Letters to the Editors

December 23, 2002

Our exclusive ethics survey: Compliments and criticism; Clashing views on abortion

 

Letters To The Editors

Jump to:Choose article section... Our exclusive ethics survey: Compliments and criticism Clashing views on abortion

Our exclusive ethics survey: Compliments and criticism

Your special ethics issue, "Choices" [Oct 11], was excellent in all regards. It covered a lot of bases and addressed some questions that are rarely asked. These complex issues can be very difficult to deal with on a daily basis. "Choices" was a good wake-up call for many of us.

J.O. Cletcher, MD
Hygiene, CO

"Choices" is a colossal failure. It ignored the greatest ethical issue facing physicians: Do patients have a right to health care? This question is at the root of all arguments over health care financing, privacy, reimbursements, and, most importantly, quality of care.

Many who believe that a right to care exists dream of the day when health care becomes nationalized. But when this happens, our society will learn a bitter lesson: It has always been the personal autonomy of patients and physicians that provides the best care to the greatest number of people.

Is your inexcusable omission of this debate an oversight or intellectual cowardice? The faction—including journalists of your ideological stripe—who uphold the "right" to health care while wondering why the system is failing should heed the warning from Ayn Rand: "Do not ask, 'Who is destroying the world?' You are."

Patrick Conrad, MD
Destin, FL

Clashing views on abortion

The survey results in "Abortion: A right or an outrage?" [Oct. 11] cause me great concern for our profession and our country. At one time there was more clarity about right and wrong. But now, with the increase of moral relativism, among other things, absolute moral truths are no longer considered absolute—or even truths.

Whatever happened to the following concepts?

• God exists.
• He forbids killing of innocent humans.
• Life begins at conception.
• Truth is not created by opinion or consensus.

Donald Rose, MD
Hood River, OR

A comprehensive, ethical analysis of abortion should not forget those who are most protected by this procedure—the unwanted children who would otherwise be born.

Perhaps physicians should try to look past their personal discomforts with abortion to see its broader social implications. Unwanted children are often among society's most wronged—they are disabled (by gestational exposure to harmful substances or disease), unloved, neglected, abused or even abandoned. As a consequence, they grow up to be unhealthy or even dangerous adults.

Rather than providing residency training on the techniques of abortion to address the shortage of physicians willing to perform this procedure, it may be more effective to help medical students develop a more holistic definition of health. This should include consideration of mental and psychological status, economics, family stability and child development, social and community influences, stress, and social inequities.

Julie Allen
Graduate Student
University of Michigan, School of Public Health
Saline, MI
 

 

Edited by Liz O'Brien,
Associate Editor

 

Address correspondence to Letters Editor, Medical Economics magazine, 5 Paragon Drive, Montvale, NJ 07645-1742. Or e-mail your comments to meletters@medec.com, or fax them to 201-722-2688. Include your address and daytime phone number. Letters may be edited for length and style. Unless you specify otherwise, we'll assume your letter is for publication. Also, let us know if you don't want your e-mail address printed with your letter.

 

 

Letters to the Editors. Medical Economics 2002;24.