Religious Bigotry in Action

Two years ago, I attended a bioethics conference by the Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity in East Lansing, Michigan, and heard Dr. William Cheshire speak.  Dr. Cheshire is a practicing neurologist at the Mayo clinic in Jacksonville, Florida.  At the conference, Dr. Cheshire participated in a round table discussion regarding a number of bioethical issues, including end of life care.   Here are Dr. Cheshire's qualifications from Mayo Clinic and from the Center of Bioethics and Human Dignity.

During that conference, I distinctly remember discussing some of the more difficult cases in deciding when to withhold care from those who are dying.  These are often not easy decisions, even when discussing tube feedings.  For instance, when someone is dying of cancer, it may be ethical to withhold tube feeds (with patient consent).  There are important reasons behind this.  A terminal cancer patient usually dies from malnutrition due to their tumor load.  In this instance, giving a patient tube feeds simply gives the tumor more nutrition, enabling it  to grow larger, and causing the patient more pain.  If, however, the tube feeds are stopped, the patient succumbs sooner, but less painfully than if the tube feeds are given.  This is important information for a patient to know in order to make this informed decision at the end of life.

In regards to Terri Schiavo, these are not considerations in her case.  Terri is not terminally ill, is not in any pain, and has not given her consent for the withholding of nutrition.  My point in mentioning this conference is that Dr. Cheshire does not believe that stopping tube feeds is always unethical.  In fact, there are certain situations in which it may be the most ethical option. 

Little did I know that Bill would become the center of this latest set of appeals for Terri's life.   It is understandable that different physicians would have different opinions as to Terri's condition, but it is interesting to see that Dr. Cheshire's assessment of Terri's condition is not to be trusted because of his religion!  The LA Times actually states this in the beginning of their article:

Doctor Says Examination Changed His Mind

A neurologist contends Schiavo could be in a 'minimally conscious state.' But critics cite his conservative Christian background.

Another bioethicist who has not recently seen Terri also questions Bill's motives:

"He generally has a reasonably thoughtful, conservative Christian right-to-life perspective," said David Magnus, co-director of the Stanford University Center of Biomedical Ethics. "He definitely is not a neutral party with respect to these culture wars. He has turf to defend."

I wonder if Dr. Magnus considers himself "neutral" in the culture wars.  How can anyone interested in bioethics not have an opinion about something as important as this?  The question is not whether or not Dr. Cheshire has an opinion (for no one is neutral), but that he does not have the "correct" one. 

The NY Times goes even farther, implying in the headline that Dr. Cheshire cannot separate his ideology from his clinical skills:

A Diagnosis With a Dose of Religion

Dr. Ronald Cranford, a neurologist and medical ethicist at the University of Minnesota Medical School who has examined Ms. Schiavo on behalf of the Florida courts and declared her to be irredeemably brain-damaged, said, "I have no idea who this Cheshire is," and added: "He has to be bogus, a pro-life fanatic. You'll not find any credible neurologist or neurosurgeon to get involved at this point and say she's not vegetative."

Obviously to Dr. Cranford, someone who believes in the sanctity of human life is a fanatic unable to clinically assess patients.

Have we seen the religious views of anyone else in this case reported?  Have we questioned another physician's or judge's findings because they were naturalists or atheists?  The clear implication is that followers of Jesus Christ who are also physicians do not have the ability to rationally review a situation - unlike secularists who do.  There is a word for prejudging someone's assessment based solely on their religion.  It is bigotry.