Ill. judge throws out rule on contraception

[Rence]

Medical Ethics is not canon law - I never made that claim.

Well I’m glad you understand that medical ethics taught in secular schools isn’t going to reflect the medical ethics as taught, and expected, by the Catholic Church. They’re very different in very important senarios.

I claimed Medical Ethics was taught in secular universities - Part of Medical Ethics is Thomas Aquinas’ Double Effect - JUST as he said it back in the 1200’s…

The Principle of Double Effect HAS NOTHING to do with civil law…It is Moral Ethics.

Meaning if civil law says you can legally kill the next patient that comes in to ER - Your Moral Ethics says no.

Much like the Hippocratic Oath says “Do no Harm”.

With regards to the principle of double effect and moral ethics, let’s look at the case of the use of methotrexate for tubal pregnancies as an example. The medical community is quite convinced of the efficacy, and the ethical morality of it’s usage. It’s not viewed as “immoral” but viewed as quite “moral” and a beneficial treatment. Do no harm fits the requirement and the end justifies the means. According to the principle of double effect, this is a sound moral practice from a secular moral ethics standpoint. The treatment is a standard of care for early diagnosed tubal pregnancies. This is the treatment that will be discussed in nursing class.

However, this same senario as taught by the Church is NOT viewed as the same, which forbids the use of methotrexate (because it’s considered evil, considered to “do harm”, and doesn’t qualify for the Church’s requirements for double effect). Instead, the Church requires the full removal of the tube at the expense of the tube. This particular Church teaching is not taught in secular schools unless Catholic teachings are built into the curriculum, which is not common.

So medical ethics, and double effect, is not the same across the board for the Church as it is from a secular standpoint. They may have the same foundation, but they often go in different directions along the way.

 

[LemonAndLime]

The quote above is not my quote I never said that unless I’m suffering from severe amnesia.

 

[kimmielittle]

Well I’m glad you understand that medical ethics taught in secular schools isn’t going to reflect the medical ethics as taught, and expected, by the Catholic Church. They’re very different in very important senarios.

Actually no…

Double effect is taught just how Thomas wrote it. The same today as in 1200’s

With regards to the principle of double effect and moral ethics, let’s look at the case of the use of methotrexate for tubal pregnancies as an example. The medical community is quite convinced of the efficacy, and the ethical morality of it’s usage. It’s not viewed as “immoral” but viewed as quite “moral” and a beneficial treatment.

Oh this helps your case

Many Dr;s think the same about abortions for convenience.

Methotrexate attacks the baby - thusly can never be considered applicable to Thomas’ Double Effect.

 

[kimmielittle]

The quote above is not my quote I never said that unless I’m suffering from severe amnesia.

I caught it…but I admit it took me a minute

 

[Rence]

Actually no…

Double effect is taught just how Thomas wrote it. The same today as in 1200’s

Double effect as taught by Thomas is the same today as in the 1200s. Double effect as taught in secular medical ethics in nursing school apparently can’t always be the same as Thomas’ teachings. That was my whole point.

With regards to the principle of double effect and moral ethics, let’s look at the case of the use of methotrexate for tubal pregnancies as an example. The medical community is quite convinced of the efficacy, and the ethical morality of it’s usage. It’s not viewed as “immoral” but viewed as quite “moral” and a beneficial treatment.

Well of course the use of Methotrexate for tubal pregnancies can’t be applied to “Thomas’ Double Effect”. However, it does apply to double effect as taught in secular medical ethics classes. That’s my point. As such, the principle of double effect as taught by the Catholic Church with regards to tubal pregnancies is probably not going to be covered in a secular nursing school’s medical ethics class unless Catholic theology is incorporated into the curriculum, which is rare. But the principle of double effect with regards to tubal pregnancies will be taught, and methotrexate will be taught as a standard (and morally acceptable) treatment for early diagnosed tubal pregnancies.

So again, it’s not reasonable to expect someone attending a secular school to understand the Church’s teaching regarding double effect in the case of tubal pregnancy unless they learn it in a Catholic environment - because this teaching is exclusively a Catholic teaching. You’re not going to learn about the Church’s rules regarding this manner in secular nursing school. As I said from the beginning…

 

[Rence]

The quote above is not my quote I never said that unless I’m suffering from severe amnesia.

Sorry LemonAndLime, it was a copy/paste error. I still had your quote bar in my above post when I replied to KimmieLittle’s post.

 

[LemonAndLime]

Sorry LemonAndLime, it was a copy/paste error. I still had your quote bar in my above post when I replied to KimmieLittle’s post.

That’s okay.

 

[kimmielittle]

Double effect as taught by Thomas is the same today as in the 1200s. Double effect as taught in secular medical ethics in nursing school apparently can’t always be the same as Thomas’ teachings. That was my whole point.

HERE IS DOUBLE EFFECT

This set of criteria states that an action having foreseen harmful effects practically inseparable from the good effect is justifiable if upon satisfaction of the following:

The nature of the act is itself good, or at least morally neutral;

The agent intends the good effect and not the bad either as a means to the good or as an end itself;

The good effect outweighs the bad effect in circumstances sufficiently grave to justify causing the bad effect and the agent exercises due.

There is no other Double Effect - this is The Double Effect that is taught in Medical Ethics - Secular or Catholic

Medical Ethics

Medical ethics is a system of moral principles that apply values and judgments to the practice of medicine.

Again there is ONLY one Double Effect - not two - three.

Double Effect has to be taught one way… Thomas’. There is no Catholic Version - secular version.

Unless, you want to present a link referencing the secular Double Effect

 

[Suudy]

Rence, I’m not seeing your point in this discussion about DDE. Are you trying to say that since the secular medical community and the Catholic medical community have different standards of morals, Catholics practicing in secular medical facilities should use the secular morals? Or that secular morals trumps Catholic morals depending upon the setting? There is only one proper formulation for DDE, and it doesn’t change depending upon the situation or the author. Either St Thomas’ formulation is correct, the secular one is correct, or neither. Both cannot be correct, and both cannot be applied separately.

Look, the OP is about requiring, by force of law, that Catholics (and other similarly minded folk) jettison their own ethics and conform to secular ethics. This whole discussion about what DDE is, who it applies to, etc is meaningless. We are talking about the situation of a Catholic nurse, pharmacist, doctor, or other caregiver being mandated by law to act contrary to their conscience.

And, it seems you concern is that many are not well versed in Catholic theology. So what? Who is more guilty? A Catholic nurse ignorant of DDE or a Catholic nurse knowledgeable about DDE acting contrary it? Let’s take your example of treating ectopic pregnancies with Methotrexate. It is either a direct abortion or it isn’t. When used to treat an ectopic pregnancy, what is the intended end of the treatment? Does the Methotrexate serve any other therapeutic purpose besides the expulsion of the fetus? If not (and I don’t think it does in this case), it is a direct abortion. That’s speaking objectively.

Now, does the particular caregiver administering the Methotrexate have knowledge of this? For example, a doctor give the order to administer a dose of Methotrexate, and the nurse, ignorant of the effects or intended end, does so. Who has the knowledge here? Now, what if a nurse is educated enough to know what Methotrexate is used for, why the doctor prescribed it, and knows what the intended end is. Are you saying this nurse should be required by law to administer this drug? Or that a pharmacist should be required by law to fill such a prescription?

Finally, let’s look at what the OP is talking about. Say for example we have a Catholic pharmacist, well catechized and aware of DDE. Also say he is well trained and competent. That is, he is aware of the typical uses of drugs, drug interactions, and possible side effects and other physiological interactions. If a patient comes to his pharmacy requesting Plan B, should he be required by law to dispense it?

Change this up, and make it a nurse in an ER. Again, assume the nurse is Catholic, well catechized and aware of DDE. The nurse is also well trained and competent, and is also familiar with Plan B and its typical use. If a rape victim is admitted to an ER, and the nurse is unable to determine whether the patient has ovulated, or knows that the patient has ovulated, should that nurse be required by law to administer Plan B?

 

[catharina]

Rence, I’m not seeing your point in this discussion about DDE. Are you trying to say that since the secular medical community and the Catholic medical community have different standards of morals, Catholics practicing in secular medical facilities should use the secular morals? Or that secular morals trumps Catholic morals depending upon the setting? There is only one proper formulation for DDE, and it doesn’t change depending upon the situation or the author. Either St Thomas’ formulation is correct, the secular one is correct, or neither. Both cannot be correct, and both cannot be applied separately.

Look, the OP is about requiring, by force of law, that Catholics (and other similarly minded folk) jettison their own ethics and conform to secular ethics. This whole discussion about what DDE is, who it applies to, etc is meaningless. We are talking about the situation of a Catholic nurse, pharmacist, doctor, or other caregiver being mandated by law to act contrary to their conscience.

And, it seems you concern is that many are not well versed in Catholic theology. So what? Who is more guilty? A Catholic nurse ignorant of DDE or a Catholic nurse knowledgeable about DDE acting contrary it? Let’s take your example of treating ectopic pregnancies with Methotrexate. It is either a direct abortion or it isn’t. When used to treat an ectopic pregnancy, what is the intended end of the treatment? Does the Methotrexate serve any other therapeutic purpose besides the expulsion of the fetus? If not (and I don’t think it does in this case), it is a direct abortion. That’s speaking objectively.

Now, does the particular caregiver administering the Methotrexate have knowledge of this? For example, a doctor give the order to administer a dose of Methotrexate, and the nurse, ignorant of the effects or intended end, does so. Who has the knowledge here? Now, what if a nurse is educated enough to know what Methotrexate is used for, why the doctor prescribed it, and knows what the intended end is. Are you saying this nurse should be required by law to administer this drug? Or that a pharmacist should be required by law to fill such a prescription?

Finally, let’s look at what the OP is talking about. Say for example we have a Catholic pharmacist, well catechized and aware of DDE. Also say he is well trained and competent. That is, he is aware of the typical uses of drugs, drug interactions, and possible side effects and other physiological interactions. If a patient comes to his pharmacy requesting Plan B, should he be required by law to dispense it?

Change this up, and make it a nurse in an ER. Again, assume the nurse is Catholic, well catechized and aware of DDE. The nurse is also well trained and competent, and is also familiar with Plan B and its typical use. If a rape victim is admitted to an ER, and the nurse is unable to determine whether the patient has ovulated, or knows that the patient has ovulated, should that nurse be required by law to administer Plan B?

Why, thank you. I’m the OP and you got it!
Forcing anyone to act against conscience should never become LAW.

It should also be perfectly obvious to anyone that discussing the
“acceptable” death of a baby, without referring to the specifics
of INDIRECT abortion, should NOT be allowed to stand. No one here
can read minds. Why assume that others can infer that a post meant
to say this or that? Nope. be specific or be misunderstood.

Clarify, clarify, clarify.

I am no one’s enemy in the pro-life community.
Implying otherwise is false.

I hope all are able to have a holy Holy Week.

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

Yes, medical ethics as taught in secular nursing schools very much goes above and beyond to teach not to pass judgment on legally approved procedures, as well as the patient, regardless of how we, as nurses feel about it. This is in stark contrast to the medical ethics taught from the perspective of the Catholic Church’s teachings.

This is a surprise to me. So, if I understand you correctly, secular schools of nursing (and I guess schools of pharmacy, schools of medicine, too) teach the healthcare professional in training to put their own professional ethical judgment aside, and not to pass judgment on the procedure or on the request of the patient, as long as the requested procedure is “legally approved”.

I attended school of pharmacy in the second half of the 1980s, at a secular school, and at that time, they didn’t teach us to put our own professional ethics aside, and to always defer to the requests of the state, and to the request of the patient, whenever there was some civil law in the books which made their request “legally approved”.

I wonder whether your experience, Rence, might be different because secular schools teach medical ethics differently today than 20-25 years ago?

At any rate, when I received my training, it wasn’t like your civil lawmaking authority, or the request of the patient, is the ultimate authority. Quite to the contrary, they taught us to uphold the ethical standards of our profession, even if that caused a clash with what other people or civil authorities requested from us. The ethical standards of the profession were the ultimate standard to obey. If your boss or co-worker asked you to do something that seemed controversial, if the patient asked you, or the civil authority asked you so, you were supposed to turn to the ethical standards of your profession, and only obey those requests as long as they didn’t contradict your professional ethical standards.

But at least I see now where you and other posters are coming from. If I understand you correctly, they teach you that you should provide the service as long as civil law permits it. For a pharmacist living in Washington and Oregon state today, that would mean not only filling a prescription for drugs that cause abortion, but also giving a drug to kill a patient if the patient’s family members in charge want to kill him (=euthanasia), or if the patient requests it (=assisted suicide). According to your logic, it would be “Governor of WA Christine Gregoire made it legal, and the patient wants to die. Thus, I have a duty to give them this drug for assisted suicide.” While, according to the logic I was taught to apply, it would be “WA Governor Christine Gregoire passed an unjust law, which conflicts with the ethical standards of my profession. The senior citizen who wants to die has no right to request a lethal drug from me, because that would qualify as drug abuse, and it’s against the ethical standards of my profession. Therefore, I cannot comply with this civil law, and I must deny the senior person’s request for a lethal drug”. Similarly, the use of drugs for abortion is “drug abuse”, the use of birth control pills to render a woman infertile is drug abuse, and I should deny cooperation with drug abuse, according to the ethical standards of my profession.

Moreover, in this sense, I wouldn’t even regard the woman requesting Plan B, or the senior citizen requesting the lethal drug, as a “patient”. He is a patient only as long as he requests a legitimate drug for a legitimate use, e.g. an anesthetic for suppressing pain. But suicide is not a legitimate treatment according to my professional ethical standards, and the use of a drug to kill someone is not a legitimate use, but rather what we call “drug abuse”.

In final analysis, I’m worried that **today’s version of secular medical ethics tries to turn the healthcare professional into some sort of unthinking zombie who will mindlessly execute the requests of the state, as long as the state passes a law to make that request “legal”. **This is eerily similar to Hitler’s Germany making the killing of Jews “legal”, and communist China making “legal” the forced implementation of the one-child policy, complete with forced abortions and forced sterilizations. Also, regarding the requests of the customer or of the patient, it seems that every other profession would have more freedom to say no. The waiter in the Kosher restaurant can say no to the customer’s request for pork, and the vegetarian Indian restaurant can deny to serve beef. Yet, according to this secular medical ethics, I as a pharmacist couldn’t say no if someone requested an abortive drug or birth control pill from me, or a drug for euthanasia and assisted suicide. That means, we can’t draft people to go and kill the enemy in Afghanistan if they don’t want to, but **the next woman down the street could draft me to help her kill her child, against my will. This is evil, because it tries to turn the phamacist into other people’s slave, and it’s so utterly illogical, that it’s downright ridiculous. I think this version of contemporary secular medical ethics represents a new low in secular thinking, both morally and intellectually. **

 

[catharina]

**the next woman down the street could draft me to help her kill her child, against my will. This is evil, because it tries to turn the phamacist into other people’s slave, and it’s so utterly illogical, that it’s downright ridiculous. I think this version of contemporary secular medical ethics represents a new low in secular thinking, both morally and intellectually. **

Yes - it’s a travesty of morality.

 

[Elizabeth502]

It may be that some conscience provisiions exist which would allow a healthcare professional, in selected instances (I don’t know the full range of law on this), to call on those provisions to announce to a superior how far he or she is willing to act/participate, or alternatively to request reassignment to a different case/patient.

There is a parallel of sorts here, in that as a teacher I am called upon to teach and agree with some curriculum that is directly opposed to Church teaching, such as gay “marriage,” because that teaching is now officially in some of the curriculum in some districts. Therefore, I no longer accept teaching positions in public schools. If I did, I would be required to support that curriculum and be enthusiastic about it, which would be dishonest of me. If I did not implement it enthusiastically, I could lose my job, despite my own conscience beliefs. I am expected to embrace the currently taught moral framework of the public school system.

To me this is rather ironic, because I do in fact associate that moral framework of the public schools with a “belief system,” as surely as a formal religion is. The public schools utilize indoctrination and a kind of (a)moral absolutism that requires adherence to it and the equivalence of a loyalty oath. That extends to attending ceremonies, by the way: that is, accompanying 3rd graders on field trips to “gay weddings.” So there is even the dimension of mandated rituals involved, such as one finds in organized religion.

Sorry for the tangent. It merely illustrates, though, that if one does feel strongly about certain moral issues, it can be difficult to operate as a professional in medicine or in education. OTOH, there’s an awful lot of unethical and immoral stuff that happens in the Financial Services industry and the Mortgage Loan sector. I guess this means, Choose your environment wisely, and know what you’re getting into.

 

[RobbyS]

Here’s the rub: I put myself through the school of pharmacy and have become a pharmacist, but at the same time, I never agreed or made any promise whatsoever to become a baby killer, a dispenser of abortive and contraceptive drugs, a dispenser of poisons for assisted suicide and euthanasia, or a dispenser of crack cocaine.

You have a problem with that?

Add this, and don’t thiunbk you are immodest in saying so; “I probably know more about drugs than any of your physicians.”

 

[Suudy]

I wonder whether your experience, Rence, might be different because secular schools teach medical ethics differently today than 20-25 years ago?

I don’t think so. I’ve posted on other threads about my college buddy. He earned his PharmD in 1998 from my alma mater, and he too received similar training as yourself. It wasn’t explicit, but he has pointed out to me that he was not taught that a legal prescription was necessarily a licit prescription. I remember one example–which I’ve pointed out to others on the thread related to Makena–that if the pharmacist has reason to believe, in his professional opinion, that the prescription either 1) doesn’t provide the therapeutic benefit for which it is prescribed or 2) is contraindicated, he is not to fill it. Even if after confirming with the doctor, if the pharmacist does not think the prescription is appropriate, he has the right to refuse to fill it. Yet ruling by the Board of Pharmacy runs directly contrary to the education he was given. This is essentially telling the pharmacist to ignore his professional judgment with regard to Plan B, and do whatever the state tells you to do.

Also, my wife returned to school and completed her BSN in 2006. Even there she was told to use her professional judgment on any treatment. I remember her medical ethics classes because I helped her write her papers. And nowhere was there mention of Catholic ethics, but it was emphasized that individuals should never act contrary to their conscience and always with the good of the patient in mind. The ethics scenarios (not surprisingly) never included abortion or euthanasia, but rather about refusing orders from doctors that are questionable, working without complete knowledge about the patients condition or treatment, and how to deal with abusive/combative/impaired patients.

When my wife worked med-surg right out of college, she was fortunate to work for a Catholic hospital (Providence), so she never had to encounter these emergency situations related to rape or pregnancy (by nature of the unit and by nature of the hospital). She then changed to work at an outpatient clinic, where again she is shielded from this. However, her current company has a policy that allows nurses and doctors to transfer requests for abortion or euthanasia requests to another. When she does get a patient that wants a referral for an abortion, she tells the patient “Just a second, and I’ll transfer you to someone else for that.”

But at least I see now where you and other posters are coming from. If I understand you correctly, they teach you that you should provide the service as long as civil law permits it. For a pharmacist living in Washington and Oregon state today, that would mean not only filling a prescription for drugs that cause abortion, but also giving a drug to kill a patient if the patient’s family members in charge want to kill him (=euthanasia), or if the patient requests it (=assisted suicide). According to your logic, it would be “Governor of WA Christine Gregoire made it legal, and the patient wants to die. Thus, I have a duty to give them this drug for assisted suicide.” While, according to the logic I was taught to apply, it would be “WA Governor Christine Gregoire passed an unjust law, which conflicts with the ethical standards of my profession. The senior citizen who wants to die has no right to request a lethal drug from me, because that would qualify as drug abuse, and it’s against the ethical standards of my profession. Therefore, I cannot comply with this civil law, and I must deny the senior person’s request for a lethal drug”. Similarly, the use of drugs for abortion is “drug abuse”, the use of birth control pills to render a woman infertile is drug abuse, and I should deny cooperation with drug abuse, according to the ethical standards of my profession.

Well, to be fair, Governor Gregoire didn’t sign anything regarding Plan B or the assisted suicide. The former was done by the Board of Pharmacy, and the latter was done by initiative. However, she did propose and push the Plan B requirement:

komonews.com/news/archive/4195781.html

And she did oppose Initiative 1000 (the euthanasia initiative). But her opposition was wishy-washy. She basically said that it is a deeply personal decision and is not for her to say. Same kind of position as on abortion.

In final analysis, I’m worried that **today’s version of secular medical ethics tries to turn the healthcare professional into some sort of unthinking zombie who will mindlessly execute the requests of the state, as long as the state passes a law to make that request “legal”. **

Exactly! That’s what my pharmacist buddy says, what my wife says, and what some of the doctors my wife works with say. And it goes beyond this. The fear of lawsuits have doctors taking nearly no initiative in patient care and following protocols to the letter, even if their professional experience and judgment tells them otherwise. My wife mentioned a story to me about a potentially diabetic patient that was run through the ringer before the doctor would declare a diagnoses of Type I diabetes. Afterward, the doctor mentioned casually to others in the office that she was pretty sure it was Type I, “but protocols say do 1 then 2 then 3…” It was all effort that the doctor was forced to ignore her own professional judgment. Doctors and nurses are becoming robots. The only “art” that may be left is in research, not in treatment.

 

[Suudy]

It may be that some conscience provisiions exist which would allow a healthcare professional, in selected instances (I don’t know the full range of law on this), to call on those provisions to announce to a superior how far he or she is willing to act/participate, or alternatively to request reassignment to a different case/patient.

Here in WA, the mandate that a pharmacist have Plan B available is binding on the individual pharmacist, not the pharmacy. If any individual pharmacist refuses, it is grounds for losing one’s license. There is no way for an individual to request another to do it instead.

But your examples of teaching is why I’m personally opposed to conscience clauses. Law should not compel employers to accept employees unwilling to do legal work, and law should not compel employees to do work they are unwilling to do. This is between the employer and employee, and is not an area the government should be meddling in. It isn’t a workplace safety or harassment issue. It isn’t about unfair work practices. So why is the government there? Because it is trying to push an ideological issue, rather than leaving it up to society to work through.

However, in the case of public schools, I think things a bit different. I think schools should reflect the values of their area. And if that school district is dominated by pro-homosexual marriage, I think that school district should be able to tailor its curriculum to accommodate that view. Or if a school district is dominated by Catholics, the school district should be able to tailor its curriculum to accommodate the particular needs of Catholics. Unfortunately, federal intervention (Dept of Education) and state intervention to impose things unrelated to basic knowledge (the three “R’s”) forces people to act contrary to the particular character of their school district. This is why subsidiarity is so important.

 

[Elizabeth502]

However, in the case of public schools, I think things a bit different. I think schools should reflect the values of their area. And if that school district is dominated by pro-homosexual marriage, I think that school district should be able to tailor its curriculum to accommodate that view. Or if a school district is dominated by Catholics, the school district should be able to tailor its curriculum to accommodate the particular needs of Catholics. Unfortunately, federal intervention (Dept of Education) and state intervention to impose things unrelated to basic knowledge (the three “R’s”) forces people to act contrary to the particular character of their school district. This is why subsidiarity is so important.

I could not disagree more. This is simply neither the history nor the purpose of public education. The mission of public education, when it originally began in this country and as it was carried out in my youth as well (when true to its mission), was not about small community values. It was about national values: the common good, and common goals/ideals of society. Those ideals included building character, and teaching character, as a country, not as a Balkanized patchwork of differing values and standards, community to community. This has never been what public education has embodied, nor should it. The ideals and the values should be consistent across all public school systems.

Also, your view is frankly quite inconsistent with that of the US. Conference of Catholic Bishops, several documents of which I cited at length recently on CAF, on the Moral Theology forum. Faithful Catholics are not to be promoting or passively permitting (without protest) a “school district dominated by pro-homosexual marriage.” We have been instructed to oppose homosexual “marriage” at every opportunity, in every setting. It is not healthy for American society, of which Catholics are as much members as non-Catholics. The teaching of the Bishops on this is that we are to oppose such “marriage” efforts and personal “union” efforts across the board. The Catholic Church has a voice in society, for society, not for a tiny faith community here or there, nor just for ourselves as a faith tradition.

There is a legitimate moral component in education, stressing integrity, generosity, the structure of the family, respect for authority, thirst for knowledge, and the core definition of citizenship (responsibility, compassion for others, patriotism, participation in the civil arena). That was a driving force in the establishment of public education. One of its components was to reflect traditional family values – to be an extension of the nuclear family and in mutual relationship with it.

The mission of public education will never be to establish a million independent communities with entirely separate value systems out of sync with the common good.

 

[Suudy]

I could not disagree more. This is simply neither the history nor the purpose of public education. The mission of public education, when it originally began in this country and as it was carried out in my youth as well (when true to its mission), was not about small community values. It was about national values: the common good, and common goals/ideals of society. Those ideals included building character, and teaching character, as a country, not as a Balkanized patchwork of differing values and standards, community to community. This has never been what public education has embodied, nor should it. The ideals and the values should be consistent across all public school systems.

That’s nationalism, which I don’t think is the goal of public education. I certainly agree that there should be some minimum level of commonality, but I do not think that is something to be enforced by the federal government. While I agree that the ideals of the common good and strong character are important, it is not the primary role of the public education system to do so. That is the proper role of the parents. The schools, through their own unique locality, are to work in support, not in opposition to the community.

Also, your view is frankly quite inconsistent with that of the US. Conference of Catholic Bishops, several documents of which I cited at length recently on CAF, on the Moral Theology forum. Faithful Catholics are not to be promoting or passively permitting (without protest) a “school district dominated by pro-homosexual marriage.” We have been instructed to oppose homosexual “marriage” at every opportunity, in every setting. It is not healthy for American society, of which Catholics are as much members as non-Catholics. The teaching of the Bishops on this is that we are to oppose such “marriage” efforts and personal “union” efforts across the board. The Catholic Church has a voice in society, for society, not for a tiny faith community here or there, nor just for ourselves as a faith tradition.

Please don’ t misunderstand me. I’m not suggesting that we allow public schools to teach homosexuality is normal, that sex before marriage is a “good” thing, or even how to use a condom. These things fall outside of mandate of public schools. But this even goes towards schools teaching that homosexuality is wrong, sex before marriage is a “bad” thing, or using contraception is evil. The schools should be neutral and silent on these issues, and focus instead–as I pointed out–on the three “Rs”. This means, then, that schools that attempt to teach that homosexual marriage is normal, should be opposed.

Note also that I only think this restriction applies to public schools. Private schools should be permitted make their own determination of the proper curriculum, including any moral efforts.

Edit: I realize that perhaps my word choice was wrong. I didn’t mean “accommodate” as in passively sit by. I meant that the school curriculum should be designed such that is cognizant of the community values, and that there will be children from families with people sympathetic to the homosexual “marriage” movement. For example, I don’t think it inappropriate for such a school district to discuss influential homosexual Americans in a US History class. However, such a class must be objective in its presentation and assignments. Similarly with a predominantly Catholic school district that wants to discuss the Church’s role during WWII. The class must be objective, and not make moral statements (pro- or anti-) either.

The mission of public education will never be to establish a million independent communities with entirely separate value systems out of sync with the common good.

As a practical matter, I think schools must be morally neutral on most matters. Virtues such as honesty, sincerity, independence, dependability, etc, should of course be encouraged. But more abstract, less fundamental matters, such as homosexual marriage, contraception, sexual relations, etc are outside the bounds of the public education system. Thus my point is not that we “establish a million independent communities with entire separate values”, only that those communities focus on fundamental virtues and remain silent and neutral on others.

 

[Rence]

HERE IS DOUBLE EFFECT

This set of criteria states that an action having foreseen harmful effects practically inseparable from the good effect is justifiable if upon satisfaction of the following:

The nature of the act is itself good, or at least morally neutral;

The agent intends the good effect and not the bad either as a means to the good or as an end itself;

The good effect outweighs the bad effect in circumstances sufficiently grave to justify causing the bad effect and the agent exercises due.

There is no other Double Effect - this is The Double Effect that is taught in Medical Ethics - Secular or Catholic

Medical Ethics

Again there is ONLY one Double Effect - not two - three.

Double Effect has to be taught one way… Thomas’. There is no Catholic Version - secular version.

Unless, you want to present a link referencing the secular Double Effect

KimmieLittle, I totally understand what you’re trying to say about believing that the principal of double effect, as taught by Thomas, is the only principle of double effect in existance. But what I’m trying to say is that those who attend secular nursing schools just arent’t going to learn the principle of double effect as applied to Catholic rules and laws. You can argue with me until you’re blue in the face, or until your fingers fall off from typing it so many times, but it’s a fact that secular nursing schools are not going to be taught these principles from a Catholic persepective. I gave you an example of methotrexate in the use of early diagnosed tubal pregancies and that’s just the way it is in the real world. That means that this principle of double effect, as taught by the Church, is not taught in secular nursing schools, and not only that, that proves that the principal of double effect as applied to Cathoic teachings is obviously not as “universal” as the Catholic Church would like it to be. And this is because the use of methotrexate in early diagnosed tubal pregnancies does fit the criteria of double effect according to the medical community that uses methotrexate to treat early diagnosed tubal pregnancies. So clearly, the two teachings are different. I don’t mean to be rude, honestly, but with all due respect, I really don’t care whether you believe it or not because in the real world, that’s how it is. This isn’t the world according to KimmieLittle, and it’s not the world according to Rence. The facts as they churn out in everday life speak for themselves. We know that 1) the Church teaches that the principal of double effect does not apply to the use of methotrextate to treat early diagnosed tubal pregnancies, and we know that 2) the medical community does find the double effect applicable with this usage, therefore we know that 3) the principle of double effect as taught by the Catholic Church isn’t taught in nursing school because the textbooks list this treatment as a good, moral and sound treatment. Soo…why you are arguing with me about his is beyond me. It is what it is.

 

[Suudy]

That means that this principle of double effect, as taught by the Church, is not taught in secular nursing schools, and not only that, that proves that the principal of double effect as applied to Cathoic teachings is obviously not as “universal” as the Catholic Church would like it to be.

It’s a bit more than just how the “Catholic Church would like it to be.” The universality of DDE is a statement about the objective nature of it, not its application. It is universally true, regardless if the medical community ignores it and defines its own.

And this is because the use of methotrexate in early diagnosed tubal pregnancies does fit the criteria of double effect according to the medical community that uses methotrexate to treat early diagnosed tubal pregnancies. So clearly, the two teachings are different.

And clearly, one of them is wrong. Either the Church is wrong, the secular medical community is wrong, or both are wrong. They both can’t be correct. And this discussion, is about what should be, not what is. These arguments from facts with no subjective premise are meaningless.

I don’t mean to be rude, honestly, but with all due respect, I really don’t care whether you believe it or not because in the real world, that’s how it is.

Earlier in this thread you were happy to say what should happen. But now you say you don’t care? Which do you think doctors, nurses, and other caregivers should do? Give methotrexate for ectopic pregnancies, or not?

It is what it is.

Slavery was what it was, so why was there argument about it? Jim Crow laws were what they were, so why was there argument about it? Abortion is what it is, so why argue about it?

Indifference is not an excuse to let evils continue unabated.