Hippocrates introduced a new ethic — to only heal. This passed intact into the Christian area and guided medical practice until the middle 20th century. Then, first with abortion and then with euthanasia, some doctors resumed the old pagan dual role.

"I swear by Apollo, the Physician, and Aesulapius and Health and All-Heal and All the Gods and Goddesses that, according to my ability and judgement, I will keep this Oath and Stipulation:

"To reckon him who taught me this art equally dear to me as my parents, to share my substance with him and relieve his necessities if required:to regard his offspring as on the same footing with my own brothers, and to teach them this art if they should wish to learn it without fee or stipulation, and that by precept lecture and every other mode of instruction. I will impart knowledge of the art to my own sons and to those of my teachers, and to disciples bound by a stipulation and oath, according to the law of medicine, but to none others.

"I will follow that method of treatment which, accord ing to my ability and judgement, I consider for the benefit of my patients, and abstain from whatever is deleterious and mischievous. I will give no deadly medicine to anyone if asked, nor suggest any such counsel; furthermore, I will not give to a woman an instrument to produce abortion.

"With purity and with holiness I will pass my life and practice my art. I will not cut a person who is suffering with a stone, but will leave this to be done by practitioners of this work. Into whatever houses I enter I will go into them for the benefit of the sick and will abstain from every voluntary act of mischief and corruption, and further from the seduction of females or males, bond or free.

"Whatever in connection with my professional practice, or not in connection with it, I may see or hear in the lives of men which ought not to be spoken abroad, I will not divulge, as reckoning that all such should be kept secret.

"While I continue to keep this oath unviolated, may it be granted to me to enjoy life and the practice of the art, respected by all men at all times but should I trespass and violate this oath, may the reverse be my lot."

All doctors used to swear this oath when they were licensed to practice medicine. But then two sentences were quietly dropped:

"I will give no deadly medicine to anyone if asked, nor suggest such counsel, and in like manner, I will not give a woman a pessary to produce abortion."

Some medical colleges substituted:

"I will do nothing illegal," essentially the new American Medical Association position (see below). Subsequently, most medical colleges have dropped the oath entirely.

Yes, here is another, almost as old:

"I will not give my patients any poisonous drug, if they ask first, nor will I advise them thus, nor aid in a miscarriage."

Also, right after World War II and the horror of the Nazi doctors and the Holocaust, this was adopted:

"I solemnly pledge myself to consecrate my life to the service of humanity. I will give to my teachers the respect and gratitude which is their due; I will practice my profession with conscience and dignity; the health of my patient will be my first consideration; I will respect the secrets which are confided in me; I will maintain by all means in my power the honour and noble traditions of the medical profession; my colleagues will be my brothers; I will not permit considerations of religion, nationality, race, party politics, or social standing to intervene between my duty and my patient; I will maintain the utmost respect for human life, from the time of conception; even under threat, I will not use my medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity. I make these promises solemnly, freely, and upon my honour."

Sadly, this one has been largely forgotten, and today few medical graduates take any ethical pledge.

Surveying the wreckage of today’s medical ethics, a prestigious group of physicians, led by Dr. Joseph Stanton, decided to put forth a new oath, relevant to today’s technological age. They clothed it in dignified classical language that expresses the timeless ethic of good medicine. It was released in 1995. Hopefully, it will someday be used widely.

Stripped to its bare bones, regarding abortion, it is — what is legal is now ethical. But the AMA has consistently condemned euthanasia.

"In 1944, a physician in Germany could participate in genocide with legal sanction. In America he would have been a murderer. In 1977, in America, a physician could perform an abortion with legal sanction. In Germany, he would have been a murderer. We have come 360 degrees on the moral compass."

M. Baten & W. Enos, "Questions of Authenticity and Situational Ethics,"
Cancer Bulletin, vol. 29, no. 4, 1978

In 1871 the AMA recommended dealing with medical abortionists in the following manner:

"These men should be marked as Cain was marked; they should be made the outcasts of society . . . respectable men should cease to consult with them, should cease to speak to them, should cease to notice them except with contempt . . . Resolved, That we repudiate and denounce the conduct of abortionists, and that we will hold no intercourse with them professionally or otherwise, and that we will, whenever an opportunity presents, guard and protect the public against the machinations of these characters by pointing out the physical and moral ruin which follows in their wake."

Yes! There is a direct parallel between the two holocausts, neither of which could have happened without doctors.

Dr. Leon Alexander, an authority writing after the Nuremberg trials, said it well, and the parallel with the creeping deterioration of today’s societal ethics is telling.

"The beginnings were at first merely a subtle shift in emphasis in the basic attitude of the physicians. It started with the acceptance of the attitude, basic in the euthanasia movement, that there is such a thing as a life not worthy to be lived. This attitude in its early stages concerned itself merely with the severely and chronically sick. Gradually, the sphere of those to be included in this category was enlarged to encompass the socially unproductive, the ideologically unwanted, the racially unwanted, and finally all non-Germans. But it is important to realize that the infinitely small wedged-in lever from which this entire trend of m nd received its impetus was the attitude toward the nonrehabilitable sick."

The first public admission of this change of basic ethic was an editorial:

"The reverence of each and every human life has been a keystone of Western medicine, and is the ethic which has caused physicians to try to preserve, protect, repair, prolong, and enhance every human life.

"Since the old ethic has not yet been fully displaced, it has been necessary to separate the idea of abortion from the idea of killing, which continues to be socially abhorrent. The result has been a curious avoidance of the scientific fact, which everyone really knows, that human life begins at conception, and is continuous, whether intra- or extra-uterine, until death. The very considerable semantic gymnastics which are required to rationalize abortion as anything but taking a human life would be ludicrous if they were not often put forth under socially impeccable auspices. It is suggested that this schizophrenic sort of subterfuge is necessary because, while a new ethic is being accepted, the old one has not yet been rejected."

Several decades ago many did not. Doctors are narrowly specialized. Just because M.D. or D.O. appears after their names, don’t assume they know everything about fetal development. Remember, most clergymen aren’t scripture scholars, and few attorneys know much about copyright law.

In the last decade or so, this ignorance no longer holds true. Today it is common at a baby shower for the expectant mother to show the guests an ultrasound picture of her baby. Today all doctors, even those most distanced from biological facts, such as psychiatrists, know this basic scientific fact.

A few do them for ideologic reasons, but their numbers are dwindling. Most do them because of the money. Many abortionists are unable to earn a living in regular medical practice, so they turn to this.

None! There are no laws requiring certain qualifications if done in free-standing facilities. In-hospital abortions involve all of the rules and supervision of regular surgery, but the trend is sharply away from hospital abortions. Today few hospitals do abortions in the U.S. This is not true in many other countries.

At best, they are regarded as a necessary evil by most citizens. Commonly they are social outcasts, ostracized by most in their community. People avoid them, and their children often suffer.

A nationwide survey showed that, by their own admission:

For nurses, this has been a real problem. Except for the unusually high salaries paid, few nurses would work in an abortion chamber.

Is this true in other countries?

Does euthanasia follow abortion?