Rapid Responses to:
|
|
Rapid Responses: Rapid Responses published:
-
![[Read Rapid Response]](/icons/misc/sectionDOWN.gif)
A potential solution ?
- John Tickner (3 June 2005)
-
The pope cannot change Church teaching
- Michael R Jarmulowicz (3 June 2005)
-
Searching for papal scapegoats
- Amin Abboud (7 June 2005)
-
Re: Searching for papal scapegoats
- Nicholas Bennett (9 June 2005)
-
Legal Status of the Unborn
- James Paul Pandarakalam (11 June 2005)
-
Re: Legal Status of the Unborn
- Peter KK Au-Yeung (12 June 2005)
-
Re: Re: Legal Status of the Unborn
- james pandarakalam (13 June 2005)
-
Changing Times do not Change what is Right: Case of the New Pope
- Daniel R Longo (14 June 2005)
-
Papal Scapegoats
- Anthony D Clift (31 July 2005)
-
Re: Papal Scapegoats
- Christopher Anton (1 August 2005)
|
|
|||
|
John Tickner, Optometrist Highcliffe
Send response to journal:
|
The objection of the Roman Catholic church to condom use within marriage is based on the view that there must always be the possibility of conception. Notwithstanding the failure rate of condoms in preventing pregnancy, it is possible that the use of a condom with puncture holes made in the tip would satisfy the ethical objections of the church by allowing the possibility of conception whilst minimising the transmission of viral load in the case of persons infected with HIV. If this were ethically acceptable to the church it would of course mean that Roman Catholic condoms, as Jeremy Hardy pointed out a number of years ago, would be “holier” than regular condoms. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Michael R Jarmulowicz, Consultant Histopathologist Northwick Park Hospital. HA1 3UJ
Send response to journal:
|
The authors of the editorial "The new pope and medical ethics" are searching for signs that Pope Benedict will change the Church's position, particularly on the use of condoms in relation to HIV. In doing so they reveal a serious misunderstanding of the role of the papacy in the life of the Catholic Church. The role of the Church is to pass on, from one generation to the next, the teaching of Christ. Since Christ there has been no new revelation, only increased insight and understanding of the truths of our Faith (1). All Church documents are heavily referenced to previous documents, indicating that they are always based on the previous teaching. The role of the Pope is not like that of a political leader, who may have different views to his predecessor and overturn previous policies. The role of the Pope is to guard what the Church calls "The Deposit of Faith" which consists of Scripture, Apostolic Tradition and Magisterial Teaching. The teaching of the Church on faith and morals cannot change. The reason for Catholics confidence of this, is the promise that Jesus Christ gave to St Peter and the Church that He would preserve it from error, which forms the basis of our understanding of infallibility, both as it applies to the Pope and the Magisterium of the Church (2). We can be absolutely certain that the Church will not and cannot change its "traditional pro-life position" References 1. Catechism of the Catholic Church. Paragraphs 66-67. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__PH.HTM 2. Catechism of the Catholic Church. Paragraphs 890-892. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P2A.HTM Competing interests: A practising Catholic |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Amin Abboud, Medical doctor and bioethicist Australasian Bioethics Information, Chatswood, Australia 2069
Send response to journal:
|
Your editorial asks whether the new Pope will change Vatican policy on HIV. Based on statistical evidence, it would appear detrimental to the HIV situation in Africa if he did authorise such a change? A regression analysis done on the HIV situation in Africa indicates that the greater the percentage of Catholics in any country the lower the level of HIV. If the Catholic Church is promoting a message about HIV in those countries it appears to be working. Based on WHO data, in Swaziland where 42.6% have HIV, only 5 per cent of the population is Catholic. In Botswana, where 37 per cent of the adult population is HIV infected, only 4 per cent of the population is Catholic. In South Africa, 22 per cent of the population is HIV infected, and only 6 per cent is Catholic. In Uganda, with 43 per cent of the population Catholic, the proportion of HIV infected adults is 4 per cent. (1) A concerted campaign, also in medical journals, has been underway after the death of John Paul II to attribute responsibility to him for the tragic death of many Africans.(2) Such accusations must always be supported by solid data. None has been presented so far. The causes of the HIV crisis in Africa need to be found elsewhere. The solutions must go beyond latex. The popular opinion against Catholic teaching has had the following logic- Africans would ignore the Pope views against polygamy and promiscuity and yet would listen to him with regards to condom use, spreading the HIV acquired through sexual promiscuity. This is a non sequitur. If they ignore him on one point that will do the same on the other, making their own free decisions. It is an insult to the intelligence and common sense of Africans to say they blindly follow any Vatican policy.(3) If anything, the holistic approach to sexuality which Catholicism advocates, based on the evidence at hand, seems to save lives. I would welcome an editorial on that or, as a minimum, some evidence based advice on HIV. References: 1. World Health Organization, Epidemiological Fact Sheets. Figures on Catholic populations from http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/ 2. “The Pope’s grievous errors” The Lancet. 12 March 2005. 3. In Search of a Scapegoat - http://www.mercatornet.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=86 Competing interests: Catholic |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Nicholas Bennett, Infectious Disease Postdoc/Clinician Department of Pediatrics, University Hospital, Syracuse, NY
Send response to journal:
|
The Vatican policy is not what many have a problem with, but rather their "teachings". Teaching that one should avoid polygamous, frivolous sexuality in favour of monogamous loving relationships is unarguably a reasonable moral point of view. Arguing that condoms do not protect against HIV and therefore one should not use them is not. The Catholic church has indeed argued that condoms do not protect against HIV, a point of view that has far more to do with their doctrine about contraception than any scientific fact. ""The Aids virus is roughly 450 times smaller than the spermatozoon. The spermatozoon can easily pass through the 'net' that is formed by the condom," [1] "...parents must also reject the promotion of so-called "safe sex" or "safer sex", a dangerous and immoral policy based on the deluded theory that the condom can provide adequate protection against AIDS." [2] I have no problem with people putting forward their point of view or arguing a case, but when one has to lie to support their argument there is clearly something wrong! The new Pope must, if not backtrack on the advice to avoid condom use, at least correct and re-educate the ministers who are simply spreading misinformation to their flocks. We are seeing the same religiously-directly policies from the Bush administration in their allocation of funds to African clinics that only promote abstinence at the exclusion of barrier contraception. It is totally unacceptable to ride roughshod over the science to promote a religious faith, while putting lives at risk. If the situation is better in African countries with higher rates of Catholicism then it may have more to do with other social effects than simply the religion, and it begs the question: how much BETTER could things have been if the education had been complete? Nick Bennett njb35@cantab.net http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3176982.stm http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/family/documents/rc_pc_family_doc_08121995_human -sexuality_en.html Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
James Paul Pandarakalam, Consultant Psychiatrist.5 Boroughs Partnership NHS Trust St Helens North CMHT,Peasely Cross Resource Centre,St Helens,Merseyside WA9 3DA
Send response to journal:
|
Letter to the editor Legal status of unborn child Sir, The Catholic Church is against abortion and embryonic stem cell therapy as Daniele Maria Scalise and Giulio Bognolo have reported 1. Unlike the early Christianity, modern Catholicism promotes the notion that a human being comes into existence at the moment of conception. Early theologians notably Origen (A.D. 185-254) believed in the pre existence of a soul body 2 and such a doctrine has the advantage of hypothesising that the soul incarnates with the product of conception at any time from fertilization and not necessarily at the precise time of conception. Most of the doctrines of Origen came to be written off as mystical speculations. Ethicists have to answer to two fundamental issues whether destroying a blastocyst is equivalent to murder or is it only disrespecting a budding life form. If the latter is the only moral impediment of therapeutic cloning, one has to take into consideration the high moral value involved in this form of treatment. Human beings have an individuality that makes them distinct from the subhuman beings. It is of ethical importance to assess whether a blastocyst can be classed as an individual. Indivisibility is a characteristic feature of individuality but anything that is undividable is not an individual. The totipotent stem cells of blastocyst are potentially capable of becoming any part of a human being. This desirable totipotent quality of stem cells is also an indication of not having a critical ontological level of organisation in its system. Theoretically a blastocyst can be separated through twining or divided through embryo division and thus different whole organism can be obtained. In other words, a blastocyst is a divisible organism such that its parts can become another organism. An individual by definition is indivisible and if divided it remains as parts only. So any organism capable of dividing into another organism is not an individual. Blastocyst is lacking an individualising principle. It is only a biological expression of common human nature without a numerical unity. The individualising principle constricts the common nature into an indivisible individual incapable of dividing into two wholes. It is true that a blastocyst is genetically different from its parents, but it is only an entity expressing the essence of biological human nature without individuality and personhood. Theologians and scientists are unable to confirm the timing of the soul -union with the physical body after conception. It is too early to make any conclusion about the timing of incarnation and we know about as much of these matters as the ancient Greeks did of electricity when they discovered that if you rubbed pieces of amber on your sleeves they would pick up straw. Scientists worry that even if we restrict therapeutic embryo cloning within a 14-day window from fertilisation, eventually it could go beyond the 14th day restriction and lead into ever more dangerous territory. A blastocyst in the female reproductive system is a potential “house of life”. Has the Blastocyst formed in vitro experiments and the one formed in the female reproductive system got equal status? Science alone cannot probably value the blastocyst. No funding and no conflicts of interests ========================================== Dr James Paul Pandarakalam,Consultant Psychiatrist 5 Boroughs Partnership NHS Trust St Helens North CMHT, Peasley Cross Resource Centre St Helens, Merseyside WA9 3DA . jpandarak@hotmail.com ======================================== References: 1.Scalise Maria Daniele & Bognolo Giulio, New Pope and medical ethics, British Medical Journal, 2005,330,1281-1282. 2.Butterworth G.W. On First Principles. Harpes and Row. New York.1966. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Peter KK Au-Yeung, Specialist Anaesthetist Hong Kong
Send response to journal:
|
The argument about earlier theologians being unsure about the time of soul-body union is based on their "scientific" understanding of the time. In earlier times, the only sign of a living foetus is qucikening, ie the movement of the foetus in the womb. With scientific advance, we know that the foetus is already well formed by say 12 weeks of age, a time when the mother is barely aware of the pregnancy. Indeed, the images from 3-D ultrasound shows the fully formed face of the foetus, who is capabnle of movement (supposedly looking like walking) in the womb, though the insensitivity of the uterine sensations will not inform the mother of such acitivity. Although Dr Pandarakalam titled his Rapid Response as "Legal Status of the Unborn" he offered little enlightenment on the subject. My understanding is that the unborn child is devoid of any rights under English Law, save that of inheriting the estate of its parents. Will lawyers who read Rapid Response please confirm this? Or perhaps they could enlighten me on the current legal position within the jurisdiction of England and Wales! Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
james pandarakalam, consultant psychiatrist 5 BorpughsPartnership NHS Trust, St Helens North CMHT, St Helens, Merseyside WA9 3DA
Send response to journal:
|
13th June 2005 Soul and therapeutic blastocyst cloning: Sir, Dr Peter K.K.Au-yeung reports that the earlier theologians’ belief of pre- existence of soul was based on their “scientific” understanding of the time. Interestingly, some of the current parapsychological evidences tally with their belief. Dr Ian Stevenson of the Virginia school of medicine has analysed more than 3000 reincarnation type cases and is inclined to believe in the possibility of reincarnation although he does not claim to have proved reincarnation but has only found and reported evidence that would make it seem possible to occur1Reincarnation entails pre-existence, but pre-existence does not entail reincarnation 2 .The truth may be that some discarnate personalities may get a mercy chance to return to terrestrial existence 3. The most valuable scientific proof for the long term existence of soul is reincarnation type cases. Science has not proved that we are spiritual personalities but parasciences have questioned the Darwinian materialistic views of humans. Even though there has never been a papal encyclical against reincarnation, the cultural climate prevailing in the Catholic church is not favourable towards this idea. Stevensonian research findings pose another ethical challenge for the present pope. The controversial embryonic stem cell therapy has raised fundamental questions about human life such as who we are and whether a blastocyst is a full human being or only a potential one, warranting re-examination of our scientific beliefs and assumptions about embryonic existence. Main stream medical sciences have always been reticent about these fundamental issues but parapsychology has sent exploratory pseudopodia into this challenging arena of research. No funding and no conflicts of interests References: 1.Stevenson Ian(1997) Reincarnation and Biology. Preager Publishers, Westport, USA 2.Stevenson Ian (2003) European cases of the Reincarnation type, McFarland &Company ,Inc., Publishers. London 3.Pandarakalam, J.P. (1999) Research into Previous Life Memories, Christian Parapsychologist, September, Volume 13,Number 7. p208-218;Volume 13,December,Number8.p250-256. Durham, U.K. Dr James Paul Pandarakalam, Consultant Psychiatrist, St Helens North Community Mental Health Team, Peasley Cross Resource Centre, Marshells Cross Road, St Helens, Merseyside WA 9 3DA. jpandarak@hotmail.com Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Daniel R Longo, Professor University of Missouri School of Medicine, Columbia, Missouri USA 65212
Send response to journal:
|
“The new pope and medical ethics”1 continues the unfair and inaccurate argument that Catholic theology is incompatible with health in a modern world in which AIDS is epidemic. This criticism has only accelerated with the election of Pope Benedict XVI. It would appear that the present editorial, as well as news reports and letters in other medical journals and the popular press, views morality as a function of modern situational ethics or practices that are subject to change and that evolve over time with changes in political correctness and a majority view of what is right and what is wrong. The medical community, unfortunately, has fallen into this trap as it injects what is scientifically possible into the equation. In doing so, medicine permits an almost amoral view of health in which one wrong may be resolved with another wrong as long as it is consistent with popular perspectives and is scientifically possible. Let us go back in time to Nazi Germany when the popular belief was that the final solution meant the extermination of all Jewish people so there could be a pure Aryan race. Many in German Medicine weighed in on the side of political correctness, inhumanity was disguised by medical experimentation, and the invention of gas chambers made it possible to quickly do the job of killing hundreds in short periods of time. In fact, the law of the land made such activities legal. Those events were a major part, but only one part, of the political correctness of the bloodiest century in the history of mankind. As at the time of Benedict of Nursia (480-547 A.D.), the namesake of the new pope, society today has fallen into a moral decline in which political correctness and even some laws support behaviors that must stop before society itself is destroyed. It was the movement he started with the establishment of the Abbey at Monte Cassino, Italy, that fortunately kept civilization alive during the dark ages. A quick view of daytime soap operas, prime time television or Internet pornography may illustrate the behaviors society now accepts as the norm. Anyone who does not share such beliefs may be viewed as old fashioned, out of step with the times, or merely in the way of modern culture. Anthony McCarthy's letter to BMJ, "Crusading for change in the Catholic Church: Condom promotion does not explain data,”2 provides substantial evidence to support that Catholic theology has not permitted AIDS to go unchecked in countries where Catholicism is flourishing. I would suggest that Daniele Maria Scalise and Giulio Bognolo and others with similar views read the facts as presented by McCarthy. Perhaps the problem also lies in the terms themselves, “morality” and “ethics.”3 “How morality is defined plays a crucial, although often unacknowledged, role in formulating ethical theories. To take “morality” to refer to an actually existing code of conduct is quite likely to lead to some form of relativism.” So perhaps we need to use the basic terms “right” and “wrong.” Some things transcend time, and in the case of the pope, much of what the Catholic faith professes is timeless and can or never will change regardless of who is pope. That may not be a very popular view, but for those who believe in eternal truths and what is required to live according to them, regardless of religious denominational affiliation, popularity does not guarantee success in our quest. 1. Daniele Maria Scalise and Giulio Bognolo. “The new pope and medical ethics.” BMJ 2005; 330: 1281 2. Anthony McCarthy. “Crusading for change in the Catholic Church: Condom promotion does not explain data.” BMJ 2005; 330:1210 (21 May), doi:10.1136/bmj.330.7501.1210-a 3. Bernard Gert. "The Definition of Morality." The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2005 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), forthcoming URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2005/entries/morality- definition/>. Competing interests: I am a practing Catholic and a Benedictine Oblate |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Anthony D Clift, College Medical Adviser Broomfield, Manchester Old Rd Middleton, Manchester M24 4DZ
Send response to journal:
|
I was delighted to read Amin Abhoud's letter of 30th July pointing out the flaws in criticisms of the Catholic Church's approach to the Aids problem in Africa. It is time that our journal approached matters in a more objective manner. Perhaps it was even more apposite to find that the obituary of Sir Richard Doll appeared on the facing page to remind of us of the importance of accuracy rather than prejudice. Common sense is enough to recognise that restricting sexual intercourse to one partner within a loyal marriage is the only certain way to avoid a sexually transmitted disease. Yours sincerely A D Clift Competing interests: also a Catholic |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Christopher Anton, Private Birmingham B18 7QH
Send response to journal:
|
Dear Editor Anthony Clift's statement that "Common sense is enough to recognise that restricting sexual intercourse to one partner within a loyal marriage is the only certain way to avoid a sexually transmitted disease" is I'm afraid not common sense as the comment about marriage is entirely irrelevant. It does not matter whether the relationship is gay, heterosexual, polygamous, married or not. What does matter is that it is closed and faithful. To presume that marriage is the defining factor is just religious Propaganda. Competing interests: None declared |
|||