Protection of Conscience Project Library
Service, not Servitude
Extract
The attitude of psychiatrists to abortion is reminiscent of the attitude of dentists to fluoridation. It is my belief that the wide application of both proposals would result in much less work for dentists and for psychiatrists.
Boulding J. (Correspondence) Abortion. Can Med Assoc J. 1970;103(6):645-646.
Author Summary
In a city of 200,000, 119 therapeutic abortions were performed during the period 1962 to 1968. Multiple grounds were commonly given for abortion; these often included depression. Very frequently the absence of support from other people was a factor in deciding to perform abortion. Only five psychiatrists were involved in 82 cases seen in psychiatric consultation. Abortions carried out for more conventional medical reasons, including rubella, decreased in 1967 and 1968 but there was an overall increase beginning in 1967. In the later years of the study (1967-68) a higher proportion of patients were single, younger, had had no previous pregnancy and were aborted later in pregnancy; more were sterilized. A marked increase in abortion rate related particularly to the activity of one of the psychiatrists. One hundred and sixty-six abortions were performed in 1969; a comparable figure (179) was obtained from one other Canadian centre;another centre had performed more (291); two others, 109 and 63; the combined total for 27 other centres from whom replies were obtained was 186.
Boyce R, Osborn R. Therapeutic abortion in a Canadian city. Can Med Assoc J. 1970;103(5):461-466.
Extract
Canadians, including those within the medical profession, range from a truly “liberal” pole, which views abortion within the first 12 weeks of gestation as simply a means of secondary birth control, to a truly “conservative” pole, which views interruption of pregnancy in any circumstances as murder. . . In a just Canadian society in the year 1970 it would seem appropriate that occupants of neither polar position should be allowed to impose their moral attitudes on the rest of the country. . .
Parenthetically one must question why any group requires the assistance of state law to ensure that its members adhere to its ethical, moral or religious code. Certainly proponents of the truly “liberal” position have no intention of trying to force any woman to have an abortion against her will. . .
. . . Doctors should not be obliged to assume the function of gatekeepers to decide which unwanted children should be allowed into this overpopulated world and which ones should not. The moral aspect of this question should reside solely with the patient and not with the physician. His role should be to ensure that the patient really does want the pregnancy terminated and to make sure that the procedure is carried out early and safely. If the doctor’s moral position on this question precludes his providing her with the care required, he is now ethically bound by The Canadian Medical Association’s code of ethics to inform her that this is so, while making it clear that this is his own personal attitude. . .
CMAJ. (Editorial) Abortion in Canada. Can Med Assoc J. 1970 Aug 01;103(3):298-299.
Summary
Page long comment by CMA official who encountered feminist pickets outside the CMA office accusing the association of being anti-abortion, accusing gynecologists of lying about legality of abortion and refusing to distribute contraceptives to the unmarried. Also demanding abortion on demand. “I hope that the demands of the Women’s Liberation Movement will not prevail, if for no more lofty reason than that the plight of doctors, nurses and hospitals would be worse than it is”.
ADK. CMA anti-abortion. Can Med Assoc J. 1970;102(13):1342.
Extract
The main purpose of my letter was to clarify what I thought was Dr. Coffey’s confusion between moral and religious issues on therapeutic abortion. . . . Hence that “infamous” third paragraph was not an argument in support of therapeutic abortion but a clearer definition of the moral issues involved. How Dr. Harrison was able to extrapolate the basically sociological data to include implied support of a euthanasia program against 270,000 mental defectives and Hitler’s subsequent genocide of Jews during World War II is totally beyond my comprehension.
Borsch R. (Correspondence) Therapeutic Abortion. Can Med Assoc J. 1970;102(11):1209-1210.
Extract
The argument advanced in the third paragraph of Dr. R. N. Borsch’s letter (Canad. Med. Ass. 1., 102: 642, 1970) is very convincing; but so it was the first time it was used in the book “The Release of the Destruction of Life Devoid of Value”, published in Leipzig in 1920. . . I do not question that Dr. Borsch has a real concern for the human problem or his conviction about his beliefs. I do question, however, the wisdom of accepting a philosophical position which led to the atrocities in Nazi Germany..
Harrison CP. (Correspondence) Therapeutic Abortion. Can Med Assoc J. 1970 May 30;102(11):1209.
Extract
However, he seems to have confused morality with the religious (and more specifically Roman Catholic) stand against destroying a living entity. Thus, his letter is an attempt to deal with the therapeutic abortion problem on religious grounds. . . I also take issue with Dr.Coffey’s comment that the medical indications for therapeutic abortion are ”mainly psychiatric.” Psychiatric indications are actually just as many as medical, which are few, if any. However, it is the psychiatrist who is thrust in the breach of the current legislation and must take liberties to interpret the law to fit his own patient. . .
Borsch R. (Correspondence) Therapeutic Abortion. Can. Med. Assoc. J.. 1970;102(6):642. Available from:
Extract
. . . I can only touch on some of the reasons why I am opposed to therapeutic abortion. My main reason is a moral one, but first a word from a purely medical standpoint. It is being increasingly realized that medical indications for therapeutic abortion are few, if any, and that they are mainly psychiatric. But for every psychiatrist who would say that in a certain case the patient would benefit by having an abortion there would be another who would disagree and say that the long-term effect on the patient’s mind outweighed any immediate beneficial effect that the procedure might have. . . . My plea is that we as a profession not unwittingly commit a moral wrong which future generations of doctors will accept as the norm to the detriment of our human society. My contention is that when a doctor is caring for a pregnant women, he really has two patients on his hands even though one may be very tiny. Is it ever justifiable to kill one patient in the hope that it will improve the lot of the other?
Coffey P. (Correspondence) Therapeutic Abortion. Can Med Assoc J. 1970 Jan 17;102(1):90-91.
Extract
While claiming that there is no suggestion that any general practitioner be excluded from assessing that an abortion is necessary or desirable, what is being sought by the opponents of the Act in its present form is that one of the two doctors should be a consultant gynaecologist holding office in the N.H.S. . . By restricting the operation of ‘the Act to a minority of the profession, many of whom are opposed to it on religious and other grounds, will cripple it.
Chisholm N. (Correspondence) Abortion Act Amendment. Br Med J. 1969 Sep 27;3(5673):783. Available from:
Extract
. . . the popular demand for abortion in our present permissive society is hardly going to decrease, and if the B.M.A. and Royal College are successful in their present efforts the entire abortion demand will then be directed solely at the N.H.S. consultants and the N.H.S. hospital beds to the detriment of both. The essential point, surely, is that the Act as it stands is a bad Act and no amount of piecemeal tinkering will make it better.
Jones G. (Correspondence) Pregnancy Termination. Br Med J. 1969 Aug 02;3(5665):297.