Breaking: Largest group of Catholic doctors calls for "reset" of health care reform

The Catholic Medical Association (whose leadership has already come out strongly against the proposed health care plan), has now as a body approved a resolution on health care reform at its 78th annual meeting this weekend in Springfield IL:

"The resolution calls upon Congress and President Obama “to ‘reset’ the effort to enact health care reform legislation, to reexamine their commitment to the principles of the current legislation, and to begin the process anew.”

CMA President Louis Breschi, M.D. explained the need for the resolution this way: “As physicians, we are highly concerned by the direction health care reform legislation has continued to take. The whole thrust of the legislation voted out of congressional committees is flawed. It tries to fix the real problems we have in health care with massive new government spending and mandates.

... The resolution also urges legislators and President Obama to respect the principles of subsidiarity, solidarity, and the patient-physician relationship, as well as to exclude funding of abortion and to provide meaningful protection for the conscience rights of health care providers in any legislation.

The complete text of the resolution can be found here.

Founded in 1932, the Catholic Medical Association is the largest association of Catholic physicians in North America.

We should listen carefully to their concerns both because they are experts in their field and also because they are trying to think about this question and practice medicine as good Catholics.

Jesuit Catholic U. drops abortion referral service

A piece of happy news from Valerie Schmalz at OSV:

"Following OSV's report in December that the Jesuit University of San Francisco's student health clinic was providing abortion and contraception referrals for students, USF has crafted a new protocol for the clinic that is consonant with the Church's stance on life issues. The USF student clinic staff will now refer students to First Resort, a crisis pregnancy organization; the Gabriel Project, a pregnancy support organization run by the university's St. Ignatius Parish; and Catholic Charities counseling facilities."

Just a reminder that abuses we bring attention to and take action on ... can be and do get resolved.

Papal comment on condoms and AIDS sparks criticism

Back in October, when the Pope's visit to Africa was first announced, I predicted three things I believed would make their way into the mainstream media's talking points about the trip. I'll repeat my second prediction:

• "The Church's prohibition against condoms is exacerbating the humanitarian crisis (false)"

Sure enough, on the airplane to Africa yesterday, this was one of the first questions asked of the pope, if the Church's approach to HIV/AIDS is "unrealistic and ineffective". Here's how the pope responded:

"It is my belief believe that the most effective presence on the front in the battle against HIV/AIDS is in fact the Catholic Church and her institutions. ... The problem of HIV/AIDS cannot be overcome with mere slogans. If the soul is lacking, if Africans do not help one another, the scourge cannot be resolved by distributing condoms; quite the contrary, we risk worsening the problem. The solution can only come through a twofold commitment: firstly, the humanisation of sexuality, in other words a spiritual and human renewal bringing a new way of behaving towards one another; and secondly, true friendship, above all with the suffering, a readiness - even through personal sacrifice - to stand by those who suffer".

And now, the deluge of outcry which I predicted:

• Reuters: Vatican defends pope condoms stand, criticism mounts
• CNN Commentary from Roland S. Martin: Pope wrong on condoms
• Background from the CDC: How Effective Are Latex Condoms in Preventing HIV?

Unfortunately I don't have the time at present to pursue the topic - hopefully I will later this evening.

But here's my quick punch-list of facts that people always seem to miss on this issue:

• In cases of rape, one can still "defend" oneself by using barrier-method contraception, so the Church isn't condemning exploited people to a deadly disease as well as sexual battery.
• The Church's teaching on the immorality of contraception is not dictated by scientific claims that condoms don't actually prevent the transmission of HIV/AIDS - it's far deeper.
• The only people who listen to the Church's teaching against contraception are faithful, practicing Catholics, so one must wonder how much "progress" the Pope can be accused of holding back when just faithful, practicing Catholics are the ones listening to him.
• Following the last point, it's pretty clear that the secularist solution of throwing condoms at the HIV/AIDS scourge isn't working, and that an alternative solution which addresses the fundamental anthropological and cultural causes of HIV/AIDS transmission is required. The secularist solution is simply more science and medical technology, which isn't enough. {update: The city I live in is some proof of that}

George Pitcher at the UK Telegraph also mounts a defense, but again, I haven't had the chance to read it.

Video: Cardinal George on Keeping Conscience Protections

From the US Bishops' Pro-Life Secretariat:

Cardinal Francis George is urging Catholics in the United States to tell the Obama Administration to retain Health and Human Services regulations governing conscience protections for health care workers.

This is vital to keep the government from "moving our country from democracy to despotism," said Cardinal George, President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. He delivered the message via video available on the Web here (contains lots of information) and on YouTube:

update: here's an easy way to send-in your official comment.

An update on Caritas-Centene

From White Coat Notes, the Boston Globe's medical blog:

State regulators today voted to accept a controversial bid by a Massachusetts Catholic hospital chain and a secular health organization to provide health insurance to low income residents.

... The vote came after Caritas-Centene assured the panel that women will have "ready access" to timely family planning services, with no primary care physician referral required. They also promised creation of a toll-free 800 customer service number that will provide women information about where they can get family planning and reproductive services -- and, in an emergency, will provide transporation to the nearest approriate facility.

Board officials promised close monitoring to make sure the promises are kept.

Full backstory posted this morning. Cardinal Sean explains himself on his blog (I love saying that):

There has been a significant amount of public dialogue concerning my statement yesterday (as copied below) about the proposed arrangement involving Caritas Christi Health Care with the Commonwealth Care Program.

To be perfectly clear, Caritas Christi will never do anything to promote abortions, to direct any patients to providers of abortion or in any way to participate in actions that are contrary to Catholic moral teaching and anyone who suggests otherwise is doing a great disservice to the Catholic Church. We are committed to the Gospel of Life and no arrangement will be entered into unless it is completely in accord with Church teaching.

Recognizing the complexity of the proposed arrangement, I will ask the National Catholic Bioethics Center to review the arrangement and to provide me their opinion.

There's, well, plenty of comments.

LifeNews adds an action item:

Contact Caritas Christi and urge it not to begin doing abortions or referring for them:

Caritas Christi Health Care,
736 Cambridge Street, Boston, MA 02135, (phone) 617-789-2500, CCR.Webmaster@CaritasChristi.org

update: Catholic Culture adds:

However, the cardinal's claim was contradicted by representatives of Commonwealth Care, who assured state officials that their program would provide "ready access" to all of the services mandated by the government program, including abortion.

Under the Commonwealth Care system, abortions will not be performed at the Caritas Christi hospitals. But women who wish to procure abortions will be given a telephone number to call for information on where abortions are performed, and, if necessary, transportation to those sites.

What is Caritas Christi up to?

This story has been simmering for awhile but I only just now had a chance to do a treatment.

AmP reader Jeanne gives us a fantastic opening brief:

Caritas Christi Health Network (which owns the remaining Catholic hospitals in Massachusetts) wants to partner with Centene Corp. - a St. Louis based health network - to put a bid in for government subsidized healthcare. Ostensibly, this is for the sake of allowing lower-income people greater access to healthcare.

The catch is that if the venture were to accept government money, then they would be required by Massachusetts state law to cover abortions. (In the words of Connector Authority spokesman Dick Powers: "Health plans must provide covered services. Covered services specifically include abortion services.") On March 5, 2009, Cardinal Sean P. O'Malley released a statement, saying that, "...Caritas Christi Health Care has assured me that it will not be engaged in any procedures nor draw any benefits from any relationship which violate the Church's moral teaching as found in the Ethical and Religious Directives." And while it is true that Caritas Christi Health Care does not plan to directly offer any of the so-called "family planning services" that would be mandated by the state, they are planning on providing referrals for such services. The plan is this: Caritas would refer the patient to another facility, knowing that said facility would then direct her to physicians who will perform abortions, prescribe contraception, and so forth.

Despite his protestations to the contrary, lot of people believe that the Cardinal is being intellectually dishonest in how he is presenting the situation and that the partnership would amount to the Catholic hospital system cooperating with a provider of abortion services. In the face of public outrage over this partnership, the Cardinal is submitting the situation to the National Catholic Bioethics Center. It will be interesting to hear their opinion of this situation.

The Catholic Action League has been very vocal on this issue, saying in their most recent press release that Caritas Christi is "stonewalling".

Michael Paulson of the Boston Globe did an in-depth story on March 4th, and had a symposium of moral theologians weigh-in yesterday. Together they've compiled a tome of contributions.

Sadly, however, from my brief survey of the names chosen, there appear to be many theologians who don't think with the mind of the Church on this complex issue.

Breaking: Obama moving to overturn conscience regulations

LifeNews:

The White House quietly announced on Friday that President Barack Obama is starting the process of overturning protections President Bush put in place to make sure medical staff and centers are not forced to do abortions. The move is the latest that will add to Obama's growing pro-abortion record.

Existing federal laws already make it so doctors and hospitals are not required to perform abortions. Because those laws aren't always followed, the Bush administration added additional protections.

Now, the Obama administration is Starting the process to remove them.

LA Times: 'Conscience' rule on abortions may be overturned

update: NARAL is happy. That's never a good thing for the unborn children of America.

Ph/t: AmP reader Colleen.

Taking Catholics for Choice to the Woodshed

Fr. Z does it for me.

The nerve of their president Jon O'Brien:

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Catholic Health Association may be behind the new rule, but their support does not reflect the fullness of Catholic teaching and the views of Catholics.

Fr. Z called what Jon O'Brien wrote "evil."

I'd have to agree:

One hopes that the bishops are not suggesting that the only well-formed conscience is one that is in lockstep with their own interpretation of Catholic teaching. That would, in fact, be the antithesis of a well-formed conscience.

Actually, the catechism says:

no. 1794 - A good and pure conscience is enlightened by true faith.

In other words, the phrase "well-formed conscience" is an objective not a subjective description.

Breaking: Obama picks Tom Daschle for HHS secretary

Bad news:

"Former Senator Majority leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) will be secretary of Health and Human Services in the Obama administration, with the delicate mission of shepherding a health-care bill through Congress at a time of punishing budget constraints, a senior Democratic official said.

... “Of all the proposals that Obama wants to enact, health care requires the most input and tough negotiations,” the official said. “No one knows the House and Senate like Tom Daschle." (Politico) (NYT) (more)

Tom Daschle grew up Catholic, but is pro-embryonic stem cell research and NARAL claims him as one of their top supporters. In 2003, his bishop at the time (Most Rev. Robert Carlson of Saginaw, MI) told Daschle that he may no longer call himself Catholic (not the same as excommunication, mind you).

As for the "delicate mission of shepherding a health-care bill through Congress", that mission will be made more difficult if Daschle listens to his NARAL friends who are demanding the Freedom of Choice Act be included (we oppose it).

[photo credit: Center for American Progress]

Britain Approves Animal-Human Embryos

Bad, bad news:

British plans to allow scientists to use hybrid animal-human embryos for stem-cell research won final approval from lawmakers Wednesday in a sweeping overhaul of sensitive science laws.

The House of Commons also clarified laws that allow the screening of embryos to produce babies with suitable bone marrow or other material for transplant to sick siblings.

It was the first review of embryo science in Britain in almost 20 years.

The legislators voted 355-129 to authorize the proposals after months of sometimes bitter debate that has pitted Prime Minister Gordon Brown's government and scientists against religious leaders, anti-abortion campaigners and others anxious about medical advances. (AP)

We're really losing badly here. And just to make the obvious connection: A liberal president and democrat-controlled House will in all likelihood introduce and sign similar legislation in the U.S.

One pharmacy says no to birth control ...

... and the world doesn't explode:

A new drug store at a Virginia strip mall is putting its faith in an unconventional business plan: No candy. No sodas. And no birth control. Divine Mercy Care Pharmacy is among at least seven pharmacies across the nation that are refusing as a matter of faith to sell contraceptives of any kind, even if a person has a prescription.

States across the country have been wrestling with the issue of pharmacists who refuse on religious grounds to dispense birth control or morning-after pills, and some have enacted laws requiring drug stores to fill the prescriptions.

In Virginia, though, pharmacists can turn away any prescription for any reason. (AP)

On Tuesday, the little pharmacy that could received a blessing from Arlington bishop Paul Loverde.

UK v. Catholic Schools

UK Times:

A Roman Catholic school is refusing to allow 12 and 13-year-old girls to be immunised against cervical cancer on its premises.

The move, by St Monica’s High School in Prestwich, was condemned as irresponsible by the Department for Health, which began its programme to immunise girls against the sexually-transmitted human papillomavirus (HPV) this month.

In a letter to parents, the school says that the vaccine has been proved neither safe nor effective, that girls who took part in a pilot programme last year suffered side-effects and that the vaccine could “interfere with the body’s natural defences”. It concluded: “We do not believe that school is the right place for the three injections to be administered.”

Ph/t: William Newton.

Abp. Hughs v. Rep. LaBruzzo

Outrageous:

Archbishop of New Orleans Alfred C. Hughes has criticized a Louisiana lawmaker’s proposal to pay poor women to sterilize themselves, calling it “seriously wrong,” “blatantly anti-life,” and a “form of eugenics.”

Louisiana’s Rep. John LaBruzzo, a Republican from Metairie, last week said he is studying a plan to pay poor women $1,000 to have their Fallopian tubes tied.

His proposal would also cover other forms of birth control, such as vasectomies for men, and could also encourage tax incentives for college-educated, higher-income people to have more children, the Times-Picayune reports. (CNA)

Breaking: Has McCain "softened' his position on embryonic research?

Deal Hudson points out this Wired article published yesterday claiming that McCain has taken a "Sharp Right Turn on Stem Cells".

Hudson credits McCain's "shift" to the tireless work of Senator Sam Brownback. I directly asked Sen. Brownback about these ongoing efforts earlier this year, and wrote-up his answer here.

I think the jury is still out on this one, but judging by the reaction of pro-embryonic stem cell research scientists, I think there are more encouraging signs than before.

Therefore when someone from the Harvard Stem Cell Institute says that he reads McCain's statement as a "bad omen," I hear "good omen."

The substance of the Wired article is based on a single paragraph response that McCain recently made to the Sciencedebate 2008 forum on the question of stem cells (scroll down to question #8).

In a nutshell, McCain's position remains that he opposes the creation of new embryos for research purposes, but supports the use of already-existing embryos (for instance, "discards" from IVF-treatments).

What is new in McCain's position, or at least features prominently, is this language: "clear lines should be drawn that reflect a refusal to sacrifice moral values and ethical principles for the sake of scientific progress." That's the qualification that has all the scientists skittish, along with McCain's reminder that he voted to outlaw a form of cloning currently allowed (SCNT).

Again, when the pro-ESCR scientists say stuff like this...

"McCain cannot be trusted to be a supporter of embryonic stem cell research," said University of Pennsylvania bioethicist Art Caplan. "He is moving toward a straight pro-life stance and this sort of answer can only be read as such."

... I hope to heaven they're right.

Honesty: Researchers Question Wide Use of HPV Vaccines

I (and others) have been raising red flags about Gardasil since early 2007, today the New York Times notices:

Two vaccines against cervical cancer [Gardasil by Merck Sharp & Dohme and Cervarix by GlaxoSmithKline] are being widely used without sufficient evidence about whether they are worth their high cost or even whether they will effectively stop women from getting the disease, two articles in this week’s New England Journal of Medicine conclude.

...“Despite great expectations and promising results of clinical trials, we still lack sufficient evidence of an effective vaccine against cervical cancer,” Dr. Charlotte J. Haug, editor of The Journal of the Norwegian Medical Association, wrote in an editorial in Thursday’s issue of The New England Journal. “With so many essential questions still unanswered, there is good reason to be cautious.”

Hopefully it is more evident now why I disagred with making Gardasil and Cervarix mandatory.

Reprogramming, not embryos, is the fast track to cures

An extremely significant medical breakthrough, reported many places, including the New York Times:

Biologists at Harvard have converted cells from a mouse’s pancreas into the insulin-producing cells that are destroyed in diabetes, suggesting that the natural barriers between the body’s cell types may not be as immutable as supposed.

"Money" second paragraph quote:

This and other recent experiments raise the possibility that a patient’s healthy cells might be transformed into the type lost to a disease far more simply and cheaply than in the cumbersome proposals involving stem cells.

Pause. When was the last time you can remember a mainstream article admitting that stem cell proposals are "cumbersome"? I thought they were the be-all & end-all of medical technology? And embryonic stem cell treatments are often even more cumbersome than adult stem cell therapies.

I'm not trying to make an argument against embryonic stem cell research because they are "cumbersome", sometimes cumbersome solutions are the only ones available. No, I'm saying that, pragmatically, it makes more sense to pursue reprogramming techniques like the one described above.

And no embryos have to die.

"Bush plan would blunt state birth control law"

Pro-abortion/contraception groups are hopping mad about it, too:

A proposed Bush administration regulation on contraception and abortion would stop California from enforcing a state law that requires Catholic hospitals and charities to provide birth control coverage for thousands of female employees, state Attorney General Jerry Brown and family-planning advocates said Wednesday. (San Francisco Chronicle)

Sadly, I think they are going about this the wrong way:

The U.S. Health and Human Services Department regulation, still in draft form, would define abortion as including certain methods of contraception and would prohibit states and other recipients of federal funds from penalizing health care workers who refused to provide those services because of religious or moral beliefs.

Why not simply include contraception under the penumbra of treatments that health care workers are allowed to refuse because of religious or moral beliefs? The evidence supporting the claim that contraceptives are also abortifacients has been legitimately challenged.

In other words, sooner or later, if not already, contraceptives will not have abortifacient side effects. Then where will we be when Catholic individuals and organizations wish to refuse distributing them?

update: Dawn Eden has brought it to my attention that the San Francisco Chronicle is actually (intentionally or not) playing into the pro-choice talking points, and is not giving us the straight story.

In actuality, Secretary Mike Leavitt of the US Dep. of Health & Human Services agrees with me:

An early draft of the regulations found its way into public circulation before it had reached my review. It contained words that lead some to conclude my intent is to deal with the subject of contraceptives, somehow defining them as abortion. Not true.

The Bush Administration has consistently supported the unborn. However, the issue I asked to be addressed in this regulation is not abortion or contraceptives, but the legal right medical practitioners have to practice according to their conscience and patients should be able to choose a doctor who has beliefs like his or hers.

There, doesn't that sound far more reasonable?

Planned Parenthood has its formidable attack machine trained on Mr. Leavitt, who responds to them here:

So, according to Ms. Gallagher’s ideology, if a person goes to medical school they lose their right of conscience. Freedom of expression and action is surrendered with the issuance of a medical degree.

There is something I’d like to point out to Ms Gallagher and the people she represents. It is currently a violation of three separate federal laws to compel medical practitioners to perform a procedure that violates their conscience.

... I want to reiterate. If the Department of Health and Human Services issues a regulation on this matter, it will aim at one thing, protecting the right of conscience of those who practice medicine. From what I’ve read the last few days, there’s a serious need for it.

Continue fighting the good fight, sir.

Finally: "Complaints cause cervical cancer vaccine scrutiny"

In February 2007 I did a story on Gardasil, a vaccine for certain STDs that cause cervical cancer. What upset me most about the story at the time was that Texas had decided to mandate this drug for all school-age girls, even those who did not intend to engage in sexual activity.

Such a decision is outrageous because this vaccine can cause serious side effects. Quite simply: why inoculate girls for an STD they have no chance of contracting (if they practice abstinence) and thereby put them in danger of suffering the vaccine's own harmful side effects?

Texas is not alone in this quest to mandate Gardasil. As recently as June 18th, Alberta was trying to force Catholic schools to give the vaccine to girls in pre-sexual activity age groups.

In January of this year, two instances of Gardasil-related deaths finally made it into the mainstream: "Alert over jab for girls as two die following cervical cancer vaccination" (UK Daily Mail).

By June, the FDA had refused permission for Gardasil to be marketed among women age 27-45. This decision came as a blow to its pharmaceutical producer Merck, because Gardasil "has been one of [its] most successful newer products and has helped the company recover after the 2004 withdrawal of its Vioxx arthritis treatment." Again, to put it simply: Gardasil is big business for Merck.

Today, it caught my eye that even CNN thinks there could be a story here:

A vaccine designed to prevent cervical cancer is coming under fresh scrutiny amid thousands of complaints linking it to a range of health problems.

Gardasil has been the subject of 7,802 "adverse event" reports from the time the Food and Drug Administration approved its use two years ago, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Girls and women have blamed the vaccine for causing ailments from nausea to paralysis -- even death. Fifteen deaths were reported to the FDA, and 10 were confirmed, but the CDC says none of the 10 were linked to the vaccine. The CDC says it continues to study the reports of illness.

It's nice to see the mainstream media finally noticing a story that I (and many, many others) have known about for about 16 months. So why did it take them so long?

I would argue that this is only getting reported now because their fixation on eliminating the harmful side-effects of promiscuous sex often causes them to turn a blind eye to the drawbacks of mandatory universal vaccination. And the sad thing is that even young women trying to live a chaste lifestyle, in these situations of mandatory vaccination, are in danger of the vaccine's own harmful side effects.

Now whose freedom is being violated?

OSV construcively calls attention to unethical practices in Texas hospitals

In its July 13th issue, Our Sunday Visitor magazine has undertaken a full court press to make it known that all six Texas Catholic hospital systems have been performing thousands (9,684) of unethical direct sterilizations. You can read the article by Ann Carey on the OSV website.

OSV's reporting originates from a group of whistle-blowers operating under the cover of anonymity to safeguard their jobs. The lapses of ethics documented in Texas, however, are most probably not limited to just that state. The report is quite comprehensive and makes it clear (as I understand it) that these sterilizations were performed with a contraceptive goal.

The Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services (ERDs), issued by the U.S. Bishops, clearly prohibits these types of sterilizations being offered by Catholic hospitals (#53 & #70). As a side note and to put it simply: what is prohibited is direct sterilization for contraceptive ends as opposed to indirect sterilization where sterilization results from a separate procedure.

What is not so clear, and remains a problem, is the phenomenon of Catholic hospitals merging and sharing resources with non-Catholic hospitals. In such situations, the ERDs are often ignored. Though not all these sterilizations can simply be blamed on institutional haziness. Part of the problem, an interviewed OB-GYN says, is an "excessive focus on the bottom line."

In an accompanying interview with Dr. John Hass, President of the National Catholic Bioethics Center, he stresses that oftentimes these lapses in following the ERDs are a result of ignorance and confusion. Well, OSV has done us all a wonderful service in exposing a serious problem, which is the first step to addressing it systematically. Hospital audits would be a logical next step, and those are happening in some cases.

Realistically, refusing to offer sterilizations simply will not sink the average Catholic hospital financially. If anything, it allows them to honestly go to Catholic donors and tell them they are fully in line with the Church's teaching on health care policies. There should also be little doubt that offering these direct sterilizations undermines the identity and mission of a Catholic hospital. Sterilizations, of the procedures prohibited by the Catholic comprehensive vision of human dignity, is the easiest one to hide, and it should not be surprising that it has often slipped through the cracks in the past. Well, hopefully no more.

CWNews, CNA and CNS, I'm proud to see, have all reported on OSV's findings, helping spread awareness.

You can read the original WikiLeaks report here. I'm also personally thankful to editor John Norton who notified me of OSV's reporting and provided me with a copy of the issue for my reporting.

In situations where ignorance and confusion are the main obstacles that have to be overcome, a prudential publication of information (as OSV has done) is the best path to a speedy solution. May that hold true now.

Pfizer gives adult stem cell research a chance

A story you won't see picked up and spread around:

The pharmaceutical giant Pfizer has announced that it is funding a new adult stem-cell treatment that could treat diabetes-induced retinal damage, a leading cause of blindness.

.... In animal experiments, adult stem-cells have shown a remarkable ability to target and repair damaged blood vessels in the eye, which are a key problem in diabetic eye disease and macular degeneration. (CNA)

Adult stem cells: they work.

Breaking: Britain to allow human-animal hybrids

The details are a bit complicated, but it appears that Britain is going to allow the fertilization of fully human-animal hybrids, reports the UK Times Online:

The main type of admixed embryo permitted by the Bill are “cytoplasmic hybrids” or “cybrids”, made by moving a human nucleus into an empty animal egg. These are genetically 99.9 per cent human. As well as true hybrids, it also allows chimeras that combine human and animal cells and transgenic human embryos that include a little animal DNA.

The most immediate implication of the Commons vote will be to allow teams at the University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne and King’s College, London, who already hold licences to create a particular type of admixed embryo, to continue their research.

The bill does not rule out, however, the creation of "'true hybrids' made by fertilising an animal egg with human sperm, or vice-versa." This is another step beyond the previous permissions given.

More details:

• UK Indipendent: MPs vote against ban on hybrid embryos
• Daily Express: MPs warned over hybrid embryos
• Sky News, MPs Allow 'Frankenstein' Embryos

I don't have time at the present to see if the local Catholic bishops have said anything about this development, but I'll try to find that out this evening if I get the chance.

Report: "Fertility Treatment is Hugely Successful but Largely Ignored by Medicine"

Yes, there are ethic alternatives to in vitro fertilization, and people should know about them:

NaProTECHNOLOGY (Natural Procreative Technology or NPT) is a dramatically successful, but not well known or practiced method of diagnosing and treating gynecological diseases and infertility in women. It is a morally acceptable and very cost effective method of restoring fertility, using a fertility-care based medical approach, rather than a fertility-control approach.

...

When used to treat infertility alone, NaProTechnology has a success rate of 76% in assisting couples to achieve pregnancy - remarkably superior to the 10-15% success rate of in vitro fertilization, and without the enormous financial cost and adverse emotional and other psychological effects of in vitro fertilization.

[Read more.]

Take a look at those numbers again. And yet proponents of IVF will go around claiming that it's practically the only way for couples to get pregnant who are experiencing difficulty. Think again.

Levada confirms CDF working on bioethics document

Briefly, from CNA:

"This morning, Pope Benedict XVI asked the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to focus on "the difficult and complex problems of bioethics." More specifically, the Pontiff drew the teaching body of the Church’s attention toward issues associated with reproductive technologies, explaining that some of them violate human dignity."

...

Among the "new problems" that require a re-evaluation are "the freezing of human embryos, embryonal reduction, pre-implantation diagnosis, stem cell research and attempts at human cloning," Benedict XVI said.

CWNews expands:

The Pope defended the Church against critics who treat the faith "as if it were an obstacle to science." In fact, he said, "the Church appreciates and encourages progress in the biomedical sciences." The pastoral task for the Church, he explained, is to "enlighten everyone's consciences so that scientific progress may be truly respectful of all human beings."

John Allen reports that this document will essentially be a follow-up to Donum Vitae (1987).

Allen also notes that the document may resolve a long-standing debate in bioethics:

Levada’s reference to frozen embryos suggests that the congregation may take up the controversial question of so-called “embryo adoption,” which has been much debated in pro-life circles in recent years. Essentially, one side believes that even though these embryos should never have been created, now that they exist, women should be encouraged to bring them to term, allowing them to develop as human beings. Another party, however, regards that as cooperation in a fundamentally immoral act, and worries that promoting adoption may simply encourage artificial creation of embryos.

The full text of the Holy Father's speech is available here on the Vatican website, in Italian.

Live debate on Euthanasia to be streamed tomorrow evening

Ryan of Catholic Audio: "FYI, there will be a debate on Euthanasia between Wesley J. Smith and Kathryn Tucker (of the formerly-called Hemlock Society) streamed live tomorrow night."

Breaking: New ethical source for stem cells discovered

It's very important news, and is being widely reported.

Updated: As promised, my commentary: "Direct Reprogramming & the End of ESCR"

"British cardinal objects to plan aiding lesbians in achieving pregnancy"

In a letter to the London Times, the leading Catholic Church official in England has protested legislation designed to help lesbian couples achieve pregnancy by artificial means.

Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor of Westminster said that the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill is "profoundly wrong" because, among other provisions, the legislation would eliminate the requirement for fertility clinics to ensure that a a child born through in vitro fertilization will have a father. That requirement makes it illegal for the clinics to help a single woman, or a member of a lesbian couple, achieve pregnancy.

Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor said that the bill "radically undermines the place of the father in a child's life, and makes the natural rights of the child subordinate to the desires of the couple." - CWNews

Related:

• Homosexual Parenting Studies Are Flawed, Report Says - Fox Report
• Catholic Answers on Gay Marriage (and related adoption/IVF questions, scroll down)
  

Breaking: Seattle Court: Druggists may withhold "morning-after" pill

The Associated Press:

A federal judge has suspended Washington state's requirement that pharmacists sell "morning-after" birth control pills, a victory for druggists who claim their moral objections to the drug are being bulldozed by the government.

In an injunction signed Thursday, U.S. District Judge Ronald Leighton said pharmacists can refuse to sell the morning-after pill if they refer the customer to another nearby source. Pharmacists' employers also are protected by the order.

The complete preliminary injunction of the Judge (PDF format).

Ph/t to reader Sheila Casey for the links.

"Study links birth control pill to arterial plaque" - Reuters

Reuters:

A European study released on Tuesday has raised new concerns about the safety of women's long-term use of the birth control pill, suggesting increased risk of heart attack or stroke.

Women who had used oral contraceptives were more likely than those who did not take the pill to have a buildup of plaque in their arteries, the researchers told an American Heart Association meeting.

... Rietzschel's team studied 1,301 women ages 35 to 55.

Of them, 81 percent had used the pill, for an average of 13 years. The researchers saw a rise of 20 to 30 percent in arterial plaque in two big arteries -- the carotid in the neck and the femoral in the leg -- for each decade of use.

But the recommendation?

Rietzschel said he did not think the findings should trigger alarms about the safety of the pill.

"Bottom line -- don't discontinue your pill suddenly. Don't panic. Don't call your gynecologist tomorrow morning," Rietzschel said.

... what?

At the same time:

Dr. Gordon Tomaselli, a Johns Hopkins University cardiologist and American Heart Association official, said he was surprised by the findings.

"It's a bit eye-opening, I think," Tomaselli said in an interview.

... "What would I tell my daughter to do? I might suggest maybe not oral contraception," Tomaselli said.

Because heaven forbid that she not supress her fertility: better to take the above-mentioned risks!

"New Jersey Forces Pharmacists to Dispense Abortifacient Drugs Regardless of Conscience"

Another domino falls:

The state of New Jersey has passed a law denying the conscientious objection right of pharmacists, won in other states through lengthy court battles, to refrain from dispensing abortifacient and contraceptive drugs.

“Discussions of morals and matters of conscience are admirable, but should not come into play when subjective beliefs conflict with objective medical decisions,” said state Sen. Joseph Vitale, D-Middlesex, a bill sponsor.

The decision comes just days after Pope Benedict XVI gave his support to pharmacists worldwide who reject the culture of death in their profession. “Pharmacists must seek to raise people's awareness so that all human beings are protected from conception to natural death, and so that medicines truly play a therapeutic role,” the pope said on Monday.

He called the right of conscientious objection, “a right that must be recognized for people exercising this profession, so as to enable them not to collaborate directly or indirectly in supplying products that have clearly immoral purposes such as, for example, abortion or euthanasia.”

The New Jersey law was passed in the context of numerous battles in courts and legislatures between pro-abortion governors and pharmacists fighting for conscience rights currently raging across the US. - LifeSiteNews

Once again, I reiterate.

WI Bishops drop opposition to plan-b bill and Fr. Kubat responds

Franz Klein of The Catholic Beat has published a story he wrote for the Wisconsin Catholic Times.

He explains:

This talk is very notable here in Wisconsin, since our bishops have officially dropped opposition to a bill that will force Catholic hospitals to provide emergency contraception after the administration of a pregnancy test. For reasons Father Kubat lays out quite clearly, this legislation is unacceptable, as is the bishops' current position.

Notable passages:

A doctor who practiced urology in Milwaukee before he became a priest, Father Kubat is a nationally recognized bioethics expert.

“If there’s doubt of fact, you don’t act,” said Father Christopher Kubat, M.D., Oct. 17 in regard to providing the morning-after pill to victims of sexual assault.

Father Kubat said addressing the issue of providing emergency contraception to rape victims is “timely,” given that Wisconsin is currently considering legislation that would require hospitals to administer the morning-after pill, also known as Plan B, to sexual assault victims.

Although the Connecticut law took effect Oct. 1, Father Kubat said Oct. 17 that it’s not too late in Wisconsin, where the proposed law has yet to pass. To help guide bishops, he said the current USCCB statement’s ambiguity on what type of certainty is acceptable before dispensing the potentially fatal morning-after pill needs to be clarified.

But Father Kubat emphasized that “there is no appropriate testing,” and neither would there be appropriate testing until medical science comes up with a way to determine if fertilization has occurred. He said a pregnancy or urinary test won’t show up as positive until two to three weeks after fertilization, and ovulation testing isn’t completely reliable either. “So if you give Plan B,” even if these tests have come back negative, “it could cause an abortion,” he said.

According to Wadas’ testimony, the WCC’s lack of opposition to SB 129/AB 377 is conditioned upon being able to “follow testing protocols that establish with moral certitude that a pregnancy has not occurred.” The WCC argued that pregnancy and ovulation testing can and do establish the necessary certitude that a woman is not pregnant.

But Father Kubat vehemently disagreed. “If we are morally certain about anything, it is that the risk of an abortion using these drugs is significant based on the scientific data presented,” he said. “That’s what we can be morally certain of if we want to talk about moral certainty.”

“If you take an honest look at the scientific data, reliable testing” to establish absolute certitude “does not exist,” Father Kubat added. “But now, unfortunately, most hospitals regularly dispense emergency contraception, including Catholic hospitals.”

The entire article is worth a read.

It's clear that Catholic hospitals across the country are quickly introducing Plan B into their rape protocols, often through legal coercion. I think this growing movement all the more demands that an official clarification from a competent Ecclesiastical body be issued.

Catholic hospitals must be allowed in law to practice medicine according to their principles and without violating the consciences of prudent physicians and care givers. Catholic hospitals deserve the support of the Church when they attempt to challenge unjust intrusive laws. At the same time, before Catholic workers stick their necks out, they should be told if this is actually an issue that demands their heroic witness.

Bioethics essay: “Did the Congo nuns get permission and set precedent?"

Welcome to this week's installment of my ongoing essay series about contemporary bioethics issues. As always, constructive feedback is welcome. Here is a list of the previous topics I've treated so far:

• "The Pope Speaks to Pharmacists ... and Connecticut?" (Oct. 29)
• "Long-Term Complications for Premature Infants" (Oct. 22)
• “The Evil Effects of Legalizing Euthanasia” (Oct. 10)
• “The Moral Implications of Artificial Wombs” (Oct. 1)
• “Mandatory Organ Donation Initiatives” (Sep. 26)
• “Human-Animal Hybrids and the Catholic Response” (Sep. 20)

This week's topic:

“Did the Congo Nuns receive permission, and did that set an irreformable precedent?”

[Prompted by questions in this AmP comment thread.]

A recent debate concerning the use of contraceptives in rape protocols has brought up the often-cited case of the “Congo nuns.” As the story goes, nuns in the Belgian Congo during the 1960s were given permission by the Vatican to take contraceptives in situations were it was clear that guerilla soldiers might sack their convents and force themselves upon the sisters. This story is regularly used as a lower-level support of the now widespread practice (enshrined in the USCCB’s Ethical and Religious Directives #36) of allowing women who have been raped to be treated “with medications that would prevent ovulation, sperm capacitation, or fertilization.”

In 2001, for instance, a Spanish bishop stated that religious women living in places where they were in danger of being raped could legitimacy use oral contraceptives.[2] Fr. Brian Johnstone, a respected moral theologian at the Alphonsiana used the case of the Congo nuns as precedent for the Spanish bishop’s statement, saying that at the time when the permission was given it “was seen as a protection against pregnancy arising from unwanted, unfree sexual intercourse.” [3] Johnstone admited that the case is not well know, “but it’s there” he maintained. [4]

Efforts to objectively prove the existence of a dispensation to the Congo nuns yield frustratingly scant results. Buried deep in the Park Ridge Center’s Media Brief, for example, one finds a citation of an Associated Press article that claims Vatican officials described the Church’s action in the Congo as a “legitimate defense.” If this seems like tenuous third-hand hearsay, it is.

In The Encycical that Never Was: The Story of the Commission on Population, Robert Blair Kaiser makes the claim (in a footnote on p. 72) that the Spanish Jesuit Fr. Marcelino Zalba was “the first theologian to propose that the Vatican allow nuns in war-torn Congo to use the pill … [and] the Holy Office bought his suggestion.”[5] The claim is an interesting one considering that Fr. Zalba was a staunch supporter of Humanae Vitae [6] and a frequent-citer of Casti Cannubi.[7] In other words, he was hardly an individual one would suspect of trying to subvert the doctrinal teaching of the Church.

At the same time, however, Kaiser provides a fascinating account of Fr. Zolba’s reasoning on a related topic (p. 124): “[Fr Marcelino] Zalba believed that Pius XII had condemned the pill but, because he voiced this in a mere allocutio, Zalba did not consider this an irreformable conclusion.”[8] From this quotation it is evident that Fr. Zalba – himself the alleged proponent of the Congo nuns dispensation – did not take lower-level locutions by a pontiff (or one could also postulate, private letters from the Holy Office) as irreformable teaching! In fact the congo nuns exception – if it deed occurred - preceded the publication of Humanae Vitae in 1968. One could reasonably make the argument that Humanae Vitae overrules the low-level precedent set by the Vatican permission to the Congo nuns.

Digging still deeper, one finds that the most prominent figure to regularly bring up the case of the Congo nuns is none other than Vatican-censured theologian Charles Curran. [9] For the sake of completeness, Martin Rhonheimer mentions the Congo nuns case example in a footnote to his Objectivity of Human Action: Some Classic Problems, [10] saying that it was much discussed in the early 1960s, and that several moral theologians at the time had declared in an affidavit that the action of taking contraceptives by nuns in Congo missions was “morally acceptable.”

To conclude, the purpose of this treatment was not to call into question the teaching of the U.S. bishops in their Ethical and Religious Directives, but rather to point out that several reservations should accompany the use of the Congo nuns as a precedent for this teaching. As has been shown, there exists no readily-available documentation of the permission given by the Holy Office to the Congo nuns. Also, the Vatican has not referred back to it as a precedent when treating questions of a similar nature (although it is hard to definitively prove this negative claim). Finally, Fr. Zolba, the architect of the argument which the Holy See employed (if it did indeed grant the dispensation) would himself seem to not stand by the precedent absolutely. +++

November papal prayer intention a medical/legal one

Today's VIS:

Pope Benedict's general prayer intention for November is: "That those dedicated to medical research and all those engaged in legislative activity may always have deep respect for human life, from its beginning to its natural conclusion."

... the "3" of a little 1-2-3 punch, I'd like to think. Or at the very least, consistent solid teaching.

"Pope urges pharmacists to reject abortion pill" - Reuters

Update 5: I've decided to make this speech the topic of this week's bioethics essay.

Reuters:

Pharmacists must be allowed to refuse to supply drugs that cause abortion or euthanasia, Pope Benedict said on Monday, calling on health professionals to be "conscientious objectors" against such practices.

The Pope told a convention of Roman Catholic pharmacists that part of their job was to help protect human life from conception until natural death -- the Church teaching that rules out any deliberate termination of pregnancy or euthanasia.

"It is not possible to anaesthetise the conscience, for example, when it comes to molecules whose aim is to stop an embryo implanting or to cut short someone's life," the Pope said.

The so-called abortion pill, which is available in many European Union countries and has had regulatory approval in the United States since 2000, has not been authorised in Italy.

The Vatican has criticised moves by some Italian politicians who favour the pill, which blocks the action of the hormone progesterone that is needed to sustain a pregnancy.

The Pope told the international gathering that individual pharmacists could always choose not to prescribe such a drug.

"I invite your federation to consider conscientious objection which is a right that must be recognised for your profession so you can avoid collaborating, directly or indirectly, in the supply of products which have clearly immoral aims, for example abortion or euthanasia," he said.

Update: Today's VIS adds a bit more:

In the moral sphere, the federation of pharmacists "is called to face the question of conscientious objection, which is a right that must be recognized for people exercising this profession, so as to enable them not to collaborate directly or indirectly in supplying products that have clearly immoral purposes such as, for example, abortion or euthanasia."

It is also important, the Pope proceeded, that pharmaceutical organizations practice "solidarity in the therapeutic field so as to enable people of all social classes and all countries, especially the poorest, to have access to vital medicines and assistance."

"The biomedical sciences are at the service of man," the Pope concluded. "Were it otherwise they would be cold and inhuman. All scientific knowledge in the field of healthcare ... is at the service of sick human beings, considered in their entirety, who must have an active role in their cure and whose autonomy must be respected."

CWNews provides a summary of the Pope's words. CNA does so as well.

The Pope is calling on pharmacists to conscientiously object when asked to dispense treatments that have an abortifacient or euthanistic effect.

The Pope's speech, however, does not answer the dilemma currently being faced by pharmacists asked to dispense Plan B, because the precise question is whether or not Plan B is abortifacient in the first place. If it is, the Pope's words apply. If it isn't, they don't apply.

This speech also provides no guidelines that might be applied to the prudential question concerning how much surety (or lack of surety) is needed to conscientiously object. The fact that pharmacists' jobs as well as their moral integrity is at stake makes me wish for a bit more clarity.

Update 2: I'm specifically pointing out that this speech by the Pope does not seem to directly apply to recent events in CT. The press has decided to link the two events in naming the "abortion pill" as the type of treatment the Pope is speaking about, while actually, the Pope is simply stating a general principle that then must be prudentially applied in specific cases. To wit: if Plan B is an "abortion pill" then clearly the Pope's words apply. If Plan B is not an "abortion pill", than just as clearly the Pope's words do not apply.

Update 3: The Associated Press has picked up on the story, and it seems to be getting more traction in general.

(Of course, it would be nice to have access to the full text of the Pope's speech. Again, Reuters/AP have their coverage out before the Catholic reporting agencies. I'm not trying to lay any blame here, but it would be nice if the universal Church had access to its own documents before the secular presses tell us - in their own way - what was said.)

Update 4: Zenit has posted its coverage and adds a helpful line (underlining mine):

[Pope Benedict] recalled [the pharmacist's] role in educating patients "in the correct use of medications" and in informing them of "the ethical implications of the use of particular drugs."

A law that prohibits pharmacists from informing their patients about the ethical implications of certain drugs would seem to violate what Pope Benedict is claiming to be part of the pharmacists' role.

LifeSiteNews has coverage of the Pope's speech, which is now available in French and Italian on the Vatican Website.

Fr. Fehlner speaks out on Plan B ... and takes it an extra step

LifeSiteNews reports:

In what is likely the most significant contribution to date in the debate over the use of the so-called "emergency contraception" pills at Catholic hospitals, renowned theologian Fr. Peter Damian Fehlner has written on the subject. The Doctor of Sacred Theology who has been teaching theology in Franciscan universities and seminaries in the US and Italy for forty years, has questioned the basis on which the whole issue is based - namely whether it is permitted for Catholics to administer Plan B even if it acted as a contraceptive rather than causing abortions.

Fr. Fehlner, who was the North American Superior for the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate in the United States from 1996 to 2002, dismissed outright the use of Plan B at Catholic hospitals where there is any doubt as to it possibility of causing an abortion. "The fact is, if we have any doubt about whether a given action would directly risk someone's life, entail a violation of justice or threaten the salvation of a soul, we may not act on the basis of a scientific probability," he writes. "That means even if the pill in Plan B is only 'dubiously' abortive, we simply may not use it at all."

The same point in the debate was made by the Catholic Medical Association and by pro-life groups which have been involved in the debate. However, Catholic bioethicists working for hospitals have advised bishops that it is good enough to have "moral certainty" rather than absolute certainty that the pills will not cause an abortion.

My only response to this valid point is that currently there is no way to definitively prove that Plan B never acts abortifaciently.

As I read the current medical findings, the "doubt" of a person proscribing Plan B in cases of rape treatment amounts to something like this:

"I know there were reports many years ago which claim that this treatment could possibly harm a human life. However, recent medical evidence seems to deny these earlier claims."

The prudential question is then whether or not this represents sufficient doubt to make it morally imperative that one choose against treatment. The recently-passed Connecticut Legislation deprives individuals (both doctors and patients) the freedom to make this prudential decision.

Fr. Fehlner, however, takes his argument against Plan B one step further:

However, beyond the question of the abortifacient effects of the pills, Fr. Fehlner - a familiar name to those who watch EWTN, points out that the Church teaches that contraception is intrinsically evil and thus is not permissible even in cases of rape."

Prevention of procreation is intrinsically evil prior to and independently of any good end which might be achieved thereby, such as avoiding further violence at the hands of a rapist, explains Fr. Fehlner. "The woman may certainly resist and should resist to the limit permitted by divine law any sexual assault. But she may not do this by using a means which is intrinsically evil, in this case considering the conception of a child an act of violence justifying the use of contraception."

The stance of Fr. Fehlner calls into question not only the decision of the Connecticut Bishops, but also that of the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services put out by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops.

The document permits contraception in cases of rape. It says specifically that in cases of women who have been raped: "If, after appropriate testing, there is no evidence that conception has occurred already, she may be treated with medications that would prevent ovulation, sperm capacitation, or fertilization."

Nonetheless, Fr. Fehlner is standing on firm ground since several Popes have also taught that contraception is "intrinsically evil" and thus impermissible regardless of circumstances.

This is a more serious claim. And I think if Plan B stands or falls, it won't stand or fall on this particular issue.

Let me explain: while Fr. Fehlner is correct in saying that contraception is "intrinsically evil" and hence never to be done, what is in fact "intrinsically evil" about contraception is primarily that it destroys the connection between the unitive and procreative dimensions of marital intercourse, as is taught in Humanae Vitae #12.

However, in cases of rape, there is no unitive dimension for contraception to separate from the procreative. Indeed, rape is a wilful and violent perversion of what should be a unitive act. Part of its horror is that it is so clearly a violation and a "taking" of something which should be freely given and sacramentally confirmed.

Therefore, individual Church conferences and directives have taught that a victim of rape may take non-abortifacient contraceptives to prevent the further violence of the attacker's sperm upon her body (in this case, ovum). A primary example of this teaching is present in #36 of the USCCB's ERDs.

Bp. Richard Malone speaks out against middle-school contraceptives

CWNews:

Bishop Richard Malone of Portland, Maine, has strongly objected to a decision by the city’s school board that will make contraceptives available to middle-school students.
"I join the number of parents who have expressed their outrage and disbelief at the decision which affects young girls aged 11 to 14 years old," the bishop said. He was responding to a new policy that will allow distribution of birth-control devices to students, without the knowledge of their parents.

Diogenes notes an unexplained absence.

Brief AP coverage here. CNA does a bit better here.

Update: Good observations from a simple practical stand point:

11-year-old children need their parents involved in their medical care. Period. We need to check their temperatures and give them Ibuprofin when they need it, talk with their doctors, understand how their prescription drugs interact, make sure they drink enough fluids when they have the flu...and we sure as [heck] need to know when they're taking hormone-altering drugs that can have serious short and long-term side-effects. [full post.]