Excerpt from "Nanotube technology leading to fast, lower-cost medical diagnostics," Physorg March 9, 2012--Researchers at Oregon State University have tapped into the extraordinary power of carbon “nanotubes” to increase the speed of biological sensors, a technology that might one day allow a doctor to routinely perform lab tests in minutes, speeding diagnosis and treatment while reducing costs.
The new findings have almost tripled the speed of prototype nano-biosensors, and should find applications not only in medicine but in toxicology, environmental monitoring, new drug development and other fields. “With these types of sensors, it should be possible to do many medical lab tests in minutes, allowing the doctor to make a diagnosis during a single office visit,” said Ethan Minot, an OSU assistant professor of physics. “Many existing tests take days, cost quite a bit and require trained laboratory technicians. “This approach should accomplish the same thing with a hand-held sensor, and might cut the cost of an existing $50 lab test to about $1,” he said.
The key to the new technology, the researchers say, is the unusual capability of carbon nanotubes. An outgrowth of nanotechnology, which deals with extraordinarily small particles near the molecular level, these nanotubes are long, hollow structures that have unique mechanical, optical and electronic properties, and are finding many applications. In this case, carbon nanotubes can be used to detect a protein on the surface of a sensor. The nanotubes change their electrical resistance when a protein lands on them, and the extent of this change can be measured to determine the presence of a particular protein – such as serum and ductal protein biomarkers that may be indicators of breast cancer.
Further work is needed to improve the selective binding of proteins, the scientists said, before it is ready to develop into commercial biosensors. “Electronic detection of blood-borne biomarker proteins offers the exciting possibility of point-of-care medical diagnostics,” the researchers wrote in their study. “Ideally such electronic biosensor devices would be low-cost and would quantify multiple biomarkers within a few minutes.”
Director of Global Health Outreach Don Thompson, MD: "These nanotube-based diagnostics move us closer to Star Trek’s 'tricorder' multifunction handheld device. There are also DNA chip-based diagnostics in testing phases that have been developed by the military for use in rapid diagnosis; for example, to diagnose a fever of unknown origin in a patient who may have been exposed to an exotic natural or manmade pathogen. These technologies will go far to helping clinicians as the point of care in ruling out many potential diagnoses, and will help us focus on the unknowns.
"Don’t worry, we are unlikely to be out of a job anytime soon from these technologies. They are unlikely to provide much help in diagnosing anything beyond the biological realm. We will still practice our art and science on the psychological, social and spiritual realms that make up this fantastic creation called the human being. We must still come alongside each and every patient and pray for healing, and reassure our patients that when God withholds healing power, He provides suffering power. When God withholds delivering power, He provides dying power. These powers are unlikely to become available from nanotubes! "
Christian Doctor's Digest: Dr. James Tour - Nanotechnology and Faith (mp3)
Excerpt from "Montreal doctors accused of taking bribes," CBC News. February 21, 2012--Two Montreal cardiologists are facing disciplinary action over allegations they received hefty kickbacks to push patients to the top of the waiting list, the Quebec College of Physicians says. The college's investigation uncovered at least two doctors who were allegedly taking envelopes of cash in exchange for providing faster service, Dr. Charles Bernard told CBC News.
The investigation was triggered 14 months ago, when a Montreal woman told the news media she had paid a $2,000 cash "incentive" to have her mother bumped to the top of a waiting list. After the investigation, the college said two cardiologists from Montreal would face a disciplinary hearing later this year in connection with such incidents. Bernard would not discuss the details of the cases, as nothing yet has been proved.
Dr. Gaetan Barrette, the head of Quebec's federation of specialist doctors, said he hoped the college would send a clear message that the alleged behavior is unacceptable. "It's disgusting for the medical profession," he told CBC News. "There are no other reasons I can think of other than greed for those doctors to go in that direction." Barrette said the two cardiologists could be suspended, but it is unlikely they will be prohibited from practicing permanently. A sanction that harsh is typically reserved for extreme cases, such as sexual assault of a patient, he said. Jean-Pierre Ménard, a lawyer who specializes in health law and patients’ rights, said there is little incentive for those who know about these practices to bring them to light. "When the patient is offering cash to the doctor, and the doctor is accepting the cash … both of them have an interest not to tell the story," he told CBC News.
CMDA CEO David Stevens, MD, MA (Ethics): "Bribery is possible when those entrusted with power use it for personal gain.
"Medical bribery is now common around the world. Mahajan V. relates that patients in India have to pay bribes to get the bodies of their dead relatives released from the hospital mortuary.1 Transparency International reports that surveys showed 95 percent of Pakistanis think the health system is corrupt and 96 percent of people had paid a healthcare provider (they don’t merit the term 'professional') a bribe.2 I know first-hand stories of patients routinely bribing doctors in Russia to get even basic services. The Chronicle of Higher Education in July documents the corruption in medical services that is literally killing Russia. Students bribe their way into medical school and then bribe their professors for their grades.3
"The China Daily wrote last month of the 'commercial bribery in the country's hospitals and medical institutions' and the demands made on the government to curb it.4 The 'five biggest public hospitals in Hanoi banned their staff from taking ‘envelope’ (tip or black money) from patients in September 2011.' These tips are a common practice to avoid getting a 'chilly response' from healthcare providers.
"I don’t know if the doctors accused in Canada are guilty or whether corruption is widespread in the Canadian health system. I do know the conditions that lead healthcare professionals to break their covenant with patients. Corruption thrives when personnel are underpaid and overworked, and when resources considered very valuable are limited or rationed. We are rapidly moving down that path in the U.S. Like a cancer, corruption starts small but rapidly grows until it becomes endemic in these conditions.
"The best defense against corruption is the character and integrity of the individual physician or dentist. Simply teaching ethics does not produce trustworthy doctors; character development begins long before medical and dental school. That's why it is so important to screen for character as well as intellect when interviewing prospective students. Upright students must then learn, through worthy mentors and courses emphasizing ethics, what it means to be a true and trustworthy professional.
"If not, we may all have to pay bribes in the not so distant future to get the healthcare we need."
___________________________________
- Mahajan V. White coated corruption. Indian J Med Ethics 2010; 7: 18-20. Available from URL: http://www.ijme.in/191le62.html.
- Transparency International. Corruption in public services; perceived corruption in health sector. Berlin, Germany: Transparency International, 2002.
- http://chronicle.com/article/Corruption-in-Russian-Medical/128200/
- http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/business/2012-02/18/content_14639485.htm
- http://www.eyedrd.org/2011/12/the-ethics-of-medical-bribery-money-envelope-in-vietnam.html
CMDA Ethics Statement: Health Care Delivery
CMDA Ethics Statement: Principles of Christian Excellence in Medical & Dental Practice
CMDA Ethics Statement: Christian Physician's Oath
Excerpt from "New National Sex-Education Standards Stir Controversy," LifeNews, by Steven Ertelt. February 28, 2012--Two “ethicists” who are college professors in Australia are furthering the pro-infanticide arguments of American professor Peter Singer by calling for so-called “after-birth abortions.” Alberto Giubilini with Monash University in Melbourne and Francesca Minerva at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne write that in “circumstances occur[ing] after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible.” The two are quick to note that they prefer the term “after-birth abortion" as opposed to ”infanticide.” Why? Because it “[emphasizes] that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus (on which ‘abortions’ in the traditional sense are performed) rather than to that of a child.” The authors also do not agree with the term euthanasia for this practice as the best interest of the person who would be killed is not necessarily the primary reason his or her life is being terminated. In other words, it may be in the parents’ best interest to terminate the life, not the newborns.
The circumstances, the authors’ state, where after-birth abortion should be considered acceptable include instances where the newborn would be putting the well-being of the family at risk, even if it had the potential for an “acceptable” life. The authors cite Downs Syndrome as an example, stating that while the quality of life of individuals with Downs is often reported as happy, “such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care.” This means a newborn whose family (or society) that could be socially, economically or psychologically burdened or damaged by the newborn should have the ability to seek out an after-birth abortion. They state that after-birth abortions are not preferable over early-term abortions of fetuses but should circumstances change with the family or the fetus in the womb, then they advocate that this option should be made available. Giubilini and Minerva say that merely being a human being is not enough to warrant a respect for a person’s right to life.
The second we allow ourselves to become the arbiters of who is human and who isn’t, this is the calamitous yet inevitable end. Once you say all human life is not sacred, the rest is just drawing random lines in the sand. It’s almost a pro-life argument in that it highlights the absurdity of the pro-abortion argument. These two “ethicists” seem to draw the distinction I’ve seen elsewhere of “self-awareness.” But isn’t that a sliding scale? Isn’t that a bit of a judgment call? Doesn’t this also put the crosshairs on the mentally disabled or those who have suffered brain injuries? They throw around this term “potential person” like it’s a real thing. As if it’s science. But there’s no such thing as potential persons. It’s anti-science. There’s defenseless people. Maybe that’s what they mean. In fact, isn’t that really the point? There’s defenseless people and indefensible ethicists.
And Wesley J. Smith, the prominent American bioethics attorney, says bioethics now contains no ethics whatsoever. Or to put it another way, too often bioethics isn’t. On the other hand, to be fair, the ancient Romans exposed inconvenient infants on hills. These authors may want to take us back to those crass values, but I assume they would urge a quicker death.
CMDA Senior Vice President Gene Rudd, MD: "Res ipsa loquitur: quotes from the article by Giubilini and Minerva:
- “After-birth abortion (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled."
- “We propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion’, rather than ‘infanticide’ to emphasis that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of the fetus.”
- “It should be permissible to practice an after-birth abortion on a healthy newborn too, given that she has not formed any aim yet.”
- “Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life.’”
- “Merely being a human being is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life.”
- “A consequence of this position is that the interests of actual people over-ride the interests of merely potential people to become actual ones.”
- “since non-persons have no moral rights to life, there are no reasons for banning after-birth abortions.”
- “We do not put forward any claim about the moment at which after-birth abortion would no longer be permissible.”
- “In cases where after-birth abortion were requested for non-medical reason, we do not suggest any threshold.”
"Aghast? You should be. I was, even though this is not the first modern advocacy for infanticide. And even though many of us have predicted this to be the next decent on the slope upon which we slide.
"I hope you do not forget your visceral response to this. This idea will gain momentum. Moral boundaries are typically breeched subtly by having what was once shocking become debatable, then tolerant. We must allow a God-guided righteous indignation to motivate us to stand boldly against such an affront to life and our Creator.
"I have long resisted the strategy of likening Western civilization’s moral decline to that of Nazi Germany in the 1930s. I thought that comparison unkind, unhelpful and perhaps unfair. No longer! In his 1949 Nuremberg War Crime Trials report published in the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Leo Alexander, chief U.S. medical representative, commented, 'it became evident to all who investigated that they (the crimes) had started from small beginnings. The beginnings at first were merely a subtle shift of emphasis in the attitudes of 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.'
"After first being shocked by this article, I now have a sense of foreboding, knowing this 'attitude' was accepted for publication in a prominent medical journal."
CMDA Ethics Statement: Abortion
Mental Health Risks of Abortion
Excerpt from "Sex-changing treatment for kids: It's on the rise," cnsnews.com, by Lindsay Tanner. February 20, 2012--A small but growing number of teens and even younger children who think they were born the wrong sex are getting support from parents and from doctors who give them sex-changing treatments, according to reports in the medical journal Pediatrics.
It's an issue that raises ethical questions, and some experts urge caution in treating children with puberty-blocking drugs and hormones. Switching gender roles and occasionally pretending to be the opposite sex is common in young children. But these kids are different. They feel certain they were born with the wrong bodies. Some are labeled with "gender identity disorder," a psychiatric diagnosis. But Dr. Norman Spack, author of one of three reports published and director of one of the nation's first gender identity medical clinics, at Children's Hospital Boston is among doctors who think that's a misnomer. Emerging research suggests they may have brain differences more similar to the opposite sex.
"Offering sex-changing treatment to kids younger than 18 raises ethical concerns, and their parents' motives need to be closely examined," said Dr. Margaret Moon, a member of the American Academy of Pediatrics' bioethics committee. It's harmful "to have an irreversible treatment too early," Moon said. Doctors who provide the treatment say withholding it would be more harmful.
H. Patrick Stern, M.D. Professor of Pediatrics Chief, Section of Developmental/Behavioral ETSU Pediatrics: "Whether they are boys or girls, all children have some qualities of masculine and feminine behavior, with some displaying more evident behaviors of the opposite sex. Animal research demonstrates that animals castrated at birth and given physiological amounts of the hormone of the opposite sex will develop behaviors and physical characteristics of the opposite sex.
"Children may express that they believe that they are the opposite sex. Should children who state this belief be given the option to change their biological sex so that they are 'happy', or should the gender identity confusion be treated so that they will accept their biological gender? Sex change operations have anesthetic risk and the reconstruction of genitalia does not create normal functions. Hormones used to promote sexual behaviors and physical changes can cause serious, life-threatening side effects. Behavior modification techniques, especially when introduced during the preschool years, can promote acceptance of the biological gender identity of the child. Hormone supplementation determined by the biological sex of the child can promote normal sexual behavior and physical characteristics.
"Our culture promotes immediate, self-centered gratification regardless of the risk to the individual, other people and society. Children should not be given authority to make decisions because they want something; adults should make decisions based on the best interest of the child. Interventions targeted to help children accept their God-given sexual identities can cure what has been identified as a disorder and can teach children that applying biblical principles to manage stress can promote spiritual growth. Physicians sometimes think that they are wiser than God. God does not make mistakes."
Negative Health Consequences of Same Sex Sexual Behavior
Editor's note: On Feb. 10, President Obama made an announcement regarding the technical implementation of his administration's controversial policy of mandating contraception coverage nationwide with very limited conscience objection exceptions. Following are reactions to that announcement and policy.
View #1: Excerpted from Washington Post commentary by Charles Krauthammer, Overreach: Obamacare vs. the Constitution, published February 16, 2012: President Obama’s birth control “accommodation” was as politically successful as it was morally meaningless. It was nothing but an accounting trick that still forces Catholic (and other religious) institutions to provide medical insurance that guarantees free birth control, tubal ligation and morning-after abortifacients — all of which violate church doctrine on the sanctity of life.
The trick is that these birth control/abortion services will supposedly be provided independently and free of charge by the religious institution’s insurance company. But this changes none of the moral calculus. Holy Cross Hospital, for example, is still required by law to engage an insurance company that is required by law to provide these doctrinally proscribed services to all Holy Cross employees.
Consider the constitutional wreckage left by Obamacare:
The assault on the free exercise of religion. Only churches themselves are left alone. Beyond the churchyard gate, religious autonomy disappears. Every other religious institution must bow to the state because, by this administration’s regulatory definition, church schools, hospitals and charities are not “religious” and thus have no right to the free exercise of religion — no protection from being forced into doctrinal violations commanded by the state.
The assault on individual autonomy. Every citizen without insurance is ordered to buy it, again under penalty of law. This so-called individual mandate is now before the Supreme Court — because never before has the already hypertrophied Commerce Clause been used to compel a citizen to enter into a private contract with a private company by mere fact of his existence.
This constitutional trifecta — the state invading the autonomy of religious institutions, private companies and the individual citizen — should not surprise. It is what happens when the state takes over one-sixth of the economy.
View #2: Excerpted from Health-Care Critics Unmoved by Obama’s Contraception
Compromise, commentary by Kirsten Powers published in The Daily Beast, February 11, 2012: Some people won’t take yes for an answer. Obama tossed his original mandate; Catholic institutions will now not be required to purchase health insurance at odds with their religious faith, nor will they be required to alert employees as to where to find them. Instead, when women ask their doctor for contraception, their health insurance companies will be required to cover it for free.
The National Right to Life Committee called Obama’s announcement a “scam.” Sen. Roy Blunt called it an “accounting gimmick.” Republican Study Committee chairman Jim Jordan called it a “fig leaf” that “still tramples on Americans’ First Amendment right to freedom of religion.”
Dr. David Stevens, the CEO of the Christian Medical Association, told me, “This is, at best, a smokescreen. There is still going to be legislation coming out of Congress [to override this rule] because this is the most fundamental of our constitutional rights, the free exercise of religion. There should be a religious exemption for any American who is opposed to this.”
If you accept the argument that the government can’t make an individual pay for policies he or she finds morally repugnant, then that would mean I shouldn’t have to pay taxes if I am living in a state that executes people, since I find the death penalty morally repugnant. (The Catholic Church opposes the death penalty too.)
It is old anti-Obama-health-care talking points about government mandates dressed up as a religious-freedom issue. The White House made a serious effort to address real concerns about religious liberty. People of good faith should be satisfied.
View #3: Excerpted from the testimony of CMDA CEO Dr. David Stevens before the U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Health:
- The potential “religious exemption” in the contraception mandate--exempting only a nano-sector of “religious employers” from the guidelines--is meaningless to conscientiously objecting healthcare professionals, insurers and patients.
- The contraception mandate can potentially trigger a decrease in access to healthcare by patients in medically underserved regions and populations.
- The contraception mandate further contributes to an increasingly hostile environment in which medical students, residents and graduate physicians face discrimination, job loss and ostracism for holding pro-life views on abortion, controversial contraceptives and other ethical issues.
- The contraception mandate creates a climate of coercion that can prompt pro-life healthcare professionals to limit the scope of their medical practice and can discourage pro-life medical students and residents from choosing careers in Family Medicine, Obstetrics and Gynecology and other specialties likely to involve conflicts of conscience.
- The contraception mandate can potentially cause a decrease in the provision of health insurance for employees of pro-life healthcare employers who want to avoid conflicts of conscience regarding the subsidy and implied endorsement of controversial contraceptives.
The contraceptive mandate rule sweepingly tramples conscience rights, which have provided a foundation for the ethical and professional practice of medicine. The administration should rescind this mandate entirely.
View #4: CMA VP for Government Relations Jonathan Imbody: "In announcing his apparent intention (the subsequent written rule issued by the U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services [HHS] actually did not implement his promised changes) on his contraception coercion policy, the President contended, 'Nearly 99 percent of all women have relied on contraception at some point in their lives. Ninety-nine percent.'
"First, that figure strains credibility (for an exposé, see "Fudging the figures on contraception). Any stats from the Guttmacher Institute--founded by Planned Parenthood to serve as the research arm of the abortion lobby--should be viewed askance.
"But if the 99 percent figure were true, where's the huge problem of access to contraception that he says justifies the government's draconian actions?
"If President Obama is intent on government-mandated healthcare, instead of mandating relatively inexpensive pills that don't treat a disease and 99 percent of patients already access, wouldn't it make more sense to mandate the provision of lifesaving medicines that patients can't afford or obtain?
"In his speech at Notre Dame, President Obama promised a 'sensible' respect for conscience, but in practice he and his administration have demonstrated a pattern of contempt for conscience. The President has:
- gutted the only federal regulation protecting the exercise of conscience in healthcare;
- denied of federal grant funds for aiding human trafficking victims because a faith-based organization refused to participate in abortion;
- lobbied the Supreme Court to restrict faith-based organizations' hiring rights; and
- issued a coercive contraceptive mandate that imposes the government's abortion ideology on every American.
Every healthcare professional, regardless of political persuasion, should be protesting these assaults on our freedoms and contacting legislators to enact conscience-protecting legislation such as the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act, introduced in the House by Jeff Fortenberry (R-Neb. 1st) and in the Senate by Roy Blunt (R-Mo.)."
Resources Freedom2Care - statements and updates on contraception mandate
CMDA testimony on contraception mandate
Questions for the record follow up for CMDA testimony on contraception mandate
Right of Conscience PowerPoint **NEW**
ACTION
Urge your legislators to support conscience-protecting bills by using the easy forms at the links below:
- S. 1467 cosponsorship - contact your senators re: Respect for Rights of Conscience Act
- H.R. 1179 cosponsors: Contact your Rep. re: Respect for Rights of Conscience Act
You can impact U.S. public policy:
- Join your colleagues: Sign up for federal jobs, commissions, consultation
Consider advancing your career and your values while serving your profession and nation: - Launch a career in the federal government.
- Network with colleagues and guide national policy by serving on a federal commission.
- Provide expert counsel to Members of Congress, White House staff and agency officials.
Simply sign up for CMDA's Freedom2Care coalition's Federal Registry on LinkedIn (registration is free) and stay updated with notices of opportunities plus tips, updates and discussions.
- Track legislation, get alerts, sound off
FREEDOM2CARE - 50 groups and 29,000 individuals advancing conscience rights freedom2care.org
Breaking News
Breaking News: As this edition goes to print, good news comes that a federal court in Tacoma, Washington, has struck down a Washington law that requires pharmacists to dispense the morning-after pill even when doing so would violate their religious beliefs. The court held that the law violates the First Amendment right to free exercise of religion. CMDA had participated in the case in an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief written by the Christian Legal Society. Read Court opinion, news: Court says pharmacists can’t be forced to dispense morning-after pill and analysis: Court Strikes Down Law, , Important Victory for Religious Liberty in Washington State.
Excerpt from "Susan G. Komen reverses Planned Parenthood decision: Too little, too late?," Washington Post, by Sarah Kliff and Lena H. Sun. February 3, 2012--The Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation announced Friday that it would revise a new policy that barred the organization from funding Planned Parenthood, a move that had thrust the breast cancer foundation into a national controversy. Komen apologized “to the American public for recent decisions that cast doubt upon our commitment to our mission of saving women’s lives.” The foundation said that Planned Parenthood would now be eligible to apply for grants. It did not, however, address other reasons Komen has cited for why it might choose not to approve such grants. “Our original desire was to fulfill our fiduciary duty to our donors by not funding grant applications made by organizations under investigation,” a Friday statement said. “We will amend the criteria to make clear that disqualifying investigations must be criminal and conclusive in nature and not political. That is what is right and fair.”
Executives of the Susan G. Komen Foundation gave a new explanation Thursday of their decision to cut funding to Planned Parenthood, but their contradictory statements failed to quell a rising controversy that led several of the organization’s affiliates to openly rebel. Komen had said the decision was the result of newly adopted criteria barring grants to organizations under investigation — affecting Planned Parenthood because of an inquiry by a Republican congressman. On Thursday, Komen President Elizabeth Thompson told reporters that the funding decision was unrelated to the investigation into whether Planned Parenthood was illegally using federal funds to pay for abortions. Komen founder Nancy Brinker said the organization wants to support groups that directly provide breast health services, such as mammograms. She noted that Planned Parenthood was providing only mammogram referrals.
On Friday morning, the Susan B. Komen Foundation backed down from its decision to pull grants from Planned Parenthood. While the foundation gave itself room to reject future grant applications from Planned Parenthood, the decision is a clear sign that outrage from pro-choice supporters left Komen spooked.
CMDA Senior Vice President Gene Rudd, MD: "I remember reading details of some of the Civil War battles. Each side would take ground and then attempt to defend its turf. Sometimes the ground was strategic; other times it was defended to deny the enemy any success. The skirmishes were fierce and deadly.
"Similarly, the brouhaha surrounding the Susan G. Komen Foundation’s announcement to provide no further funding for Planned Parenthood is one of those skirmishes fought over ground that is not strategic, but is being defended anyway. While an amount of more than a half-million dollars is sizable for you and me, it is a drop in the bucket to the abortion giant. This issue is not about money; it is about defending turf in a cultural war.
"Planned Parenthood claims that Susan G. Komen yielded to conservative pressure. The reaction was fierce. Concern over breast cancer is a pawn in the debate. While Planned Parenthood plays this sympathy card, the real issue is protection of the abortion industry. It is questionable how much benefit Planned Parenthood brings to breast cancer prevention. Other organizations provide more worthwhile breast cancer screening. While Komen should have the right to decide to how to distribute its funds where the best results may be found, Planned Parenthood disagrees. Honoring the rights and choices of others is not the turf they defend.
"As I write this, it appears that Komen has back-pedaled on its decision. Sadly, Planned Parenthood may be able to hold this ground."
Scientific Statement of the Christian Medical & Dental Associations on The Association of Abortion and Breast Cancer
Abortion: Choice v. Life - David Stevens, MD, MA (PPT) (Member Resource)
Look for the April 2011 CDD which will include an interview with Valerie Huber, Executive Director of the National Abstinence Education Association
Excerpt from "New National Sex-Education Standards Stir Controversy," Crosswalk, by Michael Foust. January 18, 2012--Four leading education organizations have released national sex-ed standards that encourage fifth-graders to be taught about sexual orientation and eighth-graders to learn about gender identity and the morning-after pill, but many say the recommendations infringe on parental rights. The non-binding standards by the National Education Association and three other groups are billed as the "first-ever national standards" for sex-ed in schools, and they provide detailed suggestions for what students should learn by the second, fifth, eighth and 12th grades. From a social conservative's standpoint, nearly every page of the recommendations has something controversial.
By the second grade, students are to learn the "proper names for body parts, including male and female anatomy." By the fifth grade, they should learn that sexual orientation is the "romantic attraction of an individual to someone of the same gender or a different gender." By the end of the eighth grade, students should be able to "differentiate between gender identity, gender expression and sexual orientation" and learn about the morning-after pill, which can cause abortions. They also should know how to use a condom, the standards say. Gender identity is a term that refers to men and women who, in essence, believe they were born the wrong sex. Both gender identity and gender expression encompass cross-dressers and transgendereds.
Although the recommendations are non-binding, the NEA and the other groups hope they catch on with schools. Others, though, are hoping schools simply ignore them. Bob Stith, the National Strategist for Gender Issues at Southern Baptist Convention said, "The reality is that it has the potential to create serious conflicts between parents and children. If children are taught values that are in direct opposition to the biblical values of their parents, those parents would be put in an adversarial position with their own children. This is just simply not a healthy approach."
Valerie Huber of the National Abstinence Education Association (NAEA) described the standards as full of "special-interest agendas." "When we set standards, we should communicate the ideal, the best message to achieve optimal health," Huber said. "When a set of guidelines fails to provide any meaningful emphasis on optimal health but instead gives priority to 'condom negotiation' skills, we have not set standards; we have lowered them and put our children at increased risk."
CMDA Member and Board Certified Pediatrician Rosemary Stein, MD: "Several weeks ago a document was released that outlines what our children need to have mastered in the area of sexuality at different grade levels. It has taken nearly two years, much taxpayer money and many 'experts' in the area of sexuality and education to author this compendium. The report appears to have many readers in either a state of elation or an uproar about its conclusions and guidelines.
"This vast group of reviewers suggest that there needs to be a universal sexuality curriculum since American schools currently do not have one. It suggests that 'too little time is devoted' to teaching our children about sex issues in our schools. Therefore, it must be a good idea for our failing schools to broaden their curriculum to further instruct our children about sex at an earlier age.
"The report cites a 2004 NPR poll that concludes most parents think it is important for sex to be taught in schools, and that birth control and pregnancy prevention are appropriate topics for schools to teach. This new 'policy via polling' provides a pretense to dictate to all Americans what our kids need to know about sex.
"The new guidelines state that second graders should master the names of their private areas, fifth graders should understand and respect sexual orientation and eighth graders need to be proficient on using a condom correctly. Schools are recommended to devote more than 17.2 hours per year on this new education.
"Barely 70 percent of our children achieve passing scores in the basic areas of math and reading. We spend two to three times more per student in public versus private schools - on average $9,000 per pupil. Too many of our public schools are failing to educate our children well in the basics. It comes down to priorities. Should we teach our 13-year-olds how to put on a condom, or should we teach them how to read proficiently? Sex education is best left in the hands of the parents. Schools should go back to focusing on the three Rs. Before political agendas infiltrated our schools, they did a credible job of teaching our children.
"Let's demand that our school systems improve their instruction on how our children read, write and do math. As in many other parts of the government, the schools have proven to be failures in administering to our greatest assets - our children. It would be folly to hand over our children's sexual education to those who have such a poor track record.
"This is not only a Christian issue, or a conservative issue; it is a parenting issue. Until we stand up for what is of grave importance to us, we will continue to lose the battle. When these guidelines come to our local schools, let us tell the school board what we think about them. This is not an area where we can afford to be shy. The future of American education is counting on us!"
Editor's Note: CMA has signed on to the National Abstinence Education Association letter below, and we urge to sign on as well.
ACTION ITEM
Add your voice to the NAEA letter that is asking that federal sex education policy place a strong emphasis on sexual risk avoidance abstinence education.
