American Medical Association Votes Down Resolution to Protect Babies Who Survive Abortions

CHICAGO (LifeSiteNews) — The American Medical Association (AMA) voted down a resolution that would oppose the deliberate killing of babies who survive abortions.

The liberal medical group, which endorses the dangerous chemical and surgical mutilation of gender-confused children, voted down the resolution from a self-described “pro-choice” Virginia doctor.

[Dr. Thomas Eppes] asked the AMA to “advocate for availability of the highest standard of neonatal care to [an] aborted fetus born alive at a gestational age of viability,” which occurs at approximately 22 weeks’ gestation. “This position is not to argue the woman’s right to choose … The decision to abort is still between the patient and the physician,” Eppes said. “It does not imply the woman’s responsibility for the fetal life, but this resolution places the burden of care on the physician, who now has to care for two patients once the fetus is viable.”

“Eppes was the only person who spoke in favor of the resolution, which was voted down 476 to 106,” MedPage reported.

“Do you believe the fetus is a separate being?” Eppes asked. MedPage reported that the Virginia doctor is “pro-choice.”

“Do the rights and care of a fetus at 22 weeks change if the fetus is in a man-made incubator versus the uterus of a woman? … CEJA needs to take on this complicated issue and report back,” Eppes said.

I swear by Apollo Healer, by Asclepius, by Hygieia, by Panacea, and by all the gods and goddesses, making them my witnesses, that I will carry out, according to my ability and judgment, this oath and this indenture.

To hold my teacher in this art equal to my own parents; to make him partner in my livelihood; when he is in need of money to share mine with him; to consider his family as my own brothers, and to teach them this art, if they want to learn it, without fee or indenture; to impart precept, oral instruction, and all other instruction to my own sons, the sons of my teacher, and to indentured pupils who have taken the Healer’s oath, but to nobody else.

I will use those dietary regimens which will benefit my patients according to my greatest ability and judgment, and I will do no harm or injustice to them.[6] Neither will I administer a poison to anybody when asked to do so, nor will I suggest such a course. Similarly I will not give to a woman a pessary to cause abortion. But I will keep pure and holy both my life and my art. I will not use the knife, not even, verily, on sufferers from stone, but I will give place to such as are craftsmen therein.

Into whatsoever houses I enter, I will enter to help the sick, and I will abstain from all intentional wrong-doing and harm, especially from abusing the bodies of man or woman, bond or free. And whatsoever I shall see or hear in the course of my profession, as well as outside my profession in my intercourse with men, if it be what should not be published abroad, I will never divulge, holding such things to be holy secrets.

Now if I carry out this oath, and break it not, may I gain for ever reputation among all men for my life and for my art; but if I break it and forswear myself, may the opposite befall me.[5] – Translation by W.H.S. Jones.

“First do no harm”
Edit
Main article: Primum non nocere
It is often said that the exact phrase “First do no harm” (Latin: Primum non nocere) is a part of the original Hippocratic oath. Although the phrase does not appear in the AD 245 version of the oath, similar intentions are vowed by, “I will abstain from all intentional wrong-doing and harm”. The phrase primum non nocere is believed to date from the 17th century.

Another equivalent phrase is found in Epidemics, Book I, of the Hippocratic school: “Practice two things in your dealings with disease: either help or do not harm the patient”.[7] The exact phrase is believed to have originated with the 19th-century English surgeon Thomas Inman.

American Medical Association Code of Ethics (post- 1980)

Preamble: The medical profession has long subscribed to a body of ethical statements developed primarily for the benefit of the patient. As a member of this profession, a physician must recognize responsibility not only to patients, but also to society, to other health professionals, and to self. The following Principles adopted by the [AMA] are not laws, but standards of conduct which define the essentials of honorable behavior for the physician. II. A physician shall deal honestly with patients and colleagues, and strive to expose those physicians deficient in character or competence, or who engage in fraud or deception.

III. A physician shall respect the law and also recognize a responsibility to seek changes in those requirements which are contrary to the best interests of the patient.

IV. A physician shall respect the rights of patients, of colleagues, and of other health professionals, and shall safeguard patient confidences within the constraints of the law.

V. A physician shall continue to study, apply and advance scientific knowledge, make relevant information available to patients, colleagues, and the public, obtain consultation, and use the talents of other health professionals when indicated.

VI. A physician shall, in the provision of appropriate patient care, except in emergencies, be free to choose whom to serve, with whom to associate, and the environment in which to provide medical services. VII. A physician shall recognize a responsibility to participate in activities contributing to an improved community.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.