Logo

Log In Sign Up |  An official publication of: American College of Emergency Physicians
Navigation
  • Home
  • Multimedia
    • Podcasts
    • Videos
  • Clinical
    • Airway Managment
    • Case Reports
    • Critical Care
    • Guidelines
    • Imaging & Ultrasound
    • Pain & Palliative Care
    • Pediatrics
    • Resuscitation
    • Trauma & Injury
  • Resource Centers
    • mTBI Resource Center
  • Career
    • Practice Management
      • Benchmarking
      • Reimbursement & Coding
      • Care Team
      • Legal
      • Operations
      • Quality & Safety
    • Awards
    • Certification
    • Compensation
    • Early Career
    • Education
    • Leadership
    • Profiles
    • Retirement
    • Work-Life Balance
  • Columns
    • ACEP4U
    • Airway
    • Benchmarking
    • Brief19
    • By the Numbers
    • Coding Wizard
    • EM Cases
    • End of the Rainbow
    • Equity Equation
    • FACEPs in the Crowd
    • Forensic Facts
    • From the College
    • Images in EM
    • Kids Korner
    • Medicolegal Mind
    • Opinion
      • Break Room
      • New Spin
      • Pro-Con
    • Pearls From EM Literature
    • Policy Rx
    • Practice Changers
    • Problem Solvers
    • Residency Spotlight
    • Resident Voice
    • Skeptics’ Guide to Emergency Medicine
    • Sound Advice
    • Special OPs
    • Toxicology Q&A
    • WorldTravelERs
  • Resources
    • ACEP.org
    • ACEP Knowledge Quiz
    • Issue Archives
    • CME Now
    • Annual Scientific Assembly
      • ACEP14
      • ACEP15
      • ACEP16
      • ACEP17
      • ACEP18
      • ACEP19
    • Annals of Emergency Medicine
    • JACEP Open
    • Emergency Medicine Foundation
  • About
    • Our Mission
    • Medical Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Advisory Board
    • Awards
    • Authors
    • Article Submission
    • Contact Us
    • Advertise
    • Subscribe
    • Privacy Policy
    • Copyright Information

Opinion: We Shouldn’t Compromise on Moral Convictions

By Joseph M. Soler, MD, FACEP | on February 18, 2020 | 0 Comment
Break Room Opinion
  • Tweet
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
Print-Friendly Version

I noticed in the “News from the College Section” of the December 2019 issue of ACEP Now that ACEP applauds the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York for rejecting the HHS rule that would shield health professionals who refuse to deliver care or medical services based on religious belief or moral conviction.

You Might Also Like
  • ACEP Applauds Federal Court Rejection of HHS Conscience Rule
  • Opinion: Body Cams Could Compromise Physician-Patient Relationship
  • Keep Religion Out of Our Laws
Explore This Issue
ACEP Now: Vol 39 – No 02 – February 2020

It astonishes how quickly we have forgotten the lessons of the recent past. A former governor of Colorado stated that for financial reasons, and the greater good, it was the “duty of the elderly to die.” 

It should be sadly remembered that the German 1930 sterilization law was largely modeled on a draft written by Harry Laughlin at the Eugenics Record Office in Cold Spring Harbor, New York. After Hitler’s rise to chancellor in 1933, a radicalized eugenics program emerged in Germany, and its first victims were 70,000 Germans deemed “feebleminded.”1

The euthanasia program was initially organized and carried out by German physicians. These physicians were encouraged to move from doctoring individuals to doctoring the nation. Dr. J. Barondess observed in the Annals of Internal Medicine “that physicians in Germany did not simply acquiesce; rather they accepted, supported, and were instrumental in the application of the policies.”1

Former U.S. Surgeon General Dr. C. Everett Koop stated, “At greatest risk are the poor, elderly, disabled, disadvantaged, and others without access to good medical care for whom the ‘choice to die’ could become ‘a duty to die.’” The frightening echoes of the concept of “lives not worth living” loudly resound.2, 3

I have witnessed authorized and approved hostile demonstrations against Jews and also Catholics by regimes in other countries. We cannot ignore that both Papa Doc Duvalier, Haiti, and Che Guevara, Cuba, were physicians, and they were known for their brutality. As physicians, we are not automatically immunized against inhumanness, and it appears that we can be changed by state dictates, personal agendas, career advancement, profit incentives, and personal biases.

Physicians, like any citizen, must have the right to refuse or provide treatments deemed not moral or unethical based on religious or moral conviction. As R. Orr, MD, director of clinical ethics at Loma Linda University, stated: “Become involved or the reprehensible will become the standard, and the standard of care will ultimately become your obligation.”4

References  

  1. Barondess J. Care of the medical ethos: reflection on social Darwinism, racial hygiene, and the Holocaust. Ann Int Medicine. 1988;129(11):891-898. 
  2. Koop CE, Johnson T. Let’s Talk. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan; 1992:46.
  3. Barondess JA. Medicine against society. Lessons from the Third Reich. JAMA. 1996;276(20):1657-1661.
  4. Orr RD, Biebel DB. Why doctors should not kill. Christ Med Soc J. 1993;24(1):10-14.

Pages: 1 2 | Multi-Page

Topics: conscience protections

Related

  • ACEP Applauds Federal Court Rejection of HHS Conscience Rule

    December 20, 2019 - 0 Comment
  • ACEP Leadership Addresses “Conscience Protections,” Prudent Layperson, and More

    May 15, 2018 - 0 Comment

Current Issue

ACEP Now: July 2025

Download PDF

Read More

No Responses to “Opinion: We Shouldn’t Compromise on Moral Convictions”

Leave a Reply Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*
*

Wiley
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Privacy
  • Terms of Use
  • Advertise
  • Cookie Preferences
Copyright © 2025 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved, including rights for text and data mining and training of artificial technologies or similar technologies. ISSN 2333-2603