On Faith, the Washington Post’s reliably liberal continuing series of brief essays, can be, oh, let’s just say, blind to some points of view. yesterday’s entry is a screed against physicians using their faith as part of the care for patients.
Part of it, no one should dispute, as when a “Colorado orthopedic surgeon who ‘requests’ that patients pray with him while they are gowned and supine on the gurney, ready to be wheeled into surgery.” Absent some knowledge that the patient would not be offended by this, it would be wrong. Of course, I suspect that the surgeon probably knew that his patients would welcome the request, but that’s not even suggested as a possibility.
But the blindness is obvious in this:
What should we do about doctors who won’t administer the vaccines for chickenpox, hepatitis, measles, polio, and rabies because they believe that they derive from aborted fetal tissue?
The author goes on, and on, about how these diseases are making a comeback, and, there’s a strong implication that physicians who won’t administer vaccines because they might be derived from dead fetuses are morally bankrupt.
But if your faith informs you that a fetus is a human life, made in God’s image, how can you be party to the use of that life? You can’t, not if your faith values all human life, from gestation through birth through natural death.
Now the author of this screed clearly does not believe that a fetus is a human organism. And he apparently also can’t believe that someone else may believe differently. Such are so-called liberals today: closed-minded, and bigots against those who believe differently than they do.
Any physician who refuses to be a party to the killing or use of fetuses is not “evangelizing.” He is, rather, attempting to live his faith in accordance with his religious beliefs. This appears to only be acceptable to the left if you agree with them.