In the wake of an attempt by Alberta MLA Dan Williams to pass conscience protections for medical professionals—legislation that may have been killed with the help of four of his fellow UCP MLAs—the abortion industry’s favorite bio-ethicist has once again come forward to suggest that conscientious physicians be drive from the profession. From Global News:
A bioethicist is calling for medical schools to eliminate applicants who would oppose providing medical services over objections to them based on their personal beliefs. The call from Udo Schuklenk, a Queen’s University professor and the Ontario Research Chair in Bioethics, comes as the Alberta government grappled with a controversial bill that would have allowed health-care providers to refuse to provide medical care if they object to it on religious or moral grounds…
For Schuklenk, a possible solution to prevent such debates from cropping up at all would be to screen out would-be doctors who say they would object to providing health care on conscience grounds before they even get to medical school. This could be done through a survey or asking medical school applicants outright if they foresee themselves objecting to providing certain types of health care.
“The problems that we are having now that lead to the kinds of legislation they are considering now in Alberta is caused by these sorts of doctors who prioritize their private beliefs, ultimately, over patient well-being,” Schuklenk told Global News. “Medical schools, pharmacy schools should go out of their way to basically eliminate applicants who they know already will not provide these services.”
He also blames medical schools, in part, for the current disagreements over conscientious rights. “Medical schools that don’t look at this issue are failing the public that, ultimately, is paying their bills.”
Schuklenk, of course, appears to have made a classic mistake: Believing that his worldview is so flawless that everyone else should be forced to live their lives in accordance with his beliefs. This is not simply about “doctors who prioritize their private beliefs,” it is about doctors who fundamentally disagree with him about what constitutes good medical care. It should not be shocking to Schuklenk that some doctors feel that lethal injections are not healthcare, or that dismantling human beings in the womb is the violation of one of the two patients involved. Yet it appears to be, because Schucklenk is the sort of ethicist who does not understand ethics, and yet is paid to advocate for the removal of the rights of others.
This is not the first time Schucklenk has cropped up in the Canadian news cycle. Last year, BioEdge reported that he was advocating for the banning of conscientious objection by physicians to abortion on the grounds that it might be murder, which is certainly ironic. While Schucklenk demands that other professionals be forced to act in accordance with his beliefs, he appears happy to ignore nearly all of the relevant facts while doing so.
2 thoughts on “Canadian bioethicist suggests that medical schools should reject pro-life applicants”
Aart Blokhuis says:
Is he Dr. Mengele’s Apostle?
If I were to snatch someone off a high ledge, could or would I be charged with preventing a suicide? In other words, would I be considered a hero or a villain? I certainly consider Dr. Schucklenk a hazard to civilized society.
Professor Schuklenk should be embarrassed to have made public such shallow reasoning. In the first instance, he labels the pro-life perspective a “private” view, while apparently considering his own a “public” one? What sort of reasoning, other than his own preference, distinguishes between the two? Also, since the “public” is paying for the funding of medical schools and since the public is made up of individuals who hold diverse viewpoints, why should his view be forced upon those who hold a different outlook, not to mention being imposed violently against the bodies of persons in the womb?
Is he Dr. Mengele’s Apostle?
If I were to snatch someone off a high ledge, could or would I be charged with preventing a suicide? In other words, would I be considered a hero or a villain? I certainly consider Dr. Schucklenk a hazard to civilized society.
Professor Schuklenk should be embarrassed to have made public such shallow reasoning. In the first instance, he labels the pro-life perspective a “private” view, while apparently considering his own a “public” one? What sort of reasoning, other than his own preference, distinguishes between the two? Also, since the “public” is paying for the funding of medical schools and since the public is made up of individuals who hold diverse viewpoints, why should his view be forced upon those who hold a different outlook, not to mention being imposed violently against the bodies of persons in the womb?