The Virginian Pilot has a … shall we say “interesting” view of ethics. Let us first get rid of the canard that journalism has ethical standards to which it scrupulously adheres. That’s a punch line for a joke, not a serious point for discussion.
In this editorial it demands that people who are opposed to abortion be required – by law – to violate their own ethical standards in order to keep a job.
The editorial begins with the obligatory Bush bashing.
…as Bush prepares to exit the White House, he's tossing a prize to anti-abortion activists and leaving the victims of sexual assault more vulnerable than ever.
Note the referral to “anti-abortion activists” rather than people who believe abortion is ethically wrong. Most people who fall into that category are not active in any way, they simply believe in the sanctity of life. The members of the Pilot editorial staff do not.
And how does the belief of people who are opposed to abortion leave victims of sexual assault “more vulnerable?” The editors never say. They simply repeat what abortion activists say.
New regulations … would reduce access to emergency contraceptives and counseling by declaring a "right of conscience" for health care workers who refuse to provide those services because of their religious or moral beliefs. Hospitals, clinics or government agencies that fail to accommodate their employees would lose federal funding.
Does accommodating people who believe that abortion is murder create in insuperable barrier to women getting an abortion? How many medical workers would this affect? The editorial does not say. How many hospitals would this effect? The editorial does not say. And note the scare quotes around the term "right of conscience."
The Pilot has rarely expressed any opposition to laws mandating accommodation to any group, the lame, the blind the insane and the criminal. But woe to those who would put even the slightest and most momentary pause in the destruction of babies (or “non-viable tissue mass” in the view of the Pilot’s editors) and the paper goes ballistic.
Doctors and nurses already have legal protections that prevent them from being fired if they refuse to participate in an abortion. The 127-page regulatory change now pending is an unjustified overreach that would permit health professionals to shrug off their duty to the patients who need help the most. Sadly, indigent women who depend on public health programs would be most affected.
Three points about this paragraph. First, it fails to state what the regulation requires, so we really don’t know what the “overreach” the editors refer to means. Second, the editors cheat when they refer to people who have ethical standards as “shrugging off their duty.” Who has a duty to do what they perceive as evil? Dr. Mengele's assistants? Third, the reference to “indigent women” brings to mind part of an article written by Jonah Goldberg which recalls Margaret Sanger, the founding patron of “family planning” who saw it as a tool to get rid of the undesirable underclass – which included Blacks. You can be sure that it’s no accident that the Pilot’s editors advocate aborting “indigent women(s)” children in view of the fact that Blacks make up a disproportionate percentage of aborted babies.
If taken within 72 hours of a rape or unprotected sex, emergency contraceptives can prevent pregnancy, thus reducing the need for many abortions.
Note the lies in this sentence? “Emergency contraceptives” is a contradiction in terms. What the editors are talking about is not contraception – something that prevents conception – but early stage abortion.
Bush's regulation tears at the heart of medical ethics and must be suspended before it does terrible harm.
Ah yes. “Medical ethics” like “journalistic ethics” are slippery things. In the view of the Pilot's editors, abortion is demanded by medical ethics.
I thought that the primary rule of medical ethics is “first, do no harm.” That ethical rule has been chucked into the basket of medical waste along with the discarded fetuses. Given a chance for some medical practitioners to reclaim some ethical standards, if only for themselves, we get a lecture on ethics from the one group in the nation that has ethical standards so low that they have become a national joke.
No comments:
Post a Comment