Mass intention: Protection of Pro-Life Doctors

Where: St. Monica's

Date: Sunday, July 2 at 11 am

Address:  2080 Merivale Rd, Nepean, ON K2C 3H1, Canada

CBC and its obvious bias on RU-486

Typical that the CBC keeps complaining about how RU-486 will be dispensed. They keep finding doctors who complain about the rules of the drug, which by the way, are there in the first place because this drug is so dangerous. And if you go to the CBC link above, you'll find more links to even more CBC articles, also complaining about RU-486.

Is it not at all possible for them to find even one doctor out there who thinks that RU-486 is not good for women? Because I'm pretty sure they're out there. Maybe they should do their job properly and find a few of those doctors who will tell the CBC of all the different risks this drug poses to women.

CBC, have you made any effort at all to do this? No? I thought so.

CPSO is taking a dangerous position on conscience rights

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO), wants to change how doctors are required to refer for care. Their draft policy, Professional Obligations and Human Rights states:

“Where physicians are unwilling to provide certain elements of care due to their moral or religious beliefs, an effective referral to another health care provider must be provided to the patient. An effective referral means a referral made in good faith to a non-objecting, available and accessible physician or other health-care provider. The referral must be made in a timely manner to reduce the risk of adverse clinical outcomes. Physicians must not impede access to care for existing patients, or those seeking to become patients”

Here are four reasons why CPSO shouldn't go ahead with this bad policy.

1) Freedom of conscience for doctors. It is wrong to force doctors to betray their conscience. This is not a difficult concept to understand. A civilized society does not force anyone to act against their conscience. And if a doctor is forced to refer for a procedure that is against her conscience, she is complicit in the act itself, which is the same (morally) as performing the act herself. This is wrong and against every moral definition one can think of.

2) Patient/doctor trust. If a patient knows their doctor can leave their conscience at the door when it comes to abortion, contraception or assisted suicide, how can the patient be expected to trust their doctor with their other health issues?

3) Retroactive requirements. Changing the guidelines in this way, is an unethical act towards the doctors affected. When doctors who are currently practicing, or are in medical school, first became doctors, they did so with the understanding that they would be able to conscientiously object to procedures that are against their conscience (including referring to another doctor).

This change would be a retroactive requirement of being a doctor. This is patently unfair to doctors. It means that doctors who are already in the profession or are in medical school, and chose the profession based on the current guidelines that do uphold their freedom of conscience rights, will now be expected to act according to a new and very different set of rules. Many doctors would have no choice but to leave their chosen profession in order to not be forced to be complicit in acts they find morally reprehensible.

4) Loss of livelihood to doctors. The huge investments required to become a doctor in the first place (time, money, family dependency on the doctor's livelihood, etc), would all be thrown away. Not only would these doctors who have invested large sums of money and time in becoming a doctor be forced to quit, but their entire livelihood would be at risk, and the livelihood of their families.

Dr. Marc Gabel who works for CPSO and is the chair of the college’s policy working group reviewing “Professional Obligations and Human Rights”, seems to have no problem with the harmful consequences this policy would impose on doctors:

“It may well be that you would have to think about whether you can practice family medicine as it is defined in Canada and in most of the Western countries.”

Dr. Gabel's flippant dismissal of the very real dilemma this new policy would incur for many doctors is worrisome. Forcing doctors to either refer for procedures that go against their conscience or, leave their profession altogether, is not a trivial matter.

These are all very serious considerations. CPSO and Dr. Gabel need to seriously rethink this policy because of these negative outcomes for doctors, the patients they treat, and society as a whole.

Doctors and members of the public can comment on the draft policy up to Feb. 20. Submit your comments here.

Freedom of conscience is for everyone including doctors

I'm always dumbfounded by the inane and gloriously off-the-wall-and-off-topic-comments I often read on articles posted online on anything that could be even remotely associated with pro-life viewpoints.

To see what I mean check out Andrea Mrozek's thoughtful and coherant article posted on Huffington Post about doctor's freedom of conscience rights.

I think some of these commentors might want to stop talking about their disdain at doctors practicing freedom of conscience rights--which I might add are actual rights and not make-believe rights like "abortion rights"--and instead educate themselves on the subject.

But no. They'd prefer to hear themselves blather on instead. I think they just like to see their name in print. I guess it makes them feel important.

So here's the thing. Freedom of conscience is a right guaranteed under our Canadian Charter. That means everyone, including doctors have this right. It's not a right for the few, it is a right for all.

If you don't like the fact that a doctor won't provide you with your contraception, then you are free to go elsewhere for it. Nobody's forcing you to go to that doctor. The choice crowd is in love with the word "choice". So use it. Because I'd prefer to know my doctor bases his medical expertise in concert with his conscience, and doesn't ignore it. I imagine there were doctors who went against their conscience in the concentration camps in Auschwitz. Not something (I hope) we would ever want from our own doctors.

Here's something else to ponder for those who who like to hear themselves talk and say nothing. Joyce Arthur also thinks conscientious objection for doctors shouldn't be allowed. But surprisingly, not all of her compatriots agree with her: Global Doctors for Choice, bpas (The British pregnancy Advisory Service), and the International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics (IJGO), all believe that conscientious objection should be allowed.

Looking for doctors who support conscientious objection

I understand that some doctors have been writing to newspapers regarding their freedom of conscience rights. And that maybe those letters haven't been published in those newspapers.

If you or someone you know has written such a letter, if you want to send it to me I would be happy to publish them on my blog.

Send to me at maloneyp64@gmail.com

Ireland's abortion debate teaching moment for Canadian politicians and doctors

(This appeared in the July/August 2013 issue of LifeCanada Journal)

It is very important that doctors and politicians speak out in defense of pre-born citizens. These professionals are uniquely able to do something the rest of us cannot do: save lives and enact laws. Both hold a lot of sway.

Unfortunately, I think many of them have given up the pro-life fight. I am hopeful though, that Ireland's recent abortion debate will spur them on again.

Up until recently, Ireland had been abortion free. Now the Irish government is changing this with its Protection of Life during Pregnancy Bill. This bill allows abortions in cases where there is a real and substantial risk to the life of a pregnant woman including suicide.

Following the ensuing abortion debate while visiting Ireland, I witnessed both politicians and doctors provide a strong and principled offensive against the bill. The doctors were especially vocal.

The reason for the bill was "an attempt to legislate for a 1992 Supreme Court judgement, known as “the X Case,” that interpreted the 1983 pro-life constitutional amendment as allowing abortion where there is a real and substantial risk to the life of a woman...the bill allows for abortion in cases of threatened suicide if, in the “reasonable opinion” of two psychiatrists and one obstetrician, the threat of suicide can only be avoided by the destruction of unborn life." (1)

The ruling Fine Gael party had promised in the 2011 election not to introduce legislation to legalize abortion. This bill accomplished what the ruling party said they would not do.

One brave Teachta Dála (2) and Minister, Lucinda Creighton, was vocal in her defense of the unborn. She gave a powerful speech in the Irish Parliament highlighting the fact that in Ireland unborn children have full human rights: "I am entirely perplexed as to why the right to legal representation for the unborn is excluded from this legislation. It is the minimum protection required to be afforded to unborn children. It is important to remember, at every step of this legislative process, that the unborn child is a human being, a person and has full rights as such under our Constitution. This means that as a “constitutional person” an unborn baby has the exact same right to life as any other living “constitutional person”.

Creighton called what she was witnessing "groupthink": "If you do not succumb to the accepted view that abortion  is a "liberal issue", a "women's right issue", a cornerstone of the "progressive agenda", then you are deemed to be a backward, illiberal, Neanderthal fundamentalist who belongs to another era. The distinct irony of this prevailing view, is that it is so illiberal its intolerance of any other outlook." (3)

Standing behind her principles, she voted against the bill. For this, she was fired.

Four other Fine Gael members were also expelled for voting against the bill.

Another Fine Gael member also had reservations about the bill, but voted for it. Michelle Mulherin said: "I am now faced with either supporting the bill, or being booted out of the party, my party, and I am not going to allow myself to be booted out, so I am supporting the legislation." (3) At least, she gets points for honesty.

Five politicians were expelled from Parliament for voting against a bill that would introduce abortion into Ireland.

Remember what happened when our own MP Rona Ambrose voted against Canada's "groupthink", when she voted in favour of Stephen Woodworth’s Motion 312? She was demonized by “abortion activists”.

MPs know when they defend the unborn they will be marginalized, scorned and ridiculed, not only by  "pro-choice" activists, but also by their own peers in Parliament. No wonder they shut up.

At the Irish health committee hearings, numerous perinatal psychiatrists were against the suicide clause. Three of them said that they had never seen a single case of suicidal intent during pregnancy. (4)

John Sheehan, a top perinatal psychiatrist said: "In practice, it would be impossible for any psychiatrist to accurately predict who will die. So it could lead to multiple false negatives."

Dr. Sean O'Domhnaill said: "The legislation would turn doctors into abortionists. Abortion has no role in modern medicine. Termination is a medieval response to crisis pregnancies."

Dr. Jacqueline Montwill said "The appropriate treatment for any suicidal patient is to ensure their safety either at home or at hospital, to offer psychological support and counseling and psychotropic medication."

Many Irish doctors also wrote letters to the editor. There were letters on both sides of the debate, but it was the pro-life doctors who wrote most convincingly against the bill.

One letter was signed by 56 Irish doctors. All of them had grave concerns about the suicide clause: "Many of us have practised in jurisdictions where such legislation was the first step towards what has become abortion on demand." They said there was no evidence in the "psychiatrist evidence heard by the Supreme Court in 1992" and in the "statements of the psychiatrists called before the Oireachtas Health Committee hearings in 2012" that supported the suicide clause. (This quote and the following quotes are all from letters to the editor as reported by the Irish Times - 5)

Another letter stated: "Recently more that 100 psychiatrists signed a statement saying that legislation, which would allow abortion for threat of suicide, has no basis in medical evidence."

Dr. Sam Coulter stated that the suicide clause "posed major ethical dilemmas for obstetricians and could lead to an increase in women seeking terminations."

Dr. Ruth Foley said: "If the Bill is passed, and some doctors authorize terminations for women whose risk of suicide could have been managed by other treatments, how would anyone know about it? How would these doctors be held to account? If politicians have no satisfactory answer to this question, then passing this Bill in its present form including suicide is an irresponsible and reckless act."

There were some doctors who weren't against the change. But the most they could say in its defense were arguments like Dr. Holohan, who said : "We simply cannot say that the circumstances of a real and substantial risk to a woman's life could never occur as a consequence of suicidal ideation."

I think Canadian doctors and politicians can learn from the example and tenacity of these Irish doctors and politicians. They need to speak up more often, and more loudly.

Yes they will be marginalized, scorned and ridiculed by the strong and vocal pro-abortion lobby, as well as by their peers. My hope is that they will speak up anyway. The rest of us are not giving up the fight. Why should they?

1) http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/how-ireland-traveled-from-a-pro-life-ethos-to-legalized-abortion
2) TD stands for Teachta Dála, and is a member of Dáil Éireann, the lower house of the Oireachtas, the Irish Parliament
3) http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/down_with_stifling_groupthink_says_irish_minister
4) http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/oireachtas/psychiatrists-are-being-asked-to-be-judges-in-assessing-suicide-risk-abortion-hearings-told-1.1400638
5) Letters to the Editor in the Irish Times