Canadian Physicians for Life Archives - Protection of Conscience Project Library

(News) Canadian Physicians for Life poll angers many physicians

Patrick Sullivan

Canadian Medical Association Journal, CMAJ — Canadian Medical Association Journal

Extract
A recent survey of physicians’ opinions about abortion is proving to be almost as controversial as the abortion issue itself. The poll, which cost about $30,000 to conduct, was mailed to approximately 50, 000 doctors in August by an antiabortion organization called Canadian Physicians for Life (CPL). . . By mid-August both CMAJ and the CMA had begun receiving letters critical of the poll. “This is not a survey, this is a propaganda piece”, stated Dr. Michael Klein, a professor of family medicine at McGill University. . . A less angry, though equally critical, letter was sent by Dr. Peter Magner of the Faculty of Medicine, University of Calgary. He said that CPL makes a “quite reasonable argument” that CMA members should be allowed to have their views reflected in association policy statements, but adds: “I was therefore dismayed by the gross bias of the accompanying multiple-choice questionnaire. . . .”

Sullivan P. Canadian Physicians for Life poll angers many physicians. Can Med Assoc J. 1989;141(7):705-706.

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

Patrick Sullivan

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:

(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: