Below is a letter from Dr. Philip G. Ney that was printed in the National Post on Feb 6.
Dr. Ney has his own perspective on how to restrict abortion.
(Reprinted with permission from the author)
Making the decision to abort
Re: Some Questions About Abortion For Carolyn Bennett, Jonathan Kay, Feb. 5.
Jonathan Kay’s fine piece of rhetoric would be persuasive except he neglects two salient aspects: a) Should anyone or any political or medical body have the august authority or temerity to define (morally) who is a person? b) If the doctors are doing a good job at limiting abortions by gestational age, why not go along with the “pro-choice”? Because physicians cannot be trusted to be honest about gestational age in any situation where they have a “special” patient.
Instead, why not use the almost universally accepted criteria of evidence-based practice. Abortions would be limited not because of age or politics or pressure, but because it is bad medicine. Like every other procedure to qualify an abortion would need to be: necessary, beneficial, relatively free of harm, done only after less invasive more reversible treatments have been tried, done in good faith and only after fully informed consent is freely given. To provide abortions for any other reason is to condone malpractice.
Dr. Philip G. Ney, Victoria.