[Disclaimer] What I'm about to write is very controversial.....and if you can't stomach it, walk away. Don't read. Don't comment. Don't judge.
(in other words.....be a monkey......see, hear, and say no evil)
Just concluded a 2 day medico-legal conference on Conflicts & Controversies in Medicine, Ethics & The Law. It has been by far the best conference I've attended this year. And not only it is on a field that interests me, but for the few times in my life, I get to mingle with an "adversary" profession. Hopefully through the networking done, there would be more eye-to-eye resolutions rather than an eye-for-an-eye dissolution.
One of the most ethic controversial topics was regarding termination of pregnancies aka abortions.
While religion, taught morals and many cultures abhor the practice of abortion, more and more groups, societies and schools of thought are considering it a lesser evil as opposed to the social and personal burden of an unwanted child. The once taboo (but often practiced) subject has been thrown into new light and is being re-examined to accommodate modern issues and problems.
It is easier to say prevention is better than cure and for every action (intercourse) there is an equal or opposite reaction (joy or sadness to a positive pregnancy test kit), in truth humans are not capable of preventing anything including their own destruction. So when shit hits the fan, and the test kit is positive (damn the tainted urine sample), what do we do?
Do we trudge the morally just, religiously acceptable path. Keep the sanctity of 9 months, but leave it to survive for however long it can after delivery? Is it still morally just and religiously acceptable to condemn that child to such an uncertain future? Raising a kid is not easy, raising one on their own is both a joy and pain that cannot be quantified.
Can we call quits? Isn't it illegal?
Section 312 of the Penal Code (Go read.....i don't think its really legal for me to say too much) provides for the punishment for terminating a pregnancy and a heavier fine and imprisonment if the foetus has started to kick in the womb....
Yet in smaller prints, it is stated that medical practitioners registered under the Medical Act 1971 (pretty much ANY doctor with a valid annual practicing cert), is exempted from the punishment under the section, PROVIDED he can prove that the abortion was done in good faith and that the continuation of the pregnancy would have done more harm to the mother either physically or mentally.
(fun fact.....good faith is so arbitrary......Even the Medical Council says so)
Heraclitus once said "Nothing is permanent except change"
Even the once revered Hippocratic Oath has taken a change. The original text reads:-
"I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion."
and now the modern day Declaration of Geneva has amended it to become...
"I will not permit considerations of age, disease or disability, creed, ethnic origin, gender, nationality, political affiliation, race, sexual orientation, social standing or any other factor to intervene between my duty and my patient" and
"I will maintain the utmost respect for human life"
Interestingly enough..... it has thrown the perspective of respect for human life wide open for any form of interpretation. Abortion is no longer just a unilateral view of sanctity of a foetus's life, but can be challenged to include the respect of the on-going life of the mother.
Right or wrong....? There's no longer a clear distinction. When the black and white start to cross boundaries, all we have is a lot of grey areas.
After all....Justice is just a perception
