Wendell W Watters Archives - Protection of Conscience Project Library

(Correspondence) “Universal” moral principles

Wendell W Watters

Canadian Medical Association Journal, CMAJ — Canadian Medical Association Journal

Extract
Apart from such simple principles as the Golden Rule and the Greatest Good for the Greatest Number of People, what universal moral principles are there? Apparently Lemoine’s value system would compel unwilling pregnant women to become mothers against their will (the view of the Roman Catholic Church and other antichoice groups); this is in direct opposition to the position that couples should be allowed to regulate their own reproductivity, the view of the United Nations declaration on family planning, to which Canada was a signatory. Neither of these moral positions is universal or based on absolutes. The first arose out of the Christian Church’s desire to implement policies of demographic aggression against all other groups. The second arose in this century out of our collective appreciation that such policies may spell extinction for all forms of life on this planet. Many of the bloodiest episodes in history came about as a result of one group’s seeking to impose “universal” moral principles on others.

Watters WW. (Correspondence) “Universal” moral principles. Can Med Assoc J. 1989 May 01;140(9):1016.

(Correspondence) Abortion denied – outcome of mothers and babies

Carlos Del Campo

Extract
The Aberdeen study examined the cases of 300 women applying for abortions, of which 60% were approved; approximately 120 women were denied abortion. This number would constitute only 1.9% of the 6323 cases in my survey. Furthermore, if they had been included the results would remain statistically unchanged. . . Dr. Watters states that I was “very selective in examining the work done in Czechoslovakia” and cites the work of Matejcek and colleagues.3 I direct Dr. Watters’ attention to reference 11 in my survey, in which this work is cited. This was Dr. Matejcek and colleagues’ original publication on the same group of patients; furthermore, they published a more recent follow-up study, in which their original findings remained basically unchanged. To base a therapeutic approach toward women with unwanted pregnancies on the evidence quoted by Dr. Watters and to ignore the massive evidence presented in my survey would be unacceptable.

Campo CD. (Correspondence) Abortion denied – outcome of mothers and babies. Can Med Assoc J. 1984 Sep 15;131(6):546-548.

(Correspondence) Abortion denied – outcome of mothers and babies

Wendell W Watters

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.

Watters WW. (Correspondence) Abortion denied – outcome of mothers and babies. Can Med Assoc J. 1984 May 15;130(10):1264, 1266.

(Correspondence) Abortion

Wendell W Watters, May Cohen

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:

(Correspondence) The Code of ethcs: abortion referral

Paul Cameron, May Cohen, Linda Rapson, Wendell W Watters (Doctors for the Repeal of the Abortion Law)

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.

(Correspondence) The Canadian abortion law

PG Coffey

Extract
. . . papers are continually being published pointing out the hazards in subsequent childbirth after an induced abortion. . . .There is a great deal of woolly thinking about the viability of the fetus. . . One can think of several other situations where humans are totally dependent on others for their continuing existence but are not considered expendable. . . I honestly think we tend to salve our consciences far too carelessly when we use the vague term “nonviability” as a reason for condoning the termination of lives that are far from inanimate.

Coffey PG. (Correspondence) The Canadian abortion law. Can Med Assoc J. 1977 Feb 05;116(3):238.

(Correspondence) The Canadian abortion law

Margaret Wynn, Arthur Wynn

Extract
Your correspondents Dr. Coffey and Drs. Cohen, Rapson and Watters (ibid, page 213) all refer to our review, published over 4 years ago,1 of the consequences of induced abortion to children born subsequently. Much progress has since been made in Europe in preventing these consequences . . .

The main conclusions of our 1972 review have, indeed, been confirmed in many subsequent studies and more
recent reviews. It may reasonably be inferred from the Bristol study and from other European studies that between 20 and 25% of women who have had an induced abortion need a cerclage operation to be able to carry a subsequent pregnancy to term. The percentage may well be lower in Canada if a higher percentage of abortions are undertaken earlier in pregnancy. . .

It is important for any woman who hopes to have a child subsequent to an induced abortion to accept that she will then be in a high-risk category and must report a subsequent pregnancy early, and that she will need specialist obstetric care. . . .

Cohen and her colleagues describe us as “two crusaders for compulsory pregnancy”. This is untruthful abuse. Your correspondence columns might better be used to discuss the many steps that might be taken in Canada to reduce the unfortunate consequences of induced abortion, including the careful counselling of women and the wider use of the cerclage operation early enough in a subsequent pregnancy.

Wynn M, Wynn A. (Correspondence) The Canadian abortion law. Can Med Assoc J. 1977 Feb 05;116(3):241-243.

(Correspondence) The Canadian abortion law

PG Coffey

Extract
The main thrust of the letter by Drs. Cohen, Rapson and Watters (Can Med Assoc J 114: 593, 1976) is that abortion is good medicine and should not be denied to certain groups of citizens. I think, on the other hand, that liberalized abortion is bad medicine and should be curtailed rather than encouraged. . . . It is becoming increasingly clear that abortion is a hazardous operation with far-reaching effects. . . . After some years abortion tends to be used as a birth control measure. Many women have more than one abortion. Legalizing abortion may not reduce greatly the illegal practice of it and some reports have shown that it has increased this practice.

Coffey PG. (Correspondence) The Canadian abortion law. Can Med Assoc J. 1976 Aug 07;115(3):213, 216.

(Correspondence) The Canadian abortion law (authors’ reply)

Wendell W Watters, May Cohen,Linda Rapson

Extract
On the issue of complications following legal abortion, Dr. Coffey quotes Jeffcoate, whose antiabortion views are widely known, and the Wynn report, a document compiled by two crusaders for “compulsory pregnancy’s who used data inappropriately in an attempt to substantiate their personal beliefs. . . Results of studies in Aberdeen, England and Sweden suggested that women denied a safe legal abortion – that is, the victims of compulsory pregnancy – were more likely to experience emotional distress than women who were allowed to exercise reproductive responsibility by the use of the option of legal abortion. In other words, compulsory pregnancy is bad medicine. Dr. Coffey makes another statement that is contradicted by modern evidence. The notion that abortion tends to be used as a method of primary birth control does not square with the evidence from the Population Council . . . .We can trace the enactment of antiabortion laws throughout history to policies of demographic aggression. . . .the Quebec government, in a state of demographic panic over its low birth rate, harassing our colleague Dr. Henry Morgentaler; and Canada competing demographically with the United States: all such irresponsible behaviour is potentially more lethal than nuclear holocaust. For almost a decade the United Nations has granted people the world over the right to plan their families without any interference from the state. This is a paper right until it extends, de facto as well as de jure, beyond conception to the point of potential viability.

Watters WW, Cohen M, Rapson L. (Correspondence) The Canadian abortion law (authors’ reply). Can Med Assoc J. 1976 Aug 07;115(3).

(Correspondence) The Canadian abortion law

Wendell W Watters, May Cohen, Linda Rapson

Extract
It is obvious even to the federal government that there is a paucity of information on how the Canadian abortion law is working. . . .From the Statistics Canada figures, only one third of eligible hospitals in Canada have therapeutic abortion committees – on paper. In fact, the figures are even lower. . . .an estimated 78 hospitals out of the 258 were essentially nonoperational as far as abortions were concerned. . . Many hospitals place unofficial quotas on the number of abortions performed . . .Physicians on the staffs of many hospitals have little input into hospital policy regarding abortion. . .a large number of Canadian women are unable to obtain this type of medical care in their own communities and are forced to travel great distances in Canada or go to the United States at their own expense. The law clearly discriminates against women who are poor, the group most often in need of this kind of help.

Watters WW, Cohen M, Rapson L. (Correspondence) The Canadian abortion law. Can Med Assoc J. 1976 Apr 03;114(7):593.