‘Journal of Medical Ethics’ Stands by publication of ‘After-Birth Abortions’ Article

[applepansy]

I'm shocked and almost beyond words. I'm slowly getting angry.

I realize this link is Glen Beck's but the Journal of Medical Ethics has nothing to do with him. he's just pointing out a problem.

Journal of Medical Ethics Defends Publishing ‘After-Birth Abortions’ Article | TheBlaze.com

Here's where the article is and the responses to negative publicity. Journal of Medical Ethics - BMJ Journals

Any thoughts?

[slamjet]

More "theoretical intellectualism" gone amok. A bunch of self-proclaimed smart people and keepers of all ideas that everyone else is too stupid to handle. I thought this type of drivel was dealt with more than 60 years ago with the insanity of the "master race." *sigh* I guess what's old is new again.

[Guest]

This whole topic is very upsetting to me.

[applepansy]

I thought so too. We are still recovering from the effects of the "master race" ideas. Yet, here we are again. I'm appalled and sickened that a so-called "respected" medical journal would even print the article. I am surprised that the editors of the JofME are shocked at the response. The response to the article gives me hope that Heavenly Father's children haven't fallen so far yet that the earth needs to be cleansed again. . . . . yet.

[applepansy]

This whole topic is very upsetting to me.

Me too.

[Guest xforeverxmetalx]

Well, if newborns and fetuses are the same to them, I'd argue that it means that it's wrong to kill both. Works both ways.

Why they came to one conclusion over the other, though, I'll never know.

[Spartan117]

After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?

Severe abnormalities of the fetus and risks for the physical and/or psychological health of the woman are often cited as valid reasons for abortion.

A serious philosophical problem arises when the same conditions that would have justified abortion become known after birth. In such cases, we need to assess facts in order to decide whether the same arguments that apply to killing a human fetus can also be consistently applied to killing a newborn human.

In spite of the oxymoron in the expression, we propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion’, rather than ‘infanticide’, to emphasise that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus (on which ‘abortions’ in the traditional sense are performed) rather than to that of a child. Therefore, we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be.

[annewandering]

Killing after birth is not abortion. By definition it is infanticide or in other words murder of a baby.

Where did they get such an insane idea? Oh I know. Satan. He is really getting a hold on us. Yes we will all be shocked. Same as we were when abortion was ok'ed. Same as we were at the idea of couples not getting married to live together and raise a family. Same as we were when homosexuality was called gay then demanded marriage. Now those ideas are accepted by a huge part of the population.

He introduces the idea then has a few 'brave' souls defend the idea and then saturates us with the idea to the point it becomes commonplace and we are no longer shocked. Give it a few years and we will see how it goes with this idea.

[Blocky]

The article claims infancide is already practiced in the Netherlands. I wasn't aware of this.

It reminds me of the book The Giver.

[Spartan117]

Sparta must be regarded as the first Völkisch State. The exposure of the sick, weak, deformed children, in short, their destruction, was more decent and in truth a thousand times more humane than the wretched insanity of our day which preserves the most pathological subject, and indeed at any price, and yet takes the life of a hundred thousand healthy children in consequence of birth control or through abortions, in order subsequently to breed a race of degenerates burdened with illnesses -Adolf Hitler

The 'Journal of Medical Ethics' just rationalized Hitler's views on eugenics. Sodom and Gomorrah, eat your hearts out.

[MarginOfError]

I'm with the Journal. This is what journals do; it is their purpose. Researchers are supposed to submit their findings and conclusions to journals where they can receive peer review.

Nothing in a journal of this sort is final. Everything is open to peer review, criticism, and refutation.

So I stand by the journal in their decision to publish the article.

[NeuroTypical]

It was the mid to late 1990's. I was standing less than a foot away from her. I remember actually shaking my head to see if the words I had just heard would fall out, or maybe reorder themselves into something that meant differently than what I just heard. But no, I had just really heard it, because she had just really said it.

She actually had just voiced her opinion that abortion should be legal within the first year after birth. I took a good long look at her - yeah, no sarcasm, she wasn't joking, she wasn't saying one thing and meaning another. She actually said what she meant, and meant what she said.

That was my time to be shocked and disturbed and horrified and all that. I've had years to grow accustomed to the notion that intelligent folks can hold such notions. Now that this journal article makes the news, I'm not shocked or horrified. I'm just sad that we've moved from the "random self-absorbed twit college chick outlier" phase of our moral decay, into the "degreed ethicists suggest it, but it's ok, because that's what journals are for" phase.

For those rare few of you who can move issues like this into your long-term memory, stay tuned for the next few phases. Up next are the growing acceptance of the justifications, demonization of the backwards-thinking puritanical right wing, the legislation, the lawsuits, and the supreme court decision. If it's coming, it should be here in the next 30-50 years.

[Blackmarch]

Their logic works... but the premise which that logic is built upon however is what needs fixing very badly. Hence why abortions should be illegal.

and even more unfortunately with that same logic, there is no line, and theoretically one could support murder of children up to quite an age.

Edited March 6, 2012 by Blackmarch

[FunkyTown]

Their logic works... but the premise which that logic is built upon however is what needs fixing very badly. Hence why abortions should be illegal.

and even more unfortunately with that same logic, there is no line, and theoretically one could support murder of children up to quite an age.

This.

Clearly, they are logically correct. When you accept a child's life as of less worth than a mother's comfort, there is only one answer.

So the question is, what do we intend to do if this comes to pass? It's worthless being impotently angry. If this becomes the norm, then what do we do?

[applepansy]

I'm with the Journal. This is what journals do; it is their purpose. Researchers are supposed to submit their findings and conclusions to journals where they can receive peer review.

Nothing in a journal of this sort is final. Everything is open to peer review, criticism, and refutation.

So I stand by the journal in their decision to publish the article.

I also stand by the Journal in their right to publish. I think they were naive to think they and the authors wouldn't receive the criticism they've received.

The author's are wrong on so many levels and the Journal's editor should have known they would receive the responses they have received.

[applepansy]

This.

Clearly, they are logically correct. When you accept a child's life as of less worth than a mother's comfort, there is only one answer.

So the question is, what do we intend to do if this comes to pass? It's worthless being impotently angry. If this becomes the norm, then what do we do?

We live correct principles of the gospel. We value life. We serve others unceasingly... including and especially our children. We teach our children that they have value and all children have value.

Then we pray!

[applepansy]

It was the mid to late 1990's. I was standing less than a foot away from her. I remember actually shaking my head to see if the words I had just heard would fall out, or maybe reorder themselves into something that meant differently than what I just heard. But no, I had just really heard it, because she had just really said it.

She actually had just voiced her opinion that abortion should be legal within the first year after birth. I took a good long look at her - yeah, no sarcasm, she wasn't joking, she wasn't saying one thing and meaning another. She actually said what she meant, and meant what she said.

That was my time to be shocked and disturbed and horrified and all that. I've had years to grow accustomed to the notion that intelligent folks can hold such notions. Now that this journal article makes the news, I'm not shocked or horrified. I'm just sad that we've moved from the "random self-absorbed twit college chick outlier" phase of our moral decay, into the "degreed ethicists suggest it, but it's ok, because that's what journals are for" phase.

For those rare few of you who can move issues like this into your long-term memory, stay tuned for the next few phases. Up next are the growing acceptance of the justifications, demonization of the backwards-thinking puritanical right wing, the legislation, the lawsuits, and the supreme court decision. If it's coming, it should be here in the next 30-50 years.

I knew this was coming. I just wasn't ready for it to be here so soon. I've gone through all the stages of grief regarding the article and the authors (who probably would have been aborted had their ideas been legal when they were born). I think my grief is for the future children who won't have a chance to live in our world...but then I was reminded that they will be saved. They will get a body and they won't have to deal with this wicked world. I think my grief has also for the authors. I cannot even begin to imagine what has happened in their lives that would make them think its ok to kill children.

In SS class on Sunday I had the overwhelming feeling that everything is progressing as prophesied. I felt peace, love and gratitude to live now. Heavenly Father is aware. Christ is knows the hearts of the authors better than I do. I'm sad for the people who believe killing children is ok. Satan can do a lot but he can't infringe on our agency.

[MarginOfError]

I also stand by the Journal in their right to publish. I think they were naive to think they and the authors wouldn't receive the criticism they've received.

The author's are wrong on so many levels and the Journal's editor should have known they would receive the responses they have received.

Journals are always surprised when publications make the rounds in the consumer news media. There's a reason journal articles aren't published in consumer news: your average consumer doesn't understand it.

The dirty secret of scientific journals is that the vast majority of the findings and conclusions are garbage. Yet, even the most educated people act like what is published in journals is irrefutable fact. Publication of a single article does not constitute new knowledge. Publication of this article does not constitute new policy.

The responses the Journal would expect to receive are reviews and editorials about what other ethicists feels are the inconsistencies of fallacies of the logic provided in the original article. Public outrage over an article placed for peer review comes as a bit of a shock to the scientific community--nerds aren't used to average people reading their stuff. They're even less accustomed to the average person responding to their publications.

So what's the next step? Editorials and reviews. The premise on which the authors of the current article started was that a fetus is no different than a newborn. This assumption may be challenged, however. Other ethicists could start here, perhaps arguing that not all fetuses are the same. For instance, is a fetus at 4 weeks the same as a fetus at 38 weeks the same as a newborn?

Why go through the charade? Because that's how the medical community shapes dialog around ethical decisions. We've done it for decades. This kind of dialog is why patients now have unprecedented involvement in their own medical care. This process has been working well for a couple of centuries, why should we change it now?

ADDITIONAL NOTE:

The publication of this article is not the same as a change in public policy. The publication of this article does not necessarily mean that this article will influence public policy. At best, the publication of this article will add to the dialog that ultimately defines public policy. And expressing, articulating, and identifying faulty lines of logic is very much an important part of any dialog from which public policy may be derived.

[Just_A_Guy]

This is one of those instances where you give people enough rope and they hang themselves.

The social Right can, and should, aggressively condemn this kind of crap. But we shouldn't seek to silence it. We should proclaim that article from the housetops, as the Blaze is doing.

Unless this nation is further gone than in my worst nightmares, the authors' argument will make thousands--maybe millions--of people think. They will re-evaluate their positions on abortion, and I don't think infanticide will win the day.

They've hurt their cause more with one article, than the anti-abortion lobby could have done with a hundred protests outside of clinic doors.

[MarginOfError]

This is one of those instances where you give people enough rope and they hang themselves.

The social Right can, and should, aggressively condemn this kind of crap. But we shouldn't seek to silence it. We should proclaim that article from the housetops, as the Blaze is doing.

Unless this nation is further gone than in my worst nightmares, the authors' argument will make thousands--maybe millions--of people think. They will re-evaluate their positions on abortion, and I don't think infanticide will win the day.

They've hurt their cause more with one article, than the anti-abortion lobby could have done with a hundred protests outside of clinic doors.

I'm not sure this article will have much affect on anything. People who agree with the conclusions will still sound crazy to 90% of the public, and people who cite this as evidence that the world has gone to hell in a handbasket will still be ignorant of the scientific process.

The sad part of this is that the world will see this one article, but the news won't report a single word on the upcoming editorials that entirely shred this article. Even though there will likely be more articles that contradict and dispute the present article, this is the one that will get all the attention.

And that's really the problem with consumer news reporting scientific research--the news only cares about now while the research community moves much more slowly, methodically, and purposefully.

[Blackmarch]

This.

Clearly, they are logically correct. When you accept a child's life as of less worth than a mother's comfort, there is only one answer.

So the question is, what do we intend to do if this comes to pass? It's worthless being impotently angry. If this becomes the norm, then what do we do?

if such somehow passes all the efforts to stop such, and becomes so cemented as to become virtually unalterable ... then i think i'll take some time to go seriously cry. After that, i'd imagine that either it would become a captain helaman or a captain mormon/moroni situation.

[annewandering]

While I understand the logic of having it published I completely disagree that it should have been published. The problem is this. Satan has just completed his first step and that is to get the heresy published in a reputable journal which gives the idea a certain amount of 'cachet'. The next step is to have people rise up in anger which gets it into the national media. Perhaps even the international media. The more its published the more it becomes common place and not so shocking anymore. Then it is easy to pass into the arena of acceptance then mockery for any who disagree.

Do you remember the first articles that came out in the medical journals about how homosexuality is just something people are born with and is natural and then it went to the popular media then into our lives as a 'natural' thing?

The biggest problem here is the righteous try to be logical and fair and satans bites our rears for it. We do NOT have to be fair when it comes to obscene ideas. They do not have to gain mainstream attention. Why should we be asked to even judge the idea? It is wrong on so many fronts that it doesnt need to be reviewed at all.

[marshac]

I'll just throw this general question out there-

Some conditions are not necessarily compatible with life- i'm going to use the example of holoproseencephaly. At the end of this sentence is a link to a photo of what this condition can present like, but I caution people that it may be unsettling, so if that's you, don't click this link.

These kids can be kept alive for quite some time with medical intervention, but there is nothing that can be done- they really don't have a brain, no surgery can correct the malformations, and they will eventually die around age 1-2 (or younger) due to complications of their condition. So- here's the question-

Do you provide all medical treatment necessary (and at whatever cost) to the child to keep them alive?

Do you withhold lifesaving treatment and opt for palliative care?

Do you withhold all treatment?

Do you administer medication to hasten death?

Is option #4 really all that different than option #2? Is option #3 cruel? Is it fair to expect society/insurance to pay for #1?

Many questions and no clear ethical lines unfortunately for cases like this.

[Just_A_Guy]

I'm not sure this article will have much affect on anything. People who agree with the conclusions will still sound crazy to 90% of the public, and people who cite this as evidence that the world has gone to hell in a handbasket will still be ignorant of the scientific process.

The sad part of this is that the world will see this one article, but the news won't report a single word on the upcoming editorials that entirely shred this article. Even though there will likely be more articles that contradict and dispute the present article, this is the one that will get all the attention.

And that's really the problem with consumer news reporting scientific research--the news only cares about now while the research community moves much more slowly, methodically, and purposefully.

Let the record reflect that JAG moves to amend his previous post to this thread to read "They will re-evaluate their positions on elective abortion."

I'll grant that the justifications, etc in Marshac's hypo might conceivably apply either to a late-term fetus or a newborn infant.

[applepansy]

I'll just throw this general question out there-

Some conditions are not necessarily compatible with life- i'm going to use the example of holoproseencephaly. At the end of this sentence is a link to a photo of what this condition can present like, but I caution people that it may be unsettling, so if that's you, don't click this link.

These kids can be kept alive for quite some time with medical intervention, but there is nothing that can be done- they really don't have a brain, no surgery can correct the malformations, and they will eventually die around age 1-2 (or younger) due to complications of their condition. So- here's the question-

Do you provide all medical treatment necessary (and at whatever cost) to the child to keep them alive?

Do you withhold lifesaving treatment and opt for palliative care?

Do you withhold all treatment?

Do you administer medication to hasten death?

Is option #4 really all that different than option #2? Is option #3 cruel? Is it fair to expect society/insurance to pay for #1?

Many questions and no clear ethical lines unfortunately for cases like this.

My personal opinion in the case you are using as an example is #2. The reasonI feel that way is because first we don't know if a spirit has chosen to inhabit the body. We don't know what the child feels. We can assume they don't think the same way we do because there isn't a brain but that doesn't mean their spirit doesn't think.

Second and most important, palliative care is loving service.

And Third, This is a test. How we respond to this child will be something we will have to answer for when we stand before Christ.

Which brings me back to the subject of this thread. I don't want to be in the shoes of the authors when they have to stand before Christ and He asks them "Did you really advocate to kill your brothers and sisters?"