By Brent Rooney, Reduce Preterm Risk Coalition
Philosophy professor Dr. Udo Schuklenk strongly objects to doctors who for moral reasons refuse to perform “legal” medical treatments or refer patients to MDs who will. Strip their medical licenses from them? No, just prevent young would-be medical students who do have moral objections to “legal” treatments from attending medical colleges, comparing such students to racists in South Africa:
“But it would be reasonable to screen applicants to medical schools and eliminate those unable to put aside their moral values, [Prof. Schuklenk] said, comparing the idea to a medical faculty in South Africa rejecting racist students.”
Clearly, Professor Schuklenk equates “legal” with ethical and proper, and thus, what objection could there be to "legal" medical treatments performed by Nazi doctors before & during World War II?
Prof. Shuklenk appears unaware of recent research from China. A "profile in courage" comes from medical researchers in communist China. For more than 30 years China's "one-child policy" has resulted in well over 100 million induced abortions (IAs) in China. In a 2016 peer-reviewed study, Chinese medical researchers revealed that Chinese women with prior IAs multiply their risk of having newborn babies with congenital heart disease (CHD) by over five times (5.47 odds ratio).
In their study the researchers put CHD into context: “Congenital heart disease (CHD) is one of the most common congenital defects and accounts for nearly one-third of all major congenital anomalies.”
The researchers, led by Fen Liu, can not expect to get a nod of approval from a communist government responsible for this birth defect debacle, a debacle that may well exceed the thalidomide debacle of the early 1960s in Europe & the UK.
Having no concept of medical research, philosophy Prof. Schuklenk does not know that he is advocating more newborn babies with congenital heart disease (CHD). Schuklenk is described as a bioethics researcher. Thus, he should be very familiar with the "gold standard" for medical experimentation on human beings, the 1947 Nuremberg Code, promulgated to slash the risk of a repeat of various Nazi medical atrocities committed before & during World War II.
All abortion surgeries invented after 1947, including suction abortion, violate the third principle of the 1947 Nuremberg Code: principle 3 of the 1947 N.C. insists that before a new medical treatment is applied to humans, it must first be safety validated on animals. Prof. Schuklenk appears to be 100% unaware that there are zero published animal studies for vacuum aspiration (aka "suction") abortion.
All Prof. Schuklenk needs to do is correctly cite an animal study for "suction" abortion, but he can not do so, since there are zero such studies. Since 100% of vacuum aspiration abortions are unethical, when can we expect Professor Udo Schuklenk to publicly reveal that "suction" abortions are unethical? As for racism, in the United States abortion clinics are disproportionately found in Black-American neighborhoods.