Love, justice & misrepresentation in medical practice.

In recent years it has become politically correct for physicians to offer their patients advice and then give them choices about treatment, rather than, as was the custom in the past, simply to offer a specific course of therapy. There is much merit in this approach because some treatments may be more effective but more hazardous or more difficult to endure than others. Furthermore, a patient is not legally bound to accept a given treatment and also must give fully informed consent to any offered treatment. However, a treatment recommended must be both morally and scientifically sound, and the choice of treatment options should not be affected by fear of litigation on the part of the patient.

Misrepresentations

It is important to treat disease. It is even more important to prevent it. Unfortunately, it is in these areas of treatment and prevention that doctors encounter their biggest moral dilemmas today. The reason? For at least forty years, under the influence of moral relativism and the customs of a pleasure-addicted utilitarian Western society, physicians, scientists, and their professional associations, aided and abetted by academic, political, financial, media, and judicial elites, have increasingly accepted as true many misrepresentations of the relevant facts of science. This they have done partly out of ignorance of spiritual and philosophical truth, and perhaps partly out of fear of ostracism by their colleagues

St. Thomas Aquinas defines the love of friendship, rational love, as the movement of the will towards a good perceived by human reason. One who loves another wishes that person well, i.e. wishes him or her health, success, virtue or the like. He wishes good to the other for that person's sake, not his own. Aquinas defines justice as a virtue which inclines men to respect both the natural and legal rights of others. It is the habit by which a person gives to each one what is due to him or her. When we love one another, we will be just to one another. When injustice reigns, we find it hard to love one another and easy to love only ourselves. The happiness of society demands both love and justice. (1)

A physician, in taking care of a patient, must be guided by the principles of love and justice. What follows is offered as an analysis of physician behaviour with respect to a number of issues in the light of the foregoing definitions.

The 'Pre-Embryo'

In 1979, Jesuit theologian Richard McCormick and frog developmental biologist Clifford Grobstein introduced the "scientific" myth that the product of fertilization, for up to fourteen days after fertilization, was not an embryo because it was not, as yet, the source of one individual; i.e., twinning could occur. They called this entity a "Pre-embryo."

This theory is a myth. Why? Because it contradicted the fact that a human embryo comes into existence at fertilization, a scientific fact that was first demonstrated one hundred and twenty years ago by Wilhelm His, the father of human embryology. Wilhelm His is accepted today in the scientific literature and the standard textbooks of human embryology. (2,3,4) The same myth was also used by the British Warnock Committee Report (1984) in order to permit human embryo research. It was again used, and now represented as "scientific,'" in the 1994 National Institutes of Health Human Embryo Research Report. The Report, in turn, was used to justify all forms of chemical abortion, the use of in-vitro embryos for research, the use of cloning, etc. Since 1979, a plethora of word games have been played which confuse the public. These games are played by scientists, physicians, and pharmaceutical companies, all of whom have a conflict of interest between their financial interests, the need of the patients, and the moral and scientific truths.

For example, embryos have been called "a bunch of cells" and "an activated egg." Research on the embryo is called "stem cell research," etc. Consequently patients are being deceived about the abortifacient nature of all "contraceptive" pills, and also about the fact that human embryos are being killed for research purposes.

Pregnancy has been redefined as starting, not when it really does, at the moment of conception in the fallopian tube, but 5-7 days later when the embryo implants in the uterine cavity. Some even go so far as to state that no human being exists until after birth. In Canada, the law does not recognize a human being as coming into existence until a fetus has fully emerged from the mother's body at birth. Canada has no law in regard to abortion. Therefore, justice in the treatment of the unborn is not legally mandatory for physicians in Canada.

The 'Contraceptive' Pill

Oral "contraceptive" pills first became available in 1960. At first, it was claimed that they were perfectly harmless with only a minimum of innocuous side-effects. But some ten years later, that view had been abandoned.

Until 1975, those pills contained a "high-dose" of estrogen and progestogen and sometimes caused heart attacks, strokes and blood clots. They acted most often as contraceptives, but occasionally as abortifacients. In 1975, "low-dose" pills were introduced. These cause fewer serious side effects, but a recent study has shown that the overall risk of heart attack or stroke for low-dose users is twice as high as for non-users. The risk returns to normal when women stop taking the pill. (5) Low-dose pills, moreover, cause abortions much more often.

In the early 1970s the "mini-pill" was introduced. It contains only progestogen and acts principally as an abortifacient. (6) The makers of the mini pill admit to this mode of action. (7)

The current "morning after pill" (MAP) is simply a "mini-pill" given at 50 times the dose of the ordinary mini pill. It acts as an abortifacient. Millions of women, all over the world, even those who would never consent to a surgical abortion, and consider themselves "pro-life," use the low-dose pill which causes them to abort a new life an average of once or twice a year! Low-dose pills and the MAP produce large numbers of abortions, of which women are totally unaware. (8) Women are misinformed and kept ignorant of these scientifically proven facts by the medical profession and other powerful societal elites. Is this true love and justice?

Breast Cancer

Many physicians and organizations concerned with the prevention of breast cancer in women will truthfully say that a family history of that type of cancer, or the inheritance of certain genes, increases the risk of acquiring breast cancer. What they will often not tell you, or even deny, is that there are other significant causes such as abortion and the oral "contraceptive" pill, quoting in their own defence a Danish study of 1997 and a National Cancer Institute report in 2003. (9,10) Totally ignored is the definitive work by Joel Brind, whose comprehensive and meticulous meta-analysis of all abortion/breast cancer studies performed up to 1996 showed that induced abortion increased the risk of breast cancer by 30% on average, and that abortion before the first full-term pregnancy had a 50% increased risk. (11,12) Also ignored is Dr. Chris Kahlenborn's cogent critique of the Danish study. (13)

Many research studies, which started in 1957, have shown significant correlation between abortion and subsequent breast cancer. (14) For example, in 1994 Janet Daling showed that, in general, women have had an abortion-based increased risk of breast cancer of 50%; that abortion before age 18 has 150% increased risk; over age 30, 110% increased risk; before age 18 and with later abortion 800% increased risk; and that before age 18, having a family history of breast cancer, an infinitely increased risk! (15)

Should not all women be told about these risks? What is loving or just about withholding this information? Are not physicians exposing themselves to justifiable lawsuits for not informing their patients of these data?

Another cause of breast cancer that goes largely unmentioned by physicians is the oral "contraceptive" pill. It was already known in 1981 that women who took that pill for four years before their first full-term pregnancy had at least 125% increase in the risk of breast cancer. (16) A study in 1995 showed a 42% increased risk for women who use the pill for more than 6 months before their first full-term pregnancy. Such studies were criticized in 1996 in the journal Contraception. (17) The critique was invalid because it tailed to measure the effect of pill use before a first full-term pregnancy (when it has its most powerful cancer-causing influence) and because it did not allow enough time, 15-20 years, for cancer to develop. (18) A 1999 English study which denied the connection between pill use and cancer of the breast was also seriously flawed and invalid. (19)

Women's health after abortion

In 2001, Statistics Canada reported 109,500 surgical abortions, 25% of all known pregnancies. Planned Parenthood (PP) and other abortion providers tell patients that abortion is "safer than child birth." This is false. Apart from the risk of breast cancer following abortion, there is also an increased risk of cancer of the rectum, ovary and uterine cervix; perforation of the uterus and placenta previa in subsequent pregnancies; premature delivery, with consequent 38 times increase in cerebral palsy and cognitive impairment of a subsequently conceived infant; six times lower fertility; emotional difficulties, and three times the risk of suicide, as well as five times the risk of substance abuse. (20)

Sexually Transmitted Infection (STI)

The dominant mode of transmission of STI is unchaste sexual intercourse. This occurs vaginally, rectally, or orally. The only effective way to prevent this spread is by reserving sexual intercourse to the faithful marriage of a husband and wife. All other preventive measures fail.

Nevertheless, few physicians will tell you so. The current trend is to trumpet the effectiveness of condom use as a guarantee of "safer sex." Note the word "safer," the use of which gives more legal protection to the physician than the word "safe." The use of "safe" would not defend the physician or drug company from litigation in the event of a law suit alleging that the patient was not properly informed.

How effective is the condom? The National Institutes of Health reported in 2001, that there is no proof that condom use reduces the risk of spreading the following STIs:

Chlamydia, human papilloma virus, that causes almost all cases of cancer of the cervix of the uterus, syphilis, genital herpes, and hepatitis B virus. Consistent condom use, which often does not occur, reduces the risk of gonorrhea by 13.7% in men and 2% in women. (21) A study in 2003 showed that consistent condom use resulted in only 80% reduction in HIV transmission--an almost uniformly fatal disease. (22) Nature bites back! The expression "safer sex" is an oxymoron, but nonetheless is a watchword for many physicians.

The relative ineffectiveness of condom use is of particular importance for active homosexuals. Many are aware of the risk of HIV,, but a large number are unaware of the increased risk of many non-HIV STIs, many of which have serious complications, or may be incurable. Young homosexual men, age 15 to 22, had a five-fold increased risk of contracting HIV,, when compared with those who had never engaged in anal sex. (23) Moreover, although there are no empirical data to settle the question, one should recognize the possibility that promiscuous sexual intercourse, either rectal or vaginal, could increase if the user thinks he is fully protected.

How can one love and act justly towards a patient if one recommends the use of a condom to prevent the spread of STIs?

Homosexuality is reversible

In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) called homosexuality a "normal human sexual response." This declaration was based, not on scholarly research, but on a political move in which the APA committee cooperated with activist groups.

Psychiatrists have also accepted the notion that homosexual practice is not reversible. They sometimes go so far as to say that to try to reverse the tendency is malpractice. This belief is based on the false theory that homosexuality is caused by a gene, allegedly discovered 1993 by Dean Hamer's group of researchers. (24) Dr. Jeffrey Satinover has pointed out that the Hamer group's study had no statistical significance, a fact admitted by that group itself. (25,26) In truth, there is no sound proof for inborn homosexuality. (27) Despite many physicians' denials, homosexual persons can change. Dr. Charles Socarides reported a reversal rate of nearly 50% and Dr. van den Aardweg found that 65% completely or nearly completely changed. (28,29)

How can it be loving or just to not offer a homosexual patient treatment that may reverse his orientation when we consider the prognosis of someone with that life style? That condition is routinely, if not always, associated with a 25-30 year decrease in life expectancy, potentially fatal hepatitis, fatal HIV infection, rectal cancer, multiple bowel and other infections, increased incidence of suicide, multiple and often concurrent STIs, Kaposi sarcoma, and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.

Conclusion

The evidence shows that, by and large, many members of the medical profession are in dereliction of duty in regard to the treatment of patients in that there is a widespread neglect to provide the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth to patients in regard to the diagnosis and treatment of illness, the consequences of recommended procedures, and the moment when human life begins. Physicians are called to act in accordance with the spiritual, philosophical and scientific truth. They are not mandated to respect, accept, or to act in accordance with the dictates of a defective humanism, which has given origin to the subjectivist, morally relativistic and incoherent consensus ethics of modern Western society. Only by respecting God's divine law and the natural moral law can physicians act with justice, or show true respect and love for their patients and for their dignity.

REFERENCES

(1.) Walter Farmer S.T.M., O.P. and Martin J. Healy STD., My Way of Life: The Summa Simplified. Confraternity of the Precious Blood, Brooklyn, N.Y, 1952, 196-7, 376-8.

(2.) Ethics Advisory Board, 1979, Report and Conclusions: HEW Support of Research Involving Human In vitro Fertilization and Embryo Transfer, Washington, D.C. United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare, p. 101.

(3.) Clifford Grobstein, "External human fertilization," Scientific American, 240: 57-67.

(4.) Ronan O'Rahilly, and Fabiola Muller, Human Embryology & Teratology, New York, Wiley-Liss, 1994, p. 55.

(5.) John E. Nestler et al., Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, July 2005.

(6.) Department of Health and Human Services, (HHS), in its 1984 pamphlet, "Facts About Oral Contraceptives. "

(7.) United Press International news release in the Cincinnati Post, Jan. 11, 1973.

(8.) Clowes, Brian, The Facts of Life, Human Life International, second edition, 2nd ed. 2001 p. 74-75.

(9.) National Cancer Institute (NCI), Summary Report: Early Reproductive Events and Breast Cancer Workshop. Feb. 2003.

(10.) Melbye M. et al., Induced abortion and the risk of breast cancer. New England Journal of Medicine. 1997, 336: 81-85.

(11.) Brind J., et al., Induced abortion as an independent risk factor for breast cancer: a comprehensive review and meta-analysis. J Epidemiol Community Health. 10/1996, 50: 481-496.

(12.) Brind J., et al., Induced abortion and the risk of breast cancer. N. Engl J Med, 1997, 336: 1834.

(13.) Kahlenborn, Chris, Breast Cancer. One More Soul, 2000.

(14.) Segi M., et al., An Epidemiologic Study of Cancer in Japan, GANN. 1957, 48: 1-63.

(15.) Daling J. et al., Risk of breast cancer among young women: relationship to induced abortion. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 1994, 86: 1584-1592.

(16.) Pike, M.C., et al., Oral contraceptive use and early abortion as risk factors for breast cancer in young women. Br J Cancer, 1981, 43: 72-76.

(17.) Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer. Breast Cancer and hormonal contraception: further results. Contraception. 1996, 34: S1-S106.

(18.) Harkinson, S.E., et al., A prospective study of oral contraceptive use and risk of breast cancer. Cancer Causes and Control. 1997, 8: 65-72.

(19.) Beral V., et al., Mortality associated with contraceptive use; 25 year follow-up of cohort of 46,000 women.

(20.) Gentles, I., Women's Health after Abortion: Your Right to know the Risks. The Ad Hoc Committee in Defense of Life. 215 Lexington Ave. N.Y, 2004.

(21.) National Institute of Mlergy and Infections Diseases, Workshop Summary: Scientific Evidence of Condom Effectiveness for Sexually Transmitted Disease (STD) Prevention, July 20, 2001.

(22.) Weller, S., and Davis K., "Condom Effectiveness in Reducing HIV Transmission," The Cochrane Library, Issue 2. Oxford: update software (2003).

(23.) Valleroy L., et al., HIV prevalence and associated risks in young men who have had sex with men. JAMA, 2000, 284: 188-204.

(24.) Hamer, D.H., et al., "A Linkage Between DNA Markers on the X Chromosome and Male Sexual Orientation," Science 261, no. 5119, pp. 321-27.

(25.) Satinover, J., Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth Baker Books, 1996, pp. 112-3.

(26.) Hamer, D.H., et al., "Response to N. Risch et al.," Science 262 (1993), p. 2065.

(27.) Hubbard, R., "The Search for Sexual Identity: False Genetic Markers," New York Times, Op Ed, 2. Aug. 1993.

(28.) Socarides, C.W., Homosexuality (New York: Jason Aaronson. 1978) 6.

(29.) Van den Aardweg, G., On the Origins and Treatment of Homosexuality. A Psychoanalytic Reinterpretation (Westport Ct., 1986) 105-26

Dr. John B. Shea of Toronto is a regular contribuor to Catholic Insight.