Journal OpEd Archives - Page 3 of 4 - Protection of Conscience Project Library

Who is worse? Fanatics or their followers?

Douglas Waugh

Canadian Medical Association Journal, CMAJ — Canadian Medical Association Journal

Extract
When Dr. Garson Romalis was shot in Vancouver in November – police have suggested there is a link between the shooting and his performance of abortions – I realized there are certain aspects of human behaviour that I will never figure out. What could give rise to such hatred? What mysterious willingness causes people to let themselves be led into destructive and pointless violence? . . . Although the motives in these cases are undoubtedly complex, it seems clear that each of the fanatic snipers intended to kill, maim or scare the daylights out of these physicians and others like them. And although society as a whole reacted to the events with revulsion, there were without doubt people who said of each case: “Right on! That’s the proper treatment for those baby killers.” . . . Even if we must accept the occasional appearance of a misguided or mad killer among us, must we also accept the frightening cluster of approving supporters who almost inevitably turn up to endorse the madman and his ideas?

Waugh D. Who is worse? Fanatics or their followers?. Can Med Assoc J. 1995 Jan 01;152(1):90.

Female circumcision: When medical ethics confronts cultural values

Eike-Henner Kluge

Extract
Canadian physicians cannot consistently accept the principle of respect for people in the name of medical ethics, and then perform procedures they know to be medically inappropriate, harmful and demeaning only because they do not want to offend a misplaced cultural sensitivity.

Kluge E-H. Female circumcision: When medical ethics confronts cultural values. Can Med Assoc J. 1993 Jan 15;148(2):288-289.

Fetal rights: Supreme Court tosses ball back in Parliament’s court

Eike-Henner Kluge

Extract
The case is of interest to doctors, but not because it deals with midwifery and its legality in Canada – the Supreme Court decision is silent on that point. At issue was the status of the human fetus: Is a full-term human fetus that is partially born a person in the eyes of the criminal law? The court decided it is not. . . . The Supreme Court has decided this case on very narrow legal grounds and it has carefully avoided coming to grips with the issue of whether a fetus is a person in the eyes of the law. This is not surprising. On several occasions, such as cases involving Morgentaler5 and Daigle,6 the Supreme Court has made clear that the status of the fetus should not be resolved in court – the court is not prepared to do Parliament’s work.

Kluge E-H. Fetal rights: Supreme Court tosses ball back in Parliament’s court. Can Med Assoc J. 1991 May 01;144(9):1154-1155.

Euthanasia and related taboos

Eike-Henner Kluge

Extract
Like it or not, physicians are going to be reading a lot about euthanasia in the next few years. . . . Many physicians are more or less comfortable with the idea of withholding or withdrawing “medically useless” treatment. In other words, they accept passive euthanasia. . . . .If the medical profession thinks a physician might become responsible for a patient’s death through inaction, but without automatically bearing moral guilt, why does it insist that a physician who becomes responsible for the death of a patient through action automatically becomes morally guilty? . . . Medical ethics should never be decided by consensus or because of what is politically expedient. . .I am not making a plea for active euthanasia. I am suggesting that Canadian physicians should look at this issue honestly and openly.

Kluge E-H. Euthanasia and related taboos. Can Med Assoc J. 1991 Feb 01;144(3):359-360.

Giving death a helping hand

Mina Gasser Battagin

Extract
Can Christians accept martyrdom on the one hand and reject euthanasia on the other? What makes one form of killing acceptable, the other reprehensible? What judgements are to be made, for example, if, during childbirth, a choice must be made between saving the life of the child or the life of the mother? How do we decide whose life is more important and, therefore, whose life must be saved? Who has the most to lose or the most to gain? What is fair? And who makes that decision?

Battagin MG. Giving death a helping hand. Can Med Assoc J. 1991;144(3):358-359.

When passion displaces logic

Douglas Waugh

Extract
An ancient Chinese curse, “may you live in interesting times”, may turn out to be punishment for some of our misdeeds as the 20th century draws to a close. . . . Unless our society is willing to accept a compromise between the humane aspirations of pro- choice and the species priority of pro-life, we may be doomed to continue the cyclic alternation of dominant conservative and then liberal forces, as has been the case during the last several centuries. These interesting times may indeed be a curse.

Waugh D. When passion displaces logic. Can Med Assoc J. 1989 Oct 01;141(7):707.

Abortion: the issue the CMA has refused to address is life

David Knickle

Extract
The CMA’s new statement shifts the balance very heavily away from the sanctity of human life and places more emphasis on these pregnancy-related problems. Surely this is contrary to our traditional medical ethic of protecting life and curing disease. . .

The issue for our profession should be this: What is medically acceptable? We must set our standards of ethical practice. Surely we are capable of defining what is therapeutic and what is non- therapeutic in life-and-death situations. The issue here is not whether we are pro-choice or pro-life, or for or against abortion on demand. The issue is simply whether we will hold to our traditional medical ethic of protecting life and treating disease.

Knickle D. Abortion: the issue the CMA has refused to address is life. Can Med Assoc J. 1988 Nov 15;139(10):990.

Abortion: it is time for doctors to get off the fence

Myre Sim

Extract
When Germany occupied Holland during the Second World War, it declared that it would introduce its Nuremberg Laws. They allowed for the sterilization and liquidation of the “unfit” and other acts that were later declared crimes against humanity. . . .Dutch physicians declared that they had to accept the fact they were living in an occupied country during wartime and were, therefore, bound by certain laws, but they reaffirmed their responsibility to respect all human life. They would not yield on the issue. . . . Dutch doctors preserved their ethical code. . . .[a] medical procedure [that] involves the destruction of human life. . . strikes at the roots of medical ethics: respect for human life. I consider abortion on demand the precursor of euthanasia on demand. . . Are doctors to wait to see which way things are going before they decide which path to follow, or should they take a lead in restoring honour to the profession?

Sim M. Abortion: it is time for doctors to get off the fence. Can Med Assoc J. 1988 Apr 15;138(8):742-743.

The abortion of thinking

Paul de Bellefeille

Extract
The Canadian Medical Association’s policy summary on abortion must be questioned. Although the summary may represent the consensus of some people at the executive level, it does not correspond to the views of the majority of CMA members. . . . medical problems require medical solutions; and when an expectant mother has medical difficulties the medical solution in good contemporary obstetrics is almost never termination of the pregnancy. The solution to socioeconomic problems must also be socioeconomic. To propose medical solutions for socioeconomic problems, and destructive ones at that, is illogical and shows a sad lack of confidence in our society’s ability to care for its own.

de Bellefeille P. The abortion of thinking. Can Med Assoc J. 1986;134(2):115-117.

The 1981 presidential valediction

WDS Thomas

Extract
As official spokesman for the association, your public comment is governed by association policy. Most certainly personal views that are at variance with association policy must remain exactly that – personal views that are not expressed publicly. In reality, that wasn’t a problem for me. But I do want to respond to a letter-to-the- editor published in the Aug. 15th issue of CMAJ. The letter requests a motion of censure against me for misusing the position of president to espouse my personal views on abortion . . .There was nothing of any substance in my Halifax speech that was not in keeping with CMA policy. . . the author of the letter obviously based his comment on incomplete mass media reporting of my speech or a lack of understanding.

Thomas WDS. The 1981 presidential valediction. Can Med Assoc J. 1981;125(8):904, 907-908, 913-914.