AMA President says No to IVF for Gays

[DesDownunder]

Here we go. In the thread on Compromise turned down gay marriage, I stated that things change daily in one of my posts. Here is an example where the head of the AMA (Australian Medical Association) changes his mind as we watch.

AMA president Dr Andrew Pesce says gay people should not have IVF

THE new head of the Australian Medical Association has said single women and gay couples should not have access to IVF.

Dr Andrew Pesce, elected AMA federal president in May, told the Sunday Herald Sun that IVF should not be a "lifestyle choice" and use of the treatment by same sex couples went against the "natural order".

"Fertility treatment is there to treat diseases that cause infertility, it shouldn't be there as a lifestyle choice," Dr Pesce said.

"For example, single women (who choose IVF) don't have a disease, they just don't have a partner. Same-sex couples, they don't have disease but they are using an option that gets around the natural order of things."

Dr Pesce later contacted the newspaper and said his comments were "clumsy" and a mistake.

He said single women and same sex couples should have access to IVF, but could not give a reason for his earlier remarks.

Clumsy?

Full News Item here read the comments.

[Trab]

Well, in all fairness, I agree with the man. However, he doesn't go far enough. IVF goes against the natural order of God, in that if reproduction was intended, God would ensure that it would be done; to do IVF for anyone at all goes against the natural God intended order of things. The whole program should be shut down, worldwide. Not only that, but with so many kids on this earth without parents, or caring parents, we don't need more of them. Let adoption be the rule.

[JamesSavik]

I love it when these assholes use terms like:

>>against the "natural order".

He's a doctor right? Aren't vaccinations, anti-biotics and surgery against the natural order?

What are we supposed to do? Allow diseases like whopping cough and pneumonia to kill half of us before we're 18? That is the natural order after all.

HEY DOC! Your whole profession is contrary to the natural order.

The natural order, which is unnecessary death by common pathogens, REALLY sucks and only a few religious nuts really want to embrace it.

[Graeme]

I suspect he would have gotten a severe amount of criticism and pressure from within his organsiation. What most people outside of Australia won't know is that a couple of Presidents ago was Kerryn Phelps, who is in a well-known long term relationship with another woman.

[The Pecman]

IVF goes against the natural order of God, in that if reproduction was intended, God would ensure that it would be done...

I don't agree. I say, "if god created everything, he created scientists and doctors. If scientists and doctors come up with treatments that can save our lives, cure illnesses, and allow people to have children who are otherwise unable to do so, then it's all good." Anything that improves the quality of life in my book is a good thing; I don't give a damn if it's "natural" or not.

It would be as narrow-minded to say, "if god wills me to have cancer, then I won't have any anti-cancer treatments." To me, the Christian Scientist point of view is prejudicial, silly, and narrow-minded. Strictly my opinion.

"Natural order" is in the mind of the beholder. I try not to enforce what I think is the natural order on other people. I try only to apply it to my own life, and let other people choose what they want to do.

In other words, I won't force other people to get cancer treatment, in-vitro fertilization, or even tooth fillings or wear glasses for that matter. Do what seems right to you, as long as it doesn't affect me.

[DesDownunder]

It's the assumption that natural order and God somehow coincide that causes me problems.

From the non-theist standpoint, nature and natural order are much discussed terms, void of external influence from gods.

However, that does not mean there are no ethical boundaries to consider, it just means we have to work them out for ourselves and that is quite challenging. Indeed trying to maintain Human Rights in the face of what I have already referred to elsewhere, as the crossroads of culture, technology and planetary abuse, is a brain aching problem, requiring considerable consideration and deliberation.

Whilst simple answers may appease the pragmatism of the moment, the longer term implications of interventions are the ones that pose significant problems because we don't know enough yet to understand what we are on the brink of actually doing with what we think we have discovered.

Still humanity has always stumbled about like this and so far we have managed to avoid extreme self destruction.

If we can just keep doing that much, we might reach the conclusion that that in itself, is some kind of natural order.

Personally I would prefer a tad more rationality in our approach to life and its problems, if not our respect for each other.

[Trab]

First of all, my comments about God's natural order were intended to yank your chains, being wholly satirical (is that the right word?) in nature...I don't believe those words and their concept even one little bit.

Sadly, we don't seem so much bent on self destruction as self deception and destruction of others. I wish it were only self destruction, since then there would be some sort of selection of the fittest. The only self destruction we do is take recreational drugs, to the point of killing and dying, for no clear reason at all. Hardly a good reason to think we should be meddling in reproductive and genetic 'improvements'.

I agree with Des about us needing to have more respectful consideration of others, but I don't think it should be limited to people, but all animals and plants, particularly the long lived plants. Sadly, rational thoughts and behaviours are few and far between, and normally not conducted by those with the power to change anything significantly. The very fact that they have that power is usually an indicator that they have been deceptive, manipulative, or aggressive, which are not traits that bode well for other people nor the environment.

[Cole Parker]

"Natural order" is in the mind of the beholder. I try not to enforce what I think is the natural order on other people. I try only to apply it to my own life, and let other people choose what they want to do.

In other words, I won't force other people to get cancer treatment, in-vitro fertilization, or even tooth fillings or wear glasses for that matter. Do what seems right to you, as long as it doesn't affect me.

That's a cavalier attitude, Pec. You're skirting the issue, saying if it doesn't affect me, I don't care.

So, let's make it affect you. If you and your partner adopted a child, how would it affect your attitude then? Then you'd have to decide: decide for him. Would you let ailments go untreated, let God decide, or would you take advantage of medical science to intervene in the kid's behalf?

I assume the latter. So, you do have an opinion.

C

[colinian]

"Natural order" is in the mind of the beholder. I try not to enforce what I think is the natural order on other people. I try only to apply it to my own life, and let other people choose what they want to do.

In other words, I won't force other people to get cancer treatment, in-vitro fertilization, or even tooth fillings or wear glasses for that matter. Do what seems right to you, as long as it doesn't affect me.

That's a cavalier attitude, Pec. You're skirting the issue, saying if it doesn't affect me, I don't care.

So, let's make it affect you. If you and your partner adopted a child, how would it affect your attitude then? Then you'd have to decide: decide for him. Would you let ailments go untreated, let God decide, or would you take advantage of medical science to intervene in the kid's behalf?

I assume the latter. So, you do have an opinion.

C

But children aren't people, are they. At least not until they are 18 or 21 or whatever age.

Just kidding. But parents do have the right to make decisions for their children, as long as those decisions don't conflict with the law.

There's a story that's being widely reported internationally:

Dale Neumann, 47, was convicted in the March 23, 2008, death of his daughter, Madeline, from undiagnosed diabetes. Prosecutors contended he should have rushed the girl to a hospital because she couldn't walk, talk, eat or drink. Instead, Madeline died on the floor of the family's rural Weston home as people surrounded her and prayed. Someone called 911 when she stopped breathing.

This is an example of a parental decision that, according to the police, the prosecutor, and a jury, was in conflict with the law. Here's a link to the story.

Colin

[The Pecman]

That's a cavalier attitude, Pec. You're skirting the issue, saying if it doesn't affect me, I don't care.

You're misinterpreting my statement. I was trying to tell Trab that I believe it's wrong for anybody to judge other people, at least in moral issues. If somebody starts preaching "natural order" in my direction, I'll tell them to bite me.

[JamesSavik]

If somebody starts preaching "natural order" in my direction, I'll tell them to bite me.

That's the most appropriate response that I can think of.

How many time have we heard the natural order bullcrap from old farts with a pacemaker, that get their hard ons from a pill, eat synthetic food, live in houses made of synthetic building materials and would be dead in short order with out numerous medications?

The fact of the matter is that the majority of humanity is so divorced from the natural order that it renders the very idea meaningless.