Extract . . . This year’s abortion debate departed from tradition by ignoring the ethics of the procedure in favour of a call for steps to ensure the safety of Alberta women. The association passed a series of resolutions aimed at urging women to avoid unwanted pregnancies or, if that fails, to seek abortion counselling as soon as possible to reduce the number of more dangerous late abortions. . .
Extract As a psychiatrist I have examined many patients who were referred for emotional or psychological assessment and, where appropriate, I have recommended that the pregnancy be terminated. . . While I am prepared to agree that in this area there may be dispute, nevertheless it is quite different from the so-called “abortion on demand”, which has no ethical medical basis. . . The solution would be to train and legalize abortionists, who would not be physicians, to perform abortion on demand, a procedure that has nothing to do with the ethical practice of medicine..
Extract I believe that the statement authorized by the Board of Directors after the meeting of General Council regarding our colleague Dr. Henry Morgentaler shows professional bias and unclear thinking tempered with extreme conservatism. . . .The fact that anyone, for whatever charge, can be acquitted twice by a jury and still be in jail is hard to comprehend. The fact that the appeal courts overturned the jury’s verdict and passed sentence without ordering a new trial is a threat to everyone’s liberty.
Extract Medical ethics are the collective conscience of the profession. It is axiomatic of a profession that its ethical standards are decided by its members. A profession sets a standard of conduct for its members and the essence of professional freedom for a doctor is his right to act in professional matters uninfluenced by any consideration other than the judgement of his fellows.
Extract To refuse to terminate a pregnancy on a matter of conscience is both legally and ethically acceptable, as is a refusal in the absence of the requisite medical, psychiatric, and social indications. But to refuse a termination because the continuation of the pregnancy is held to be a valid means of managing a behavioural disorder, “promiscuity,” is a more questionable matter. In such circumstances the continuation of the pregnancy becomes a therapeutic procedure for which valid consent must surely be obtained.
Extract Despite the rulings in Roe and Doe, physicians, nurses, and denominational hospitals opposed to abortions have continued to refuse to perform them. They have argued that Roe and Doe, as judicial interpretations of the fourteenth amendment, do not apply to private activity, and that in any event the free exercise clause protects those who, for religious or moral reasons, object to abortion. These claims are not without difficulties. . . . Since Roe and Doe, Congress and many state legislatures have enacted laws to protect both institutions and individuals who refuse to participate in abortions for religious or moral reasons. These so-called “conscience clauses” limit the power of the courts to compel the performance of abortion where a refusal to participate is religiously or morally based. This article will explore the problems these statutes raise. The conclusion reached is that, for the most part, well-drafted conscience amendments are constitutional.
Stern MD. Abortion Conscience Clauses. Columbia J Law Soc Probl. 1975 Summer;11(4):571-627.
Extract Every woman has indeed a right to compassion and medical care in unwanted pregnancy, and every fetus has a right to be considered. . .It is very difficult to believe that the enormous number of induced abortions since the Abortion Act became law has only replaced abortions which would have occurred anyway. . .When the Abortion Act was passed my voice was not heard speaking against it. This was because it appeared to put on paper the indications for termination which were already accepted by many gynaecologists who were never prosecuted. It seemed to me logical that the written law should correspond with the law as administered. It was with surprise that I observed the Act’s effects on my own patients. A number of pregnant women requested terminations when I knew that such a course would formerly have been against their principles. The Act had affected their consciences.
Extract In the part of the home counties in which I practise as a consultant gynaecologist abortion in early pregnancy is in fact available on request, contrary to the intentions of Parliament. . .Since it can (be shown statistically that in terms of the risk of death termination in early pregnancy for a healthy woman is a lesser risk than that of bearing a child, the legal case for abortion on request was established. . . Doctors who decline to abort a woman in early pregnancy and who do not plead conscientious objection are liable to criminal prosecution under the current Act . . .The Abortion (Amendment) Bill merely seeks to reword the code using phrases such as, “grave” or “serious” risk. Rather than constitute a threat to professional freedom, it would release doctors from the duplicity inherent in the present badly worded Act.
Extract It is fast becoming evident that no man or woman whose conscience prevents them from engaging in this practice can in future contemplate specializing in obstetrics and gynaecology, and this would apply to many practising Christians, not merely Roman Catholics, and presumably to orthodox Jews.
Extract Did you choose deliberately to disregard the fact that in every case of proposed abortion two patients are involved, the mother and the child? The whole tenor of your article, backed up with suitable quotations from the Lane Report, seems to favour abortion on demand.
