Baba will have a moment in the spotlight later today due to a frightening accident at the swimming pool last night; however, this morning I’d like to continue the conversation of the week concerning the
bill proposed by Senators Kennedy and Brownback. My MIL (who, by the way, knows her
politics) weighed in with a comment this morning, and I hope she doesn’t mind that I share parts of her reply in a more public setting. I believe she adds some good ideas to the discussion:
The goal of the bill is laudable though maybe intrusive. I would think though, that maybe the babies and parents would like the help.
Often laws are created after people fail to do what is right on their own. And, since we have a sinful nature, sometimes the law makes us do what we should do of our own accord, but don’t unless required to do so by a law. These can be parental laws of our homes, community standards or any other level such as this one.
And being non-perfect people, the laws may be imperfect as well. DH is absolutely correct in stating that people should do their own good work and then laws would not be needed. And DH is also correct about using other means to move towards the goal of positive, compassionate care for Downs babies and parents.
Sadly there is always a part of society that neglects to do so and we have numerous examples from the cowboy badguy era to the Hitler’s and Mussolini’s of the world to demonstrate the depravity of some people. And also during those times demonstrated the best of other people as they worked to save those endangered.
However, depraved people don’t care about following the laws. They just ignore them. So what is the purpose of any law?
To reach out to those, who with prompting of the law or a requirement of the law, will do what is right.
That final statement is a key, in my opinion. I don’t believe most doctors are depraved to the point of thumbing their nose at a law. If this bill becomes law, it will serve its purpose because most doctors fit into the "those who need the prompting or requirement of the law to do what is right" category. What I do know is that I’ve experienced situations similar to those described in the
Harvard Crimson article which cause me to agree that the law is probably necessary. For instance, five years ago I went to a doctor for assistance because I suspected (correctly) that I was experiencing early signs of a miscarriage. The doctor administered an ultrasound, and when the black and white image of my unborn child appeared on the screen I asked, "Is that the baby?" He replied, "No, that’s the
fetus." Whatever your view of the personal status of the unborn, I think most would agree that’s a deplorable way to speak to a distraught woman facing the possibility of a miscarriage. Such circumstances are not limited to my experience, as illustrated by the
Harvard Crimson article, nor obviously are they exclusive to medical practice. However, for whatever reason, I’ve run into such calloused attitudes more in the medical field than in any other realm of my experience.
I hope this bill becomes unnecessary. I hope the medical establishment becomes so alarmed by the intrusiveness–and it is ridiculously intrusive–of this proposed law that they get their act together and start educating and policing themselves. If they don’t, the government has God-derived authority, apart from the Constitution, to breathe down their collective necks (Romans 13:4). I believe John Adams and other founders of our government understood this, as illustrated by the quotes I mentioned yesterday.
As for the ideas suggested by my DH, i.e. letters to the offending docs and/or letters to the editor, I agree that’s the ideal answer to the situation. However, it’s my opinion that if a problem has the attention of two Senators from such vastly differing viewpoints it’s probably so widespread that it’s gone beyond the realm of letter writing.