Extract the World Medical Association (WMA) . . . recently found itself caught up in the most controversial problem in WMA history. At issue was the appointment of Dr. Hans-Joachim Sewering, 76, as the WMA’s president-elect. He was to have become president in October. Angry physicians belonging to several WMA member organizations, including the CMA, demanded that the appointment be overturned because Sewering had belonged to the Schutzstaffel, the Nazi elite guard, before World War II. . . . Sewering has been heavily involved in WMA affairs for more than 20 years.
Extract The criminalization of abortion in Britain stemmed from the crime of mayhem. Any act that left the victim less able to serve the monarch was mayhem. . . Abortion might deprive the monarch of a future British soldier, so it was considered mayhem. Its criminalization had little to do with the sanctity of life.
Extract An ancient Chinese curse, “may you live in interesting times”, may turn out to be punishment for some of our misdeeds as the 20th century draws to a close. . . . Unless our society is willing to accept a compromise between the humane aspirations of pro- choice and the species priority of pro-life, we may be doomed to continue the cyclic alternation of dominant conservative and then liberal forces, as has been the case during the last several centuries. These interesting times may indeed be a curse.
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.
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.
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:
Extract The doctor-patient relationship is threatened. Once this association implied only one thing: the doctor above all must protect the patient. . . .
. . . it is not inconceivable that, as Canada moves towards socialized medicine and state control of all health facilities, we, too, may sacrifice the privacy of the doctor- patient relationship that we all once regarded as sacred.
. . . There is much concern regarding the involvement of medical personnel in the use of torture for political purposes. . .
. . . When the Dutch medical community refused to cooperate with the Nazi medical organization, 100 Dutch physicians were sent to concentration camps. Other Dutch physicians did not give in; they took care of the widows and orphans of their colleagues. They did not participate in any Nazi activity; they acted unanimously.
. . . Recently physicians in Portugal studied “the scientific effects” of torture; they examined persons before, during and after torture sessions and evaluated their ability to undergo further torture.
. . .We must therefore each ask what is our duty to our state and what to our profession and to our own sense of moral justice. To what extent might we unwittingly become agents of repression? . . . Physicians in Russia condone beatings; if the prisoner dies the physician complies with government policy and eliminates possible repression by signing the death certificate “cirrhosis of the liver.. or “coronary occlusion.”. . .
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.
Extract It is true that the Nazis were opposed to abortion for “wanted Aryans” (they, like Miss Simms, were interested in eugenics), but any society, including our own, is judged by how it treats its “unwanted” people. Careful thought might determine whose beliefs are closest to the Nazis’ we all affect to despise.
Extract Surely a decision by Parliament in a democracy cannot be described as sinister ” superior orders” echoing Nuremberg 20 years ago (or rather what ended there and then). The boot could be argued to be on the other foot-namely, that doctors are prepared to dictate to the nation.
