In the not too distant past, we thought the medical profession to be objective. We understood biology to be a matter of objective truth, and doctors – tasked with responding to these truths in a way which keeps society healthy – took their obligation so seriously that they did not bend the truth in to fit in with public pressure.
We have seen so many businesses and individuals pressured into compliance by the LGBTI lobby, which has now claimed its latest victim: the Australian Medical Association. The AMA has released a document to expresses its official support of same-sex marriage, effectively turning its professional commitments into a political statement. In the document, the AMA describes same-sex marriage as a public health issue:
“Australian same-sex couples are excluded from the institution of marriage; an omission that has significant psychosocial and physiological health consequences for LGBTIQ identifying Australians.”
According to the AMA, the “denial of same-sex marriage” constitutes “structural discrimination” which has “real and significant mental and psychological health impacts”. However, they fail to cite actual scientific research to support their claims, abandoning basic scientific research principles in favour of ideology.
While the organisation has been described as conservative, this is a radical step which uses the organisation’s considerable clout to push progressive politics. Its position statement declares the following to be the “position” of the AMA:
1. It is the right of any adult and their consenting adult partner to have their relationship recognised under the Marriage Act 1961, regardless of gender.
2. Current anti-discrimination laws should be maintained and enforced to ensure that businesses cannot withhold goods or services from clients due to their gender or sexual orientation.
3. There are real and significant mental and physiological health impacts arising from structural discrimination, and the AMA supports moves to eliminate it in all of its forms.
4. All Australian doctors should offer sensitive, non-discriminatory care to all of their patients, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity.
Unbelievably, the first two “positions” taken relate to legal issues of human rights and anti-discrimination laws, which is beyond the AMA’s expertise and purview. The third is a generic statement about discrimination rather than being particularly about the redefinition of marriage, because the AMA has no research to back up its “public health” claims. Finally, the fourth is something we have come to expect from LGBTI lobbyists: a desire to override the freedoms of others.
Prof Kerryn Phelps, former head of the AMA, tried to hide her political agenda behind the prestigious sheen of the medical profession – but she failed. As a lesbian who was ‘married’ in New York in 2011 to another woman, Phelps is clearly pushing a personal agenda.
“I don't think the religious, cultural right-wing conservatives now have anywhere to hide. There is no excuse for delaying this any further. The medical profession has carefully considered the health consequences of continued discrimination and made an emphatic statement that it should end.
“I think politicians now have a duty of care to the community to make sure marriage equality is introduced as soon as possible.”
It is evident that the AMA has stopped representing its members; medical professionals decried their lack of consultation, and their refusal to seek a vote of its members before issuing the position statement. The AMA’s refusal to hear the voice of the people it is supposed to represent is the modus operandi of the LGBTI lobby, which successfully campaigned for a people’s vote on marriage to be shut down.
If we can't even trust the AMA to use scientific reasoning on this, to where can we turn? What other organisations will cave to the LGBTI activist lobby? Same-sex marriage activists have already gone after schools, charities, and corporations – now they are targeting the bodies we trust to be neutral when it comes to ideology.
The AMA’s stance on this issue is a politicisation of the discipline of medicine in order to push a progressive agenda. By framing the issue as a medical emergency, these activists have used their position to push a contested political objective in a highly irresponsible way. Shame on them for abandoning the principles of science to uphold the politically correct demands of the day.