As a NOW representative might ask:  "So what's your point?"

You're forgetting; you're dealing with the masses here.   Nothing will change and they will continue to take their chances.     Entertainment NOW trumps it's consequences LATER.

I often question the “fact” that we are the superior animal.    People spend every paycheck not even considering sticking $20/week ina savings account for when an unintended expense comes up.  Like a set of brakes on the car, or a washing machine repair.   So like an unintended pregnancy, they get the person who is the quickest to solve their problem.   Then go on to duplicate the scenario again.

Go figure. 

Reading this article had me thinking:  What does the American Medical Association (AMA) say about the big three ways of physician involvement in the death of human beings - Abortion, Euthanasia/Physician-assisted Suicide and Execution?

In a nutshell, the AMA supports abortion but not euthanasia or executions.  Part of the reasoning, in fact the main qualifier for its support is that the Constitution legalizes abortion.  If the righteousnous of law were a principal, then why aren't the legal activities of execution in a variety of States or the legal physician-assisted suicide of Oregon embraced with equal vigor?

H-5.995 Abortion

Our AMA reaffirms that: (1) abortion is a medical procedure and should be performed only by a duly licensed physician and surgeon in conformance with standards of good medical practice and the Medical Practice Act of his state; and (2) no physician or other professional personnel shall be required to perform an act violative of good medical judgment. Neither physician, hospital, nor hospital personnel shall be required to perform any act violative of personally held moral principles. In these circumstances, good medical practice requires only that the physician or other professional withdraw from the case, so long as the withdrawal is consistent with good medical practice. (Sub. Res. 43, A-73; Reaffirmed: I-86; Reaffirmed: Sunset Report, I-96; Reaffirmed by Sub. Res. 208, I-96; Reaffirmed by BOT Rep. 26, A-97; Reaffirmed: CMS Rep. 1, I-00)

So a physician can "withdrawl" from the abortion issue/activity but still must remain "consistent with good medical practice", whatever that ambiguoius statement means.

E-2.01 Abortion

The Principles of Medical Ethics of the AMA do not prohibit a physician from performing an abortion in accordance with good medical practice and under circumstances that do not violate the law. (III, IV) Issued prior to April 1977.

Abortion permission is boiled down to good medical practices and abidding by law.  Termination of a life is less a factor than medical techniques and legalities.

H-5.982 Late-Term Pregnancy Termination Techniques

(4) In recognition of the constitutional principles regarding the right to an abortion articulated by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade, and in keeping with the science and values of medicine, the AMA recommends that abortions not be performed in the third trimester except in cases of serious fetal anomalies incompatible with life. Although third-trimester abortions can be performed to preserve the life or health of the mother, they are, in fact, generally not necessary for those purposes. Except in extraordinary circumstances, maternal health factors which demand termination of the pregnancy can be accommodated without sacrifice of the fetus, and the near certainty of the independent viability of the fetus argues for ending the pregnancy by appropriate delivery.

Once again, the AMA frames abortion in the context of the primacy of Constitutional law as well as keeping with good practices of medicine.  Fetal viability is never firmly determined, leaving it up to the physician(s) for each individual case.  Keeping with Law, more than medical practices and abilities, 3rd trimester fetuses are to be delivered live than aborted if possible, though no definite or specific instances are discussed.  Ambiguity once again.

H-140.966 Decisions Near the End of Life

 Our AMA believes that: (1) The principle of patient autonomy requires that physicians must respect the decision to forgo life-sustaining treatment of a patient who possesses decision-making capacity. Life-sustaining treatment is any medical treatment that serves to prolong life without reversing the underlying medical condition. Life-sustaining treatment includes, but is not limited to, mechanical ventilation, renal dialysis, chemotherapy, antibiotics, and artificial nutrition and hydration.

(2) There is no ethical distinction between withdrawing and withholding life-sustaining treatment.

(3) Physicians have an obligation to relieve pain and suffering and to promote the dignity and autonomy of dying patients in their care. This includes providing effective palliative treatment even though it may foreseeably hasten death. More research must be pursued, examining the degree to which palliative care reduces the requests for euthanasia or assisted suicide.

(4) Physicians must not perform euthanasia or participate in assisted suicide. A more careful examination of the issue is necessary. Support, comfort, respect for patient autonomy, good communication, and adequate pain control may decrease dramatically the public demand for euthanasia and assisted suicide. In certain carefully defined circumstances, it would be humane to recognize that death is certain and suffering is great. However, the societal risks of involving physicians in medical interventions to cause patients' deaths is too great to condone euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide at this time.

(5) Our AMA supports continued research into and education concerning pain management. (CEJA Rep. B, A-91; Reaffirmed by BOT Rep. 59, A-96; Reaffirmation A-97; Appended: Sub. Res. 514, I-00)

I find this section to be especially duplicitous and cowardly in view of the physician assisted laws in Oregon.  The AMA repeatedly uses law (Roe v. Wade) as a qualifier for condoning physician performed abortion.  Why doesn't the AMA support/condone physician assisted suicide in Oregon (or, conversely, not support/condone physician assisted abortion)?  Additionally, the AMA makes a point of supporting a patient's desire for withholding life sustaining treatments (as spelled out in living will or advanced health care directive for instance) and does not differentiate, ethically speaking, between withdrawing and withholding life-sustaining treatment, but has issue with following a patient's wishes for ending their own lives.  Physician's end patient's lives in hospitals around the country every day by withholding treatment(s) and this is legal and ethical as long as the patients desires it and/or family/legal entities are in lockstep.  How is that not a form of (physician-assisted) suicide?

E-2.06 Capital Punishment

 An individual’s opinion on capital punishment is the personal moral decision of the individual. A physician, as a member of a profession dedicated to preserving life when there is hope of doing so, should not be a participant in a legally authorized execution. Physician participation in execution is defined generally as actions which would fall into one or more of the following categories: (1) an action which would directly cause the death of the condemned; (2) an action which would assist, supervise, or contribute to the ability of another individual to directly cause the death of the condemned; (3) an action which could automatically cause an execution to be carried out on a condemned prisoner.

Physician participation in an execution includes, but is not limited to, the following actions: prescribing or administering tranquilizers and other psychotropic agents and medications that are part of the execution procedure; monitoring vital signs on site or remotely (including monitoring electrocardiograms); attending or observing an execution as a physician; and rendering of technical advice regarding execution.

In the case where the method of execution is lethal injection, the following actions by the physician would also constitute physician participation in execution: selecting injection sites; starting intravenous lines as a port for a lethal injection device; prescribing, preparing, administering, or supervising injection drugs or their doses or types; inspecting, testing, or maintaining lethal injection devices; and consulting with or supervising lethal injection personnel.

The following actions do not constitute physician participation in execution: (1) testifying as to medical history and diagnoses or mental state as they relate to competence to stand trial, testifying as to relevant medical evidence during trial, testifying as to medical aspects of aggravating or mitigating circumstances during the penalty phase of a capital case, or testifying as to medical diagnoses as they relate to the legal assessment of competence for execution; (2) certifying death, provided that the condemned has been declared dead by another person; (3) witnessing an execution in a totally nonprofessional capacity; (4) witnessing an execution at the specific voluntary request of the condemned person, provided that the physician observes the execution in a nonprofessional capacity; and (5) relieving the acute suffering of a condemned person while awaiting execution, including providing tranquilizers at the specific voluntary request of the condemned person to help relieve pain or anxiety in anticipation of the execution.

Physicians should not determine legal competence to be executed. A physician’s medical opinion should be merely one aspect of the information taken into account by a legal decision maker such as a judge or hearing officer. When a condemned prisoner has been declared incompetent to be executed, physicians should not treat the prisoner for the purpose of restoring competence unless a commutation order is issued before treatment begins. The task of re-evaluating the prisoner should be performed by an independent physician examiner. If the incompetent prisoner is undergoing extreme suffering as a result of psychosis or any other illness, medical intervention intended to mitigate the level of suffering is ethically permissible. No physician should be compelled to participate in the process of establishing a prisoner’s competence or be involved with treatment of an incompetent, condemned prisoner if such activity is contrary to the physician’s personal beliefs. Under those circumstances, physicians should be permitted to transfer care of the prisoner to another physician.

Once again, the AMA is duplictous in its mandates.  Exections are legal in a variety of States.  Still, physician participation in a legally sanctioned execution is strictly forbidden in language much more detailed than the ambiguities surrounding the also legal yet condoned medical practice of abortion.  How exactly does the AMA jib the statement of "as a member of a profession dedicated to preserving life when there is hope of doing so, should not be a participant in a legally authorized execution" with allowing members in the same profession to perform/assist in abortions?  The hypocracy of this statement is mind numbing.

Then there are these ludicrous statements concerning treating a death row patient with mental illness - treat them enough to relieve  suffering but not enough to make them competent, ie be able to be executed.  First, since when do physicians half-assed treat illness - "Mr. Jones, I will only treat your hypertension to 160/95 and not to the medically acceptable practice of 120/80."  Ridiculous!  Willful "mitigation" of mental illness by a physician should be unethical and considered malpractice.  Since the AMA stated that physicians can not abandon abortion seeking patients in contravention to good medical practices even when morally disagreeing with abortion on a personal level, how can the AMA in good conscience promote willfull mistreatment of a patient with mental illness who is unable to make medical decisions for themselves, and, in which the State is legal ward of the patient and requests treatment for the patient?  Is the AMA not then advocating that the physician interfere with the legal process, in effect circumventing the legal process by choosing to maintain the patient as incompetent, despite the AMA's clear missive for the physician to not be involved in the determination of the patient's legal competance for execution?  

If preserving life is the underlying mandate of good medical practices, then how can abortion be condoned?  The vast majority of abortions are elective, not emergent for the health of the mother.  If the physician's mandate is "to preserving life where there is hope of doing so" in the death row patient, how then can the AMA not apply the same position to the healthy fetus that has every expectation of surviving preganacy except for the act of abortion?  How can the AMA condone abortion on demand by the mother but not the wishes for legal physician assisted suicide by a mentally competent patient who meets all the criteria as determined by the State?  How can the AMA use the rule of law in qualifying their position on condoning abortion yet flagrantly deny the rule of law when it comes to forbidding physician-assisted suicide and execution?

Enquiring minds want to know.

Killing them with kindness isn't working.  Time to get scrappy with the Donkeys.