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 Somerville then sent in this (unpublished) letter to the Ottawa Citizen: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