Extract Apparently Dr. Carlos Del Campo (Can Med Assoc J 1984; 130: 361, 362, 366) consulted only a small portion of the literature in concluding that it shows “no evidence that a continued unwanted pregnancy will endanger the mother’s mental health”. He ignored the Aberdeen study, . . .Dr. Del Campo was very selective in examining the work done in Czechoslovakia. . . the conclusion to be drawn from these studies is that termination of an unwanted pregnancy is likely to be beneficial to a woman’s mental health if it is her choice to exercise this option, whereas mandatory motherhood is likely to be harmful to her mental health. This conclusion is consistent with my clinical experience of 20 years in working with couples and families, as it is with that of many other family psychiatrists.
Extract The CMA should have asked prolife physicians “Do you believe that the threat to a woman’s life should be the only indication for abortion?” In my experience most pro-life advocates believe not that there is absolutely no indication for abortion, but that abortion is indicated only in serious circumstances.
Extract I am saddened and a little shocked to find that nearly 50% of the medical profession in Canada would terminate pregnancy at the wishes of the patient. We are supposed to be a profession, but what do we profess to do?
Extract I find the CMA abortion survey disturbing and completely unsatisfying. Without exception, all the questions assume that abortion is acceptable and can therefore be neatly compartmentalized to facilitate its performance. Nothing could be further who initially did not want their babies did want them once they were born,’ some individuals may ignore this normal evolution of maternal feelings. . . . slightly more than half of the respondents would refuse to terminate a pregnancy solely at the “woman’s request”. . . . Everyone knows that few, if any, terminations of pregnancy are therapeutic, although many are pathogenic. . .
Extract I disagree with Dr. Morton S. Rapp on a number of the points he made in his letter . . . Dr. Rapp must realize that no one compels any woman or man to become a parent. He must also realize that there is no ethical choice when an innocent life is destroyed. . . Abortion is a violent act and the ultimate in child abuse. Dr. Rapp must agree that child abuse has increased markedly with the increase in abortions and presumably the birth of only wanted children. A study done by Dr. Philip Ney, a well known children’s psychiatrist, proved that the increase in abortions has led to an increase in child abuse and frequently to abuse of wanted children.
Journal Extract I read Dr. Thomasma’s article (1) with skepticism. All models for the doctor-patient relationship are shortsighted as they do not acknowledge systems of relationships beyond that of the physician and the patient. Despite this inherent shortcoming, Thomasma’s model contains two characteristics that distinguish it from other such models. Both the strength of his physician conscience model and its greatest limitations exist in these two characteristics. First, his model requires that physicians assess beliefs, attitudes, and emotions they recognize in response to their patients in an effort to determine how these factors influence the health care they provide. . .
Extract Therapeutic abortions have been extensively condemned for religious and moral reasons; these arguments have not been strong enough to prevent them. This objective statistical analysis poses an argument for all those who require a different approach to the problem. The child of the woman you persuade not to undergo an abortion today may be the person whose productivity will save your existence tomorrow.
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?
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.
