Abortion Archives - Page 16 of 50 - Protection of Conscience Project Library

(News) Delays in abortion referrals limit women’s choices, says report

Debashis Singh

British Medical Journal, BMJ — British Medical Journal

Extract
Women in some parts of England have to wait up to two months from first seeking advice about an abortion to having the procedure, says a survey. The delays in referral mean that many women are presenting to services later than nine weeks pregnant and cannot be considered for early medical termination using the abortion pill, mifepristone, despite this being a popular option among women. . .The survey, which was conducted by Voice for Choice—an alliance of national pro-choice organisations including British Pregnancy Advisory Service, Marie Stopes International, and the Family Planning Association—reviewed the abortion services of 243 primary care trusts.

Singh D. Delays in abortion referrals limit women’s choices, says report. Br Med J. 2004;328(7455):1518e.

(News) Emergency contraception could lower abortion rate

Barbara Sibbald

Canadian Medical Association Journal, CMAJ — Canadian Medical Association Journal

Extract
Anti-abortion groups should welcome proposed new regulation allowing patients to access emergency contraception without a prescription, says the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada. . . . Emergency contraception, or the “morning after pill,” is sold in Canada as levonorgestrel (Plan B). If taken within 72 hours of unprotected intercourse, it can prevent ovulation, or interfere with fertilization, or implantation. . .The Catholic Organization for Life and Family and other anti-abortion groups believe pregnancy begins with conception, not implantation. In a letter to Health Canada, the organization called levonorgestrel an “abortifacient.”.

Sibbald B. Emergency contraception could lower abortion rate. Can Med Assoc J. 2004 Jun 22;170(13):1903.

A physician’s professional duty to inform despite personal ethical objections

Laura D Briley

Extract
This physician may feel ethically torn, but it is the physician’s duty to help enable this patient to make the best decision. By informing the patient about abortion, the physician is not endorsing the procedure, or swaying this mother in either direction, but simply providing information. This use of information will strengthen the relationship between patient and physician because it fosters autonomy and offers a sense of support during a time when it is needed most. Although it may not be a physician’s duty to perform an abortion when the physician feels ethically opposed, it is the duty of the physician to inform a woman about the procedure without allowing personal beliefs to influence her decision.

Briley LD. A physician’s professional duty to inform despite personal ethical objections. Curr Surg. 2003;60(6):594.

When Free Exercise Exemptions Undermine Religious Liberty and the Liberty of Conscience: A Case Study of the Catholic Hospital Conflict

Brietta R Clark

Extract
Conclusion
Using this framework, I propose a more protective principle for free exercise protection than currently exists, one that requires a heightened scrutiny of all laws that burden religious liberty, even neutral laws of general applicability. This review should examine carefully the need for the government law and the possibility of an exemption or accommodation that will not undermine the purpose of the law. However, I would not go as far as some states in providing almost absolute free exercise protection from government laws serving important government interests. Rather, the principle I advocate requires a balancing of interests tipped to favor laws protecting third parties’ from harm over religious claimants’ objections. The Catholic hospital conflict demonstrates how even under this more protective free exercise principle, the rule of law and the self–limiting principle of the liberty of conscience and religious liberty operate as justifiable limits on the scope of free exercise protection. The hospitals’ free exercise interests must be balanced against the potential harm to patients who cannot access necessary reproductive health care and information, which means that in many cases exemptions for religious hospitals will be denied.

Clark BR. When Free Exercise Exemptions Undermine Religious Liberty and the Liberty of Conscience: A Case Study of the Catholic Hospital Conflict. Oregon Law Review. 2003 Fall;82(3):625-694.

(News) “Abortion pill” use doubles

Barbara Sibbald

Extract
Two years after the US government approved the use of mifepristone (RU-486), the “abortion pill’s” popularity has nearly doubled. . . . Mifepristone, a progesterone blocker, induces abortion in women who are up to 8 weeks’ pregnant.

Sibbald B. News@a glance: “Abortion pill” use doubles. Can Med Assoc J. 2003 Aug 19;169(4):330.

(Correspondence) Abortion perils debated

Linda Capperauld

Extract
Not only is the article by David Reardon and associates1 flawed . . . but the authors, particularly the lead author, have a specific and known political bias against abortion rights. . . By publishing an article that does not adhere to high standards, we feel that CMAJ has done a disservice to our field, not to mention women and their families across the nation.

Capperauld L. (Correspondence) Abortion perils debated. Can Med Assoc J. 2003 Jul 22;169(2):101.

(Editorial) Unwanted results: the ethics of controversial research

CMAJ

Extract
. . . We are chided for publishing flawed research and told that we should be ashamed of publishing the “opinions” of self-evidently biased researchers. We are accused of doing a disservice to women, medicine and the Journal, of failing to conduct proper peer review, and of not adequately scrutinizing the credentials of the authors.

The abortion debate is so highly charged that a state of
respectful listening on either side is almost impossible to achieve. This debate is conducted publicly in religious, ideological and political terms: forms of discourse in which detachment is rare. But we do seem to have the idea in medicine that science offers us a more dispassionate means of analysis. To consider abortion as a health issue, indeed as a medical “procedure,” is to remove it from metaphysical and moral argument and to place it in a pragmatic realm where one deals in terms such as safety, equity of access, outcomes and risk–benefit ratios, and where the prevailing ethical discourse, when it is evoked, uses secular words like autonomy and patient choice. . .

CMAJ. (Editorial) Unwanted results: the ethics of controversial research. Can. Med. Assoc. J.. 2003 Jul 22;169(2):93.

(Correspondence) Abortion perils debated

Denise Sevier-Fries

Extract
In publishing the abortion opinions(not facts) of David Reardon and associates,1 you have damaged the credibility and reputation of your journal.

Sevier-Fries D. (Correspondence) Abortion perils debated. Can Med Assoc J. 2003 Jul 22;169(2):101.

(Correspondence) Abortion perils debated

Aaron Keshen

Extract
. . . the most relevant comparison was not performed. Reardon and associates compared women who delivered babies with women who had abortions. . . it might be more appropriate to ask about the differences between women who undergo abortion and those who want to have an abortion but choose not to because of external pressures or guilt. In such a study, it might be found that abortion was in fact a relatively healthy psychological event.

Keshen A. (Correspondence) Abortion perils debated. Can Med Assoc J. 2003 Jul 22;169(2):102.

(Correspondence) Abortion perils debated

Annie D Banno

Extract
I would like to point out that other prominent medical journals have published research reports on harmful effects associated with abortion. . . . It would appear that the study by Reardon and associates published recently in CMAJ is not the first to present empirical evidence that abortion is a severe risk factor for substantial emotional and physical trauma.

Banno AD. (Correspondence) Abortion perils debated. Can Med Assoc J. 2003;169(2):101-102.