Jeb's Doctor in Schiavo Case An Extreme-Right Religious Ideologue

By DHinMI 

DemFromCT's post When is a Doctor not a Doctor made me curious about the shill brought in by Jeb Bush to pronounce Terri Shiavo's previous diagnoses as inadequate or inaccurate.  As DemFromCT mentioned, the doctor, William P. Cheshire, works for an outfit at Trinity International University called The Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity (CBHD).  CBHD sounded a little dodgy to me, so I looked it up, expecting to find an academic backwater.  Instead, what I found was a bastion of antipathy toward science and retrograde notions about reproductive rights consistent with the beliefs of Phyllys Schlafly and Randall Terry.  The press needs to jump all over this, because anyone affiliated with The Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity puts religion over science and should not be given a serious hearing on issues of medical ethics. 

I quickly perused some of CBHD's highlighted publications on reproductive ethics--all nothing more than op-ed pieces, most likely meant to run in church magazines and local weekly papers starved for material.  Some of what they write is just laughable, like the article that starts out with the claim that "[t]here are as many as 2.5 million infertile couples in    America--that's about the same size as the population of Phoenix."  I don't know much about medicine, but I know a bit about demography, and by any measure, even inaccurate measures, that's just plain wrong.  Phoenix has 1.3 million residents, and the Phoenix metro area about 3.5 million.  I have a hard time taking seriously anything that begins with such a glaring error that I confirmed in about 15 seconds. 

But beyond failing to exhibit any regard for factual evidence even when it's not at odds with religious belief, the authors highlighted on CBHD's website show a hostility toward science and a reliance on a literal interpretation of the Bible in addressing what they believe are the pressing concerns of medical ethics.  For instance, take a look as some of these gems from the piece that began with the dumb error about Phoenix, The Challenge of Infertility: A Biblical Framework for Responding Appropriately:

The growing number of reproductive technologies raises an equal number of ethical concerns. Only those technologies that pass ethical muster should be used. Some of the concerns to be considered include the sanctity of human life and the biblical ideal of the family...

Just as procreation is part of the biblical ideal for the family, so too is monogamous marriage. The apostle Paul was being completely consistent with this ideal when he cited Genesis in his instructions on the family in the book of Ephesians: "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh"  (Ephesians 5:31). God's ideal for the family is one man, one woman, in a one-flesh kind of union, for life. We all know from painful experience personally, in our families, or those around us how traumatic it is when this    ideal is violated by adultery, divorce, or even death. This ideal is to be preserved and practiced for the well-being of the family, including when considering reproductive technologies.

A number of the reproductive technologies violate God's ideal for the family and are, therefore, rife with difficulties. For instance, surrogate motherhood, one of the more controversial of the reproductive technologies, is contrary to the "nuclear" structure of the family. When a third party is intrudes on the procreative relationship the divinely  instituted structure of the family is altered...

Like other decisions, decisions concerning reproductive technology should be informed by a Christian worldview. What does the Bible say about infertility?...

[I]t is equally clear that the sovereign Lord is the one who opens and shuts the womb (1 Samuel 1:5-6). While children are clearly a blessing from God, the ability to bear them is subject to the mystery of his providence. In fact, the apostle James warns Christians not to be presumptuous about their lives. Rather than brazenly following our own desires, we are taught, "Instead . . . to say, 'If it is the Lord's will, we will live and do this or that'" (James 4:15). 

In other words, if you're not getting pregnant through normal sexual intercourse, just get over it, and quit taking matters into your own hands.

This is not the work of a serious medical ethicist. And one of the reasons it's less focused on infertility than on a narrow view of reproduction which holds that life begins at the moment that sperm fertilizes an egg, thus making a human being. (Of course, they're vehemently opposed to stem-cell research.)  As a result, you have a piece about distinguishing between harvesting and thawing eggs (ethically OK if the eggs are damaged, because they're not human life) and harvesting embryos (if the thawing goes wrong, you've just killed a human being). You have a call for adoptions of human embryos.  You have this book review from the perspective of somebody who sees oral contraceptives as essentially the same as abortion.  And you have my favorite, this big "screw you" to couples who may wish to avail themselves of the technological aids to fertility and pregnancy:

It should be added that this impoverished view also entails moral relativism, a denial of objective values, a denial of real right and wrong in terms of what is in keeping with the will of God. Fostering an impoverished understanding of the human person, the involvement of money and anonymity together with the new technologies, separating sexual union in the flesh from procreation, create opportunities for abuse-though this abuse may not readily be seen as such from a secular point of view. With the practices of financial reward, anonymity and a technological separation of sexual union from procreation, the satisfaction of parental desire and the manipulative-cum-medical success become the measures of good and evil. All is right and good, so it is thought, if the medical manipulations are successful and the parents-to-be get the child they want. On this understanding, parental wills or desire, not the will of God, decide what is right and wrong; and so what is right and wrong will vary with human wills... 

On a Christian understanding, it is not up to us to choose to have children in any manner we like. But if the concepts of the imago Dei and of life as gift from God are not accepted as moral yard-sticks, then there is nothing to hold back moral relativism, with all of its arbitrariness and tyrannies.

If there weren't "moral relativism," there wouldn't be much need for medical ethics.  The only reason there's debate about "freedom to chose" "end of life" issues is because there's ambiguity about the choice or the actual end of life.  Because there's ambiguity, because there are unsettled questions, we can exercise our liberties to search for our own answers, even to the big questions about the meaning and definition of life.  When the Supreme Court, in Casey v Pennsylvania, upheld Roe v Wade, Justices Kennedy, O'Connor and Souter wrote that "[a]t the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State." 

Because we, as Americans, have such varied and evolving ideas and principles about the attributes of personhood, and because our ideals and principles often lag behind our technology, we have a serious need for serious medical ethicists.  However, we aren't served as people or as citizens of the United States by those who believe all our questions can be clearly and authoritatively answered by a literal reading of the Bible.  Our need to wrestle with ambiguity won't go away by accepting the certitudes of the ideologues at the Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity.

Comments

[emptypockets]

All this talk of bioethicists speaking out on behalf of Bushes raises the mystery of the barking dog ("But there was no barking dog, Holmes," said Watson. "Precisely," Holmes said.) Why haven't we heard anything from George Bush's pet puppet bioethicist Leon Kass?

If Kass -- the U.S. bioethicist laureate, essentially, and a sock puppet for Bush's positions, most notable on stem cell research -- has said anything, he did it in a forum that is immune to my googlepower. 'cuz I can't find squat.

I see an article in the National Review where someone else quotes Kass talking about the Holocaust and makes it in regard to Schiavo, but it doesn't appear the original material was in that context.

I see some other blog noting that Kass has been notably silent on the matter, as of Monday.

And I did run across a nice story about yet another honor being awarded Liz Blackburn, a luminary scientist and former colleague of mine of sorts, whom Leon Kass fired from the President's Council on Bioethics because she would not fall in line on stem cells (her being one of the only if not the only actual scientist on the panel may be more than coincidental to her views or expertise on the issue).

But I don't see a thing about Kass being trotted out in defense of force-feeding a woman to live against her wishes. And now as you point out, Jeb has lifted up enough rocks to find this neurologist of such great renown that no one's ever heard of him.

So in all of this, where's Leon? Could the Christian right-wing have gone so fringe on this one that they left even him behind??

[Meteor Blades]

...separating sexual union in the flesh from procreation ...

Hmmmm. So they're apparently not opposed only to oral contraception but the whole shebang.

Medical ethics aside, in a world of 6 billion, I'm not such a huge fan of in vitro fertilization. Not that I think it should be banned, but until we've got a better record in adopting already living children, it seems to me almost self-indulgent to spend thousands of bucks just to have a baby with one's very own DNA. I know that my lack of sympathy for infertile couples - gay and straight - will bristle some people's neckhairs. And I know some economist demographers will chew me out for undermining future retirement programs because we won't have enough new bodies to pay for the pensions of the aged. Sorry, I'm not easily swayed by either.

[DHinMI]

Ahhh, Leon Kass.

I wondered the same thing. And I did see that he's speaking at a conference on "genetic and reproductive ethics" sponsored by CBHD in July.

[emptypockets]

MB,

forgive my saying so, but I think your views on IVF are rational arguments for personal responsibility. So the question would be, do you think IVF ought to be made illegal?

that is to distinguish your comments from those DHinMI ascribes to the CBHD, which are Biblical arguments for moral absolutism. I'm guessing their answer to the question would be an avowed "Hell yes, and amen."

So as in the abortion debate, I'd suggest separating the argument into "would you do yourself" and "would you arrest those who do". Really different questions.

[emptypockets]

DHinMI, that CBHD conference you linked to is really something (I can only wonder about "movie night"... Silent Scream, or Million Dollar Baby?) Everything looks about as it should except standing out like a sore thumb is Francis Collins! He's one of the good guys, and should not be associating with these types.

Francis Collins is a long-time well-known researcher who headed the public effort to sequence the human genome (in that case he really was the head of the "good guys", the open-source side if you will, competing against Ventner's private industry effort. They called it a draw and published at the same time, in the end). He's a totally stand-up, normal academic scientist who has moved somewhat more towards public policy issues as his stature has grown (as many scientists do) but is by no means a politician or a shill. He and Ventner are near-guaranteed to share a Nobel prize in the next decade or so.

So what's he doing on the list? It's one thing to face your foes head-on and be the voice of reason in a den of fools. But I'm afraid his appearing there does more to lend credibility to the group than to refute it.

I'd strongly suggest you drop an email to him ([email protected]) and just politely be sure he's aware of the ideology of this group, and their political motivations. I'd suggest not asking him to do anything, but just express surprise at seeing him on the list & wanting to be sure he knows what they're about. He's a smart guy and can make good decisions for himself -- and hopefully, he will.

(I'll email him too; just conflicted about writing anonymously vs. with credentials.)

[Meteor Blades]

As I noted, I don't think IVF should be banned. These are personal choices, and I'm diehard libertarian on such matters. But when we have tens of thousands of orphans languishing in institutions or foster care, IVF strikes me as exceptionally short-sighted.

[DHinMI]

MB--let me point out just one reason your position is far superior to that of the crazies at CBHD--your point about kids languishing in foster care and orphanages is a good one, but the crazies don't mention it. Instead, they're urging people to adopt embryos. Thus, they abuse civil liberties, and still do nothing to improve the lives of those kids already born but in need of a family.

[Frankeynstain]

mature vs young hard mature women vieille salope mature amatrice mature fuck young young boy and mature mature vieille mature salope mature young first time mature and young boy < mature old fuck mature woman fucking girl hot mature men mature woman asshole mature pics free grosses.femmesmuresx.com grosse femme mature hairy bush mature mature hot movies film mature fuck dogs mature black busty photo penetration femme mature hot nasty mature galerie nylon mature brune mature nu hot wife mature blowjob woman mature mature free galerie rencontre femme mure femme mure amatrice cochon photo de femme mure hard cum her face mature photo x femme mure femme mure pour jeune homme 19ans mature mom cum photo gratuite fellation femme mure age mure nu gratuite x femme mure femme mure tres poilue photo femme mure amateur exhib rencontre coquin femme mure > femme mure et nu gratuit mure femme mure avec jeune mec recette and confiture and and mure photo x femme mure et ronde photo de femme mure xxx femme mure nu photo photo gratuite vieille mature nu mature busty babe gallery nymphomane mature amatrice lady mature mature drunk suck vieille saint girons photo vieille salope gratuit mature collant nylon galerie gratuite mature mature and granny mature lady posing femme amatrice mature vieille salope .com pipe hard concert hard rock berlin hard rock cafe black orchid rock nantes hard audrey tautou film hard archive journal hard pps hard ecoute musique hard rock couple hard roman photo hard film and x and hard photo hard de brigitte lahaie music hard core teen hard preview hard top nissan navara hard and top rencontre hard gratuite pps hard gratuit hard anal fucking photo gratuite femme hard peugeot dangel 505 hard top dvd x hard discount sodomie hard amateur pps humour hard liste hard discount essonne mature riding hard hard tv net hard xxx gratuit