Or more to the point. If one of Bush’s family members would benifit from stem cell research, then maybe it wouldn’t be unethical.

Dave, the Bush family members would benefit from stell cell research.

Extreme polarization is the common theme in Eric’s examples. It appears to be virtually impossible to find a middle ground. 

Refusing Treatment

Refusing treatment is more than a proposal. An article in the Post-Dispatch on June 16 discussed some actual instances service denial as well as the proposal to the AMA.

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/News/Nation/4019B04F217F5B8586256EB500377FEF?OpenDocument&Headline=Angry+doctors+target+lawyers+in+malpractice+feud&highlight=2%2Cdoctors

This situation stems from a multi-sided cat-fight between the AMA, the health insurance industry, trial lawyers, and far right legislatures who see tort reform as the solution to rising insurance premiums. (The AMA made tort reform its highest priority.) No-one except the state of California seems to taking on the insurers who have been raising rates while claims paid have been falling.

Stem Cell Research

No surprises here. Most of the far right chosen religious over science, and they are fundamentally opposed to embryonic stem cell research. By their reasoning human life has begun, and must not be destroyed—but holding an embryo in stasis or discarding it is somehow OK. I wonder if organ donation un-biblical?

I have to agree with a cynical observation that the religious right cares more for the unborn and the dead than than they do for the living.

Of course the Roman Catholic church isn’t trying to help the Republicans.  For one, Bush is Protestant.  And secondly, the only time a Catholic President was elected, he was Democratic (Kennedy).  I’m far more concerned about the Protestant Religious Right in America than I am with the Vatican ruling over our politics.

JoshMan3D, The Catholic Church is most assuredly trying to help the Republicans insofar as they agree with them on abortion rights.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/19/national/19BISH.final.html?th=&pagewanted=print&position=

The nation’s Roman Catholic bishops approved a statement on Friday on “Catholics in Political Life” that brands politicians who support abortion rights as “cooperating in evil” and leaves the door open for bishops to deny communion to such lawmakers.

The bishops, meeting outside Denver, stopped short of saying that those lawmakers should be forbidden to take communion. But they reminded all Catholics that they were not worthy to receive communion until they had examined their consciences, including their “fidelity to the moral teaching of the church in personal and public life.”

The bishops also asserted unequivocally that “the Catholic community and Catholic institutions” should not give “awards, honors or platforms” to Catholics who “act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles.”

The Bishop here in St. Louis is one of two (I think) who has already taken that postition. If that isn’t a message to their parishioners on how they are expected to vote, I don’t know what is.

The government should step up and revoke the tax exempt status of any Diocese whos Bishop does this. Of course they won’t, nor will they revoke the tax exempt status of the Christian Coalition who issues scorecards on politicians that clearly favor those on the far right.

Kennedy said “I don’t speak for the Church and the Church doesn’t speak for me.” He had to to be elected. Could a politician running for office today would say anything like that and expect to win?

I’ve read many articles and analyses lately that conclude that Catholics and Protestants are setting aside their traditional differences in the interests of combating what they see as a “secular assault” on the country (you know, the usual:  gay rights, abortion, prohibiting prayer in schools, yadda yadda).  The only Christians they don’t have kind words for are the liberal, tolerant ones.

(captcha:  thinking)

It does seem that times are changing.  Some good and some bad.

When ethics are twisted and bent to fit political agendas it is extremely disconcerting.  There are, however, a couple of cases that Paul mentioned that should have been enforced all along.  If they had been they would never have become and issue.

The Catholic Church - They can impose whatever rules upon their members that they chose.  It that is their doctrine they should have been enforcing it all along and to bring it to light now makes it appear as the church is playing politcal whore to the republican party.

[Quote]“Catholics are the key,�? says Deal Hudson, editor of Crisis magazine and a Bush campaign adviser. “If we lose any of the Catholic vote we’ll lose the election.�? And to an unprecedented degree, the White House and a network of conservative Catholics have been working hard to get several million American Catholics to vote Republican.[/Quote]

As far as doctors denying treatment to plaintiff’s lawyers and spouses - I think this would justifiably fall under the ehtics clause that many states have that allow doctors to refuse service to anyone for moral, ethical, or religious reasons.  Excluding emergencies.  This is a good thing.  It ensures that the patient’s best interests are always at the forefront.  Even if a doctor isn’t intentionally malicious they may be harboring some feelings of ill will.

Unfortunately as we make stides in some areas we fall backwrds in others such as human rights ethics, business ethics, political ethics, enviromental ethics...damn I guess we haven’t gone that far after all.

captcha = ‘many’

Here is an interesting article from Time:

http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101040621/index.html

It gives the breakdown about how important is faith to the voters of each party. The denial of communion and the abortion issue. And the alliance between the Catholics and the Protestant.