics who have a moral objection to abortion and abortion inducing cotraceptives. The pro=abortion lobby and atheists have been pushing for discrimination against medics with moral objections to abortion for years. it is a very dark day for those who have conscientious objections to abortion or the taking of a human life of any age.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Excellent comment!

      Under the Nazis and Soviets - if you dissented - you were beaten up, sentenced either to execution or the concentration camp.

      Today, what we in Britain are experiencing is a 'velvet glove fascism'. The mailed fist is concealed: people with a healthy conscience are denied jobs or sacked or subjected to State harassment.

      The 'velvet glove's fascist agents' can always claim on the national and international stage that people aren't beaten up, nor locked, nor shot.

      Witness how Obama and Cameron are addressing the Ukranian crisis: isolating banks, and then impelling them to collapse causing suffering to millions of innocent people.

      We need to Judaeo-Christians in medical professions, across the globe, to condemn the RCOG.

      Delete
    2. Speaking of fascism, I know a great number of people who would prefer Zyklon B over the paternalistic tyranny (forgive the tautology) advocated by anti-choice, anti-compassion advocates concerning end-of-life-choice.

      Delete
    3. 'end-of-life-choice' = the opening of the pathway to death.

      No compassion there.

      Delete
    4. Winston

      'Speaking of fascism, I know a great number of people who would prefer Zyklon B over the paternalistic tyranny (forgive the tautology) advocated by'.

      No tautology there.

      Preferring Zyklon B ends in death; living is still living - you can only change society by living.

      Don't you think that you ought to at least consult the Oxford before you employ words in such a lazy and misleading manner?



      Delete
    5. You've made my point for my, Anonymous. This is the easiest debate I've ever had!

      Even Al Qaeda has more compassion than you. They proved it on 9/11 by killing almost 3000 people INSTANTLY

      You ARE tyrannical. You want to make decisions for other people "for their own good."

      Delete
    6. Winston

      You should read My Crazy Century by the Czech dissident Ivan Klima - I have no doubt you would be supporting those institutions that denied dissidents and their familes jobs.

      You are the one defending the current orthodoxy - we, my dear fiend, are the new rebels!

      Delete
    7. I say Winston 'Old chap' are you there?

      I just had a thought which I know you would want me to share with you.

      Can you imagine that if we ceased our rhetoric and ad hominem attacks we would have to discuss principles?

      Winston, by the way, - your mere opinion at 16.31 is disturbing.

      I sincerely urge you to get help before your 'colossal intellect' degrades further.

      Delete
    8. If I had a choice between palliative care and being in the Towers on 9/11, I'd be in the towers.

      Instant demise and all that.

      Delete
    9. 'Instant demise and all that.'

      Mere bald assertion - you cannot prove, by intellectual argument, that opinion. You haven't explained away the existence of each man's soul and spirit.

      Of course if you say that each man has no soul and spirit - then you cannot condemn the incineration of six million Jews nor 20 million Russians under Stalin - after all in your view they would be mere clouds of bio-chemical cells: with no free will and therefore no capacity to hate nor love.

      You are caught in a puzzle.

      Delete
    10. Say Winston!

      Are you a rat, in a maze, in a lab. in Cambridge?

      Delete
    11. You can't even prove that souls and spirits exist. The burden of proof is on YOU.

      You don't understand morality. Under divine command theory, you'd be obligated to accept any decision god made, even if he threw all Christians to hell and allowed atheists into heaven.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2R1Yxh1p0M

      Delete
    12. Winston

      If you don't have a soul and spirit - then by inference - your posts must be generated randomly by a machine.

      Delete
    13. That would explain their irrelevance and incoherence: logical.

      Delete
    14. False dilemma. You really need to stop reading CS Lewis and exercise your imagination.

      I'd also recommend strengthening your attention span. That'd probably cut down on the double posts.

      Delete
    15. Say Winnie - why don't you make the 'false dilemma' explicit?

      You could congratulate yourself again!

      Delete



    16. 'Winston26 April 2014 16:31

      'You've made my point for my, Anonymous. This is the easiest debate I've ever had!'

      Ho! Ho! Ho!

      Delete
  5. What is the world coming to? The Abortion Law was made to protect the unborn and abortion was only meant to be allowed if a woman's life or the life of her unborn child was in danger and permission had to be granted by two doctors who had seen them mother. . The Government is breaking its own law and the medical profession itself is going against its own ethical code, I really fear for the future of this country.

    What upsets me more than anything is that women are being allowed to have not just one abortion but in many cases eight or nine, there doesn't seem to be any concern about the babies that are being murdered daily. If there is a terrible disaster when young innocent people are killed, as in the recent ferry event, we then say all the potential that has been lost yet do not seem to think the same way about all these aborted babies. Also couples who are desperate to have a child find it hard to find very small babies because they have been aborted.

    How much do these abortions cost the NHS and nobody seems concerned about that, surely if a woman is prepared to abort more than one child then she should be sterilised. What about the rights of the unborn child?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Marie Stopes , Brookes advisory clinics and other supposedly pro abortion (not choice) organisations benefit financially from all the abortions taking place in their clinics as millions of public funding Is handed over to them. No disinterest there then!
    The most dangerous place for an unborn child is its mother's womb. That's disgraceful. What a selfish, uncompassionate society we have become.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The alternative idea is that homo sapiens are the product of: material + time + chance = evolutionary theory + practice.

    ReplyDelete

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.