Human-animal chimeras and scientists deluded by a god complex

The battle in Congress over human-animal chimera experiments highlights the gulf between communists and Democrats and Republicans on the distinctions and boundaries between humans, animals and God.

A Chinese-led research team injected human stem cells into monkey embryos and let the chimeric creature grow for 19 days before killing it. As avowed atheists, Chinese Communists do not believe that God created each of us human beings in His image, with inestimable worth incomparable to the animals He created, each "after their kind."

Vaccine resistance and public health messaging

By Jonathan Imbody

The Washington Post recently published my commentary below in response to an article ("'I’m still a zero’: Vaccine-resistant Republicans warn that their skepticism is worsening") that examined the vaccine hesitancy of conservatives. I aimed simply to explain a divergent point of view that many Americans hold about COVID vaccines—one that rejects the messages of U.S. public health agency officials:

"Conservatives who value limited government, federalism and checks on individual power will disdain what they view as vaccination propaganda from partisan politicians who have used the pandemic as a blatant power grab. Trump supporters won’t abide vaccination rhetoric of public health officials such as Anthony S. Fauci, who publicly dissed President Donald Trump.

"Conservatives also respect conscience convictions. While I have received the Moderna vaccine and have written of ethical and practical reasons for taking the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines, I understand the apprehensions of conservative colleagues who voice concerns about the use of a fetal cell line in testing, the new mRNA technology and the lack of longitudinal studies.

"Conservative vaccine resisters view the 'impending doom' pandemic rhetoric of this administration as alarmist, manipulative, condescending and coercive. Some, however, may still respond to respectful, common-sense messages from trusted faith leaders and local health experts who can reasonably and transparently lay out the risks of coronavirus vaccination vs. infection."

Why some conservatives are vaccine ‘hesitant’

Published in The Washington Post, April 26, 2021

Regarding the April 21 Politics & the Nation article “ ‘I’m still a zero’: A warning from vaccine skeptics.”:

Conservatives who value limited government, federalism and checks on individual power will disdain what they view as vaccination propaganda from partisan politicians who have used the pandemic as a blatant power grab. Trump supporters won’t abide vaccination rhetoric of public health officials such as Anthony S. Fauci, who publicly dissed President Donald Trump.

Conservatives also respect conscience convictions. While I have received the Moderna vaccine and have written of ethical and practical reasons for taking the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines, I understand the apprehensions of conservative colleagues who voice concerns about the use of a fetal cell line in testing, the new mRNA technology and the lack of longitudinal studies.

Conservative vaccine resisters view the “impending doom” pandemic rhetoric of this administration as alarmist, manipulative, condescending and coercive. Some, however, may still respond to respectful, common-sense messages from trusted faith leaders and local health experts who can reasonably and transparently lay out the risks of coronavirus vaccination vs. infection.

Jonathan Imbody

The writer is a federal policy analyst for the Christian Medical Association.

Is Receiving the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine Ethical?

Public Discourse recently published my essay, written with Dr. Jeff Barrows, "Is Receiving the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine Ethical?"

On November 9, 2020, pharmaceutical giant Pfizer and biotech company and cancer treatment specialist BioNTech stunned the world with the announcement that a “vaccine candidate was found to be more than 90% effective in preventing COVID-19 in participants without evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection in the first interim efficacy analysis.” The 90 percent success rate far exceeded experts’ hopes of a 50–70 percent effective rate and promised ultimately a potential curb on the global pandemic that has crippled the world’s economy.

Christian Medical Association applauds new Tennessee policy to protect vulnerable patients during pandemic

Bristol, TN—June 26, 2020: The Tennessee-based, 18,000-member Christian Medical Association (CMA, www.cmda.org) today applauded a Tennessee patient protection policy announced this afternoon by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Civil Rights (OCR) and developed collaboratively between HHS, the state of Tennessee and disability rights groups.

CMA's Executive Vice President for Bioethics and Public Policy, Dr. Jeffrey Barrows, noted, "Patients with disabilities face even greater challenges than others during a pandemic, and we're thankful that both the federal government and the state of Tennessee are standing in the gap to protect the civil rights of all Americans. No person with a disability should have to fear that a government will assign their lives a lower value simply because they live with physical challenges."

The policy, announced today by HHS, reportedly incorporates crucial protections into the state's Crisis Standards of Care plan, stipulating that factors such as age or disability should not be used as criteria in determining the allocation of scarce resources. The policy also protects vulnerable patients who require additional resources from automatically being assigned a lower priority to receive lifesaving care.

Working with the HHS OCR, the state agreed to remove language permitting the use of a patient's long-term life expectancy as a factor in determining assignment of scarce resources. The policy also stipulates that long-term ventilator users will be protected from having their own ventilators taken from them and given to someone else.

Dr. Barrows, an Obstetrician-Gynecologist, observed, "Every human life is of immeasurable worth at every stage of life, regardless of physical challenges. We congratulate the HHS Office of Civil Rights for ensuring the civil rights of persons with disabilities. We also encourage the Department to ensure that civil rights are extended to vulnerable persons of all ages, including babies born prematurely."

Engage before they come for you

Ob-Gyn Dr. Regina Frost

Christian Medical and Dental Associations (CMDA) member and Ob-Gyn physician Dr. Regina Frost appears to be a modern-day Queen Esther, taking a courageous stand for the faith as did the biblical heroine. Dr. Frost is the face of Christian doctors in a high-stakes federal lawsuit to protect the new federal conscience protection rule from legal assault.

Biblical heroes serve as exemplars

In an age of increasing hostility toward believers in the healthcare arena on issues including abortion, assisted suicide, sex and gender, the faith community needs more Esthers and Daniels to stand up and speak out.

Esther, the courageous queen of Ahasuerus, averted a pogrom by risking her life to approach and entreat the king on behalf of her imperiled Jewish brethren. As she contemplated the risk and compared it to the impending consequences for her fellow believers if she did not speak up, Esther committed to taking a stand, concluding, “if I perish, I perish” (Esther 4:16).

Daniel, a young Jewish captive chosen to serve as a protégé of the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar, committed to not compromising his conscience. He wisely and respectfully obtained an accommodation from the king’s orders that would have violated his faith:

“But Daniel made up his mind that he would not defile himself with the king’s choice food or with the wine which he drank; so he sought permission from the commander of the officials that he might not defile himself” (Daniel 1:8, NASB).

Conscience advocates battle state and city governments

Dr. Frost and CMDA are taking a stand against the assault on faith and conscience by 19 state governments, the District of Columbia and the cities of New York and Chicago. Becket, the law firm that successfully represented Little Sisters of the Poor in a Supreme Court religious freedom case over a government contraceptives mandate, represents Dr. Frost and CMDA, who have intervened to protect the conscience rule in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

As Becket explains on its website,

Dr. Regina Frost has practiced medicine for 15 years, specializing in obstetrics and gynecology. She helps lead a network of female healthcare professionals called Women Physicians in Christ, a ministry of the Christian Medical & Dental Associations (CMDA) that is committed to supporting women physicians and dentists by integrating their personal, spiritual, and professional lives.
CMDA is an organization of over 19,000 healthcare professionals, including Dr. Frost, who are committed to living out their faith in their practice of medicine. CMDA members serve everyone and seek to treat all of their patients like Christ would, providing all with compassionate care, healing, and hope. CMDA medical professionals take an oath to do no harm and would never deny routine or life-saving care to anyone.Religious freedom protects the rights of individuals to live out their faith in all facets of their lives—including in their professions. This lawsuit threatens the ability of religious healthcare professionals to provide quality, compassionate healthcare, forcing them to choose between their conscience and their practice.

As Dr. Frost has realized, this is no time for believers to silently hide while passively hoping that somehow the controversy and the agitators will not reach us personally. Our right to follow our conscience and the teachings of our faith are under sustained attack, both from within the healthcare community and from without, in an aggressively secular culture untethered from morality.

If we don’t stand up, not only will other health professionals suffer harm and be driven out of healthcare, but also patients and communities will face needless and unfair limits on care.

No believer can stand above the fray

Regardless of how close the assault may be touching us personally at the moment, we need to stand up and speak out whenever we see an erosion of faith and conscience freedom.

In the 1930’s, Lutheran pastor Martin Niemoller at first welcomed the Nazi’s Third Reich. Eventually he learned that the State would countenance no competition from the Church.

After emerging from seven years in Nazi concentration camps, Pastor Niemoller summed up in a poem the lesson he had learned so painfully:

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

It’s only a matter of time before the battle reaches each one of us. We will do well, like Daniel, to “make up our minds” beforehand to stand firm.

Having yielded our lives--and livelihoods--to our Lord who suffered and died for us, we can resolve, as did Esther, “if I perish, I perish.” And then we need to speak out and make the most of our calling to engage “for such a time as this.”

Christian Medical Association applauds administration move to bind human tissue research to ethical considerations

Washington, DC –June 5, 2019--The 19,000-member Christian Medical Association (CMA, www.cmda.org) today voiced strong support for the administration's move to stop taxpayer funding of the use of fetal tissue, from elective abortions, for research purposes.

"This courageous and right decision gets the government and our tax dollars out of the sordid business of using tissue from developing babies who have died as a result of elective abortions," noted Jonathan Imbody, CMA Vice President for Government Affairs. 

"Our government now will focus our resources instead on developing sustainable, ethical research that has real potential to save real lives.

"This combination of adhering to life-honoring ethical standards while also aggressively pursuing and investing in scientific innovation is the best path to solid advances in medicine that every American can support and many patients can embrace for healing."

The National Institute of Health (NIH) is ending all intramural research that involves fetal tissue obtained from abortions. In the future, an ethics advisory board convened by the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) will evaluate projects that propose to use fetal tissue obtained from abortions. The NIH recently announced a $20 million research program to develop models that do not use fetal tissue from abortions.

The new HHS conscience rule: What it means to physicians and patients

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has issued a final rule that implements 25 federal conscience laws and strongly protects the exercise of conscience freedom by health professionals and health entities in HHS funded programs.  HHS had issued a proposed conscience rule in January 2018 and finalized the rule May 2 after reviewing some 242,000 public comments, including from the Christian Medical Association (CMA) and Freedom2Care, which strongly support the rule.

In a news release lauding the new rule, CMA CEO Dr. David Stevens said, 

Plaintiff Christian Medical Association welcomes intent of new HHS rule to restore intent of Congress on sex discrimination

Washington, DC, May 24, 2019--The 19,000-member Christian Medical Association (CMA, www.cmda.org and www.Freedom2Care.org) today welcomed as "a move toward restoring rationality regarding sex discrimination in healthcare" a new rule proposed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) that aims to restore the intent of Congress regarding sex discrimination in healthcare.

CMA CEO Designate Dr. Mike Chupp said, "While we and our attorneys are still reviewing this new rule, we welcome the intent of this new proposed rule as a move toward restoring rationality regarding sex discrimination in healthcare. We physicians know that prescriptions and medical procedures differ based on biological sex and that we must base our medical decisions on objective biology—not ideology.

"We will continue as always to care for all patients with compassion and competence while exercising professional, evidence-based medical judgment, adhering to objective ethical standards and at times, exercising conscience based upon moral standards."

CMA is party to a 2016 lawsuit that resulted in a federal court's preliminary injunction against the previous administration's HHS rule that attempted to redefine sex apart from biology to include internal perceptions of sex. Becket represents the CMA in that case. As also noted in that lawsuit, under the previous administration's rule, "HHS declined to add an explicit carve-out for abortion and abortion-related services parallel to the carve-out included in Title IX…."

The new rule, according to an HHS news release today, "proposes a return to the plain meaning of the words used by Congress in prohibiting sex discrimination."

Jonathan Imbody, CMA VP for Government Relations and Director of Freedom2Care, noted, "The proposed rule's stated purpose appears to be in line with what the American people have expressed through their elected representatives in Congress regarding sex discrimination, which is to ensure a level playing field for females and males, and also regarding abortion, which is to preserve conscience freedoms in healthcare.

"In the past, unelected agency officials attempted to use the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) to force an ideological gender agenda upon virtually all healthcare institutions and professionals, regardless of professional judgment, ethical norms or religious convictions. Effective care for patients requires distinguishing biology from ideology."

Medical organizations urge support of Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act

The following letter by life-affirming medical organizations is being sent today to U.S. senators:

February 19, 2019

Joint Medical Statement on S. 311

Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act

SUPPORT

Presented to the 116^th Congress U.S. Senate

Dear Senator,

As medical professional organizations and individuals representing over 30,000 physicians who practice according to the Hippocratic Oath, we write in support of S. 311, the Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act.

Medical facts are important. 

Fact 1. It is an undisputed scientific fact that a distinct, living human being exists in the womb of a pregnant mother.

From the moment of fertilization, a human being meets all of the scientific criteria for a living organism^[1] and is completely distinct from her/his mother, not a part of her/his mother’s body.  This is scientific fact.  It is therefore scientifically correct for S. 311 to identify the living survivors of abortions as human persons and afford those human beings the full protection of the law in the same way that infants of similar gestational ages are currently protected.

Fact 2. Abortion is NOT healthcare, much less an essential part of women’s health care and abortions in the third trimester are NOT done to save a woman’s life^[2]. 

The fact that over 85% of ob-gyns in a representative national survey do not perform abortions on their patients^[3] is glaring evidence that abortion is NOT an essential part of women’s healthcare.  The vast majority of abortions are done by abortion providers who do not provide any other kind of medical care for the woman. Abortion treats no disease. Pregnancy is not a disease, and deliberately killing the unborn child by abortion is NOT healthcare. 

It is clear from testimony by abortion practitioners during the Partial Birth Abortion Ban hearings^[4] that, unlike a delivery which separates the mother and her fetus for the purpose of life, an abortion separates the mother and the fetus with the purpose of guaranteeing that the baby is born dead.  That’s why a fetus who survives an abortion is called a “failed abortion”.  The separation did not fail to occur.  What “failed” to occur in a “failed abortion” is the guarantee of a dead baby.

There are rare circumstances in which a mother’s life is in jeopardy due to either pre-existing conditions or pregnancy complications.  It is extremely rare for this to occur prior to the point of viability (currently 22 weeks after last menstrual period, 20 weeks after fertilization). After 20 weeks fertilization age, it is NEVER necessary to intentionally kill the fetal human being in order to save a woman’s life.^[5]  In cases where the mother’s life actually is in danger in the latter half of pregnancy, there is not time for an abortion, because an abortion typically is a two to three-day process.  Instead, immediate delivery is needed in these situations, and can be done in a medically appropriate way (labor induction or C-section) by the woman’s own physician. We can, and do, save the life of the mother through delivery of an intact infant in a hospital where both the mother and her newborn can receive the care that they need.  There is no medical reason to intentionally kill that fetal human being through an inhumane abortion procedure, e.g. dismembering a living human being capable of feeling pain^{[6] [7] [8]}(Also see Appendix A), or saline induction which burns off the skin (See Appendix B), or feticide with subsequent induction.

Obstetricians who abide by the Hippocratic oath strive, to the best of our ability, to save both lives when at all possible. There are two patients under our care.  We never intentionally target the unborn child during the separation procedure in order to guarantee that the baby is born dead.

Fact 3. No matter the circumstances of their birth, infants who are born alive must be given appropriate medical care.

Any infant who is born alive, at any stage of development, is a person entitled to the protections of the law and appropriate care as a new patient. There is no scientific or legal reason to distinguish between human beings born after an attempted abortion and human beings born after attempted live birth. A distressed newborn should get immediate emergency care and a professional evaluation to determine appropriate steps to promote his/her health and well-being. Obviously, a distressed newly born baby presents for emergency medical care at the moment of her or his birth, regardless of whether that birth results from an abortion attempt or attempted live delivery.  EMTALA mandates hospitals to examine and treat any person who presents for emergency medical care. 

These same principles apply in cases in which the human being in utero has a disability or has been given a life-limiting diagnosis, such as anencephaly.  Human beings who are disabled at birth deserve the same respect and dignity afforded to able-bodied children at similar gestational ages. The terms “incompatible with life” or “fatal fetal malformations” are not medical terms. For many children with medical conditions previously labelled as such, survival for years has been accomplished^[9], and is very possible when supportive care is provided.

Additionally, as health care professionals, we are notoriously poor predictors of whether infants will live or die when supportive medical care is offered^[10]. If a fetus has a potentially life-limiting diagnosis which is expected to result in death shortly after birth, families should be presented with the potential benefits of medical care and, accepting that such care might only prolong an inevitable death, be offered perinatal hospice. ^{[11] [12]}

Perinatal hospice respects the human dignity of the newborn and allows the family to hold and care for their child after birth, celebrating the precious time they have together as well as allowing them to grieve the brevity of this same gift. Perinatal hospice provides optimal care for the mother, honors the life of her child and allows the family the opportunity to acknowledge, love, and mourn its newest member. Literature comparing outcomes of delivery and perinatal hospice care with abortion in cases of anencephaly reveals significantly better mental health outcomes for mothers who do not abort. ^{[13] [14] [15]} Perinatal hospice is compassionate and comprehensive health care for women whose fetuses have life-limiting diagnoses.

S.311 provides a scientifically sound, medically accurate, and respectful approach to ensure that the innocent human being who survives an attempted abortion will be treated with the same human dignity and respect that similarly aged human beings receive in the course of good neonatal medical care.  S. 311 ensures that human beings with disabilities are not targeted for intentional killing at the moment of birth.

For all of these above reasons, we, the undersigned medical organizations and individuals, strongly urge you to pass S. 311.  Thank you for your consideration of these views.

Respectfully submitted,

Donna J. Harrison M.D.  Executive Director
American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists^[16]

Michelle Cretella M.D. Executive Director

American College of Pediatricians^[17]

John Schirger, M.D. President,

Catholic Medical Association^[18]

Dr. Carolyn Laabs, PhD, FNP-BC, RN

Chair, Ethics and Spirituality Committee 

National Association of Catholic Nurses, USA[19]

David Stevens, CEO

Christian Medical Association^[20]

Jane Orient, Executive Director

Association of American Physicians and Surgeons^[21]

Janice L. Benton, Executive Director
National Catholic Partnership on Disability[22]

Robin Pierucci, MD, MA

Neonatologist

Catholic Medical Association

Martin J McCaffrey, MD, CAPT USN (Ret)

Professor of Pediatrics

Division of Neonatal-Perinatal Medicine

Department of Pediatrics

UNC School of Medicine

Chaple Hill, North Carolina

---

^[1] Condic M. When Does Human Life Begin? The Scientific Evidence and Terminology Revisited. University of St. Thomas Journal of Law and Public Policy 8(1) Fall 2013 Article 4. Available at embryodefense.org/MaureenCondicSET.pdf (accessed 2019 02 18)

^[2] Greene-Foster D and Kimpart K. Who Seeks Abortions at or After 20 weeks? Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health 2013 45(4):210-218 doi:10.1363/4521013.

^[3] Stulberg D, Dude A, Dahlquist B, Curlin F.  Abortion Provision Among Practicing Obstetrician-Gynecologists  Obstet Gynecol. 2011 September ; 118(3): 609–614. doi:10.1097/AOG.0b013e31822ad973.

^[4] Gonzales v Carhart USSC. Available at supremecourt.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-380.pdf (accessed 2019 02 18)

See page 9: “Yet one doctor would not allow delivery of a live fetus younger than 24 weeks because “the objective of [his] procedure is to perform an abortion,” not a birth. App. in No. 05–1382, at 408–409. The doctor thus answered in the affirmative when asked whether he would “hold the fetus’ head on the internal side of the [cervix] in order to collapse the skull” and kill the fetus before it is born. Id., at 409; see also Carhart, supra, at 862, 878. Another doctor testified he crushes a fetus’ skull not only to reduce its size but also to ensure the fetus is dead before it is removed.”

See also page 11:  “(b) As used in this section— “(1) the term ‘partial-birth abortion’ means an abortion in which the person performing the abortion— “(A) deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother, for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus; and “(B) performs the overt act, other than completion of delivery, that kills the partially delivered living fetus;…” [emphasis added]

^[5] Dublin Declaration on Maternal Health. Available at dublindeclaration.com (accessed 2019 02 13).

Excerpt: “As experienced practitioners and researchers in obstetrics and gynaecology, we affirm that direct abortion – the purposeful destruction of the unborn child – is not medically necessary to save the life of a woman. We uphold that there is a fundamental difference between abortion, and necessary medical treatments that are carried out to save the life of the mother, even if such treatment results in the loss of life of her unborn child. We confirm that the prohibition of abortion does not affect, in any way, the availability of optimal care to pregnant women.”

^[6] Testimony of Dr. Maureen Condic, District of Columbia H R.179J, 2013 05 23. Available at: govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-113hhrg81175/pdf/CHRG-113hhrg81175.pdf, pp 36-46

^[7] American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists Practice Bulletin 2: Fetal Pain. Available at  aaplog.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/PB-2-Fetal-Pain.pdf (accessed 2019 02 18).

^[8] American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists Fetal Pain Fact Sheet. Available at aaplog.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/2019-02-13-AAPLOG-fact-sheet-fetal-pain.pdf (accessed 2019 02 18).

^[9] Wilkinson DJ, Thiele P, Watkins A, De Crespigny L. Fatally flawed? A review and ethical analysis of lethal congenital malformations. BJOG. 2012 Oct;119(11):1302-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2012.03450.x.

^[10] Meadow W et al. Just, in time: ethical implications of serial predictions of death and morbidity for ventilated premature infants. Pediatrics. 2008 Apr;121(4):732-40. doi: 10.1542/peds.2006-2797.

^[11] Perinatal Hospice and Palliative Care. Available at perinatalhospice.org (accessed 02 18 2019).

^[12] American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists Practice Bulletin 1: Perinatal Hospice. Available at aaplog.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/PB-1-Perinatal-Hospice.pdf (accessed 2019 02 18).

^[13] Cope H, Garrett ME, Gregory S, Ashley-Koch A. Pregnancy continuation and organizational religious activity following prenatal diagnosis of a lethal fetal defect are associated with improved psychological outcome. Prenat Diagn. 2015 Aug;35(8):761-768. doi: 10.1002/pd.4603.

^[14] Calhoun BC, Reitman JS, Hoeldtke NJ. Perinatal Hospice: A Response to Partial Birth Abortion for Infants with Congenital Defects. Issues in Law and Medicine 1997; 13(2):125-143.

^[15] Calhoun BC, Hoeldtke NJ, Hinson RM, Judge KM. Perinatal Hospice: Should all centers have this service? Neonatal Network 1997;16(6):101-102.

^[16] The American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists is a 4,600 member organization consisting of OB/GYNs and other physicians and medical professionals who work in the field of reproductive health, and who practice according to the Hippocratic Oath. The mission of AAPLOG is to provide an evidence-based defense of both our pregnant patient and her unborn child.

^[17] The American College of Pediatricians is a Hippocratic medical organization dedicated to using the best available science to promote the optimal health of all children from their conception until natural death.

^[18] The Catholic Medical Association is a national, physician-led community of over 2,300 healthcare professionals consisting of 109 local guilds. CMA mission is to inform, organize, and inspire its members, in steadfast fidelity to the teachings of the Catholic Church, to uphold the principles of the Catholic faith in the science and practice of medicine.

[19] National Association of Catholic Nurses, USA gives nurses of different backgrounds, but with the same Roman Catholic values, the opportunity to promote moral principles within the Catholic context in nursing and stimulate desire for professional development.  This approach to Roman Catholic doctrine focuses on:  educational programs, spiritual nourishment, patient advocacy, and integration of faith and health.

^[20] The Christian Medical and Dental Associations is a 19,000+ member organization in the United States, consisting of healthcare professionals from multiple disciplines including medicine, dentistry, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, physiotherapists, optometrists, pharmacists, and many others. The mission of CMDA is to motivate, educate, and equip Christian healthcare professionals to glorify God by serving with professional excellence as witnesses of Christ love and compassion to all peoples and by advancing biblical principles of healthcare within the church and to our culture.

^[21] AAPS was founded in 1943 to preserve and promote the practice of private medicine. It upholds the sanctity of the patient-physician relationship and the ethical principles in the Oath of Hippocrates.

[22] Rooted in Gospel values that affirm the dignity of every person, the National Catholic Partnership on Disability (NCPD), founded in 1982, works collaboratively to ensure meaningful participation of people with disabilities in all aspects of the life of the Church and society.