THE DAILY BLADE: It Don’t Mean A Thing If You Ain’t Got Ka-Ching?
Noting that political reporters are monitoring polling data and quarterly fundraising reports to discern which candidates might go the distance, OpinionJournal’s Political Diary (e-mail subscription required) cites Howard Dean – who had raised a record $15 million in a single quarter of fundraising only to see his viability as a candidate dissipate faster than the acoustical waves of his infamous scream – as a reminder of "just how often the candidate who hauls in the most cash doesn't make it in an age of the Internet and instant television meltdowns."
On the Dem side, Hillary Clinton’s record-setting first-quarter 2007 fundraising total is $26 million – nearly three times as much as any presidential candidate has ever raised this early in the election cycle. Having raised raising $23 million, Mitt Romney, leads the Republican field in fundraising prowess.
Nonetheless, a recent Zogby poll indicates that 46 percent of Americans will not vote for Clinton, and 39 percent will not vote for Romney, under any circumstance. It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for either of these two candidates to occupy the White House.
Are You Sure Your Healthcare Provider Is Telling You Everything (S)he Knows?
An emerging healthcare issue The Stiletto is watching with rising alarm is how medical care is delivered when a healthcare provider’s moral beliefs or political views clash with a patient’s, as when family members are urged – sometimes insistently - to allow a seemingly terminal loved one to die with dignity or when a teenager is refused a prescription for birth control without parental consent.
In most cases, the issue is framed in terms of healthcare providers who withhold information on, or refuse to perform, procedures that violate their religious beliefs, such as late-pregnancy (or any) abortions. A recent column by Ashley Herzog, a journalism major at Ohio University, gives the flip side by reporting on a newly published book that details how left-wing dogma has compromised the quality of healthcare that students receive on campus:
Dr. Miriam Grossman visited the National Press Club in Washington , D.C. to discuss her new book, Unprotected. You probably haven't heard of it. Grossman, a psychiatrist at UCLA's student health clinic, says her profession has been "hijacked" by radical politics. Unprotected reveals how campus health professionals often risk students' well-being in order to promote feminism, androgyny, and "anything goes" liberalism. The consequences can be devastating.
Grossman is not a political or religious ideologue. She's a psychiatrist whose clinic has treated thousands of patients, many of them self-destructive or even suicidal. And yet, despite the epidemics of eating disorders, self-mutilation, and sexually transmitted diseases among college students, many of Grossman's colleagues refuse to offer advice or treatment that obstructs their personal social agendas.
According to Grossman, many campus health professionals' first priority is to never make moral judgments about students' behavior. There is tacit approval of casual sex: student health services pass out free condoms and instruct students on their use. But they won't mention the psychological health risks of promiscuity - which Grossman says is a major cause of emotional disturbance among her female patients. …
Students' physical health is also put at risk by politically correct - but medically inaccurate - information campaigns about sexually transmitted diseases. HIV is fraudulently presented as an equal-opportunity infection, creating unnecessary panic among low-risk groups. In fact, HIV is spread almost exclusively by anal sex, intravenous drug use, or a partner who does those things. But it seems some health professionals care more about not stigmatizing certain behaviors than saving lives.
A healthcare provider and his or her patient need to agree on which legally available medical treatments are morally acceptable to both, and which cross the line for either. Where there is disagreement, the healthcare provider should not stand in the way of a patient seeking a treatment elsewhere – and should assist the patient in finding an alternative provider.
Conversely, a patient should tell the healthcare provider if a proposed treatment - or lack of treatment - violates his or her principles or religious beliefs. Obviously, a patient is under no obligation to accept any treatment that (s)he finds morally repugnant.
Consider this case involving a couple of The Stiletto’s acquaintance: The first set of prenatal tests indicated that levels of a protein indicative of a specific birth defect were elevated, and amniocentesis was strongly recommended. After repeated attempts to learn the results, the couple was told the test had been botched and would have to be performed again – well into the second trimester, by that point. They were told the test would be "backdated" to facilitate getting an abortion, should one be necessary. The couple refused to have a second amniocentesis and their child – who was born healthy - is now attending college on an athletic scholarship.
Editorial Note: The Stiletto Blog will not publish on Holy Friday. The Stiletto will resume posting Monday, April 9, 2007. In the meantime, The Stiletto joins her Christian friends and readers in celebrating the Resurrection.
Comments