(Correspondence) The Canadian abortion law

MM Sereda

Canadian Medical Association Journal, CMAJ
Canadian Medical Association Journal

Extract
In the intensive care unit at the University of Alberta Hospital in Edmonton a fetus weighing 720 g has survived and thrived. By definition, any fetus of that size or larger should be considered potentially viable. . . . . In Alberta in 1975 there were two abortions induced by saline infusion; the fetuses weighed 800 and 1250 g, respectively. These weights were discovered by accident because hospitals allowing abortions prohibit the weighing of aborted fetuses. In fact, one of the fetuses was rushed to an intensive care unit in Edmonton, so it must still have been alive. . . . There is no question that the Criminal Code needs amendment to accomplish two things: (a) to make recording of weights of aborted fetuses mandatory and (b) to make it possible to take criminal action against any doctor who kills a potentially viable fetus by abortion.


Sereda MM. (Correspondence) The Canadian abortion law. Can Med Assoc J. 1977 Feb 05;116(3):247.

Hill-Burton Hospitals After Roe and Doe: Can Federally Funded Hospitals Refuse to Perform Abortions?

Eugene L Berl

Review of Law & Social Change
Review of Law & Social Change

Extract
Conclusion

Public hospitals, by reason of the mandate of Roe and Doe, cannot categorically refuse to perform abortions. Similarly, under the state action doctrine, hospitals receiving federal funds pursuant to the Hill-Burton Act cannot refuse to perform abortions, notwithstanding the Health Programs Extension Act of 1973. The inter-relationsip of state and the hospital in the Hill-Burton program, with all the rights, duties and obligations incidental thereto, and the fact that the state and the hospital are joint participants in a state project undertaken for the benefit of the public, support the finding of state action. The Roe prohibition against state interference in a woman’s abortion decision, to be more than a mere cipher, must extend beyond state abortion statutes to the unwarranted refusal to perform abortions by hospitals with which the state is intimately involved.


Berl EL. Hill-Burton Hospitals After Roe and Doe: Can Federally Funded Hospitals Refuse to Perform Abortions? New York U Rev Law & Social Change. 1974;4(1):83-97.

Applications for abortion at a community hospital

Marlene E Hunter

Canadian Medical Association Journal, CMAJ
Canadian Medical Association Journal

Extract
Applications for therapeutic abortion over a 44-week period in a 647-bed community hospital are reviewed . . . . No contraceptive measures were being employed at the time of conception by 69.7%. Less than one sixth of the patients were applying because of severely adverse social, psychological or medical reasons. . . . it was often difficult to refrain from presuming that “she is in no position to raise a child” indicated inconvenience rather than incipient emotional disaster. . . . Women must be informed that abortion is not a minor procedure and that long term hazards to themselves, to future pregnancies and to future children are significantly high. . . . The concept of prevention rather than abortion should be emphasized. . . surely we can assist more women to achieve satisfactory methods of control.


Hunter ME. Applications for abortion at a community hospital. Can Med Assoc J. 1974 Nov 16;111(10):1088-1092.

Constitutional Law: Private Hospital May Refuse to Perform Abortion

Betty Berger

Saint Louis University Law Journal
Saint Louis University Law Journal

Extract
Conclusion

It is evident that the abortion question in relation to private hospitals is being fought on two grounds. One ground is state action. The other is freedom of religion and moral conviction. Decisions are beginning to indicate that public hospitals may have to perform abortions if they have the facilities. On the other hand, decisions such as Bellin, indicate that courts may not find sufficient state action when a private hospital is involved even if that hospital has received public funds. Even if they do, Bellin indicates that the right of conscience may protect the private hospital which is also sectarian and opposed to abortion on religious and moral grounds.’ Furthermore, the United States Congress has established a policy that receipt of funds from Hill-Burton or any other programs covered by the Health Services Extension Act of 1973 should not force a hospital to provide personnel and facilities for abortions. In addition, the first amendment protects the rights of individuals and groups to refuse to do what their religion prohibits. Abortions are generally a convenience and not a matter of life and death if not performed in the private hospital. In the balance of convenience versus first amendment freedoms, courts are unlikely to let convenience prevail. Private hospitals have sold neither their rights nor their private status..


Berger B. Constitutional Law: Private Hospital May Refuse to Perform Abortion. Saint Louis U Law J. 1974;18(3): 440-460.

Outpatient management of first trimester therapeutic abortions with and without tubal ligation

JA Collins, HH Allen, AA Yuzpe

Canadian Medical Association Journal, CMAJ
Canadian Medical Association Journal

Abstract
In busy hospitals the increasing numbers of abortions must be performed without disturbing other hospital functions. Local anesthesia, vaginal tubal ligation and the use of outpatient beds are the operative and administrative adaptations described. Of 1545 abortions performed in Victoria Hospital, London, in 1971, 428 (32%) were done under local anesthesia; 14 of these patients also had vaginal tubal ligation under local anesthesia. There were 405 sterilizations (26.2%) among this group of patients, of which 390 (96.3%) were vaginal tubal ligations. Of the total number, 891 (57.7%) were dealt with as outpatients and these comprised 62.0% of patients having therapeutic abortion only, and 46.7% of patients having tubal sterilization as well as abortion.


Collins JA, Allen H, Yuzpe A. Outpatient management of first trimester therapeutic abortions with and without tubal ligation. Can Med Assoc J. 1972 May 20;106():1077-1080.