0 - Protection of Conscience Project Library

The 1981 presidential valediction

WDS Thomas

Canadian Medical Association Journal, CMAJ — Canadian Medical Association Journal

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.

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.

The Hyde Amendment: an infringement upon the free exercise clause?

Janice C Biskin

Biskin JC. The Hyde Amendment: an infringement upon the free exercise clause? Rutgers Law Rev. 1981;33(4):1054-1075.

Abortion: 3. Therapeutic abortion committees and third parties

Bernard M Dickens

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.

Abortion: 2. Fetal status and legal representation

Bernard M Dickens

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.

(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.

Abortion: 1. Definitions and implications

Bernard M Dickens

Summary
Discusses the difference between definitions in the Criminal Code and regulations promulgated by provincial authorities. Notes that post-coital interception (IUD or pharmaceuticals) may be considered abortions. “The problem may become more acute when ‘morning-after’ contraception and menstrual self-regulation with pills and suppositories become widely available. Recent legislation in New Zealand has established that pregnancy begins not with fertilization but with implantation.6 To keep legitimate contraception from coming under the abortion law in Canada we should make a similar provision. However, the recommendation made in August 1980 by the general council of the United Church of Canada – to decriminalize abortion within the first 20 weeks of pregnancy – may be the best solution.”

Dickens BM. Abortion: 1. Definitions and implications. Can Med Assoc J. 1981;124(2):113-114.

Correction

[CMAJ] An error appeared in the editorial by Dr. Bernard M. Dickens in the Jan. 15, 1980 issue of the Journal. The second sentence in the second column should read (with the correction in italics): “Furthermore, if the life of the unborn child is deliberately ended after labour begins but before it has an existence outside the mother’s body, the act is considered child destruction, which is lawlul when it is done to save the mother’s life (section 221 [2]).” We apologize to Dr. Dickens for this oversight.

Dickens BM. Abortion:1. Definitions and implications [correction]. Can Med Assoc J. 1981;124(7):854.