From Brother Ivo (WARNING: THIS REPORT CONTAINS DISTURBING IMAGES
Human beings seem to have a fascination with what might be called ‘the edges of humanity’.
Observed behaviours in the animal kingdom generate theories of how we came to be as we are: we are intrigued by stories or theories about Neanderthals or Bigfoot, and we are often invited to consider that animals are ‘just like us’. Many in the animal rights movement want to blur the distinction between the human and non-human, even to the extent of conferring legal rights upon other creatures of varying degrees of sentience.
There is a similar darker fascination at the other end of the spectrum.
We devour stories about inhuman ‘monsters’ like the Moors Murderers
, Jeffrey Dahmer
and Dr Joseph Mengele
. And when there is insufficient news of the known, we are attracted to speculative accounts of Jack the Ripper
, or fictionalise human depravity, thrilling ourselves with characters like Hannibal Lecter
With such widespread appetite and market for the cruel, the bestial, the chilling and the macabre, it is all the more remarkable that the mainstream media in both the USA and the United Kingdom have passed up on one of the most horrifying criminal cases in recent history. It is the Philadelphia trial of Dr Kermit Gosnell.
It is a story more gruesome than that of Dr Harold Shipman or Mick Philpott, and has so many aspects of shock and horror that it seems almost inconceivable that it has not attracted the attention of the tabloid press which normally falls into a feeding-frenzy when offered such widespread evidence of greed, professional malpractice, illegality, exploitation, ghoulishness and moral vacuity.
According to the Grand Jury Report in The Atlantic
the doctor earned over $1.5 million a year running a clinic whose hygienic standards would shame that of a third world slum doctor.
When the FBI entered the premises in 2010, they were shocked to find it had cat faeces on the floor, blood stains on the operating couches and unsterile instruments. He routinely infected patients during operations, some with venereal disease, because he used the same instruments on multiple patients without sterilising them between operations.
There was no tested oxygen machine, the key to the emergency exit had been lost, and the resuscitation equipment did not function.
WARNING: THIS REPORT CONTAINS DISTURBING IMAGES
The unqualified staff he employed have given first-hand evidence of how he set them work with inadequate training to anaesthetise his patients while he wasn't present. His drugs were often out-of-date and his staff, some as young as 15, had to manage with poor or no supervision. One of his staff described the way in which she delivered drugs and anaesthetic on a trial-and-error basis.
One of his patients died and over the years emergency treatment was needed as a result of errors that should not be made by any competent doctor. He had perforated bowels, bladders and wombs with his dirty instruments, leading to serious infection and complications. Despite a steady stream of grossly damaged women to the local hospitals, there appears to have been a conspiracy of silence among medical professionals, public health officials and, now, journalists in print and broadcast media alike.
His clinic had not been visited by health regulators for 17 years. Had they done so, his ‘house of horror’ would have been discovered earlier.
He segregated his waiting rooms, so that the white patients were marginally better managed. That, in today's world, would normally guarantee front-page news.
He photographed his women patients’ genitals on his camera phone, ostensibly for ‘research purposes’ which he never published, and for which he had not received authorisation. He had a particular interest in third-world women who had suffered female genital mutilation: his staff heard him admiring the skill of those whose who had stitched the women's labia together. That kind of thing normally excites the sub-editors, but even that did not have sufficient news-value to bring Dr Gosnell into the mainstream press.
Not even his cavalier management of medical waste shocked the mainstream media. Human tissue was found sealed in plastic bags, refrigerators and jars for no medical or scientific reason.
His staff were corrupted by his standards and callousness. Employee abuse would ordinarily excite some media interest, comment, and inquiry as to how ordinary citizens can be drawn into the kind of blind compliance and moral degeneracy that was once seen in places like Auschwitz and Dachau.
Yet, knowing the facts which were coming in a steady stream of matter-of-fact evidence – much of it admitted by the defendant – the news rooms of America and Britain looked the other way. All of them, including our own national broadcaster, have consistently failed to do their job of reporting the facts and exploring the issues surrounding this case.
Journalists are charged with reporting such stories and then considering what questions of importance arise from them. Sadly, the victims were not celebrities, but mainly poor people of ethnic minority; people of no importance; voiceless because the media refuses to give them a voice.
The greatest victims were babies: 47 human foetuses were found in his clinic stored in refrigerators and household containers in vary stages of decomposition, together with a bizarre collection of babies’ feet.
Dr Gosnell’s specialism explains completely the reason for the media silence: he is an abortionist, and this fact alone accounts for why he enjoyed immunity on both sides of the Atlantic from press attention for much of his trial.
In the news rooms of the western world, the staff have become as indifferent to killing babies as Dr Gosnell's de-sensitised workers and the Kapos of Belsen
. They have been recruited into a culture shaped by the ‘woman's right to choose’, so that now they never see an abortion they don't like.
As US commentator Ann Coulter has pointed out, abortion is the one constitutional right that ‘can never’ be shown on national television. We have seen actual executions, and sexual intercourse graphically depicted. Postmortems have been shown, and become the central event of programmes like Silent Witness
. Often the malefactors will be deranged Christians.
Brother Ivo is confident that no TV or film executive is planning Dr Gosnell – the Movie
The pro-abortion lobby has so closed the minds of the shapers of our culture to the facts of abortion that they are utterly incurious when cases like this occur. The BBC is less competent at its job than Dr Gosnell was at his – and he has a collection of babies' feet to prove it.
Fortunately, largely thanks to Twitter
, the matter came to the attention of US Congress men and the matter has begun to emerge
Brother Ivo has read the distressing material so you don't have to, but if you wish to study it, the Grand Jury Report should be found HERE
. (Unaccountably this link does not always work).
The first British newspaper report came out last Friday in the Daily Telegraph
Five weeks into the trial the BBC has yet to broadcast on the subject, although on 15 April 2013 an anodyne report appeared on its website
This low-key response is almost certainly because Dr Gosnell's case takes us to the question of what it means to be human and humane, and this is why it is so important. What he was doing crossed a fundamental line in law and morality between abortion and infanticide.
Abortion prioritises the health of the mother. Dr Gosnell is accused of killing babies after the child was outside of the mother, at a time when the risks of childbirth were passed, though they were now entering the risk-laden world of Dr Gosnell's post-operative care.
These were babies well into the third trimester. They were needy, vulnerable independent human beings, more capable of life (if offered the same care) than many younger premature wanted
children. That was the only ‘rational’ distinction between them and other children who have survived birth at 26 weeks and beyond.
Some were born crying and independently breathing: instead of offering care to these new patients to whom he owed an independent physician’s duty, Dr Gosnell cut the backs of their necks, plunged his scissors into the wound, and cut the child's spinal cord. He taught staff to conduct this procedure which he termed ‘snipping’. Some nights, he needed others’ help because he had so many children being born at the same time that one of his staff giving evidence, described the scene of carnage as ‘raining foetuses’.
His defence team are denying the live births. They will doubtless explain the purpose of ‘snipping’ a dead one in due course.
There is a political reason behind the silence amongst a media that subjected President Obama to as little scrutiny as Dr Gosnell. There have been efforts to legislate for doctors to be required to provide full medical treatment to babies who survive abortion procedures. Three times the President has voted against it, imperiously ignoring the possibility that men like Dr Gosnell exist. The US Federal Government provides 45% of the $1billion budget of Planned Parenthood, the US major abortion provider.
They, like the President, are very equivocal about this issue of infanticide as this video
demonstrates. The lady struggling to answer the clear and direct questions is Alisa Lapolt Snow, a lobbyist for Planned Parenthood giving evidence to a committee of Florida legislators.
Dr Gosnell's trial puts the inconvenient truth of abortion and infanticide plainly into the public domain. It puts the brutal bloody facts to the sanitised language and could prove to be the tipping point in the public debate as ordinary people see for the first time how far the pro-abortion lobby are prepared to go in defending their industry.
There is a reason we talk about the ‘slippery slope’.
There are advocates of late abortion in the UK. Ann Furedi of the largest British Abortion provider BPAS has addressed the issue plainly. His Grace has explored this
Secular philosophers like Richard Dawkins are comfortable to champion the Dr Gosnell's infanticide morality, if not his clinical practices
. He may limit this to children with incurable disease or disability, but he is clearly closer to Dr Gosnell when it comes to crossing the Judaeo-Christian line that all human life is sacred.
Once the new born may be ‘snipped’, there is no great moral distance to the wider eugenic destruction of the disabled, the elderly or anyone else considered inconvenient.
Dr Gosnell faces capital charges. Under Pennsylvania law, if convicted, he will be kept in humane conditions while his right to life is painstakingly examined by the Courts. He might then be respectfully strapped to a clean gurney, given a pre-med to send him to sleep, and then quietly sent by lethal injection to meet his Maker.
Imagine if he were to be ‘snipped’. Do you think the BBC, Dr Dawkins and the mainstream media would comfortably ignore that, too?
(Posted by Brother Ivo).