Canadian Medical Association Archives - Page 2 of 3 - Protection of Conscience Project Library

(News) Attempts to change abortion policy find little support at annual meeting

Patrick Sullivan

Canadian Medical Association Journal, CMAJ — Canadian Medical Association Journal

Extract
the most heated debate at the 122nd annual meeting didn’t come until its dying hours, when the abortion issue was raised in three separate recommendations put forward under new business. . . .The first recommendation, and the one that received the loudest criticism, was . . .”that many Canadian physicians do not agree with the 1988 CMA recommendations regarding induced abortion . . . the amended version was defeated by a large margin. . . . A recommendation that the CMA reassess its policy on induced abortion “with specific direction that the rights of the unbom child be considered” was referred to the Committee on Ethics, which is already working to establish a CMA policy on fetal rights.

Sullivan P. Attempts to change abortion policy find little support at annual meeting. Can Med Assoc J. 1989;141(6):585-596, 588, 590. Available from:

(News) New abortion policy approved for CMA despite some vocal opposition

Patrick Sullivan

Extract
The approximately 230 General Council members took just over an hour to approve the proposed policy in toto, despite strenuous objections from some doctors. . . .Dr. David Knickle, a Charlottetown obstetrician who raised the loudest voice against the new policy, countered that it “simply is carte blanche abortion on demand”. However, his motion that the association “state its op- position to nontherapeutic abortions” received almost no support. . . . Dr. William MacDiarmid of Winnipeg, a member of the CMA’s Committee on Ethics, spoke against the Knickle motion, arguing that because the CMA is a reflection of society, it has to avoid taking an extreme position. “Many of us are in the middle”, he said.

Sullivan P. New abortion policy approved for CMA despite some vocal opposition. Can Med Assoc J. 1988;139(6):542-544.

Abortion (Policy Statement)

Canadian Medical Association

Abstract
The Canadian Medical Association (CMA) recognizes that there is justification for abortion on medical and nonmedical socioeconomic grounds and that such an elective surgical procedure should be decided upon by the patient and the physician(s) concerned. Ideally, the service should be available to all women on an equitable basis across Canada. CMA has recommended the removal of all references to hospital therapeutic abortion committees as outlined in the Criminal Code of Canada. The Criminal Code would then apply only to the performance of abortion by persons other than qualified physicians or in facilities other than approved or accredited hospitals. The Canadian Medical Association is opposed to abortion on demand or its use as a birth control method, emphasizing the importance of counselling services, family planning facilities and services, and access to contraceptive information. . . the association also supports the position that no hospital, physician or other health care worker should be compelled to participate in the provision of abortion services if it is contrary to their beliefs or wishes. CMA also recommended that a patient should be informed of physicians’ moral or religious views restricting their recommendation for a particular form of therapy.

Canadian_Medical_Association. Abortion (Policy Statement). Can Med Assoc J. 1985 Aug 15;133(4):318.

(Correspondence) The CMA abortion survey

PG Coffey

Extract
The CMA should have asked prolife physicians “Do you believe that the threat to a woman’s life should be the only indication for abortion?” In my experience most pro-life advocates believe not that there is absolutely no indication for abortion, but that abortion is indicated only in serious circumstances.

Coffey PG. (Correspondence) The CMA abortion survey. Can Med Assoc J. 1983 Dec 15;129(12):1260.

CMA reviews its position

Normand Da Sylva

Extract
Throughout the 1 970s and early 1 980s the issue of abortion was causing such concern that, at its 1981 meeting in Halifax, General Council directed the association “to review the situation with respect to therapeutic abortions in Canada”. As part of this review, the Board of Directors decided to go to the grassroots or the association and to ask individual physicians what their opinions were, not only on the procedural aspects of the current legislation, but also on the ethical and moral aspects of terminating a pregnancy. . . . With the help of an outside consultant, we then drew the names of 2000 physicians from the associations membership file to get a statistically valid sample, proportionally representative of our membership by province and by specialty.

Sylva ND. CMA reviews its position. Can Med Assoc J. 1983;128(1):57.

(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:

The 1981 presidential valediction

WDS Thomas

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.

(Publisher’s Page) Physicians as civil servants

David Woods

Extract
The Canadian Medical Association’s position paper on the Hall report is unequivocal about this: proposed restrictions on the patient’s right to retain the advice and services of a physician of his or her choice would help to transform the MD from an independent provider of health care into, in effect, “a government-retained dependent contractor – a de facto civil servant”.

But Dr. Augustin Roy, president of the Corporation of Physicians and Surgeons of Quebec, sees things quite differently. Just because Hall wants to do away with extra billing, says Roy, doesn’t necessarily mean that if he gets his way doctors will become state employees. “That is only true if you have defined work hours and someone to report to.”

Yet surely the point is that the more the medical profession’s freedoms are removed, the more governments pick them up. As CMA President Dr. Bill Thomas has observed, the control of health care, the number of doctors produced in Canada, the number allowed to immigrate here, and the qualifications and education required to obtain a licence to practise medicine are all controlled by government now. . . The question isn’t whether Canada’s physicians will become de facto civil servants, but how they can withstand government’s constant chipping away at professional freedom, which will eventually give MDs no control over their collective destiny.

Woods D. Physicians as civil servants. Can Med Assoc J. 1980 Nov 22;123(10):959.

(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.