(Tim) Back when Dad (Joe Bayly) was serving as Executive Director of Christian Medical Society (now Christian Medical and Dental Society), he sent me a copy of the following editorial from the September, 1970 issue of California Medicine, the journal of the California Medical Association. I've referred to this editorial in prior posts, but never run the editorial itself.
It might help readers understand David's and my commitment to push Christian medical professionals hard in matters of life and death if they knew that, in my files, I have copies of a series of letters between C. Everett Koop and Dad immediately following Dad's assumption of the leadership of CMS.
In the first letter, Dad tells Koop that he intends to lead CMS to adopt an anti-abortion position as official policy. On that basis, then, Dad appeals to Koop to restore his membership in CMA.
Prior to then (1979-80), CMS had refused to take a stand against abortion and Koop had resigned in protest...
At the time of the exchange, Koop was likely the best-known pediatric surgeon in the world and had just been confirmed as the U.S. Surgeon General. Dad and Koop were quite close, personally. Koop had cared for the medical needs of most of the Bayly children at one time or another, so their letters reflected the deep affection they had for one another.
Think about it: Eight years after the U.S. Supreme Court's infamous Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion in every state of the Union at any time in pregnancy, the professional association of evangelical physicians had not brought itself to condemn the premeditated slaughter of unborn children!
Another indication of the absence of any Christian witness by evangelicals at the time is the statement Koop and Francis Schaeffer made during their "Whatever Happened to the Human Race" barnstorming tour, that when the tour hit Chicago, they couldn't get evangelical leaders to attend their seminar. Shortly after the Chicago seminar, Koop and Schaeffer hit Denver and I was there. During that seminar, Schaeffer told us he and Koop had placed phone calls to fourteen evangelical leaders when they arrived in Chicago, asking them to attend, but all fourteen had turned them down.
This was the state of evangelicalism as the eighties began, and as Dad took over the leadership of CMS.
After leading CMS for several years, I remember Dad observing that two things seemed to characterize evangelical physicians: a lack of courage and the love of money.
Has anything changed?
Well, on the one hand, we can see that the broad consensus in the evangelical world did swing ever so slowly against abortion. Even Tony Campolo has to make like he's pro-life, now.
But where do we find any compassion for the unborn? Where is our love for the feeble, the elderly, Terry Schiavo, or those who are victims of unethical organ procurement?
Our zeal is paltry compared to the stellar Christian witness of the Roman Catholic church--both clerical and lay.
The discussion carried on under our recent post, The Vultures Will Gather; and particularly, one commenter's dismissal of my reference to vultures as "cynical," leads me to post here, in its entirety, the editorial Dad forwarded to me now many years ago. Since 1970, we've come a long way from "first, do no harm."
Even the pagans see it. Or rather, saw it forty years ago.
* * *
A New Ethic for Medicine And Society
The traditional Western ethic has always placed great emphasis on the intrinsic worth and equal value of every human life regardless of its stage or condition. This ethic has had the blessing of the Judeo-Christian heritage and has been the basis for most of our laws and much of our social policy. The reverence for each and every human life has also been keystone of Western medicine and is the ethic which has caused physicians to try to preserve, protect, repair, prolong, and enhance every human life which comes under their surveillance. This traditional ethic is still clearly dominant, but there is much to suggest that it is being eroded at its core and may eventually be abandoned. This of course will produce profound changes in Western medicine and Western society.
There are certain new facts and social realities which are becoming recognized, are widely discussed in Western society and seem certain to undermine and transform this traditional ethic. They have come into being and into focus as the social by-products of unprecedented technologic progress and achievement. Of particular importance are, first, the demographic data of human population expansion which tends to proceed uncontrolled and at a geometric rate of progression; second, and ever growing ecological disparity between the numbers of people and the resources available to support these numbers in the manner to which they are or would like to become accustomed; and third, and perhaps most important, a quite new social emphasis on something which is beginning to be called the quality of life, a something which becomes possible for the first time in human history because of scientific and technologic development. These are now being seen by a growing segment of the public as realities which are within the power of humans to control and there is quite evidently an increasing determination to do this.
What is not yet so clearly perceived is that in order to bring this about hard choices will have to be made with respect to what is to be preserved and strengthened and what is not, and that this will of necessity violate and ultimately destroy the traditional Western ethic with all that this portends. It will become necessary and acceptable to place relative rather than absolute values on such things as human lives, the use of scarce resources and the various elements which are to make up the quality of life or of living which is to be sought. This is quite distinctly at variance with the Judeo-Christian ethic and carries serious philosophical, social, economic, and political implications for Western society and perhaps for world society.
The process of eroding the old ethic and substituting the new has already begun. It may be seen most clearly in changing attitudes toward human abortion. In defiance of the long held Western ethic of intrinsic and equal value for every human life regardless of its stage, condition, or status, abortion is becoming accepted by society as moral, right, and even necessary. It is worth noting that this shift in public attitude has affected the churches, the laws, and public policy rather than the reverse. 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 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 the taking of 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.
It seems safe to predict that the new demographic, ecological, and social realities and aspirations are so powerful that the new ethic of relative rather than of absolute and equal values will ultimately prevail as man exercises ever more certain and effective control over his numbers, an uses his always comparatively scarce resources to provide the nutrition, housing, economic support, education, and health care in such ways as to achieve his desired quality of life and living. The criteria upon which these relative values are to be based will depend considerably upon whatever concept of the quality of life or living is developed. This may be expected to reflect the extent that the quality of life is considered to be a function of personal fulfillment; of individual responsibility for the common welfare, the preservation of the environment, the betterment of the species; and of whether or not, or to what extent, these responsibilities are to be exercised on a compulsory or voluntary basis.
The part which medicine will play as all this develops is not yet entirely clear. That it will be deeply involved is certain. Medicine's role with respect to changing attitudes toward abortion may well be a prototype of what is to occur. Another precedent may be found in the part physicians have played in evaluating who is and who is not to be given costly long-term renal dialysis. Certainly this has required placing relative values on human lives and the impact of the physician to this decision process has been considerable. One may anticipate further development of these roles as the problems of birth control and birth selection are extended inevitably to death selection and death control whether by the individual or by society, and further public and professional determinations of when and when not to use scarce resources.
Since the problems which the new demographic, ecologic and social realities pose are fundamentally biological and ecological in nature and pertain to the survival and well-being of human beings, the participation of physicians and of the medical profession will be essential in planning and decision making at many levels. No other discipline has the knowledge of human nature, human behavior, heath and disease, and of what is involved in physical and mental well-being which will be needed. It is not too early for our profession to examine this new ethic, recognize it for what it is, and will mean for human society, and prepare to apply it in a rational development for the fulfillment and betterment of mankind in what is almost certain to be a biologically-oriented world society.
