Protection of Conscience Project Library
Service, not Servitude
Extract
The Hippocratic Oath states: “I will use treatment to help the sick according to my ability and judgment, but never with a view to injury and wrongdoing.” It is our responsibility to make these words a reality.
Sofair AN, Lurie PG. (Correspondence) Military medicine and human rights. The Lancet. 2004 Nov 20;364(1851.
Extract
Remember the many thousands who have served and are serving honorably, caring for American soldiers and Iraqis, and not the few who might have greatly disappointed us with their lack of proper ethical judgment.
Kiley KC. (Correspondence) Military medicine and human rights. The Lancet. 2004 Nov 20;364(9448):1851-1852.
Extract
As neither our original Commentary on access to emergency contraception nor our letter response was suitable for fully referenced legal or ethical reasoning, we appreciate this opportunity to expand a little on the substance of both, addressing the points Mr Murphy raises.
Dickens BM, Cook RJ. (Correspondence) In Response. 2004 Aug; 26(8): 706-707.
Extract
In a letter in the February issue of JOGC, Rebecca J. Cook and Bernard M. Dickens state, “Physicians who feel entitled to subordinate their patient’s desire for well-being to the service of their own personal morality or conscience should not practise clinical medicine” (emphasis added).
The statement is unsupported by their own legal references, and it has little to recommend it as an ordering principle in the practice of medicine.
Murphy S. (Correspondence) Access to Emergency Contraception. JOGC. 2004 Aug; 26(8): 705-706.
Extract
The CMA Code of Ethics begins with the principle that an ethical physician will consider first the well-being of the patient. Physicians who feel entitled to subordinate their patients’ desire for well-being to the service of their own personal morality or conscience should not practise clinical medicine.
Cook RJ, Dickens BM. (Correspondence) Access to Emergency Contraception – In Response. J. Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2004 Feb;112.
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.
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.
Extract
. . . Regardless of one’s opinions about the abortion issue, educating patients about the benefits and risks of an intervention is integral to good medicine. Thus, physicians should be willing to inform their patients of the risks associated with abortion. Aside from the usual risks associated with a surgical procedure, these include increased risks of psychiatric illness, 1 future preterm birth2 and breast cancer.3,4 I commend CMAJ for refusing to allow politics to trump the scientific progress of women’s health care.
Hollingshead SC. (Correspondence) Abortion perils debated. Can Med Assoc J. 2003 Jul 22;169(2):101.
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.
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.