All We Need is (Unconditional) Love

On March 24, 2017, Joe Gibes posted an entry on this blog, entitled “A ‘disabled’ person speaks out against a particular form of discrimination.”[1] That post featured links to several stories about Kathleen Humberstone, a young woman with Down Syndrome who spoke at a recent UN event commemorating World Down Syndrome Day, which was observed on March 21.

After reading through Joe’s post and the stories to which his post links, I’d like to add the following two very basic observations (which I will only state here – further elaboration shall have to await another time):

  • OBSERVATION #1: Thankfulness and disability are entirely compatible – indeed, one can be genuinely thankful for one’s disability. “Thank you Down’s syndrome!” Kathleen says enthusiastically, in her prepared remarks for the UN event.[2] It’s hard to imagine she doesn’t mean this sincerely.
  • OBSERVATION #2: As Hans S. Reinders has said repeatedly,[3] often the thing that people with profound intellectual disabilities need most is simply to be chosen as friends. This point is easily generalizable to persons with any kind of disability—very often, what we “need” most is simply friendship, not “healing” or “relief” or “freedom” from the (supposed) “burden” of disability itself.

With continued developments in prenatal genetic testing techniques, including the relatively recent advent of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT), it has become even easier to detect, at earlier and earlier points in pregnancy, the presence of disabilities such as Down syndrome. And this, of course, opens the door to so-called “selective termination” of unborn children who test “positive” for such conditions.

For Denise Humberstone, Kathleen’s mom, this makes no sense whatsoever. Why shouldn’t we accept all persons, Denise wonders, including those with Down syndrome and other disabling conditions, with the same kind of unconditional love that we would offer to any other, nondisabled person?

“Whatever happened to unconditional love?” she asks. “When did society decide we should want and love a child only if it is as perfect as medical research allows?”

In a Facebook post[4] written just prior to Kathleen’s speech at the UN event, Denise addresses the “unrealistic demands for perfection” that appear to drive so many of these decisions to abort unborn children diagnosed with Down syndrome and other disabilities:

I’m also wondering if in parallel to scientific research, these unrealistic demands for perfection stem from the fact that we are also now living in a world where we can not only get anything we want off the internet but that item always comes with a return form should it not be up to your expectations. Not perfect? Bam! Return it, free-post, no questions asked, item will be replaced in no time….

What are we teaching our children? People are worthy of life and love only if they are perfect? We can’t cope with children unless they’re perfect? Your marriage/partnership won’t last unless your children are perfect? Siblings will be ok as long as they are all perfect? I can assure you that my friends are not happier because they don’t have a child with special needs…. There is always something to be unhappy about, it’s human nature.

So why can’t we just go back to the basics and try and love unconditionally? Why can’t we just deal with the hand we’ve been dealt… and rise up to the challenges that life throws at us?

Around the same time as Joe posted his blog entry about Kathleen Humberstone, quadriplegic and disability advocate Joni Eareckson Tada posted a blog entry[5] about World Down Syndrome Day. Here’s what she wrote:

I love smiling children… the image imparts such hope and joy, reminding us we are all made in the image of God. I especially delight in the smile of a child with Down syndrome. Anyone who has rubbed shoulders with someone who has Down syndrome will rave about the love, openness, and zest for life they bring to every family. Their laughter and joy is infectious. Today, as we celebrate World Down Syndrome Day, I’m reminded of a touching video I saw two years ago – titled “Dear Future Mom,” it shows children and teens with Down syndrome. Each has something brief and sweet to say about their disability. Then, they look into the camera and address the worries of any pregnant woman who is fearful about carrying a child with Down syndrome.

This video blessed me so much, I just had to share it with you. Perhaps you know of an expectant mother who has learned her baby has a genetic disorder. Please share this with her – the smiles on the faces of these young people will ease fears and give hope, helping her welcome her precious baby into the world.[6]

In the end, Kathleen Humberstone and the children and teens featured in “Dear Future Mom” remind us of what we all need the most: unconditional love.

 

[1] See http://blogs.tiu.edu/bioethics/2017/03/24/a-disabled-person-speaks-out-against-a-particular-form-of-discrimination/.

[2] http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/39339338/downs-syndrome-teenager-addresses-the-un-in-geneva

[3] See, for example, his Receiving the Gift of Friendship: Profound Disability, Theological Anthropology, and Ethics (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2008).

[4] https://www.facebook.com/denise.humberstone/posts/10155948159319126?comment_id=10155950465429126&reply_comment_id=10155950568324126&notif_t=feed_comment_reply&notif_id=1488705525554890

[5] http://www.joniandfriends.org/blog/world-down-syndrome-day-2017/

[6] “Dear Future Mom” can be viewed here: https://youtu.be/Ju-q4OnBtNU.

Which is It? “Tissue” or “Baby”?

I’m not a physician. I know next to nothing about biology or embryology. I’m confused. Will those who are trained in medical sciences please help me to understand?

In January 2017, Arkansas governor Asa Hutchinson signed into law Bill 1032 which prohibits a procedure, “dilation and evacuation” (D&E), that is used in a large percentage of abortions after the 14-week mark. Critics complain that making this “safe and common” procedure illegal effectively bans second trimester abortions. Declaring the bill unconstitutional, Rita Skylar, executive director of the ACLU of Arkansas, contends: “It’s an empty gesture that’s going to cost the state tens of thousands of dollars in litigation fees and costs.” Skylar is correct in at least this regard. The new law will be opposed stridently by Arkansas ACLU and various pro-abortion groups and will, more than likely, become hung up in appeals court, as is the “pain capable abortion” bill—banning abortions after 20 weeks—that was passed in 2013.

Ignorant as I am about surgical procedures, I looked up “Dilation and Evacuation (D&E) for Abortion” on WebMD. Admittedly, the procedure itself sounded rather dreadful to a person untrained in medicine and surgery like myself. I found especially intriguing the terminology used to described what is “evacuated” in this procedure. Repeatedly, the article referred to “tissue,” “larger pieces of tissue,” and “uterine contents.”

Granted, I do not know much about embryology either, but I assumed that at 14 weeks the fetus was more than simply “tissue,” even “large pieces of tissue.” Thus, I searched the same website and found a slideshow on “Fetal Development: Month by Month.” In light of the website’s description of D&E, the title of the slideshow was startling: “Your Baby’s Growth: Conception to Birth.” Consistently, the slideshow referred to the developing embryo-fetus as “baby.” Viewing pictures of the “baby” at 12 weeks, 14 weeks, and 16 weeks, I concluded that my original assumption was correct. In the second trimester, when this “safe and common” procedure (D&E) is used, much more is evacuated than “tissue.”

Surely, my confusion is easy to understand. When the website describes the abortion procedure that Arkansas seeks to ban, reference is always to “tissue,” “larger tissue,” and “uterine content.” But when the same website presents a slideshow on embryological development, reference is always to “baby.” So, please explain. Which is it? “Tissue” or “baby”? I’m confused.

From my non-medical perspective, is it as simple as I think it is? If the developing entity is not wanted, it’s “tissue.” If the entity is wanted, it’s “baby.” In such a case, the moral value and status of the embryo-fetus-baby is simply “assigned” or “attributed” by me or you. If you desire the developing entity, it’s “baby,” implying high value and status. If you do not desire the developing entity, it’s “tissue,” implying no value and status at all. If we want to justify abortion in the second trimester utilizing what appears to me to be a grisly procedure, I suppose we have to convince ourselves that the removal of “tissue” is all that is involved. Please tell me. Is this good medical science or self delusion?

A “disabled” person speaks out against a particular form of discrimination

Amidst lots of dark and tragic stories, a bright ray on the BBC website this week: Kathleen Humberstone, a 17 year-old English girl with Down syndrome, addressed the UN in Geneva to mark World Down Syndrome Day.

Rather than reading anything I have to say, a far better use of your time would be to read what Ms. Humberstone said. You can find the full text here; if you scroll down you can listen to her speech and an eloquent talk her mother gave afterwards.

The speech is only 3 minutes 42 seconds, and the mother’s talk 5 minutes 48 seconds. It is well worth every second of your time to listen to these women. However, for those of you who don’t have the time or place to listen, I will give a few highlights here.

From Kathleen’s talk (when she refers to “testing,” she’s talking about prenatal genetic testing to detect and abort fetuses suspected to have Down syndrome):

Bonjour, Hello! I can’t believe I’m here! I’m at the UN, in Geneva! Do you know why? Because I have 47 chromosomes. That’s just crazy!! Thank you Down syndrome! I’m here to talk to you about my life and why it is worth living . . . I love everybody. I can’t help it! I hope everybody loves me. I have Down syndrome. Yes. Is that so wrong? So, why all this testing? Why? My name is Kathleen Humberstone and I love my life!!

From Kathleen’s mother’s talk:

You know that trisomy 21 happens to be one of the easiest disabilities to identify at the moment in utero. More will follow. And eventually all disabilities will be identifiable in utero. So, parents of future generations will have quite a few choices to make. Now sadly, the real downfall of people with disabilities is that we parents still have not found this unit of measurement which would enable us to quantify all they bring to society. But how on earth do you quantify something so strong, so beautiful, and yet so invisible, so intangible, and therefore so worthless, so meaningless, and so easily dismissible to most people who can’t experience it? And how can you blame them? I long for the day when we can quantify this most powerful and almost magical je ne sais quoi, because you would finally understand that our children are not a burden; disabilities are not a burden; they are everything but. I’ll tell you what the burden is. It’s a growing lack of empathy and a thick-lined cloak of altruism: “We don’t want them to suffer.” But it’s not just a burden; it’s also a threat to people like my daughter. It’s time beings-in-the-making stop being discarded solely on the ground of their predicted disabilities. Because we are also doing away with a mountain of hidden abilities. . . you know what else is so sad? A society without disabilities, without diversity, without differences, will not be any happier than the one we’ve got now. It’s an illusion.

Also see here.

The Gift of Finitude

I’ve been thinking a lot lately about finitude. About limits. Incompleteness. Even failure.

Like the friend of a friend who is dying and has just been admitted to hospice, whose young teenaged daughter is facing the prospect of a life without her mother.

Like the colleague who is grieving the loss of both a spouse and a parent within a month of each other.

Like my power wheelchair that keeps breaking down, making everyday activities significantly more challenging.

Like the never-ending “to-do” list that seems to be anything but finite, and never quite seems to get any shorter.

Life is, in a word, full of limits. Boundaries. Unavoidable stopping points.

Or is it?

What if we could transcend our limits, as recent developments in genetic and related technologies (e.g., CRISPR) seem to promise? What if, through genetic manipulations of various sorts, we could significantly reduce our limitations—eliminate specific diseases and disabling conditions, improve cognitive function, “select” for desired physical traits, and so on?

If we could do these things, should we do them?

Of course, as anyone who has followed the field of bioethics for even a short period of time knows, these questions are neither new nor hypothetical. In many ways, the “future” is already here: we “enhance” ourselves, “transcend” limits and boundaries, and otherwise seek to “overcome” finitude in a myriad number of ways, on a daily basis. And much of this is salutary.

Still, it’s always worth pausing to consider: supposing finitude could be eliminated entirely from our lives (which seems extraordinarily doubtful), is it the sort of thing we ought to try to eliminate? Put differently: is there anything good about finitude, such that we ought to embrace it (even if in a qualified way)?

Gilbert Meilaender, a bioethicist and Distinguished Fellow of The Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity, suggests that there is something good about finitude. In a reflection on the “created duality” of our human nature—we are simultaneously both “free” and “finite”—Meilaender observes that this “two-sidedness” to our nature both opens up possibilities and imposes certain limits upon us. We are, he observes,

created from dust of the ground—finite beings who are limited by biological necessities and historical location. We are also free spirits, moved by the life-giving Spirit of God, created ultimately for communion with God—and therefore soaring beyond any limited understanding of our person in terms of presently “given” conditions of life…. Made for communion with God, we transcend nature and history—not in order that we may become self-creators, but in order that, acknowledging our Creator, we may recognize the true limit to human freedom. Understanding our nature in this way, we learn something about how we should evaluate medical “progress.” It cannot be acceptable simply to oppose the forward thrust of scientific medicine. That zealous desire to know, to probe the secrets of nature, to combat disease—all that is an expression of our created freedom from the limits of the “given,” the freedom by which we step forth as God’s representatives in the world. But a moral vision shaped by this Christian understanding of the person will also be prepared to say no to some exercises of human freedom. The never-ending project of human self-creation runs up against the limit that is God. It will always be hard to state in advance the precise boundaries that ought to limit our freedom, but we must be prepared to look for them.[1]

I am inclined to agree with Meilaender. Moreover, as I have shared in an autobiographical essay published recently,[2] my own experiences as a person with a physical disability have taught me valuable life lessons that, arguably, might not have been learned otherwise—lessons such as the value of patience and endurance, accepting my limits (an ongoing struggle, I must admit!), and even the importance of having a sense of humor at the (sometimes ridiculous) circumstances in which one finds oneself. Our limits shape our character, our career, and our life choices as much as do our “freedoms”—often in surprising and unexpected ways, and frequently for the better.

None of these reflections, of course, even begin to scratch the surface of the “what?”, “where?”, “when?”, “how?”, or “why?” questions related to the ethical permissibility (or lack thereof) of pursuing various genetic, reproductive, or other technologies. Nor do they, by themselves, tell us whether (and when) we ought or ought not to avail ourselves of abortion, physician-assisted suicide, euthanasia and the like.

They do, however, remind us of one very simple, yet all-too-often overlooked fact: finitude is, in many ways, a gift. Let us not neglect it.

 

[1] Gilbert Meilander, Bioethics: A Primer for Christians, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2013), 3-5.

[2] See “Why am I Disabled? Reflections on Life’s Questions and God’s Answers,” in the Beyond Suffering Bible (Tyndale, 2016), available at beyondsufferingbible.com and http://www.joniandfriends.org/bible/.

Pain-Capable Abortion Bans

More than three decades ago, I went to visit a friend who was hospitalized at NIH in Bethesda, Maryland. On the way from the parking lot to her room, I encountered a group of animal rights activists protesting the use of animals in medical research. To this day I vividly remember the chant they repeated again and again: “A cat is a rat is a dog is a boy.” Operating on a hunch, I couldn’t resist asking about their viewpoint on abortion. As I suspected, the group was decidedly pro-choice, connecting their acceptance of abortion with the problem of over-population. Even at the time, I thought it strange that someone could be against animal research for medical benefit but for abortion. Thirty years later, I still think it strange.

A few weeks ago South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley signed a law that bans abortion at or after 20 weeks. Undoubtedly, the pro-choice camp will be up in arms against the law. Arkansas and other states have passed similar “pain-capable” abortion laws that remain stymied in judicial review.

Two reasons often set forth for prohibiting abortions at and after 20-weeks are the fetus’ resemblance to an infant and the fetus’ capacity to feel pain. I wish to make one point regarding the latter criterion. Specifically, I contend that one cannot be for animal rights and, at the same time, be against laws that prohibit abortions at the at the development stage of sentience.

For animal rights proponents, the launching point of their argument for animal equality and their opposition to “speciesism” is that non-human animals are capable of feeling pain like human animals, and thus, should not be discriminated against but rather accorded equal consideration. By their logic, animal rights—including the right not to be killed—flow out of the animals’ capacity to feel pain. This was the point of the animal rights protesters at NIH decades ago.

If one accepts the logic of animal rights, then shouldn’t he or she be against abortion at the point at which fetuses are capable of feeling pain? Even if one has a low view of the value of the embryonic/fetal human being in the womb, doesn’t he or she have to admit that at a certain stage in fetal development they are at minimum “pain-capable animals”? If so, don’t they have the right not to be killed?

Critiquing this key argument of the animal rights movement is not my present aim. Rather, I’m simply pointing out that it is logically inconsistent to be for animal rights and against laws that limit abortions at the point fetuses can feel pain. Thus, animal rights proponents should not be against “pain-capable” abortion laws. They cannot accord rights to pain-capable non-human animals and deny them to pain-capable human fetuses.

Of course, from the pro-life perspective, pain capability is an arbitrary threshold, since this perspective bases its opposition to abortion on the inherent value of the embryonic/fetal human being from the earliest moments of existence. Obviously, pro-choice proponents do not accept this high view of the value of embryonic/fetal human beings. However, I’ve run across a great number of people like the protestors at NIH who see themselves as promoters of both “abortion rights” and “animal rights.” It would be progress if they could come to see that prohibiting abortions at the point of pain capability is reasonable and is consistent with the logic they use to justify animal rights. For the pro-life camp, this would represent only a minimal victory. However, at the present time when some seek to defend “post-birth abortion” (i.e. infanticide), it would at least be a step in the right direction.

Testing, testing: Prenatal genetic screening

The June 2016 issue of Obstetrics and Gynecology includes a study of the conversations between patients and “Health Care Providers” about prenatal genetic screening (PGS). The objective of the study was to “assess how obstetric health care providers counsel patients regarding prenatal genetic screening and how these conversations influence patients’ screening decisions.” PGS refers to blood and ultrasound tests performed early in pregnancy to determine whether a fetus is at high risk for various chromosomal anomalies, especially the anomaly that leads to Down syndrome. Several findings of the study are troubling.

First troubling finding: providers’ counseling of patients about PGS lasts an average of 1.5 minutes.

Second troubling finding: False-positive rates of PGS are discussed so rarely that they could not be reliably analyzed in the study. The false-positive rate refers to how often the screening test is wrong when it suggests that an abnormality is present; when a test says the baby has Down syndrome, but the baby in fact does not have Down syndrome, it is a false-positive. The guidelines of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists suggest that false-positive rates ought to be discussed in counseling about PGS.

But counseling about false-positive rates is itself troubling. The false-positive rate of PGS is somewhere around 5%. Most of us hear this and think, “OK, 95% of the time the test is right when it says that the baby has Down Syndrome.” However, to answer the question, “What percentage of the time is a positive test correct?” you can’t look at the false-positive rate; instead, you have to know something called the Positive Predictive Value. And for PGS, the positive predictive value is only 10%. That means that 90% of the time when PGS says “Down syndrome,” the baby does not have Down syndrome. (Numbers are higher for cell-free fetal DNA testing; however, this test is fraught with its own problems, and the study under consideration here did not include this test.)

Third troubling finding: In 51% of the discussions analyzed, health care providers did not clarify the fact that PGS is not diagnostic. PGS is a screening test, not a diagnostic test. The difference is crucial. Since 90% of abnormal PGS tests are wrong, an abnormal test requires a follow-up procedure to actually make a diagnosis. That follow-up test is usually an invasive test involving a needle into the uterus and a small chance of causing a miscarriage. I have known of several women who didn’t understand the screening nature of the test when they had it performed; when the test came back showing high-risk for a genetic abnormality, they then refused the more definitive diagnostic test. The result was either they spent their entire pregnancy in needless anxiety until the child was born without the anomaly, or they aborted the child on the basis of a false test result.

Why is all of this so troubling? Because medical tests are a big deal. Our understanding — or misunderstanding — of the results of medical tests shape how we see and understand ourselves. And PGS medical tests are a bigger deal than most; because if the results of this study are true, parents are frequently getting cursory explanations (1.5 minutes) from “providers” who give inadequate information about PGS tests. They are then using that (mis)information to make life-or-death decisions for the children they carry. If we’re going to practice eugenics, we should at least make sure that we’re doing so in a fully-informed fashion.

Medical errors and more medical errors

Last week the BMJ reported that annually, there are 251,000 hospital deaths due to preventable medical errors in the US. There’s some debate about the calculations that they used to arrive at that number, and about what exactly constitutes a medical error. However, rather than quibble over the fine points, let’s acknowledge that medical errors are an ethical problem that must be addressed. In this post I would like to widen the conversation beyond the hospital walls. Below is a sample of some deaths due to preventable medical errors that weren’t included in the BMJ calculations (most of these ones happen outside of hospitals); nevertheless, they too affect thousands of people annually. I will also attempt to provide a taxonomy of the relevant errors.

Deaths due to the inability of the patient to obtain medical care because they couldn’t afford the care or the insurance — unknown number. The medical error here is a systemic one, the rationing of health care on the basis of who can pay for it.

Deaths of patients due to their being the subjects of human research — unknown number. This is peculiarly prevalent among embryonic patients (as Jon Holmlund wrote about last week). The medical errors include the failure to extend to embryonic research subjects the protections enumerated in the Declaration of Helsinki. There is also a category error: classifying embryonic patients as something other than human beings.

Deaths of embryonic or fetal patients through elective induced abortion — 977,000 (2014 data). The same category error as previous comes into play here: the failure to recognize the humanity of the unborn human.

Deaths of patients from drugs prescribed by their physician for the purpose of suicide — the numbers data is incomplete. The number is relatively low but projected to grow as more jurisdictions legalize physician-assisted suicide. The errors here include a professionalism lapse (forgetting that the professional status of medicine was established, among other things, on the dictum that doctors do not give deadly drugs, even if asked to do so). There is also the error of hubris: the belief that doctors can decide that someone should be allowed to kill themselves.

Preventable medical errors, all.

Oh, Those Darned Terms!

In a recent post Jon Holmlund cited Thomas B. Edsall’s op-ed in the New York Times, “The Republican Conception of Conception.” Edsall was referring to the concept that life begins at conception. It is his hope that Republicans either stake a consistent position regarding the morality of post-conception “contraception” and incur the disfavor of the electorate, or abandon their “moral purity” in favor of “pragmatism” and agree that post-conceptional interventions are acceptable.

Edsall’s states it thus:

By this logic, a presidential candidate seeking to live up to the standards set by Sedlak and others in the anti-abortion community must then agree that the IUD and morning after pill cause abortions.

The problem is that Edsall challenges GOP candidates to take an informed and consistent position, while depending on the electorate not to. His strategy relies on manipulative use of terms to produce the opposite of clarity in moral reasoning. First, he speaks of medical interventions described as “contraceptives” that act in ways beyond merely preventing conception. But he does not give them the label “abortifacient” (the proper term for an IUD should be “contraceptive-abortifacient”); the term is simply omitted. That is the best way, of course, to ensure that users of devices such as the IUD are unaware that it may act after creation of an embryonic being.

Such a position is facilitated by ACOG’s definition of pregnancy as beginning at implantation, which Edsall also hangs his hat on. This is a willful dodge. “Pregnancy” refers to the state of the woman. To claim that pregnancy doesn’t begin until implantation fails to refute the notion that an embryonic human being is in existence before then. So the woman isn’t “pregnant”….the human being is still alive, moving toward implantation. And, if the woman isn’t “pregnant” during the time after the embryo is fertilized and before it is implanted, what is her state? Is it not different than before she conceived? Does that not deserve a name? The absence of a name for such a condition is no accident, because the unnamed state is far more difficult to assign a moral status to.

This same “reasoning” behind the proposed bill in the California State Legislature  also recently mentioned in this blog by Jon Holmlund:

“The bill would provide that nothing in its provisions is to be construed to authorize ending a patient’s life by lethal injection, mercy killing, or active euthanasia, and would provide that action taken in accordance with the act shall not constitute, among other things, suicide or homicide.”

So, according to this draft bill, one can take one’s own life and not commit suicide. The attempt to separate the actions that this bill would legalize from the term “suicide” is to attempt to prevent citizens from properly interpreting those actions using the moral values they have already acquired.

Are moral discussions about conception, contraception, abortion, and assisted suicide too painful for our electorate, having what Edsall describes as “its complex views and…pragmatism”? For many, yes, as proven by our unwillingness to clarify the terms needed to elucidate the moral issues regarding medical interventions blocking implantation. However, such discussions are not unwanted by all, but simply unknown to them. Remaining uninformed by the medical profession of the mechanisms of action of “contraceptives,” they are never given a chance to make an informed moral decision. Edsall (to achieve his desired virtue of consistency) would more properly make his challenge to all of us, to demand that each voter take a stance on the morality of embryocidal interventions. It is only then that they could properly interpret the candidates’ responses that Edsall so fervently desires.

Seeing the Horror

A video released by The Center for Medical Progress (CMP)  about Planned Parenthood included these words: “Some viewers may find this content disturbing.” It was to warn the viewer about the images of piled fetal body parts dumped from a bag by an abortion clinic worker.

What might be most disturbing…and chilling…is not the body parts, but the casual and glib attitudes of the Planned Parenthood staff toward them.

A subsequent post  in the Bioethics Forum of The Hastings Center attempted to explain away this indifference:

…most of us also don’t want to see graphic photos of any other type of surgery either. But our desire to look away isn’t inconsistent with thankfulness for the life-saving and health-preserving results of any type of medical procedure. It just means we don’t want to watch their gory accomplishment. But physicians don’t have the privilege we have of enjoying medical results without seeing the unpleasant in-between.

I suspect that the author hasn’t watched all the videos. And I’m not sure what purpose bioethics institutes will serve for our society if they harbor notions that fetal vivisection is comparable to “enjoyable” medical results that are “life-saving and health preserving.”

Yes, as a physician, I can see body parts…and worse…without passing out. But every physician must recognize the moral significance of the connection to the human, or else the profession of medicine is not a moral endeavor. In contrast to attitudes of the abortion clinic workers, in the CMP’s videos, the former StemExpress employee Holly O’Donnell expresses a depth of moral insight to recognize that each of these aborted fetuses was more than just a “tissue opportunity.”

It had a face…I remember picking him up…he was big…I remember holding that fetus in my hands when everyone else was busy…It’s really hard knowing that you’re the only person who is ever going to hold that baby…I would think about things like that…I wonder at age 3 if she would like a color…or I wonder what it would look like, her mom or her dad…

Planned Parenthood’s brutality is the logical consequence of Dr. Alan Guttmacher’s (former president of Planned Parenthood) belief, subsequently effectively written into law by the Supreme Court, that “…no baby receives its full birthright unless it is born gleefully wanted by its parents.” Yes, Planned Parenthood and its supporters are being purely logical. But pure rationality in the face of human dismemberment is no virtue. Watching Planned Parenthood staff speak of selling fetal body parts, I am reminded of G. K. Chesterton’s words in Orthodoxy: “The madman is not the man who has lost his reason. The madman is the man who has lost everything except his reason.

In Memoriam

Memorial Day serves as a holiday so that, we might hope, we pause to remember those who gave the ultimate sacrifice for our freedom. We might take a holiday from thinking about things bioethical as well. But could this day hold a lesson for the field of bioethics?

To set aside a day to remember those who died in defense of freedom is not simply to make some gesture for the fallen; what we do today is of course meaningless to them. To think upon those who have passed away, especially those who died for our freedom, is to set aside time to wonder what that means for how we should live. There is no better incentive for a man to ponder what he ought to do with his life then to be reminded how easily it is lost. And if someone dies for us, then we must ask—was it worth it? What features of character and conduct must we have to merit such a sacrifice?

Perhaps the best-known modern portrayal of this idea is in the movie, “Saving Private Ryan.” As he lay dying, Tom Hanks’ character utters the words to Matt Damon’s character, Private Ryan: “Earn it.” The movie then shows the older version of Private Ryan in sorrowful remembrance, asking if he had in fact done so.

If we think about various issues in the field of bioethics, we can recognize that there are those who have made the ultimate sacrifice as well. We could consider victims of medical experimentation, perhaps. We might also consider the nearly invisible—the human embryos also sacrificed for experimentation or convenience. But there is one group whose ultimate sacrifice comes foremost to mind this Memorial Day—the aborted. These millions are far more numerous than any other group of Americans that has lost their lives for our freedom.  Of course, we could argue whether this is truly “freedom” that abortion has provided, but that is how it is justified to us.

So what features of character and conduct would render us worthy of that which has been sacrificed? It is impossible to come up with any that are consistent with nature of the act of abortion itself. For to be a people of such character to have earned the “freedom” that the aborted have given us would be to be a people who would not do the procedure at all.