Assisted suicide should NOT be done by doctors

From today's Ottawa Citizen regarding Dr. Margaret Somerville's take on physician assisted dying:

"She said the harms and risks can be limited if government adopts these recommendations: 

• To avoid the future “normalization” of physician-assisted dying, any new law must make it clear that it is an exception, should only be used as a last resort, and will be used rarely.

“If Canada had the same percentage of total deaths of deaths by (physician-assisted dying) as the Netherlands and Belgium currently have (about 4 per cent and 4.6 per cent, respectively) we would have between 11,000 and 12,000 deaths each year.” 

• Patients requesting such a death must first be offered high-quality palliative care, including fully adequate pain management.

• A new profession should be established to carry out physician-assisted dying. The practitioners should not be health care professionals or, if so, only ones who have permanently retired from practice. Practitioners should be specially trained, licensed and have travel money provided to give people across Canada equal access to euthanasia.

“For nearly 2,500 years, physicians and the profession of medicine have recognized that assisted suicide and euthanasia are not medical treatment and this position should be maintained and these interventions kept out of medicine,” Somerville told the committee.
“If this approach is not adopted, two publicly available lists of physicians and institutions should be established, those which will provide euthanasia and those which will not. This is a reasonable compromise between Canadians who agree with euthanasia and those who oppose or fear it.” 

• Assisted death should be restricted to people who are terminally ill, with a life expectancy of less than four weeks, from a physical illness, disease or disability and experiencing extreme physical suffering.

It should not be allowed for children unable to consent for themselves. “Whether it should be available for ‘mature minors’ is a separate question.” 

• There must be psychiatric consultation to rule out depression, or coercion, undue influence of others, or duress, “at the least where there is any possibility of these factors affecting the request or consent to it or any doubts about the person’s mental competency.”

• A Superior Court judge should certify that all legal requirements for access to the procedure have been met.

• There must be a minimum 15-day waiting after the patient’s request to die.

• A national research and review body should be established to collect records of all cases, investigate where there might have been non-compliance with the law, and report, at least annually, in a way that does not breach individuals’ privacy, but informs Parliament, provincial legislatures, courts, professional licensing and disciplinary bodies, medical institutions, the public.

“This body should also be able to make recommendations for changes in law, regulations or practice when these are needed to prevent abuse of euthanasia or to protect vulnerable people.”"

I agree with Dr. Somerville especially about doctors not being the killers, and said so in this letter to the National Post in December 2014:

"Should Canada ever find itself in the sorry state wherein assisted suicide is legal, it should not be up to the doctors to perform this task. Doctors went into medicine to save lives, not to end them. Doctors are healers, not killers.

Instead, there should be a new “death technician” job for euthanasia and assisted suicide. These people would be technicians who are trained in killing people. They can’t be doctors, because obviously, it is a conflict of interest to be a doctor and also to end people’s lives. When we see one of these “death technicians” walking the halls of the hospital, there would be no mistake as to what their duties are.

When and if I am ever in the hospital knowing that my life is nearing its natural end, I want to make sure that my doctor — who has my life in his hands — would never ever willfully aid in my demise. Conversely if I see the death technician enter my room, there would be no doubt as to why he’s there."

The importance of an examined conscience

Freedom of conscience is a fundamental right for everyone--including doctors. It must remain that way. We never want to see our doctors denied this right. Freedom of conscience must be maintained, nurtured, and honoured.

Listen to Margaret Somerville and Arthur Schafer discuss freedom of conscience rights for doctors. 

Vote in the poll as well.

What a frightening world it would be to live in a world dictated by the likes of Arthur Schafer.

Margaret Somerville: how to address Canada's lack of legal protection for unborn children

Some common sense from Margaret Somerville on Canada's abortion laws.

"An email made me ponder what the labels “pro-choice” and “pro-life” really mean, in particular regarding people’s stance on using law to govern abortion...

"...My [email] correspondent, [an articulate, politically engaged, professional woman] wrote: “I spoke to a very successful and intelligent entrepreneur at an event on Saturday, who described himself as pro-choice, who explained, ‘I just have come to the conclusion that abortion is a woman’s choice.’ So I asked two questions: “How would you feel if she was six months along in her pregnancy and the physician would make sure the baby was not born alive?” And, ‘What if the mother wanted an abortion because the baby was a girl and not a boy?’ To both questions, he answered quite adamantly, ‘No, I would never agree.’ And he concluded, ‘I just have never thought about it in those terms.’”

Is he pro-choice? He clearly doesn’t agree with the 28 percent of pro-choice Canadians, who, one survey showed, reject any legal protection for human life prior to birth.

The same survey found only 6 percent of Canadians would legally prohibit all abortions, while 60 percent believe there should be some law protecting unborn children, at the latest at viability (20 weeks gestation). Are only the 6 percent pro-life? 

The 28 percent and 6 percent are the two poles in our abortion debate, but their disputes dominate in the public square. Two-thirds of Canadians fall somewhere on a spectrum between them – they are not absolutists, in either direction, about using law to govern abortion. For them, abortion law (in comparison with abortion, itself, for pro-life people) is not a black and white issue, many are uncertain where to stand, and their voices are rarely heard. 

Adding two new positions to the survey, “modified pro-choice” and “modified pro-life”, to test public opinion more accurately, could remedy that. These terms would indicate basic presumptions, rather than absolutist positions. 

People who accepted a “modified pro-choice” position would allow women to choose abortion, although legal restrictions would apply in certain situations. People who accepted a “modified pro-life” stance would favour legally restricting abortion, but with some exceptions to comply with the Charter and to avoid unenforceable law. 

This modified approach might also allow us, although we start from different bases, to identify where in fact we agree, or are closer to agreement than we’ve recognized, about what the law on abortion should be.

Sixty percent of Canadians agree abortion-on-demand should be legally limited after 20 weeks gestation. Their moral intuitions warn them unborn children capable of living outside the womb should have some legal protection. They also find it horrendous to think of inflicting excruciating pain on the fetus in dismembering it, in utero, to ensure it’s born dead to avoid legal liability for killing it. 

So should abortion-on-demand be legally limited before 20 weeks? I propose applying law at 13 weeks gestation. 

This is not to approve first trimester abortion. Abortion is always a very serious ethical issue, but from a practical and even an ethical point of view in reducing abortions to the minimum number achievable, I believe that in Canada, where, presently, we have no law, it should not be a legal issue until after 13 weeks gestation...

...We need some law on abortion in Canada in order to recognize publicly and as a society that abortion is always a very serious ethical decision and that, as all the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in the Morgentaler case, the lives of unborn children, at least at a certain point in pregnancy, merit legal protection. The court also explained that it’s the role of Parliament to decide and legally establish what that point of the protection of unborn children is. 

To the contrary, Justin Trudeau, the leader of the federal Liberal Party, recently took a very public and highly controversial position that all politicians in his party must vote “pro-choice” on abortion or they were not welcome in the party, that is, they would have to vote against enacting any law on abortion. 

Here’s Trudeau’s edict: “The policy going forward is that every single Liberal MP will be expected to stand up for a woman’s right to choose”. Let’s complete it: “The policy going forward is that every single Liberal MP will be expected to stand up for a woman’s right to choose to kill her unborn child, even if, were it delivered, it would have a chance of surviving or she seeks an abortion only because of the sex of the fetus”. 

Choice, itself, is neither moral nor immoral; rather, as these examples show, it’s what we choose that determines that. Moreover, Trudeau and his MPs should note that facilitating immoral choices is complicity in the immorality involved. 

And I haven’t yet even mentioned the contravention of rights to freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, politicians’ obligations in a democracy to those they represent and so on, this edict represents. The vast majority of religious people are excluded from running for elected office in the Liberal Party – for instance, all Catholics and Muslims (or at least those who follow their conscience), most other Christians and many Jews - and even as members of the Liberal Party, as Trudeau initially extended his edict not just to MPs, but also to members. 

As a woman, whose prestigious Catholic family had been active Liberal supporters for generations, expressed it in her signature on an email to me the day after the edict: “Card-carrying Liberal until yesterday”. 

Canada continues to be a living laboratory on social values issues, with some consequences which, I predict, it will probably one day seriously regret. To close, however, on a more optimistic note: there are signs that more and more young Canadians are realizing that possibility, especially in relation to abortion, and working very effectively to help change the current situation."

Respect for human life as a societal value

Dr. Margaret Somerville comments on Dr. Henry Morgentaler's death. Dr. Somerville gets to the heart of what I believe will be the inevitable failure of the pro-choice philosophy with these comments:

"Pro-choice advocates argue that abortion is an entirely personal decision to be made by a woman in consultation with her physician; that the fetus is not a “person”, who should be legally protected, but is just a “bunch of cells that is part of the woman’s body, which she has the right to control”; and that any woman who does not want an abortion is not forced to have one. These justifications are all at the level of the individual woman who wants an abortion.

But having no legal restrictions on abortion affects more than just the individual woman — or, indeed, the individual unborn child who is aborted. It damages the value of respect for human life in general, at the societal level. Respect for life has two limbs: it must be upheld, not only, with respect to each individual human life, important as that is, but also, with regard to respect for human life in general, as a societal value.

Even if we ignore the failure to respect the individual unborn child’s life, abortion, especially taxpayer funded abortion-on-demand, contravenes respect for human life in general. Consequently, there is something profoundly disordered and deeply tragic about celebrating abortion, as some pro-choice people want us to do. And celebrating Morgentaler’s contribution to changing Canadian society necessarily entails celebrating abortion."

Contrast Dr. Somerville's thoughts with those of Joyce Arthur, who doesn't think a pro-life philosophy "deserves equal time or respect in Canada" and that a pro-life viewpoint is "profoundly mistaken, cruel and undemocratic". Arthur wonders why the "mainstream media continues to give space to these fanatics." There's more of course, there always is with the pro-abortions. You can read it for yourself if you find yourself really bored with nothing else to do. Or you could read a good book.

Sentiments like Ms. Arthur's tell us that the pro-abortions are worried their abortion philosophy may be in jeopardy as weneedaLAW astutely points out. Because there are many of us who don't celebrate abortion and never will.

It's only a matter of time Joyce, only a matter of time.

Abortion - the third rail of politics - touch it and you’re dead

Margaret Somerville asks us some very important questions today in her article on Why we should talk about sex-selection abortion and what is happening in our Parliament.

Here is part of what Dr. Somerville had to say:

"...Prime Minister Stephen Harper does not want any discussion of abortion, in his case, in Parliament. He had stated that the government would not support Motion 408. But was he speaking of “his,” “our,” or “the” government? The differences among these qualifying words can convey different messages.

“His” government strongly indicates Harper will tell members of cabinet and, sometimes, perhaps, all Conservative MPs, how to vote. “Our” government could mean the cabinet or the Conservative caucus decides the stance to be taken, or it could refer to Canadians and mean that MPs should pay at least some attention to how their constituents would want them to vote.

“The” government is less ambiguous — it’s the Canadian government, and, in a representative democracy, MPs should pay at least some attention to how their constituents would want them to vote.

We know that most Canadians abhor discrimination against girls and women and that 92 per cent of Canadians believe that sex-selective abortion is wrong and should not occur in Canada. So why wouldn’t the government support this motion, and would even, keeping in mind that Harper said it was “unfortunate” that Motion 312 had not been found non-unvotable, possibly go so far as to prevent discussion of it?

The short answer is that, yet again, they don’t want to touch the third rail of politics — touch it and you’re dead: abortion.

...And Ambrose’s excuse that she will vote against Motion 408 “only because it has been set up that way” — that is, is connected with abortion — doesn’t make sense. It’s not possible to discuss a motion on sex-selective abortion or vote on it, whether for or against, without mentioning abortion.

Just earlier this month, Harper strongly condemned violence and discrimination against women in his press release statement for International Women’s Day. Yet he is not prepared to vote against sex-selective abortion, and is prepared to force other cabinet ministers not to do so, regardless of their conscientious beliefs in this regard.

It’s true that recognizing sex-selective abortion as an instance of discrimination against women might sensitize more of us to the violence that all abortion involves. But not being able to face the reality of what is involved in abortion can be a warning from our moral intuitions that what we are doing is unethical, and it can result in our suppressing an emotional response to abortion that we would ignore at our ethical peril.

And a final question: To what extent is a failure to condemn sex-selective abortion, when confronted with the question as a lawmaker, or taking steps to prevent it being discussed, a passive endorsement of it?

I would answer Dr. Somerville's last question, by saying that if you fail to condemn sex-selection abortion, it's far worse than passive endorsement. Your refusal to discuss the subject, tells us all we need to know.

Is it inherently wrong for one person intentionally to kill another?

In Today's National Post, Margaret Somerville argues against legalizing euthanasia.

Dr. Somerville gives fundamental reasons why we should be against it.

"...Legalization gives individual autonomy priority over respect for human life. Its message is that personal control is the primary human good; loss of control is equated to loss of dignity. This is especially dangerous for old or disabled people. If euthanasia is an option, they are likely to perceive themselves as a burden on their families and on society, which they could relieve through euthanasia. They could even feel they have a duty to die...

...If, as I do, we believe legalizing euthanasia is a bad idea, it is not enough simply to argue that the pro-euthanasia advocates are wrong on the facts regarding potential abuses, which is where the debate has been focused so far. We must face the basic question that euthanasia raises: Is it inherently wrong for one person intentionally to kill another?

If something is inherently wrong, the issue of how best to manage it does not arise. We only manage activities that are ethically acceptable; we prohibit those that are not. As writer Peter Stockland says, the central question in the euthanasia debate is not whether the system will work as designed to prevent abuses, as pro-euthanasia activists argue it will, but what the system is designed to do. And that requires us to address geriatrician Dr. Catherine Ferrier’s challenging question: “If it’s not killing, what is it?”..."

It's time for a change

I agree with Margaret Somerville's reasoned approach to some legal limits on abortion.

Dr. Somerville says:
To find some common ground, we have to stop allowing people with views at the far ends of either the pro-choice spectrum or the pro-life spectrum to dominate the debate, as they now do, especially in the mainstream media. For too long, the battles between those on each extreme have prevented the nuanced discussion with which most Canadians can identify. We need to work together and build on the existing consensus, rather than focus just on differences. In short, we need to start our discussions from where we agree, not where we disagree.

There are pro-choice people who are against third trimester abortions and or sex selection abortions and who would support such legal restrictions. But as Dr. Somerville points out, we have allowed ourselves, for far too long now, to be swayed by the extremes on either end of the abortion debate.

This has simply guaranteed that legal protection for pre-born children will never become a reality, because the majority of Canadians would never agree to a complete ban on abortion. We know this. It isn't going to change. We need to engage these other Canadians who consider themselves somewhere between these two endposts.

I also agree with Dr. Somerville that:
"we need to consider supportive, non-coercive abortion prevention programs. For instance, a woman with a crisis pregnancy should know that, if she decides against abortion, she will be offered fully adequate psychological and social support...we ensure there are facilities readily available for crisis pregnancy counseling, which are not abortion clinics"

Women need to be able to "be allowed" to say no to abortion and not coerced by whomever, including some "pro-choice" people. We need to help these women who want to say no, and support that choice.

EFC and Motion M-312 - Let’s not debate abortion just now

Thursday, Aug 30, 2012

The ABC’s of Motion M-312 – Abortion, Bioethics & the Canadian Medical Association

Thursday, August 30, 2012 at 2:53PM

By Don Hutchinson

Let’s not debate abortion just now. I won’t deny that both the EFC and I are unabashedly pro-life. Such a denial would be foolish because that position is both well stated and well documented. But let’s not debate abortion or euthanasia or assisted suicide or any of those other pro-life issues just now. Let’s consider Motion M-312 as introduced by Kitchener Centre MP Stephen Woodworth:

That a special committee of the House be appointed and directed to review the declaration in Subsection 223(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada which states that a child becomes a human being only at the moment of complete birth and to answer the questions hereinafter set forth;

that the membership of the special committee consist of twelve members which shall include seven members from the government party, four members from the Official Opposition and one member from the Liberal Party, provided that the Chair shall be from the government party;

that the members to serve on the said committee be appointed by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and the membership report of the special committee be presented to the House no later than 20 sitting days after the adoption of this motion; that substitutions to the membership of the special committee be allowed, if required, in the manner provided by Standing Order 114(2); that the special committee have all the powers of a Standing Committee as provided in the Standing Orders; and that the special committee present its final report to the House of Commons within 10 months after the adoption of this motion with answers to the following questions,

(i) what medical evidence exists to demonstrate that a child is or is not a human being before the moment of complete birth?,

(ii) is the preponderance of medical evidence consistent with the declaration in Subsection 223(1) that a child is only a human being at the moment of complete birth?,

(iii) what are the legal impact and consequences of Subsection 223(1) on the fundamental human rights of a child before the moment of complete birth?,

(iv) what are the options available to Parliament in the exercise of its legislative authority in accordance with the Constitution and decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada to affirm, amend, or replace Subsection 223(1)?

Mr. Woodworth is also a pro-lifer. He’s made no secret of that. However, his motion is not about abortion (some call it the “a-word” because they seem to fear even uttering it under their breath) but about a bigger question, “How does Canadian law define ‘human being’ and how does that definition impact Canadian life beyond a sub-paragraph in the Criminal Code?” Not only is a big question being asked, but it’s being asked in the House of Commons where the Canadian legal definition of ‘human being’ resides, according to the Supreme Court of Canada’s interpretation of our constitution.

Mr. Woodworth hasn’t proposed a change in the law, but a study of the law by a committee of MPs composed and functioning in the usual manner and structure of Parliamentary committees (plenty of opportunity for pro-lifers and pro-choicers to be appointed members and/or alternates) – with the committee to report back to Parliament, also in the usual manner of Parliamentary committees.

For those who have expressed concern that this is a backdoor to reopening the debate on the a-word, it is simple enough to observe that the debate on abortion has not stopped in Parliament (with well over a dozen related private members actions by either motion or bill over the last two decades) – where the Supreme Court of Canada said in R v Morgentaler (1988) the debate belongs; the Supreme Court of Canada has continued to hear cases dealing directly with maternal rights issues, the (non-existent) rights of the pre-born child and the interest of the state in the life of a pre-born child; and, the debate has continued in public through voices on both sides of the issue with strong commentary in the traditional and non-traditional media on an ongoing basis. I fully expect that there will be those who would wish to make submission to the committee who will address the issue of abortion. But the questions posed are bigger than abortion and the mandate is more fundamental to Canadian law.

The motion proposes a study of a key matter for bioethics. I was on the elevator in our building with an obviously pregnant woman and the following brief conversation took place:

Me: Congratulations. I see you’re pregnant. Are you hoping to have a human being?

Woman: What?

Me: As the law currently stands in Canada, your baby isn’t considered a human being until he or she fully emerges from your body. I’m a lawyer studying this issue and am interested in your reaction to finding out your child isn’t a human being yet.

She looked quizzical as she left the elevator. I elected not to follow, discretion perhaps being the better part of valour.

As a matter of simple bioethics, the status of the child in the womb is important to medical considerations and scientific experimentation (including eugenics, sex selection, assisted reproduction and legal debates over stored genetic materials). That brings me to the C in this list of the simple ABCs.

On August 15, 2012, the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) passed a resolution that states:

The Canadian Medical Association favours maintaining subsection 223 (1) of the Criminal Code, which states that a child “becomes a human being within the meaning of this Act when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother […].”

This resolution could easily have been drafted and proposed by the Canadian Medical Protective Association (CMPA) – the insurance and legal defense side of medical practice in Canada. Who else would have come up with such a self-serving idea? The CMPA has been representing doctors in the courts for over a century – including arguing that there is no entitlement to damages for medical actions that result in the death of a child that does not survive to become a human being as defined in subsection 223 (1) of the Criminal Code. For those doctors engaged in surgery on the child in the womb, abortion procedures (where care is taken to make sure the child will not breath outside the mother’s body and become a human being lest it be entitled to protection under the law) and other pre-birth foetal engagement, the measure of legal protection is seemingly absolute as long as the child does not completely proceed in a living state from the body of its mother.

Doctors and scientists are dealing with genetic material, embryos and pre-born children as human, in the context of a law that says “not human beings.” The CMA’s own guidelines note that at 20 weeks gestation the child is capable of becoming a legal “human being,” i.e. it can survive outside the mother’s body, and as such it is ethically wrong to perform an abortion after that point. (It’s kind of bizarre that we Canadians are living with a law that describes a child as a “child” while in the womb but not a “human being” until it has emerged from its mother’s body as subsection 223 (1) does.)

Mr. Woodworth’s motion raises the question, “Are we living with an arbitrary legal fiction about what is and is not human?” As such, the proposed committee would have the opportunity to examine when being human begins, including recent efforts to advocate that “human being” should begin at some point after birth; as in Holland for infanticide of children born with evident “defects” or as suggested in this article from the Journal of Medical Ethics, perhaps as late as 3 years after birth.

I agree with Margaret Somerville, director of the McGill University Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law, “that we need to recover our sense of amazement, wonder and awe at the creation of new human life” and, as she suggests, we need to have this in-depth discussion. The place for the discussion as proposed by Mr. Woodworth – and as recommended by the Supreme Court of Canada – would be Parliament, using the usual means of Parliamentary study to engage with the public in examination of Parliament’s own law that is founded in the medical science of 400 years past. No backdoors, only an open front door for all to see and have opportunity to participate in a routine legislative review that is apparently centuries overdue.

Mr. Hudak where were you?

Dear Mr Hudak,

As you know, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and effective January 1, 2012, section 65 of the Act was amended to exclude records relating to the provision of abortion services.

The effect of section 65 (5.7) of the Act is that individuals no longer have a right to make access requests under Part II of FIPPA to an institution for records in the custody or under the control of that institution relating to the provision of abortion services:

(5.7) This Act does not apply to records relating to the provision of abortion services. 2010, c. 25, s. 24 (17)

This amendment to FIPPA was very quietly slipped in as part of Bill 122: An Act to increase the financial accountability of organizations in the broader public sector.

Mr. Hudak, you might want to read this article published today in the Calgary Herald written by Margaret Somerville.

Dr. Somerville says about these changes:
“This change has ethical implications. It might also raise legal issues. For in-stance, a right to freedom of speech is seriously cur-tailed if one is prevented from obtaining the facts needed to form one's opinion. And we often speak of such restrictions, when they are imposed in non-democratic countries, as a breach of human rights...

FIPPA is meant to augment the transparency, openness and accountability of all levels of government for their decisions and actions, and our right, as Canadian citizens, to participate in democracy and democratic decision-making. My guess is that if the same approach were taken to information on breast cancer, people would be outraged.”

To be very clear, this issue is not a pro-life or a pro-choice issue. It is a pro-democracy issue, or to be more exact, this is an anti-democracy issue. Because it doesn't matter if you are pro-life or you are pro-choice. The result is that all access to abortion related information in the province of Ontario is now prohibited. It is comprehensive.

To frame this a bit differently and to expand on what Dr. Somerville says, can you imagine what would have happened in Ontario, if the exclusion clause instead excluded "breast cancer services"? This would mean that we would no longer know how many women get breast cancer, how many die from breast cancer, and whether or not our Ontario health care system was taking care of women who have breast cancer, and what the outcome was of their breast cancer treatment. The outrage would be deafening.

In light of these facts, and as leader of the official opposition in Ontario, and since your role as Opposition leader is to keep government accountable, can you please answer the following questions for me about this bill?

1) Why were abortion services the only "medical procedure" excluded from FIPPA?

2) This exclusion was never debated or even mentioned in the Ontario Legislative Assembly. Can you please tell me why you and your party did not object to this exclusion, and never raised a red flag to the people of Ontario?

3) You did not vote against the third reading of this bill. Can you please tell me why?

I look forward to receiving your reply at your earliest possible convenience.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Patricia Maloney

Margaret Somerville responds

I recently wrote about Margaret Somerville's article in the Ottawa Citizen, called The profound complexities of informed consent to abortion.

This prompted a response by letter writer Michelle Dewar in Unbiased debate needed.

Dr. Somerville then sent in this (unpublished) letter to the Ottawa Citizen:

The Ottawa Citizen
Dear Editor,

In response to Michelle Dewar’s criticisms ("Unbiased debate needed", Ottawa Citizen March 26, 2012) of my article, (“The profound complexities of informed consent to abortion”, Ottawa Citizen March 23, 2012), I agree the article is “one woman’s story” (its original title). But, contrary to Dewar’s view, we need to listen to such stories. They are a valid basis, although certainly not the only one, for doing ethics – an approach called “narrative ethics”.

And, of course, facts are important, but the facts in my article are how Anna perceived and experienced what happened to her. If that was a rare event, as Dewar implies, so much the better, but Kathleen Gray’s comments, which are quoted in the article, indicate otherwise. And it’s clear that pro-choice supporters don’t like such facts.

Dewar argues that “one anonymous, anecdotal story … cannot be taken as scientific evidence for what is the typical experience of women in Quebec” and that we need  “evidence based, reasoned argument”. While very important, “scientific evidence” is not the only evidence relevant to ethics. It’s often said in ethics that “we  ignore our feelings at our ethical peril“. What that tells us, and scientific research is now confirming, is that examined emotions and moral intuition can guide us ethically, but, of course, our conclusions on those bases need to be checked out with reason.

As to the criticism of the story being “anonymous”, surely Dewar wouldn’t expect it to be otherwise from an ethical perspective. Anna was very brave in allowing it to be told at all. As she said, she felt that doing so might help other women and, if so, that was the only good that could come out of this situation.

And regarding Dewar’s criticism of not mentioning the “social assistance” available, why didn’t the abortion clinic tell Anna about this? One could argue that it, too, should be disclosed as part of obtaining informed consent to abortion as “information that would be material to a reasonable person in the same circumstances”.

Sincerely,
Margaret Somerville

A message we don't want to hear

In The profound complexities of informed consent to abortion, Margaret Somerville tells us about a woman who has had an abortion, and who subsequently struggles with her decision.

It is a sad story, typical of many women we hear about, who have abortions and regret them afterwards.

The woman Anna (not her real name) regrets her decision, and tells us why. She had no support systems. She was told to "get on with it - have an abortion". Anna tells us she is "terribly upset". A nurse tells her it's just a clump of cells. And on and on it goes.

Dr. Somerville goes on to explain the complexities and importance of real informed consent, which didn't seem to happen in Anna's situation.

The story is well worth the read.

What I found surprising and deeply disturbing though, were some of the comments posted on-line about the article. Many of these anonymous comments were from people who we can only assume are "pro-choice".

Instead of showing any compassion for the woman involved, these comments try and make Anna out as some kind of moron because she regrets what she has done. It seems that should a woman actually regret her abortion and end up concluding that all the ways she was supposed to feel don't ever materialize, then she is somehow stupid and worthy of scorn.

This is very confusing. "Pro-choice" people keep telling us that they care for the woman. Isn't that what they tell us over and over again? And that all pro-lifers care about is the unborn child?

But that's not what these comments are telling us. They are telling us that unless a woman is happy with her abortion, unless a woman actually celebrates her abortion, then there must be something wrong with her. These commenters are not supporting the very woman they keep telling us they care about.

So what's happening here? Why are these commenters shooting the messenger? It's because Anna is the messenger of a message they can't bear to hear. Hearing the message, and acknowledging that what happened to Anna does occur, would challenge their convictions that having an abortion is no problem at all. That maybe they are wrong. And this they cannot face.

Margaret Somerville responds to Vicki Saporta

Margaret Somerville wrote this article on June 2, 2010 in the Montreal Gazette Busting the abortion myths

Dr. Somerville says in part:
"It's an oft-repeated truism in ethics: "Good facts are essential for good ethics." So surely we need the facts about an issue as ethically fraught as abortion. Yet not only do we not have them, but they are intentionally not gathered or, if some are or might be available, access to them is denied.

That allows two myths that favour the pro-choice stance on abortion to be propagated: That late-term abortion is rare and that there is a consensus in Canada on the public-policy regime that should govern abortion (which, at present, is the complete absence of any law)."

Vicki Saporta responded to Dr. Somerville's article with this letter in the Montreal Gazette published June 5, 2010

Facts are available

Re: "Busting the abortion myths" (Opinion, June 1). Margaret Somerville's article relies on anecdotal evidence that supports her personal ideology rather than speaking to the unbiased, statistical evidence concerning abortion.

The majority of abortions in Canada are provided in the first trimester and there is statistical data to support this fact. In 1995, the responsibility for collecting abortion data was transferred from Statistics Canada to the Canadian Institute for Health Information. Perhaps if Somerville had contacted the correct agency when writing this article, she would have learned that, according to the CIHT, in 2005, the percentage of abortions provided after 20 weeks was less than one percent (0.56 per cent).

Abortions after 20 weeks are provided in a hospital and data show they usually have a corresponding diagnostic code, which indicates a fetal or maternal complication. These are often heartbreaking cases of women who discovered late in very wanted pregnancies that their fetuses were diagnosed with fatal anomalies or that their health or life would be put at risk if they continued their pregnancies.

It is misleading and inaccurate to suggest that the facts on later abortion are somehow hidden from the Canadian people.

Vicki Saporta
President
National Abortion
Federation Canada
Victoria, B.C.

Here is Dr. Somerville's letter to the Editor (unpublished) sent to The [Montreal] Gazette in response to Vicki Saporto's letter.

Dear Editor,

Re: Vicki Saporta (“Facts are available”, Letters, June 5)

Ms. Saporta signs her letter, challenging my recent article on late-term abortion, as President of the National Abortion Federation of Canada. She fails to mention she is also the Executive Director and President of the Washington-based National Abortion Federation, which, according to Joyce Arthur of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada, “represents abortion providers in the United States and Canada”. (Charles Lewis, “Fetal rights stir debate on abortion”, National Post, November 19, 2008). It’s no surprise, therefore, that she uses “evidence that supports her ideology”, as she accuses me of doing, and that also supports the “abortion industry” for which she works.

Ms. Saporta tries to undermine my credibility and be reassuring that late-term abortions are so few we shouldn’t be worrying about them, when she states that if I had contacted the correct agency I would have learned that “in 2005 the percentage of abortions provided after 20 weeks was less than one percent (0.56 per cent)”. But Statistics Canada is a “correct agency” and when over 100,000 abortions occur in Canada each year the percentage she gives is consistent with the figures I state in my article, that between 400 and 800 post-20- week gestation abortions occur annually. We wouldn’t consider 400 to 800 deaths a year from road accidents nothing to worry about or a rare occurrence. We should treat late-term abortion similarly.

Ms. Saporta is probably correct that many late-term abortions are associated with “fetal anomalies”. But what is the nature of these “anomalies”? Should we, for instance, be aborting up to 90 per cent of Down syndrome children, as is currently happening, some of them late-term abortions? And what message does this send to disabled Canadians?

And her statement that late-term abortions are necessary to avoid risk to the pregnant woman’s life or health is inconsistent with medical evidence that this is a rare occurrence, especially as early delivery of a viable child is an alternative option.

Finally, Ms. Saporta claims “It is inaccurate and misleading to suggest [as I do] that the facts on later abortion are somehow hidden from the Canadian people”.

She is wrong that they are not being hidden, as, for example, this month's ruling by the British Columbia Office of Information and Privacy’s rejecting an attempt by pro-life activists to gain access to information on abortions at the province’s hospitals clearly shows. The senior adjudicator Celia Francis ruled that release of such information was “not in the public interest”, and the ruling can be interpreted to state that it never will be.

And, it’s ironic that the way in which Ms. Saporta chooses to present her “facts” is obviously intended to result in misleading Canadians in relation to the true realities of late-term abortion.

Sincerely,

Margaret Somerville

Down the rabbit hole

Thank goodness Margaret Somerville stands up for the unborn.

But there was tough competition today with Judith Timson in the Globe and Mail, Chris Selley in the National Post, and Valerie Percival in the Ottawa Citizen. All complaining loudly over Mr. Harper's Maternal Health care initiative and the fact that it will not cover abortion.

But what was really odd, was that Timson thinks she speaks for me. I wonder why she would think that?
"In exactly whose name has the Harper government decided to withhold funds for access to safe abortion in their international maternal and child health initiative? Not in my name. And not in the names of countless Canadians who have relied for years on safe access to the procedure at government expense...Is that really what we want – to deal with abortion again ? Although there has been a slight drop in the number of Canadians supporting full access to abortion, polls show a majority still support it."

She even admits that fewer Canadians support abortion. Curiouser and curiouser.

But what is more troubling than the pro-abortion types' misguided notion that they somehow speak for other Canadians, is their ever increasing shrillness about "women's rights" and their corresponding complete dismissal of fetal rights.

They don't just dismiss the unborn child and its rights, they pretend that the children who are the victims of abortions don’t exist at all. Like some kind of fairy tale dream world where women have "procedures" but let's not talk about what the "procedure" is doing, or how it is done. And please, please, whatever you do, don't show us any pictures of the "procedure".

Nope. Women's Rights. All for one and one for all.