0 - Page 2 of 2 - Protection of Conscience Project Library

Restricting Donative Choice: Fetal Tissue Transplantation and Respect for Human Life

Joanna H Kinney

Abstract
I propose that a woman who becomes pregnant with the intent to abort will be treated as an initial aggressor, and as such she will be denied the “abortion exception” that will be granted to the woman who aborts an accidental, unwanted pregnancy. Moreover, I shall argue that a woman should not be allowed to designate the donee of the fetal tissue from her abortion, even though her pregnancy was accidental. Without this restriction, a woman who intends to become pregnant and abort may simply claim her pregnancy was accidental, and thereby claim the exception. Central to this study is the question of fetal worth, and the value to be ascribed to beings not like us, that is, not like human beings who have been born. Although I argue for a moral justification of elective abortions, I intend to show that such a justification should be a narrowly drawn exception to the prima facie duties neither to harm nor to instrumentalize others. I shall also argue that prohibiting a woman from becoming pregnant in order to abort is necessary because such a situation does not fall within the narrow exception for elective abortions, and that such a restriction is crucial to preserving our respect for those with no voice. Finally, I shall argue that the prohibition against becoming pregnant with the intent to abort does not vitiate a woman’s right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. Rather, this restriction is a necessary condition of the prima facie duties of nonmaleficence and non-insturmentalization.

Kinney JH. Restricting Donative Choice: Fetal Tissue Transplantation and Respect for Human Life. J. Law Health. 1996;10(2):259-286.

(Editorial) A de-facto end to abortion in USA?

The Lancet

Extract
these Bills (one in the House of Representatives and a less wild version in the Senate) are unnecessary and deceptive. . . .The Bills would allow residents and programmes to abstain from abortions on any grounds, not just religious or moral. . . .So what is their objective? It is the de facto ending of abortion in the USA. By allowing more residents and more programmes to opt out of abortion training, safe termination of pregnancy in America will become even more difficult to obtain. Already, the number of competently trained graduates has fallen dramatically. Access to doctors and clinics has shrunk, and too many American women wanting an abortion already face a long and sometimes dangerous search for help. This is an attack on women’s choices and an interference in medical education. If it passes Congress, President Clinton should veto it immediately.

The Lancet. (Editorial) A de-facto end to abortion in USA? The Lancet. 1996;347(9008):1055.

Selective conscientious objection in the United States

Joseph E Capizzi

Extract
It is this author’s position that the concerns of the selective conscientious objector ought to be legally recognized, not because an exemption is granted to the pacifist, but because it is the right thing to do in a democratic society that is respectful of its members’ religious commitments. This is not proposed as yet another right to add to the ever-growing list of individual rights in our society. The point of this essay is not to argue implicitly in defense of liberalism by arguing explicitly for a right deriving therefrom. Rather, it is proposed that the recognition of selective conscientious objection is necessary due to the presence of two existent legal concepts: the free exercise of religion, already extended to pacifists, and the right to confessional neutrality. “Compelling state interests” simply do not, in point of fact, override confessional neutrality. The government’s arguments about the feasibility of determining sincere selective objectors, about the drain of manpower that it claims would occur, and that the selective objector is merely a “political” dissenter and as such should not be granted this privilege, are not convincing.

Capizzi JE. Selective conscientious objection in the United States. J Church State. 1996 Spring;38(2):339-363.

Abortion induced with methotrexate and misoprostol

Ellen R Wiebe

Canadian Medical Association Journal, CMAJ — Canadian Medical Association Journal

Abstract
Objective: To determine the outcome and side effects of a new drug protocol to induce abortion.

Design: Case series.

Setting: An urban primary care practice.

Patients: One hundred consecutive patients who requested elective termination of pregnancies of less than 8 weeks’ gestation.

Intervention: Subjects received methotrexate (50 mg/m2 body surface area, administered intramuscularly) and, 3 days afterward, misoprostol (800 pg, given vaginally).

Outcome measures: Number of abortions induced within 24 hours and within 10 days of misoprostol administration, number of surgical aspirations conducted because of incomplete abortion, mean amount of bleeding and pain and the number of women who, if faced with the same situation, said they would again choose a drug-induced abortion over a surgical one.

Results: Abortion occurred within 24 hours of misoprostol administration among 48 women and within 10 days among 69 women. In total, 89 women had an abortion without surgical aspiration. Of these women, 71 said they would choose a drug-induced abortion if faced with the choice again.

Conclusion: Abortion induced with methotrexate and misoprostol appears to be a feasible alternative to surgical abortion and deserves further study.

Wiebe ER. Abortion induced with methotrexate and misoprostol. Can Med Assoc J. 1996 Jan 15;154(2):159-164.