In Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life) No. 89, Pope John Paul II reminds us that:
"A unique responsibility belongs to health-care personnel: doctors, pharmacists, nurses, chaplains, men and women religious, administrators and volunteers. Their profession calls for them to be guardians and servants of human life. In today's cultural and social context, in which science and the practice of medicine risk losing sight of their inherent ethical dimension, health-care professionals can be strongly tempted at times to become manipulators of life, or even agents of death. In the face of this temptation their responsibility today is greatly increased. Its deepest inspiration and strongest support lie in the intrinsic and undeniable ethical dimension of the health-care profession, something already recognized by the ancient and still relevant Hippocratic Oath, which requires every doctor to commit himself to absolute respect for human life and its sacredness.
Absolute respect for every innocent human life also requires the exercise of conscientious objection in relation to procured abortion and euthanasia. "Causing death" can never be considered a form of medical treatment, even when the intention is solely to comply with the patient's request. Rather, it runs completely counter to the health- care profession, which is meant to be an impassioned and unflinching affirmation of life. Bio- medical research too, a field which promises great benefits for humanity, must always reject experimentation, research or applications which disregard the inviolable dignity of the human being, and thus cease to be at the service of people and become instead means which, under the guise of helping people, actually harm them."
Health-care personnel are called to be "guardians and servants of human life." But Martha Coakley rejects this idea and apears to believe that Catholics should not work in an emergency room if they take their responsibility to safeguard human life and dignity seriously.
"A unique responsibility belongs to health-care personnel: doctors, pharmacists, nurses, chaplains, men and women religious, administrators and volunteers. Their profession calls for them to be guardians and servants of human life. In today's cultural and social context, in which science and the practice of medicine risk losing sight of their inherent ethical dimension, health-care professionals can be strongly tempted at times to become manipulators of life, or even agents of death. In the face of this temptation their responsibility today is greatly increased. Its deepest inspiration and strongest support lie in the intrinsic and undeniable ethical dimension of the health-care profession, something already recognized by the ancient and still relevant Hippocratic Oath, which requires every doctor to commit himself to absolute respect for human life and its sacredness.
Absolute respect for every innocent human life also requires the exercise of conscientious objection in relation to procured abortion and euthanasia. "Causing death" can never be considered a form of medical treatment, even when the intention is solely to comply with the patient's request. Rather, it runs completely counter to the health- care profession, which is meant to be an impassioned and unflinching affirmation of life. Bio- medical research too, a field which promises great benefits for humanity, must always reject experimentation, research or applications which disregard the inviolable dignity of the human being, and thus cease to be at the service of people and become instead means which, under the guise of helping people, actually harm them."
Health-care personnel are called to be "guardians and servants of human life." But Martha Coakley rejects this idea and apears to believe that Catholics should not work in an emergency room if they take their responsibility to safeguard human life and dignity seriously.
Like Obama, Martha Coakley would create a Moloch State where physicians and other health-care personnel can play God. In fact, it was President Obama who remarked, "We are God's partners in matters of life and death."
Does she also believe that devout Catholics should also refrain from running for public office? Maybe she would have devout Catholics completely kept out of the public square?
ReplyDeleteThis smacks of anti-Catholicism.
Obama is coming to the Bay State in a desperate attempt to revive Coakley's campaign which is bottoming out. Her anti-God agenda and hatred for family values and traditional morality as well as for those who espouse these is catching up with her.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9D8BJU04&show_article=1
ReplyDeleteThe Coakley Campaign's desperation becoming more and more obvious.
ReplyDeletehttp://weeklystandard.com/blogs/video-someone-coakley-campaign-pushes-me-metal-railing
Coakley doesn't like the hard questions apparently.
LifeSiteNews' report on her statement includes something else of interest:
ReplyDeleteDem Candidate: Devout Catholics 'Probably Shouldn't Work in the Emergency Room'
Potential health care reform killer Scott Brown leaps ahead in polls
By Kathleen Gilbert
BOSTON, Massachusetts, January 15, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) ...
The special election pitting Coakley against Republican Scott Brown in next Tuesday's election has received national attention: the unexpected popularity of the dark horse Republican could jeopardize the future of President Obama's health care bill by robbing Senate Democrats of their filibuster-proof 60 vote majority. Brown has vowed to be the "41st vote" against the health care overhaul, a platform that appears to have attracted rapid support for his candidacy amid widespread public discontent over the bill.
Once considered the easy favorite, Coakley has suffered a dramatic drop in poll numbers this week: a CrossTarget poll Thursday showed Brown ahead by 15.4%, while a Suffolk University Political Research Center published Thursday morning showed Brown ahead by 4%.
MARTHA COAKLEY TRASHES RELIGIOUS LIBERTY
ReplyDeleteJanuary 15, 2010
Catholic League president Bill Donohue responds to what Massachusetts senatorial hopeful Martha Coakley said last night in a WBSM interview:
When Martha Coakley, a Roman Catholic, was asked whether she supports conscience rights for health care employees, she offered a resounding “NO.” So completely wedded to the extremists in the pro-abortion community, Coakley would not allow Catholic doctors and nurses—who unlike her accept the teachings of Catholicism—to recuse themselves from participating in procedures they find morally repugnant.
Coakley said that if she were asked to consider a bill that would say “if people believe that they don’t want to provide services that are required under the law and under Roe v. Wade, that they can individually decide to not follow the law. The answer is no.” When asked by host Ken Pittman about the rights of Catholics who follow the teachings of the Catholic Church, Coakley offered the separation of church and state mantra. Pittman then said, “In the emergency room you still have your religious freedom.” Coakley conceded that point but hastened to add, “you probably shouldn’t work in the emergency room.” Translated: You really don’t have a right to exercise your religious-liberty objections.
This is the opinion of the attorney general, the chief law enforcement agent in the state of Massachusetts. She effectively told practicing Catholics who work in the health care industry that they ought to get another job. As far as she is concerned, those who invoke a right to conscientious objection—a staple of religious liberty—should lose.
President Obama says he supports conscience rights for health care workers. The Catholic bishops support conscience rights. Survey after survey show that the American people support conscience rights. But Martha Coakley does not—she says they’re all wrong. Glad to know which side of religious liberty she is on.
The Obama administration is doing its collective best to eradicate religious beliefs and even religious symbols from the public square.
ReplyDeleteObama Faith Council Debates Requiring Fed. Fund Recipients to Remove Religious Symbols
By Kathleen Gilbert
WASHINGTON, D.C., January 14, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - President Obama's faith council came to no clear conclusion after an impassioned debate on whether religious organizations receiving federal funds should be required to cover or remove religious symbols in service areas, reported Washington Post religion writer William Wan Tuesday.
The council discussed the matter in a two-hour teleconference Monday, as it finalizes a draft report this week.
The members on the teleconference also chose Melissa Rogers, the director of Wake Forest University School of Divinity's Center for Religion and Public Affairs, as the faith council's official chairwoman. Rogers is considered an expert in legal issues pertaining to the separation of church and state.
Wan reports that Rogers offered three possible recommendations for the council regarding religious images for federally-funded groups: the icons could be disallowed; allowed only if no other religious neutral rooms are available and covering up such icons is impractical; or allowed with encouragement that organizations be "sensitive about the issue."
Catholic League president Bill Donohue said that the fact the council even had the debate "just tells us volumes."
"This is consistent with the animus against religion that we've seen from the beginning with this administration," Donohue told LifeSiteNews.com (LSN) Friday. The leading Catholic watchdog called to mind an incident in April when, per White House request, Georgetown University covered up a plaque with a cross and a symbol for the name of Jesus that would have appeared over Obama's head during a speech there.
Donohue called on the administration to close down the faith office whose purpose, he said, has been radically altered from the original vision of the Bush administration.
"We're talking about people who are charged with faith-based initiatives, to implement them - and their central concern is not how they can facilitate service to the dispossessed stemming from faith groups, their concern is how can they shield the bigots in our society from religious iconography?" he asked.
"This is worse than just simply an insult, they're a fraud - because they're posing as though they are the friends of faith-based programs, when in fact they're not."
Donohue said he wasn't sure of how much impact the directive might be expected to have on institutions such as Catholic universities, which usually receive federal funds - but said the debate betrayed a consistent motive in the Obama administration "to neuter the public expression of religion."
"When they hear 'religion,' they think 'church and state,' they think 'the separation of,' - they think how we can limit freedom as opposed to expanding freedom," he said. "The whole thing is so utterly twisted."
See related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:
After Another Church-Less Christmas, Coalition Asks: Is Obama a Christian Fraud?
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/jan/10010601.html
White House “Comfortable” With Anti-Catholic Homosexual Activist on Faith Counsel
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/jun/09060517.html
Controversy after Georgetown U. Covers Name of Jesus for Obama Speech at White House's Request
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/apr/09041704.html