Medical Ethics Reflect Nazi Wickedness

If you think the title is overly sensational and provocative, take a look at historical evidence. Yes, it is provocative because what follows is quite alarming. People can learn from the evils of Nazi history — if they are willing to do so.

There are people who think that comparisons to Nazi Germany are hyperbole. Many reject them out of hand, even assuming a fallacious "slippery slope" argument will be made. Such things should be considered on the validity of their arguments.

Credit: RGBstock / Jean Scheijen

First, some comments on the slippery slope fallacy. People have wrongly claimed that when concerns about slippery slope are raised, they can be waved off as fallacious. Dead wrong.

The actual fallacy is based on vague assumptions that a domino effect will cause an adverse result. For example, the Equal Access Act of 1984 was about discrimination against students using school facilities. It was okay for Marxist and other clubs to meet, but Christians were forbidden. When it was being debated, I have a faint memory of someone saying something along the lines of, "Next we'll have people sacrificing goats on school grounds!" Not only risible, but several dominoes in the slippery slope were skipped and the "argument" went straight off the cliff. There is a clear difference between the fallacy and legitimate concerns.

We have two important articles to consider where medical ethics were (and are) based on some perceived greater good. These are rooted in Darwinism and, ultimately, atheistic naturalism. Christians know that we are created in God's image and it is wrong to use ethics based on naturalism and utilitarianism.

In our fist example, the Reich Ministry of the Interior in 1939 ordered that infants and children under the age of three who had severe mental and physical disabilities should be reported. They were euthanized. This was expanded so youths of seventeen years were included, and over 10,000 were eliminated. They used starvation, morphine, overdoses of barbiturates, and other means.

I was there for that awful time when Basement Cat had to leave us. The vet used the usual barbiturate injection. It hurt me then, and writing about it bothers me now, over a year later. How can someone put a child to sleep like an animal without having a seared conscience or being deluded?

With modern human embryo research, limitations are being removed. (Amazingly, adult stem cell research is progressing very well, so why the desire to kill the unborn?) There was a 14-day limit in the scientific community on this research in countries where it is allowed at all. This is still excessive because life begins at conception, but now that limit is being pushed back as well. New guidelines raise new questions.

Many examples could be cited of violations of the rights of the unborn in our modern society. Abortion is surely the most visible one. Scientists latched onto that source of living tissue for experimentation, as was revealed in the CFP videos. Despite the clear unethical and illegal actions of abortionists and scientists revealed in those undercover interviews, research on aborted baby body parts goes on even now. It is not encouraging to think that scientists will have the ethical qualifications to restrict their research on early-stage human embryos.

To read this first article, click on "Echoes of Nazism Haunt New Medical Ethics Guidelines". Please remember to come back for the next part.

Devaluing humanity for the sake of "research" happened in Nazi Germany, and is expected in communist China and other places that reject God, but it is increasing in the formerly United States at an alarming rate. Grafting aborted baby scalps onto rats and injecting them with internal organs as well as lymphoid and stem cells should be unthinkable.

A famous line from the 1993 Jurassic Park movie comes to mind: "Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they never stopped to think if they should."

The National Institute for Health (which is also heavily involved in SARS-CoV-2 research) approved of this — your tax dollars at work. Researchers were concerned about animal rights and followed NIH guidelines for animal studies. Ironically, although unborn babies are not given human rights because their humanity is denied, these sidewinders referred to "de-identified human fetal tissues". They know full well that they were experimenting on humans. The slope is slippery, and the slide is accelerating.

Few reports have shocked me like this one. In September 2020, it was reported that scientists from the University of Pittsburgh (US) had taken the scalps from 18–20 week aborted babies, grafted them onto the backs of live mice, and watched the human skin and hair grow. They also took some of the babies’ internal organs, and diced them small enough to inject into the rodents. Funded by US tax dollars via the National Institute for Health (NIH) the purpose of the ‘experiment’ was to investigate disease and immune responses in ‘humanised’ mice and rats.

This is rough, but I am asking you to finish reading this article at "‘Scientific research’—or depraved barbarity?" Also of interest is "The Downward Spiral of Gene Editing Ethics".