|
Dear Friends,
“A New York City hospital is the subject of a lawsuit after allegations that it attempted to force a nurse to participate in a late-term abortion” (LifeNews.com)
In America, a nurse can make her deeply held pro-life views known and is able to withdraw consent from assisting in an abortion. Cathy Cenzon-DeCarlo had made her position clear from 2004, so why in 2009 do hospital officials threaten her with disciplinary measures if she did not honour a last-minute summons to assist in a scheduled late-term abortion? Federal laws prohibit hospitals that receive federal funds from forcing employees to participate in abortion procedures. And this was not an emergency.
It will be interesting to see the final outcome of this case. Do we know if employees in the U.K. undergo such pressures? This all hinges on the matter of ‘conscience’, doesn’t it? Could this be considered bullying? We have it in the House of Commons whereby the government whips seem to control a person’s decision on certain topics. This disgusting procedure, we have heard, is extremely unpopular with M.P.s and should be abolished. With the promised shake-up of the whole question of M.P.s expenses and how the system operates, will those in power be man enough to accept that no person should be bullied into voting against their ‘consciences’? Only when there is respect shown in Parliament will the public have confidence in any government.
Biased reporting in the newspapers we will always get, but why on the T.V. News can we not have factual reporting? The latest report concerning the Royal College of Nursing and their views on Euthanasia has completely muddled up the public. It was not a proper consultation to start with, but to use the information gained to give the impression that nurses are moving towards euthanasia is horrifying. Added to this misrepresentation, was the reporting on the Debbie Purdy case, which simply said that the lady was entitled to know whether her husband would be arrested if he assisted her in going to Switzerland to the premises of Dignitas, misleading too? Since the Swiss government is looking into the fact that they do not want to be known as the suicide centre for the world, and may make changes, it will be interesting to see how things develop. And then it begs the question of how any decision on the subject will apply to cases in this country. What is the government trying to achieve? It certainly is not the protection of its citizens.
Should citizens be able to expect protection from evil things happening? Is this not what governments usually do? Or is it up to the lobbying powers or interested groups and their economic clout that determines which laws get passed?
Editor
|
