Page 4-Thursday, July 24, 1980--The Michigan Oncy
Daily's registration
position illogical
Does d wl
VER THE YEARS, the American Medical
Association has come under harsh criticism
for its snobbery. Its ivory tower opinion of itself is
reflected in its disparaging view of other health
professionals, its adamant stance against adver-
tising, and the limit it puts on the number of doctors
this country can produce, severely undercutting
competition.
But Tuesday, the AMA House of Delegates ap-
proved a revised code of ethics that reflects a more
reasonable and responsible attitude on the part of
doctors toward not only their own profession, but
also the patients they serve..
The most surprising change in the new ethics
code-the first such revision in 23 years-permits
doctors to advertise their prices and services. This
new provision will surely lead to competition bet-
ween doctors and will also help make the
profession more open and accessible to the con-
sumer.
In addition, the code allows doctors to refer
patients to other health professionals, such as
chiropractors. This is a significant step, since the
AMA has traditionally dismissed all other health
professions as quacks and frauds. The medical doc-
tor's major concern should be to ensure that the
patients receive the best care, whether it comes
from a medical doctor or other health professional
whose names may not be followed by "M.D."
One.of the reasons the AMA may have changed
the stance concerning chiropractors is a multi-
million dollar suit chiropractors and the Federal
Trade Commission have brought against the
Association, charging it with conspiring to restrain
free competition. If the AMA loses, it could go
bankrupt. But, despite the AMA's ulterior motives,
the benefits resulting from the changes are
necessary and welcome.
The Michigan Daily has
recently voiced its stand on the
issue of military registration.
The Daily has advocated ignoring
the registration order. I object to
this position, not only because of
the possible legal consequences
to those who foolishly follow this
advice, but also because of the
editors' faulty logic behind the
decision.
The editors are assuming that
the point of view is one shared by
a majority of Americans. I do not
believe it. The Daily's entire case
for civil disobedience rests on its
belief that the majority of
Americans consider registration
for a possible draft an "uncon-
scionable act."
THE DAILY CONTINUES by
trying to second-guess President
Carter's reasons behind the
decision to request registration.
Even a pacifist must realize
negotiations cannot take place
unless both sides believe they
possess the relativelyvequal
power which forces bargaining in
the first place. The U.S.S.R..
would have no reason to bargain
with the U.S. if they could
militarily dominate us. It would
be nice if both sides threw away
By John Spelich
their weapons and bargained in
good faith, but this sentiment is
not realistic considering the long
list of aggressive brutalities the
Russians have committed since
the end of world war I.
The Daily says the security of
the nation is not being
threatened. This seems
ludicrous, considering 52 of our
citizens are still incarcerated in
Iran, and the most recent armed-
attack of Afghanistan puts the
Soviets only a few hundred miles
from the Persian Gulf. A prudent
person would assume that our
national security is threatened.
The Daily's only alternative to
the draft, increased monetary in-
centive to join the volunteer ar-
my by reallocating money from
within the Defense Department,
is far too simplistic. If military
resources are reallocated, other
military programs would suffer.
If the money is appropriated
from outside the department, the
most likely candidate for cut-
backs would be social ser-
vices, but that's another
editorial.
THE DAILY TRIES to detract
from the fact it is urging its
readers to commita federal crime
by explaining the odds of being
caught. To call their position the
only "morally acceptable" one to
make is enough to make one won-
der whether a newspaper should
encourage lawlessness.
I am not a hawk. I am against
war. With the memory of Viet-
nam still fresh in our minds, I
hope the United States has lear-
ned to use its power wisely. If our
national security is threatened, if
our very way of life is put into
dsnger, someone must defend it,
or we are sure to lose it. It has
been said that freedom is never
really appreciated until it is lost.
I hope we as a nation never have
to lose ours-as the 52 American
hostages in Iran have-to ap-
preciate how important it really
is. The decision to answer an ac-
tual draft should not be made
prematurely. There are certain
.causes worth fighting for.
The author of this article is
a junior at the University
majoring in communications.
LETTERS TO THE DAILY:
Pro-lifers are misleading
4
4'
To The Daily:
The July 10 article in The
Daily, signed by members of the.
washtenaw County chapter of
Right To Life-Lifespan, is an
example of the manner in which
many proponents of a so-called
"human life amendment" to the
U.S. Constitution attempt to win
supporters through the use of in-
flammatory, emotional terms,
and misleading, often incorrect
assertions of fact. In their aricle
they urged that:
1) the real goals of "pro-
abortion elitists" involve the
elimination of future generations
of poor minorities and others
(e.g., the "feeble-minded") and
the creation of a "race of
thoroughbreds;"
2) once a price tag is placed on
human life, as when life is denied
to the unborn, it is but a matter of
time until the aged, the han-
dicapped and other "unwanted"
persons will begin to be
eliminated as well; and,
3) the advent of new life should
be considered a great blessing
and" not punishment for sexual
activity or something to be
dreaded.
The claims that proponents of
abortion rights harbor desires to
eliminate poor and minority per-
sons and to bring about a "race of
thoroughbreds" are totally un-
founded. The authors have
demonstrated their failure to un-
derstand the origins of the con-
temporary pro-choice
movement, which receives its in-
spiration from three sources:
feminism, the civil rights
movement, and the doctrine of
separation of church and state.
The feminist foundations of the
contemporary pro-choice,
movement stress the dignity of
the woman, the importance of
safeguarding her physical and
mental well-being, and the need
to preserve her right to choose
abortion.
Consistent with the objectives
of the civil rights movement is
the belief that women with
limited financial resources
should have the same oppor-
tunities to obtain medical ser-
vices, including abortion, that
women with greater financial
resources have. The -underlying
value consists of equality of op-
portunity, regardless of race,
class or country of origin.
And, as the authors certainly
realize, there is no consensus
among the various religions
regarding the definition of
"human life." Some religions
hold that human life (or per-
sonhood) begins at conception,
whereas many other religions
maintain that human life does not
begin until much later, as at the
time of independent fetal ac-
tivity, or at birth. Religious
groups not believing that human
life begins at conception thus
reject the notion that abortion
constitues murder, consider the
term "anti-life mentality" inap-
propriate, and regard attempts to
some groups to impose their
religious beliefs on everyone (as
by making abortion illegal) to be
an infringement of religious
freedom.
In view of these facts, the
racist mentality that has been at-
tributed to proponents of the right
to choose abortion seems
strangely misplaced.
In addition, in those countries
in which abortion has been legal
for years, there is no evidence
that genocide or euthanasia are
practices. Hence, it cannot be
argued that these practices
necessarily follow from the
legalization of abortion.
Finally, like the authors of the
article, most proponents of abor-
tion rights believe that the advent
of a child should be considered a
great joy. However, they
recognize that unfortunately
women do not always become
pregnant intentionally. Pregnan-
cy is often forced upon them by
strangers or members of their
families, including husbands.
Opponents of abortion seem
myopic in their inability to see
that love, family life and child-
rearing for many women are
quite different from the ideals
portrayed in marriage manuals.
Many of them maintain an ex-
tremely narrow definition of
what constitutes "hardship,"
denying women the right to
choose abortion even, according
to some, when bearing the child
would result in death, extreme
financial difficulties for the
family, or prolonged anguish, as
in the case of rape or incest.
-Arieh Tal
Michigan Abortion Rights
Action League
July 22
I
I