Truth in Unity
Truth in Unity
24 February 2006
Philip G. Ney, Psychiatrist
Victoria, BC V9B 2W7
Send response to journal:
Re: Truth in Unity
<http://clearx.library.ubc.ca:3503/cgi/eletter-submit/332/7536/294?title=Re%3A+Truth+in+Unity
>
Maybe Shakespeare believed
that conscience was for cowards, however, psychiatrists
learned long ago that those without a conscience were psychopaths.
It is also clear that those who are afraid to use their conscience
give themselves away as cowardly. Call it whatever you may, everyone
has a conscience. You may believe that conscience arose from religion
or philosophy or history, but it is more likely that it is embedded in
the instincts for group and individual survival.
We now know there are
three, not four fundamental forces in the universe. Scientists
are excited by the possibility of discovering the one force that unifies
everything. Thus we must conclude that truth is unitary. Eventually conscience
and science must agree.
Most doctors know of many
cases such as this one. A teenager was brought to emergency
by her mother, a nurse, who is convinced the child is deathly ill with
septicemia. The good doctor orders the correct, reliable lab tests, which
show nothing amiss. So she is sent home. Shortly thereafter, the distraught
mother brings her back and insists she be hospitalized. She is, but
dies within six hours, of septicemia. We older doctors were taught not to
rely upon lab tests, but on clinical observation, experience, wisdom, instinct
that can tell us something is drastically wrong even when the science
of radiology, biochemistry, etc. show nothing abnormal. You may call this
inner awareness prescience, or conscience, but it was every good physician's
and every wise man's guide long before science and law became so important.
After all, which came first? "The law," said Eichman, "I only did
what was 'legally permitted,'" before he was executed for
transgressing a higher moral law.
"Science," said Darwin, and everyone bowed so low, they set
aside their critical faculties. How is it possible "eminent
scientists" didn't realize that after the discovery of the second law of
thermodynamics, evolution was
impossible, if not ridiculous?
Long before science was
able to show the destructiveness of cigarette smoking,
Christians forbade their children from indulging on the basis of conscience.
If you were to be guided by good science, you would realize that 99.5%
of abortions are not indicated for health reasons and have no proven therapeutic
value, but rather, accumulating evidence shows their harmful effects.
If only doctors had listened to their conscience more closely, millions
of women would not now be suffering. Do you know of any long-term study
of families that have contributed to the euthanasia of someone near and
dear? I can assert from many clinical cases that husbands, wives, children,
guardians who have requested or agreed to 'pulling the plug', or removing
the intravenous or nasogastric feeding tube, have instinctually driven
guilt which complicates their grieving. Grief thus complicated often becomes
pathological, and frequently that results in difficult to treat depression.
The best evidence to date shows that the more sex education, the more
sexual activity. The earlier the sex education, the earlier the sexual activity,
and therefore the increased demand for contraceptives which, against
their conscience, doctors are increasingly pressured into prescribing, even while there is growing evidence of adverse
long term effects both from
estrogens and the implicit permission to be sexually active.
Therefore, being a
pragmatist, I will carefully listen to my conscience. Practically
speaking, I will be guided by my conscience, and then the best science
available, and then possibly the law. Conscience will probably keep me
out of trouble with everyone but those who don't have one, or don't think the
conscience needs to be listened to.
Competing interests: None declared