Saturday, February 11, 2012
 
 
  Home arrow End of Life / Euthanasia arrow Legal Aspects of Euthanasia and PAS arrow Nutrition & Hydration - Rules to Know
Main Menu
Home
About Us
Current Headlines
Abortion
Abstinence
Birth Control
End of Life / Euthanasia
Medical Research
Medical Students
Population
Position Statements
Pregnancy/Development
STDs
Stem Cells & Cloning
Contact Us
Web Links
Site Index
Resources
Related Items
Translator
Quotes to Note

Far from reducing the number of abortions, contraception to some extent finds in abortion a natural unfolding.

Given that the contraceptive mentality is in fact close to the abortive mentality, large-scale use of contraception in the developed nations has contributed to the routine use of abortion.

Scientific research today is oriented towards the development of increasingly “effective” contraceptive techniques to prevent conception and [to prevent] the continuation of pregnancy, with increasingly less risk to the woman, resulting in increasingly abortifacient contraception.

This is a further demonstration of the close link, not only cultural but also scientific, between the use of contraception and the demand for abortion.

To avoid uttering the word “abortion”, people talk about the pharmacological “prevention” of implantation, “interception” or “contragestion”.

It is also asserted that the embryo is not an embryo as long as it is not implanted in the lining of the uterus, but simply a “pre-embryo”, a mass of cells which does not call for any particular respect.

However, a play on words cannot change the reality of the facts.

[Those] who, verbally or in writing, endorse the use of contraception, must know that, in so doing, they are endorsing all the abortions thereby caused and to be caused, which will amount to millions of individuals.

[Jacques Suaudeau, http://www.dialoguedynamics.com/content/learning-forum/interviews-and-articles/article/mons-jacques-suaudeau-on-the-link]

 
Nutrition & Hydration - Rules to Know PDF Print E-mail

Morality is a code of conduct which is followed by members of a civilized society.

Here are some practical "rules" for making moral decisions regarding the provision or withdrawal of food and fluids, whether the patient is fed orally or through a tube:

1. While inserting a feeding tube may require surgery or other medical expertise, food and fluids themselves are not medical treatment because they do not cure; they sustain life.


 

2. Removing food and fluids from those able to eat and drink on their own or with the assistance of another person is never appropriate.

3. Tube-feeding persistently non-responsive patients is obligatory in most cases since it is beneficial and usually does not add a serious burden.

4. For terminally ill patients, the provision of food and fluids is generally obligatory (required because it is necessary and ordinary) care.

5. When death is so close that further nutrition and hydration will no longer sustain life, they may be discontinued if the patient is more comfortable without them.

6. It is most important to examine intent. Is the intention to hasten or cause death? Then the omission of food and fluids is inappropriate and morally unethical.


[July/August 2002; reprinted in Illinois Nurses for Life News]

 
< Prev   Next >


Go to top of page  Home | About Us | Current Headlines | Abortion | Abstinence | Birth Control | End of Life / Euthanasia | Medical Research | Medical Students | Population | Position Statements | Pregnancy/Development | STDs | Stem Cells & Cloning | Contact Us | Web Links | Site Index | Resources |
 
PhysiciansForLife.org Copyright (C) 2004-2012 All Rights Reserved