Holy Hippocrates...
This is nihilism at its finest. This is what happens when "education" turns into madness. Infanticide of newborns becomes a right:
My observations:
1. These medical ethicists should keep their "ethics" within their own families.
2. One wonders if the current non-consensual human subjects experimentation known as "health IT" is justified by the same "ethicists."
-- SS
Addendum March 1, 2012:
We've been here before.
From another blog: Tacitus, a.k.a Publius (or Gaius) Cornelius Tacitus (AD 56 – AD 117) was a senator and a historian of the Roman Empire. Tacitus criticized the "rebels" of the time for, among other things, their refusal to kill newly born babies: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Histories_%28Tacitus%29/Book_5 . See section 5.
Such a practice was apparently no big deal then.
This "ethics" proposed at Oxford represents a return to uncivilizedness.
-- SS
This is nihilism at its finest. This is what happens when "education" turns into madness. Infanticide of newborns becomes a right:
The Telegraph
Feb. 29, 2012
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9113394/Killing-babies-no-different-from-abortion-experts-say.html
Parents should be allowed to have their newborn babies killed because they are “morally irrelevant” and ending their lives is no different to abortion, a group of medical ethicists linked to Oxford University has argued.
The article, published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, says newborn babies are not “actual persons” and do not have a “moral right to life”. The academics also argue that parents should be able to have their baby killed if it turns out to be disabled when it is born.
The journal’s editor, Prof Julian Savulescu, director of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, said the article's authors had received death threats since publishing the article. He said those who made abusive and threatening posts about the study were “fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society”.
The article, entitled “After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?”, was written by two of Prof Savulescu’s former associates, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva.
They argued: “The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.”
Rather than being “actual persons”, newborns were “potential persons”. They explained: “Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’.
My observations:
1. These medical ethicists should keep their "ethics" within their own families.
2. One wonders if the current non-consensual human subjects experimentation known as "health IT" is justified by the same "ethicists."
-- SS
Addendum March 1, 2012:
We've been here before.
From another blog: Tacitus, a.k.a Publius (or Gaius) Cornelius Tacitus (AD 56 – AD 117) was a senator and a historian of the Roman Empire. Tacitus criticized the "rebels" of the time for, among other things, their refusal to kill newly born babies: http://en.wikisource.org/
Such a practice was apparently no big deal then.
This "ethics" proposed at Oxford represents a return to uncivilizedness.
-- SS
PLEASE HELP US SHARE THIS ARTICLE
About Health Care
0Awesome Comments!