Giving death a helping hand

Mina Gasser Battagin

Canadian Medical Association Journal, CMAJ
Canadian Medical Association Journal

Extract
Can Christians accept martyrdom on the one hand and reject euthanasia on the other? What makes one form of killing acceptable, the other reprehensible? What judgements are to be made, for example, if, during childbirth, a choice must be made between saving the life of the child or the life of the mother? How do we decide whose life is more important and, therefore, whose life must be saved? Who has the most to lose or the most to gain? What is fair? And who makes that decision?


Battagin MG. Giving death a helping hand. Can Med Assoc J. 1991;144(3):358-359.

(Correspondence) When passion displaces logic (Dr. Waugh responds)

Douglas Waugh

Canadian Medical Association Journal, CMAJ
Canadian Medical Association Journal

Extract
Unlike Dr. Heaton I am a born-again nonbeliever and therefore do not accept his version of where it all begins. With that as a “given” my logic is flawless, as is his with a different “given”. Unhappily, the two positions remain irreconcilable.


Waugh D. (Correspondence) When passion displaces logic (Dr. Waugh responds). Can Med Assoc J. 1990 Jan 01;142(1):12.

(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

Philip E Shea

Canadian Medical Association Journal, CMAJ
Canadian Medical Association Journal

Extract
In his article “Abortion: The CMA’s new policy is a good one” (Can Med AssocJ 1988; 139: 991) Dr. John Lamont misinterprets the Catholic Church’s constant moral teaching on this critical issue. The misinformation could promote prejudice against Catholics who uphold the traditional doctrine that abortion at any stage is a serious sin against God, the creator of all human life. Lamont’s pontifical reference could not have been authenticated by a qualified Catholic scholar.


Shea PE. (Correspondence) Abortion. Can Med Assoc J. 1989 Apr 1;140(7):789.

Ecumenism and Abortion: A Case Study of Pluralism, Privatization and Public Conscience

James Kelly

Review of Religious Research
Review of Religious Research

Abstract
This paper uses the Churches’ responses to the controversy over abortion as a measure of the internalization of ecumenism. The data used in the essay include interviews with ecumenical officers and the minutes of the American Bishops Pro-life Committee. The main conclusion is that during the controversy “mainstream” Protestantism and Roman Catholicism reverted to post-Reformation and pre-Vatican II ideological roles, with Catholicism opposing under the banner of objective moral truth the legalization of abortion and liberal Protestantism under the banner of subjective conscience providing a belated religious justification to the legalization promoted first by secularist activists. This reversal to historic ideological roles actually distorted the more nuanced positions of these Churches in the controversy, but the lack of an ecumenical context obscured these shared tensions and prevented the Churches from contributing to a better public structuring of the moral ambiguities most Americans felt and still experience about abortion and the extent of its legalization. The essay concludes that only in an ecumenical context can religious pluralism lead to more inclusive moral commitments rather than to a further privatization of religion.


Kelly J. Ecumenism and Abortion: A Case Study of Pluralism, Privatization and Public Conscience. Rev Relig Res. 1989 Mar;30(3):225-235.

(Correspondence) Abortion

Wendell W Watters, May Cohen

Canadian Medical Association Journal, CMAJ
Canadian Medical Association Journal

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) Abortion before “individuation”

Peter G Bolland

Canadian Medical Association Journal, CMAJ
Canadian Medical Association Journal

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.


Bolland PG. (Correspondence) Abortion before “individuation”. Can Med Assoc J. 1982;126(3):231.

Analysis: An introduction to ethical concepts – Conscience

Eric D’Arcy

Journal of Medical Ethics
Journal of Medical Ethics

Extract
Many people believe in conscience that a pregnant woman has supreme rights over what happens in her own body. Others believe in conscience that the right of the unborn child to life is as good as that of any other human being. In some countries, the law, in the name of the former right, discriminates against an obstetrician who, in the name of the latter, refuses to destroy that life. This is a serious contemporary issue which tests the sincerity of governments that profess respect for conscience.


D’Arcy E. Analysis: An introduction to ethical concepts – Conscience. J Med Ethics. 1977;3(2):98-99.

Abortion Conscience Clauses

Marc D Stern

Columbia Journal of Law & Social Problems
Columbia Journal of Law & Social Problems

Extract
Despite the rulings in Roe and Doe, physicians, nurses, and denominational hospitals opposed to abortions have continued to refuse to perform them. They have argued that Roe and Doe, as judicial interpretations of the fourteenth amendment, do not apply to private activity, and that in any event the free exercise clause protects those who, for religious or moral reasons, object to abortion. These claims are not without difficulties. . . . Since Roe and Doe, Congress and many state legislatures have enacted laws to protect both institutions and individuals who refuse to participate in abortions for religious or moral reasons. These so-called “conscience clauses” limit the power of the courts to compel the performance of abortion where a refusal to participate is religiously or morally based. This article will explore the problems these statutes raise. The conclusion reached is that, for the most part, well-drafted conscience amendments are constitutional.


Stern MD. Abortion Conscience Clauses. Columbia J Law Soc Probl. 1975 Summer;11(4):571-627.

(Correspondence) Attitudes to Abortion

John Stallworthy

British Medical Journal, BMJ
British Medical Journal

Extract
In the reorganized Health Service it should be easier than hitherto for adequate teams to provide a comnprehensive service in obstetrics and gynaecology if there is the necessary financial support. High ethical standards, conscience, and differing religious beliefs, when associated with freedom, of thought and expression within the fellowship of a team, can prove enriching for the doctors and therefore beneficial to the patients.


Stallworthy J. (Correspondence) Attitudes to Abortion. Br Med J. 1974 Jun 01;2(5917):501.