Protection of Conscience Project Library
Service, not Servitude
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
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.
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.
AT Kerigan
Extract
Dr. Hall highlights what is surely the central issue in abortion because of fetal abnormalities – that is, does one consider the unborn child to be a person, with all the attendant rights we claim for ourselves? Dr. Hall believes that the fetus is not a patient. This is a position many of us in the medical profession profoundly disagree with. The fetus is regarded as a patient worthy of treatment such as intrauterine transfusions. I am not minimizing the problems . . . of a child with spina bifida, especially for the mother. My sympathies lie very much with her, but not to the exclusion of her child. . .
Kerigan AT. (Correspondence) Hazards of prenatal detection of neural tube defects. Can Med Assoc J. 1979 Apr 21;120(8):913-914.
Extract
various well-meaning groups believe that something as basic as a code of ethics should be subject to the whim of members of a general meeting acting on an amendment from the floor. . . . I am sceptical of the value of hypnosis therapy for cigarette smoking and obesity, of transcendental meditation for angina pectoris and of acupuncture for all sorts of disorders. Is this because of my beliefs or because of my scientific training? If the latter, is not dedication to the scientific method a “belief”? Therefore, should we be expected to post signs in our offices declaring all our beliefs or scepticisms, and, if confronted with a patient with any of these problems, suggest consultation with a colleague who is more “liberal”? Surely we will never do better than to depend on the good sense and dedication of our colleagues. The use of a code of ethics as an issue in a current political debate is a dangerous precedent and one that I, for one, would wish abandoned forthwith.
Scott HM. (Correspondence) Code of ethics. Can Med Assoc J. 1978 Oct 07;119(7):692. Available from:
Extract
The assumption that abortion is the treatment of choice for a neural tube defect, regardless of its severity, is implicit in both the physician’s offering the screening service and the parents’ acceptance of it. . . . If the physician was prepared to take the child’s life before birth, can he legitimately refuse to do so after birth if requested? . . . prenatal decision-making cannot be disassociated from post-natal decision-making. They are of the same order logically and ethically. To my mind both abortion and infanticide are unacceptable and represent a concept that is a huge step backwards for the medical profession . . . .
Kerigan AT. (Correspondence) Hazards of prenatal detection of neural tube defects. Can Med Assoc J. 1978 Oct 07;119(7):696.
Extract
Mr. Geekie explains that the ethics committee changed the code to prevent patients from being “abandoned – a result that was not in keeping with the tenets of the profession.” . . . If the profession follows Mr. Geekie’s guidelines the new code will result in a lower level of care for Canadian women faced with unwanted pregnancies. Antiabortion physicians now have an ethical green light to send such women on an endless round of pointless, time-consuming referrals until it may be too late to interrupt the pregnancy. . . .If ambiguity exists in the present code of ethics it should be eliminated, if necessary by return to the old code, which allowed women to find their own way to help without this form of “assistance”.
Cameron P, Cohen M, Rapson L, Watters WW. (Correspondence) The Code of ethcs: abortion referral. Can Med Assoc J. 1978 Apr 22;118(8):890, 895.
Extract
The CMA has the audacity to “place responsibility” on the physician who acts in accordance with his intelligence and informed conscientious judgement in the matter. It is not true to state that a physician abandons a patient if he informs her that his moral principles preclude his becoming involved in referring her for an abortion. No patient has the right to anything other than what a physician can in his conscience do. To ask for more is to ask for his cooperation in performing an act that he deems an act of killing an innocent human being. The CMA, in supporting this type of request, is bringing pressure to bear on the physician to cooperate. By including it in the code of ethics the CMA has also put the physician who does not publicly object in the position of appearing to agree with the CMA. His intellectual and moral integrity are challenged by this action. . . .If the government were to make abortion on demand legal, I have no doubt the CMA would make another change in the code that would “place responsibility” on the physician to cooperate in this also. I find it intolerable that the CMA is telling me I may not follow my conscience in this most serious matter.
Shea JB. (Correspondence) The Code of ethics: abortion referral. Can Med Assoc J. 1978 Apr 22;118(8):890.
Extract
.. . . the wording in the pertinent paragraph of the code of ethics represents an amendment to the recommendation of the committee on ethics, moved from the floor of General Council and subsequently passed. In discussing this paragraph the mover of the motion stated that the medical profession must stand by its ethics and, in so doing, has a responsibility to patients, who should not be abandoned in any regard. He went on to state that the medical profession is based on compassion and help and that every physician has a responsibility to a patient, even when he does not agree with a particular form of therapy. . . In suggesting changes in the code of ethics the CMA’s committee on ethics attempted to underline the right of the patient to have other opinions, and the responsibility of the physician to indicate to the patient that she has that right. General Council, in its wisdom, strengthened the recommendation and indicated that, in its view, the physician has a broader responsibility not to abandon the patient or impede her from obtaining help from other sources of assistance.
Wilson RG. (Correspondence) The Code of ethics: abortion referral. Can Med Assoc J. 1978 Apr 22;118(8):895-896.
Extract
Mr. Geekie’s interpretation of this section is most disturbing in that some of the phrases he uses suggest a derogatory attitude to physicians engaged in abortion referral. . . . It seems to me clearly unethical for a physician with moral conflicts of interest to refer a patient who consults him about an abortion to a clergyman. . . .It seems that what appeared to be a step forward in ensuring that patients receive unbiased professional judgement in each individual case has become just the opposite.
Johnson CA. (Correspondence) The Code of ethics: abortion referral. Can Med Assoc J. 1978 Apr 22;118(8):888, 890.