‘Ethics’ Category Archives

3
Nov

EMOTIONAL BLACKMAIL REIGNS SUPREME: reason and religion both go out of the window

by Arnold Jago in Australia, Common Sense, Death, Ethics, Family, Politics

Australians with traditional views about family and human life issues are pretty much un-represented in our parliaments.
The federal Coalition government consists largely of turn-coats and wishy-washies.
The only Party Leader clearly defending conservative values seems to be Mr. Bernardi.
Blaming this situation on “a decline of belief in religion” isn’t good enough.
What we’ve let ourselves lose isn’t only religion.
The emotive arguments used by same-sex marriage and euthanasia activists are simply not rational.
Yes, we’re under pressure to give up on reason itself.

Share This
22
Sep

EUTHANASIA, “ASSISTED DYING”, CALL IT WHAT YOU LIKE: it is still wrong.

by Arnold Jago in Australia, Common Sense, Death, Ethics, Suffering

Euthanasia is bad.
Killing sick people is never the best option.
Changing the name to “assisted dying” changes nothing.
So-called “safeguards” never work.
The numbers killed annually in countries where euthanasia has been legalised increases by an average of 17 per cent per year (according to research by Dr Brendan Long of Charles Sturt University, published in The Australian newspaper on September 21)
Even if rates didn’t increase it would still be wrong.
“An act or omission which, of itself or by intention, causes death in order to eliminate suffering constitutes a murder gravely contrary to the dignity of the human person and to the respect due to the living God, his Creator….” (Catholic Catechism, paragraph 2277)
Murder.
Caring for the dying and disabled can be expensive in terms of money, time, love and compassion.
Do we care enough to make the effort – refusing to resort to intentional killing?

11
Aug

EUTHANASIA: does it achieve what its proponents claim for it?

by Arnold Jago in Australia, Death, Ethics, Family, Health, Politics, Suffering, Truth

The Victorian government plans to legalise intentional killing or assisted suicide of people with intolerable symptoms expected to die within 12 months….
The 12 months life-expectancy criterion will mean a premature death based on somebody’s guesstimate.
A similar law in the US state of Oregon — described by the government as an example of safeguards working — is not working very well.
For example, Oregon victims often do not, in practice, have intolerable pain.
In 2016, nearly half (48%) of those whose death resulted from taking prescribed lethal medication gave “being a burden” on family and carers as a motive for requesting death.
We don’t really want that here.
At least we shouldn’t want it.
(http://public.health.oregon.gov/ProviderPartnerResources/EvaluationResearc
h/DeathwithDignityAct/Documents/year19.pdf)

7
Aug

AUSTRALIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION CREDIBILITY SELF-DESTRUCTS: ideology trumps facts in AMA statement on same-sex “marriage”.

by Arnold Jago in Abortion, Australia, Beauty, Celebrities, Ethics, Family, Health, Politics, Science

The Australian Medical Association (AMA) has issued a 2017 “position statement” claiming, amongst other things, that:
(1) “LGTBIQ-identifying individuals” having the highest rates of suicidality of any population group is “a consequence of discrimination and stigmatization…rather than a symptom of the orientation itself.”
(2) There is research highlighting that health and psychosocial outcomes for children raised in same-sex parented families are “on a par with, and in some aspects comparatively better than, children raised in heterosexual parented families.”
Ex-AMA head, Prof Kerryn Phelps, commented, “I don’t think the religious, cultural right-wing conservatives now have anywhere to hide….”
Conservatives probably don’t want to hide.
What they might like is to get some media space to demonstrate that:
Claim (1) relies on one only piece of 14-year old research which is based on statistically-unsound methodology and ignores other more recent research suggesting the opposite.
Claim (2) likewise is based on selective samples of research while ignoring other peer-reviewed research evidence whci shows that “the longer social scientists study the question, the more evidence of harm is found….”
An 18-page “Medical Critique” of the AMA Position Statement prepared by a groupf doctors headed by Dr Chris Middleton, former AMA State President, can be accessed on the internet.
https://critiqueama.files.wordpress.com/2017/07/medical-critique-of-the-ama-position-statement-on-marriage-equality.pdf

24
Jul

GENDER DYSPHORIA: existent, non-existent or existent-but-vanishingly-rare? is it the exception that over-rides every rule?

by Arnold Jago in Abortion, Common Sense, Ethics, Health, Lifestyle, Politics

Special clinics for children with suspected “gender dysphoria” are getting busier.
Protagonists of the “Safe Schools” program say one child in 25 is affected. Many are submitted to hormone treatments etc.
Official figures (published 2013) suggest that, in fact, less than one in 40 children have “dysphoric” symptoms, even on a temporary basis.
And that most of them, if left alone, spontaneously lose their symptoms.
Long-term dysphoria persisting into adulthood affects no more than 14 persons per million population.
None of this proves anything much except that fanatics – including gender-fluidity fanatics – don’t mind bending statistics.
This whole issue is obviously not one of statistics.
It’s a philosophical and ethical problem.
Is there, or is there not, such a thing as Natural Moral Law?
If there is, then we should abide by it.
(source: DSM-5)

21
Jul

“ASSISTED DYING” TO BE LEGAL IN VICTORIA? thinking about the un-thinkable.

by Arnold Jago in Abortion, Australia, Beauty, Celebrities, crime, Death, Ethics, Prayer

The Victorian government plans legalising “assisted dying” for the terminally ill who request it.
They call the new laws “conservative” because they include 68 “safeguards” to prevent abuses.
Such arguments have emotional appeal but are not based on reason.
The traditional Christian teaching should be our guide:
“An act or omission which, of itself or by intention, causes death in order to eliminate suffering constitutes a murder gravely contrary to the dignity of the human person and to the respect due to the living God, his Creator….
“Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate; it is the refusal of “over-zealous” treatment. Here one does not will to cause death; one’s inability to impede it is merely accepted….
“The use of painkillers to alleviate the sufferings of the dying, even at the risk of shortening their days, can be morally in conformity with human dignity if death is not willed as either an end or a means, but only foreseen and tolerated as inevitable….”
(Catholic Catechism, paragraphs 2277-2279)
Caring for the dying and disabled can be expensive in terms of money, time, love and compassion.
Do we care enough to make the effort – refusing to resort to intentional killing?