Extract In June 1971 the Canadian Medical Association at its General Council meeting passed the following resolution after some hours of lively debate: “The Canadian Medical Association agrees that there is justification, on non-medical grounds, for the deliberate termination of pregnancy.” The vote was 78 for and 74 against, a majority of 4 votes in 152 or 2.6%. . . . The difference between a pagan society and a Christian society is being eroded and we as a traditionally Christian society are rapidly reverting to a pagan one where self-indulgence without restraint, without responsibility, is the order of the day.
Extract . . . man’s right to live and work according to the dictates of conscience is an asset precious to him and medicine itself. Because of their religious conviction two senior members of this division of obstetrics and gynaecology do not perform abortions. . . If when they leave . . . they can be replaced by men or women of equal calibre Oxford will be fortunate. The integrity, experience, skill, and potential of applicants for these posts will be more important than their willingness to terminate pregnancy.
Extract One certainty at least about the situation as regards the liberalization of abortion in Canada is that the problem it presents is not going to go away. . . . one cannot but conclude that the dilemma posed by this state of affairs cannot be dismissed by the ingemination of ready-made phrases such as “rights of the fetus” and “reverence for life”, no matter how respectable these may sound. One suspects that sometimes such phrases are used to rationalize inflexible attitudes and spare a probing of deeper motivation. In some instances they may well suffice for individual physicians who wish to dissociate themselves completely from the issue. But they will not satisfy society at large, to whom another set of slogans (“every baby a wanted baby” and “a woman has the right to the control of her own body”) has a stronger appeal. . . Has not the time come, therefore, for society, including the medical profession, to admit the state of affairs that prevails and face up to its obligations? . . . No serious person believes that abortion should be considered as an alternative to the regular practice of birth control. The by-no-means negligible morbidity associated with abortion and the occasional fatality, apart from the demands it makes on hospital and medical staff, make it much too costly when simple means of conception control are readily available. . . the escape from this dilemma is not in saying that birth control should have been used. . . [advocates sex education as described in Brave New World]. . . as long as human beings are sometimes careless and irresponsible, even if they are no longer ignorant, unwanted pregnancy will occur and the question of its termination, if we have the respect for motherhood we profess, will have to be faced.
Extract However, he seems to have confused morality with the religious (and more specifically Roman Catholic) stand against destroying a living entity. Thus, his letter is an attempt to deal with the therapeutic abortion problem on religious grounds. . . I also take issue with Dr.Coffey’s comment that the medical indications for therapeutic abortion are ”mainly psychiatric.” Psychiatric indications are actually just as many as medical, which are few, if any. However, it is the psychiatrist who is thrust in the breach of the current legislation and must take liberties to interpret the law to fit his own patient. . .
Borsch R. (Correspondence) Therapeutic Abortion. Can. Med. Assoc. J.. 1970;102(6):642. Available from:
