Protection of Conscience Project Library
Service, not Servitude
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.
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:
Extract
As president of the Toronto Catholic Doctors Guild I must point out a divergence from traditional Roman Catholic teaching alleged to have been promulgated by Father David Roy of the Centre for Bioethics of the Clinical Research Institute of Montreal (Can Med Assoc J 1981; 125: 507, 509). Dorothy Trainor, the author, reported that Father Roy believes that since physical characteristics of “individuation” have been shown by experimental evidence to take place 14 to 21 days after conception he would have no qualms about abortion before that time. Such a view is, of course, entirely contrary to the teaching of our church and would seem to presume that the infusion of soul by God must necessarily await physical “individuation”. . . our behavioural guidelines must not be compromised by the thesis expounded by Father Roy.
Bolland PG. (Correspondence) Abortion before “individuation”. Can Med Assoc J. 1982;126(3):231.
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.
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.
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.
Biskin JC. The Hyde Amendment: an infringement upon the free exercise clause? Rutgers Law Rev. 1981;33(4):1054-1075.
Extract
The recent incident in Nova Scotia concerning Mr. Hulme, who tried to prevent his estranged wife from having an abortion (see part 2 of this series), resulted in only secondary and indeterminate litigation. . . Mr. Hulme had taken legal action against the Victoria General Hospital in Halifax, whose therapeutic abortion committee had approved the abortion. . . . A therapeutic abortion committee’s alleged liability to judicial reversal suggests it is making a judicial or quasi-judicial decision; however, this is doubtful. . . . Indeed, the only third parties whose interests the committees may have to consider are guardians of the mentally incompetent and parents of minors. . . . hospitals that permit pressure from a third party to interfere with treatment of their competent, consenting adult patients for whom there is a danger to life or health may incur legal and ethical liabilities to such patients. . . Physicians may also face disciplinary charges of professional misconduct. . . .The best solution may be to remove the legal requirement of committee approval and to trust the judgement and good faith of physicians. . .
Dickens BM. Abortion: 3. Therapeutic abortion committees and third parties. Can Med Assoc J. 1981;124(4):362-363. 384.
Extract
It has long been accepted that, legally, “personhood” begins with live birth and that a fetus therefore has no legal status. . . . generally, the rights of the fetus are not recognized, even though the property interests of an unborn child may appear to be protected. . . .This legal procedure simply postpones the distribution of property until the gestation period is over. Similarly, if a fetus is injured in utero and is subsequently found, when born alive, to be affected by the injury, legal action can be taken. However, this is the right of a human being, not of a fetus. . . . On the other hand, if a child is unborn or its life ends in utero, no legal action can be taken on its behalf. [quoting Dehler v. Ottawa Civic Hospital]. . . . [Discusses unresolved 1979 case in Nova Scotia in which an estranged husband and an anti-abortionist prevented an abortion using an injunction and guardianship application] . . . .It seems that Canadian society must rely on such judicial decisions to develop the law on fetal status, protection and legal representation. Politicians and legislatures are wary of the abortion-related furore these topics trigger.
Dickens BM. Abortion: 2. Fetal status and legal representation. Can Med Assoc J. 1981;124(3):253-254.
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.