About Me

Name: Edwin Leap
Email: edwinleap@gmail.com Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Blog Roll

 

Right of Conscience

We must be vigilant.  There is a movement in society to revoke the right of physicians to obey their own ethics and morals.  President Obama has already altered the conscience clause that HHS honored during the Bush Administration.  He say she won't change the right of physicians to follow their own beliefs regarding abortion.  But time will tell if he really continues to honor the deeply held beliefs of individual health-care practitioners, or if he once again caves to the radical-left interests that put him in power.

I had the privilege of sitting in the audience as Dr. James Dobson, of Focus on the Family, held a panel discussion on the Right of Conscience.  Here is a link to the broadcast.  I encourage everyone to listen and to contact their representatives in Washington about this critical issue.  http://www.citizenlink.org/dailybroadcast/A000009820.cfm

Isn't it odd that everyone has the right to do or believe whatever they want in modern America, unless their belief system is suddenly inconvenient?  Vegetarians aren't expected to kill animals for meat; atheist aren't forced to go to church; pacifists aren't compelled to carry firearms.  Each of these things might violate someone's sensibilities. 

But physicians might be forced to either perform or refer for abortions?  What utter madness.

Choice is important, right?  Unless your choice is the wrong one.

Listen to the broadcast and comments.  And be prepared to fight the battles of the future.

Edwin



Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Green as Virtue

Today I was watching television and saw a 'celebrity fact' list; the kind used as filler on so much of the vacuous television that airs today.  It had to do with actor Will Smith.  It went something like this:  'Green Facts about Will Smith.'  It listed a few good things the actor had done, including donating to the Martin Luther King, Jr. museum.  None of the things listed had to do with the environment. Hmmm.

So I realized that I was witnessing the evolution of language; but unlike the theory of evolution, it was not an unguided, random process.  The word 'green' is being used to denote virtue.  Of course, it might just as well be the word 'purple' or 'bookshelf.'  But I see a trend; it isn't that you're green or purple, it's that you aren't.  If one is not green, one is not virtuous.  We know that to refuse to bear the banner of environmentalism leaves us branded earth fascists and nature-haters.  But who knows what will follow?  'He's not very green,' will stop meaning I don't recycle or drive a hybrid.  It will mean that my definitions of virtue are no longer valid.  It will mean that I have failed the modern tests of virtue by failing to adopt ideology and world-views that are considered good and wholesome by an entire generation (or series of generations) to whom virtue has nothing to do with Divine authority, the worth of mankind or any hint of objective truth.  I will be, initially, 'un-green' for failing in my duties to theearth and the non-human creatures and plants that inhabit it, as well as to the 'spirit' of earth that underlies the views of those atheists and agnostics who treat earth as a deity. 
 
But soon enough, I will be less than green for intolerance of gay marriage, support of absolute truth claims; for denying the right to abortion and unfettered sexuality of youth, and for ultimately denying the neo-socialist rhetoric that has young America, and much of old America, in it's red-gloved fist.

I'm not very green.  But I'm good.  And I refuse to accept that transformation of my language.  Green may be a political viewpoint.  And it's certainly a color I love.  But I'm not green.  Because when Kermit said 'it ain't easy being green,' he was more prophet than frog.

Edwin








Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Evidence-based truth

I am a physician, as my bio says.  Modern medicine is driven by a constant barrage of 'evidence-based' medicine.  What this means is, researchers look at data on illnesses, injuries and treatment, and use statistical analysis to find the best evidence for the best practice.  The idea being, rather than practice based simply on personal experience, we use science in order to give patients the best possible opportunity to be healed, whole and well. 

This approach is fraught with some danger, for in many instances it becomes 'practice by authority.'  'Dr. Whatzit is at Stanford, and everyone knows those Stanford doctors are really smart, and so his idea must be right.'  Often, however, it does result in very good changes in medicine, that are more cost-effective and more successful.

However, the search for truth being what it is, I have to wonder about the future.   Barak Obama's theology suggests that one's search for spiritual truth is relative, and depends on one's own desires and interests.  He holds to a 'many paths to God' worldview.  This is comforting to some, and certainly easier to discuss at parties and political events.  But in terms of the search for truth, it leaves much to be desired. 

The problem is that Western man has decided, quite falsely, that there are two paths in the search for truth.  The spiritual one is more nebulous and ultimately less important, man now seems to say.  On the other hand, the scientific one is critical, holds the key to the future of humanity, and is objectively attainable.  However, our ancestors knew that the search for truth was all part of one effort.  As science increasingly suggests, many of the things we innately believe are right, or believe are right based on spiritual traditions, are in fact scientifically confirmed.  The big-daddy of all of these things being the discovery of the 'Big Bang' theory of cosmology, which reflects the words of Genesis.  'In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.'

So where does the search for truth go?  If post-modern man accepts the relativistic view of spiritual truth, how long until he accepts the same about scientific truth?  Well, it's already happened.  Progressive scientists are always willing to 'follow the truth wherever it leads;' until, that is, it leads to a church door, a piece of holy scripture, an unpopular scientific finding or anything that isn't consistent with the tenets of the progressive faith. 

Science is intrigued by the wonders of homosexuality until we see that homosexual men have remarkably shortened lifespans. We aren't to discuss that.  Science tells us that men are naturally polygamous in order to 'spread their genes.'  Science is silent on the cultural disaster of fatherless homes. Science thinks abortion is perfectly safe and healthy, until it finds increased suicidality, subsequent fetal demise, or increased cancer rates in women who had abortions.  Science is also silent on the genocidal nature of abortion among blacks, which is, incidentally, the exact effect desired by Margaret Sanger, patron saint of Planned  Parenthood, who was a racist and eugenicist.  Science knows we need energy to make life better; until it may involve nuclear power, or anything other than wind, wave, solar and geothermal. 

Our leaders increasingly appease those of differing opinions, because 'everyone's truth is their own.'  And even our scientists are willing to avert their eyes from 'truths' that annoy. 

The future of truth, in the West and in the world at large, is in peril.  Because if we don't care, and if there is no objective truth, what's the point in science at all?  And who will define right and wrong?

It may seem glib for a presidential candidate to offer the option of many truths being equal.  But it reflects a larger disdain for truth; or at the very least a larger sense of intellectual sloth and cowardice.  As inheritors of the culture most concerned with truth in the history of all the wide world., we should be petrified. 

Edwin

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Respect for life is not a progressive value

I'm an emergency physician.  I have spent a huge portion of my life taking care of sick and injured people, and trying to help them through life crises like suicide attempts, psychotic breaks, homelessness, alcoholism and drug addiction.  As such, I'm always intrigued when politicians tell the country how interested they are in fixing health-care, caring for the sick and meeting the needs of the most down-trodden.  Because my partners and colleagues and I have been at it for a very long time, and remarkably, we never have any 'after-hours' numbers with which to contact caring politicians or policy-makers.  Heck, we never have any numbers to call during regular business hours.  I suspect that the heady business of fixing America's health-care crisis, and managing America's inefficient, unsafe, uncaring, rapacious physicians must require oodles and oodles of meetings, working lunches and happy hours, so that the bulk of caring for the sick is left to the aforementioned uncaring doctors like myself.  Oh well, it's a burden we'll just keep bearing until politicians and policy wonks swoop down and fix us good and proper.

But there is some striking evidence that it isn't only politicians, but the entire progressive movement, could really care less about the health and well-being of human beings.  And that lies in the reality of their typical platforms.  For instance, their insistence on fixing 'the system,' rather than the individuals.  Their willingness to sacrifice individual freedoms and choice for 'the good of the country.' And more particularly, their uncaring attitude about specific issues.  When DDT was banned, and untold millions of Third World persons died fo Malaria, the typical response was like the one I got from an ardent liberal:  'But if we hadn't done it, we'd have had less beautiful African animals!' 

Of course, a common mantra of the progressive left is that assisted suicide is a great thing!  Let's allow some old folks to go ahead and die!  It's good for the economy and good for the environment, right!  Wait and see how assisted becomes suggested becomes mandated if we develop a single payer system of health-care.  Then it will be our duty to die, right?  After all, it will be good for the country and good for the earth.

How about abortion, in which one million children are killed in the womb, or in the birth canal, every year?  The culture of life is really a culture of death.  Let's look at drugs.  For as long as I can remember, the left considered free, open drug use a societal good, while nasty fundamentalist, moralist nasties wanted to make the world a black and white drag.  I've seen drug abuse.  I've seen the pain and hopelessness in the eyes of men and women who wanted to die to escape their addiction, and the sorrow in their parents' faces.  It isn't cute or fun.  It's horrible.  What about HIV and other STD's?  As one liberal put it, when I said that 50% of African American teenage girls have an STD, 'well, isn't most of it just HPV?'  Yeah, the one that causes cancer deaths.  Liberals would rather cut off their own body parts than suggest that gay men have shortened lives due to diseases like HIV, or that promiscuous behavior results in HIV,  HPV, Herpes and other diseases leading to pain, infertility and death.  Death is OK, if your worldview is intact, it would seem.

The left has always been opposed to censorship, preferring the fantasy that pornography is a healthy choice of career that free-minded people engage in, unencumbered by the moral fabrications of religious oppression.  But it appears, more and more, that those who are engaged in the sex industry often are victims of what amounts to a lifetime of abuse and assault, often begun in childhood.  Do diseases and depression, drug abuse and suicide, infertility and dysfunction arise from that life?  You bet.  But does the progressive left care about that misery?  Not if it conflicts with 'freedom,' free love and their view of the world, they don't.

And what about energy?  If people can't drive to work to pay their bills, or engage in healthy lifestyle activity like health-care visits, so what?  At least the environment is safe.  And let's face it, in the end, the death of humanity is what most good liberals really want.  Well, except for them.  The death of annoying conservatives, brown people, drives of SUV's, religious nuts and anyone who opposes free love, free drugs, abortion and the gay agenda.  The death of those people would be good for earth, right? 

The left, far from caring about the health and safety of America or the world, could care less.  Their opposition to war is a joke; an enormous irony.  Their posturing about health reform, or even the environment, is nothing but that; posturing  Their worldview is a culture of acceptable death; of everyone else

Excuse me while I go back and try to save some more lives.  It's nasty, and it involves touching humans and learning to love them and even mourn them, but hey, somebody has to do it.  Maybe I'll catch a disease or be stabbed, and clean up the environment by dying in the process!

Edwin

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

We want to be punished, don't we?

Today I was teaching sunday school, where the topic was 'how can a good God send people to hell?'  As I was preparing for the lesson, I realized that one of the great objections modern men and women have to the Christian faith is that Christianity is about punishment and guilt, and as such, isn't any fun and is obviously droll and untrue.  Real people don't need to be punished, because they know they haven't done anything wrong.  Or so the logic goes.

As I considered all this, I realized that hell is entirely reasonable because everyone wants to be punished.  It's true!  In fact, punishment is a basic tenet of modern liberal thought.  We must be punished, the rationalization goes, because we have to much, use to much, own too much, judge too much, hate too much, eat too much, use resources too much, are too free, talk too much about taboo topics, etc.  The list goes on and on of the things for which we should be punished.  How are we punished?  Taxes, laws, programs, political correctness, intellectual and social banishment for speaking truths that violate proper thought, in some cases physical assault, and of course the over-arching punishment that can never be taken away, constant guilt. 

Modern man is overwhelmingly guilty...or rather, feels that he is.  Modern man is guilty about all of the things I listed above.  Modern man feels guilty for his very existence.  And so, punishment is in order.  Populations have to be limited.  Food has to be distributed fairly.  Incomes have to be confiscated. Children have to be aborted.  Children have to be given over to dark gods of sexuality and drugs because 'they'll do it anyway, everyone does!'  Modern man offers sacrifices of his joy, his money, his family, his ethics, his freedom and his very humanity on the altar of unrelenting guilt, which can never be atoned except by more work, more giving, more guilt, more surrender of every freedom of heart, soul, mind and body.

Hell?  Well it is punishment, though a punishment for which God provided a pardon in Christ.  But if modern mankind thinks that hell, or punishment itself, is a uniquely Christian invention, then modern mankind is dead wrong. 

Mankind has always wanted to be punished.  They just refuse to accept the deliverance from guilt that is available from our Father.

Dr. Deacon

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Sexual teens are merely sexual children; let's protect them!

Sitting before me in the ER, smiling, was a 14-year-old girl.  Her mother was sitting in the chair by the stretcher.  The girl had been nauseated.  The question was, ‘why is she nauseated, does she have a virus?’  The subtext was ‘is she pregnant?’

Ultimately, the answer was ‘no.’  I delivered the answer, cryptically to avoid privacy violations, to her mother, her friends and her great, hulking boyfriend who was with the family in the emergency department.  When the nurses discharged them, she was sitting on said boyfriend’s lap, with mother in the room.

I’ve had conversations about this before, with other mothers and fathers and teens.  I’ve talked to boys and girls.  It’s my ‘what are you thinking?’ talk.  I didn’t have time or energy to get into it this time.  I just walked away to the tickled smiles of friends and family, resting happily in the knowledge that their friend, daughter, girlfriend could continue her sexual adventures, unimpeded by the pesky biological reality of pregnancy, and obviously unconcerned with the high probability of sexually transmitted infection.

She was on oral contraceptives.  I wonder if the person who wrote them for her talked about disease, or pregnancy.  I wonder if they cautioned her, or just said, as always, ‘use a condom and your pills and you’ll be fine!’  (In stark contrast to reality).  I wonder if they saw what I saw:  a child having sex.

Sure, she’s fourteen.  She has reproductive capacity and all the right parts.  Of course, in ages past she would probably have been a wife with one child already.  But life expectancies were remarkably short in past times.  And often, developing a family (via a marriage) was not only the honorable path before God and man, but also a means to collective security and food production, and the way to propagate a family in which death would occur too early for many of the young.  Those times have passed.  Food and medicine are available. People live very long lives.  Education and prosperity await the young if they so desire.

More than wondering about the people who distributed her contraceptives, I wondered about her mother.  I see the resignation in parents so often.  They seem to say to themselves:  ‘Well, she’s a teenager.  What can you do?  They have sex!  It’s natural.’  They watch too much television, read too many ridiculous magazines, absorb too much pornography or gossip or bad advice online.  Our culture has decided that these boys and girls, these teenage boys and girls, are just adults with acne.  The truth is, their brains are not ready for what we allow them to do.  Their brains aren’t ready for what society is encouraging them to do.  The pressures of intimacy, the possibility of parenthood, the pain of disease, the enormous emotional and physical consequences of the tragic default escape button, abortion.  These are children who should not be exposed to such as that.  Those are children who we, as a culture, are failing rather than liberating.

 

Parents need to be encouraged to say no.  ‘No, you can’t stay out all night.’  ‘No, you can’t have your boyfriend over when I’m not home.’  ‘No, you can’t go to that party, leave town with his friends, hang out with that crowd.’  No, you can't kiss my daughter (or son) at that age; much less do what you really want to do!'  The list goes on.

Is it that single mothers are overwhelmed?  Possibly.  The threat of a protective father looms large in the mind of many a young man who dates a girl.  If no father is present, the threat is remarkably lower.  Is it that no one was taught anyone better, not even the parents?  Certainly, many of the parents I meet grew up with the same moral laissez-fair attitude I see now.  Maybe that’s it.  Or is it that many  parents are just too self-centered, too busy, too easily influenced by bad ideas to step in and make rules?  A moral structure shaped by Oprah, Dr. Phil, Cosmopolitan Magazine and the 'altruistic' Hollywood marketing industry is the fall-back position when parents sound the retreat; or when parents simply surrender.

I suspect there is truth in all of those.  And I suspect there are many reasons for the behavior of the young boys and girls we see in clinics and ER’s because of sexual activity: the decline of families; the decline of intact marriages; the lassitude and cowardice of the church in speaking moral, spiritual truth in love; the laziness and political correctness of physicians, nurses and teachers, the cultural suicide that judges and legislators have brought down upon us.  It’s all a toxic soup.

But floating in that soup, drowning, cooking, are legions of teenagers who are doing what they shouldn’t.  They are teens having sex.  Rather, they are children having sex.  And it’s time we rescued them.

So the next time you see it or hear of it, be a pesky moralist.  And actually show some concern.  In the process offer them a choice, an option, a sense that maybe abstinence might be a good idea for lots of reasons! 

Maybe they’re doing what they’re doing because, ultimately, no adult seems to care about them anyway.  I don 't want to answer for that one on Judgment day.

Edwin

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »