Ethics Archives - Page 69 of 81 - Protection of Conscience Project Library

CMA reviews its position

Normand Da Sylva

Canadian Medical Association Journal, CMAJ — Canadian Medical Association Journal

Extract
Throughout the 1 970s and early 1 980s the issue of abortion was causing such concern that, at its 1981 meeting in Halifax, General Council directed the association “to review the situation with respect to therapeutic abortions in Canada”. As part of this review, the Board of Directors decided to go to the grassroots or the association and to ask individual physicians what their opinions were, not only on the procedural aspects of the current legislation, but also on the ethical and moral aspects of terminating a pregnancy. . . . With the help of an outside consultant, we then drew the names of 2000 physicians from the associations membership file to get a statistically valid sample, proportionally representative of our membership by province and by specialty.

Sylva ND. CMA reviews its position. Can Med Assoc J. 1983;128(1):57.

(Correspondence) Abortion

MT Casey

Extract
The fetus in the uterus of a pregnant woman is not the body of the pregnant woman; it is the body of someone else. I ask Dr. Wilson: If a woman asked him to provide her with the means to end her own life and used the same logic, that it is her own body and she is entitled to do with it what she wants, would he readily agree?

Casey MT. (Correspondence) Abortion. Can Med Assoc J. 1982 May 01;126(9):1032.

(Correspondence) Abortion

Wendell W Watters, May Cohen

Extract
The statement on abortion sponsored by the Canadian Physicians for Life and Les Medecins du Quebec pour le Respect de la Vie (Can Med Assoc J 1981; 125: 922) is an insult to all physicians who support the position of the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) on abortion, including physicians who are members of the Canadian Abortions Rights Action League (CARAL). We categorically reject the charge that we “promote the destruction of the unborn”. The use of the epithet proabortion in reference to either the CMA or the prochoice position is one of many examples of deliberate misrepresentation of the facts surrounding abortion. “Proabortion” applies to those who promote abortion, who favour it as a population control measure; such people live chiefly in India and China. Antichoicers do not recognize this crucial distinction between proabortion and prochoice . . .Are antichoicers now prepared to guarantee that the emotional and physical needs of all unwanted children will be met; to ensure that each one is able to make a life out of the existence that antichoicers would force on it? Hardly. They are interested only in “protecting” the fetus until it is too late for an abortion. They feel no responsibility for the aftermath of compulsory pregnancy for either the mother or the offspring. Their interest is in quantity, not quality of life. . . .These prolife physicians endorse the “moral rights of hospital boards” to protect the “unborn” by depriving women of their legal right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. History teaches us that whenever the rights of institutions are allowed to ride roughshod over the rights of individuals, humanity as a whole suffers. No publicly funded hospital in this country has any moral right to deprive the women it serves of their legal right to an induced abortion. . . .As long as our laws make it possible for antichoice groups to impose their notions of reproductive morality on other Canadians in this arbitrary fashion, we should all blush in referring to Canada as a democracy.

Watters WW, Cohen M. (Correspondence) Abortion. Can Med Assoc J. 1982 Mar 01;126(5):465. Available from:

(Correspondence) Abortion

DR Wilson

Extract
Sex is a pleasurable human activity that should be encouraged, not made taboo by old-fashioned minds that seek to give young people guilty consciences they don’t need. If an unwanted fetus is conceived, there is no point in having an unwanted child in the world, so there should be no obstacle such as an abortion committee to delay the operation.

Wilson DR. (Correspondence) Abortion. Can Med Assoc J. 1982 Jan 01;126(1):21.

Statement on abortion (Canadian Physicians for Life, Médecins du Québec pour le respect de la vie)

Walter J Kazun, Rene Jutras

(Published in response to CMA policy that abortion can be justified on medical or non-medical social grounds)

Extract
Be it resolved that we as members of the CMA as well as members of the Canadian Physicians for Life and Les Medecins du Quebec for le Respect de la Vie:

* Reject the pro-abortion stand of the CMA . . .

* Support fully the strong stand of some of the hospital boards . . .

* Deplore the pressure being brought to bear on the democratic as well as moral rights of hospital boards by some of our colleagues . . .

* Assert that any future statements made by CMA should reflect the views of the great number of doctors who respect human life . . .

Kazun WJ, Jutras R. Statement on abortion (Canadian Physicians for Life, Médecins du Québec pour le respect de la vie). Can Med Assoc J. 1981 Oct 15;125(8):922.

Abortion laws in African Commonwealth countries

Rebecca J Cook, Bernard M Dickens

Journal Extract
The problem of abortion is not primarily a problem of law. The law clearly addresses the social practice of abortion, it influences the means of practice and may, at its best, resolve the social consequences of abortion, but the problem of abortion is located in social experience and prevailing social philosophies, rather than in statute books and judicial decisions. Abortion lies at the heart of a number of concerns of particular sensitivity, but it can also have a severe medical and personal impact.

Cook RJ, Dickens BM. Abortion laws in African Commonwealth countries. J Afr Law. 1981 Autumn;25(2):60-79.

(Correspondence) The abortion issue

Peter J Banks

Extract
The worst evil often comes clothed in righteousness. Examples abound – the burning of heretics, the Holy wars, the antisemitic massacres . . . It is, therefore, with some dismay and resentment that I view the current attempts of the members of the so-called Pro-Life movement to force their views on others . . . . There is, of course, no absolute right or absolute wrong in the abortion issue. Within the medical profession strongly held opinions vary widely. Physicians who refuse to perform abortions are perhaps more respected than those who perform this unpleasant procedure, but there is no consensus. . . . perhaps the final decision should be made by the woman after all our advice has been given. A fetus is part of her body until it is born. Talk about fetal rights leads only to philosophic absurdity. When do the rights start? Should the unicellular zygote have the vote? If the fetus is old enough to be viable the profession takes every precaution to save it. . . . Tolerance and compassion are unrecognized by fanatics. . . . I defend their right to hold to their beliefs, but we must all resist their attempts to dictate to others.

Banks PJ. (Correspondence) The abortion issue. Can Med Assoc J. 1981;124(3):263.

(Correspondence) Abortion (Amendment) Bill

Norman Chisholm

British Medical Journal, BMJ — British Medical Journal

Extract
The 28-week rule is a medical and scientific, as well as legal, concept that allows the practising doctor to work to about 20 weeks’ gestation with comfortable leeway. To make a 20-week limit would be to reduce the effective maximum for abortion to 16 weeks.

Chisholm N. (Correspondence) Abortion (Amendment) Bill. Br Med J. 1979 Jul 28;2(6184):276.

(Editorial) No case for an abortion bill

British Medical Journal

Extract
Most doctors in practice today can remember when suicide, attempted or completed, was a criminal offence-yet now such a concept seems barbaric. The same incredulity will, surely, soon apply to attempts by the criminal law to control termination of pregnancy in its early weeks. Legal regulation is reasonable later in pregnancy (on the grounds of the duty of the law to respect concepts such as the sanctity of life) but it must be flexible enough to take account of the rapid pace of development in antenatal diagnosis of genetic and developmental disorders.

BMJ. (Editorial) No case for an abortion bill. Br Med J. 1979;2(6184):230.

Appeals to Conscience

James F Childress

Abstract
Unfortunately the phrase “appeals to conscience” is ambiguous. First, it may indicate an appeal to another person’s conscience in order to convince him to act in certain ways. Second, it may mean the invocation of one’s own conscience to interpret and justify one’s conduct to others. Third, it may indicate the invocation of conscience in debates with oneself about the right course of action, conscience being understood as a participant in the debate, a referee , or a final arbiter. Although it is possible to distinguish these three meanings of “appeals to conscience,” they are usually intertwined in our moral discourse. Nevertheless, I shall concentrate on the second meaning, referring to the other two only when it is necessary to fill out the picture.1 Appeals to conscience in the second sense raise important issues of justification and public policy which can be considered apart from the other meanings of appeals to conscience. My concern is with what we might call “conscientious objection”.

Childress JF. Appeals to Conscience. Ethics. 1979 Jul;89(4):315-335.