The recent publicly stated position of the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada (SOGC) against Stephen Woodworth's Motion 312 is very troubling. For a couple of reasons.
First, in their statement SOGC says that Mr. Woodworth's motion is:
"yet another attempt to circumvent the direct decision taken by Parliament and the Courts to define legal status and rights as accruing at birth."
No such decision has ever been taken by Parliament regarding the legal status of a human being at birth. In fact, what the Supreme Court actually did rule, was that Parliament is precisely where a conversation regarding unborn children should take place. It never has.
All topics should be open for debate in a democracy. When we allow any discussion to be silenced, democracy ceases.
Second, SOGC states that a woman's:
"interests, needs, or choices would be considered in treatment decisions, but these would be subject to the rights of the foetus she is carrying. The foetus’ unexpressed wishes would be interpreted by proxy by courts and legislators."
The "foetus’ unexpressed wishes" is exactly why Mr. Woodworth's motion is so important. He is trying to change the current situation whereby the most vulnerable of human beings in Canada—voiceless children in the womb—are not recognized by our legal system. A just society demands that we protect and defend the vulnerable and be a voice for the voiceless.
M-312 gives us an opportunity to simply begin a national conversation about how we can best protect and defend vulnerable preborn children’s “unexpressed wishes.”
Third, this is our medical profession speaking. The very people who we entrust our health and our lives to. They are also the people who we entrust the lives of our preborn children to. Why do these doctors not advocate for the other patient in each and every pregnancy? That thought frightens me.
Fourth, the SOGC says:
"This motion opens the door for the further restriction of women’s reproductive and sexual rights and decision-making."
Since there are no legal restrictions on our any-time-any-reason-no-reason-publicly-funded abortions in Canada, this statement is disingenuous.
How can we further restrict something that has absolutely no restrictions? Further restrictions implies that legal restrictions already exist. They do not.
Finally, does this position statement really reflect the views of all members of the SOGC? If it does not, I hope that we will hear from those doctors who do support Mr. Woodworth's motion.
Even better, I hope these doctors write to their society and insist they start speaking for both patients: mother and child. And I hope these doctors will tell their society that their "Position" does not represent their own.
Notes:
1. I had actually believed that doctors took the Hippocratic Oath, which says "First do no Harm". I have discovered that in most cases doctors do not take this oath. But one doctor, Dr. John Patrick has started the Hippocratic Registry for doctors who practice according to the Hippocratic Oath and who would like to honour this oath:
And more information on the Hippocratic Oath here.
Showing posts with label social justice. Show all posts
Showing posts with label social justice. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 3, 2012
Friday, May 6, 2011
Abortion excludes the unborn from the rights and protections accorded to all other human beings
In his scholarly article Abortion and Catholic Social Teaching, Father THOMAS D.WILLIAMS, L.C. talks about abortion as a social justice problem.
Father Thomas gives six characteristics to illustrate the uniqueness of abortion:
"1. Abortion deals specifically with the destruction of innocent life. This differentiates discussion of abortion from many other related social justice issues. We are not discussing the killing of enemies, as in war, or “guilty life,” as in capital punishment, with all the moral considerations that must be brought to bear on these cases. This is why then- Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger in June 2004 wrote: “There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.”18 Though all life is precious, moral theology has always differentiated the destruction of “innocent life” as particularly heinous and always and everywhere worthy of condemnation. 19 No one can “in any circumstance, claim for himself the right to destroy directly an innocent human being.”20 No one is more innocent and defenseless than an unborn child.
2. A further distinguishing factor of abortion as a social phenomenon is the sheer magnitude of the problem. Though completely reliable statistics are unavailable, conservative estimates place the number of legal abortions performed worldwide each year at 25–30 million, a figure that alone makes abortion a social problem of staggering proportions. “Humanity today offers us a truly alarming spectacle,” wrote Pope John Paul, “if we consider not only how extensively attacks on life are spreading but also their unheard-of numerical proportion.”21 An isolated murder would be a social problem, but one of reduced proportions. A serial killer would pose a more serious social problem still. But yearly killings in the millions cry out for immediate and decisive action. The volume of abortions underscores the social nature of the problem, and makes abortion one of the most serious social-justice issues not only of the present day, but of all time.
3. Unlike other instances of massive killing of human life, like terrorism or serial killing, which stand clearly outside of the law, abortion enjoys legal sanction. Abortion involves the systematic, hygienic, legal elimination of human life. Pope John Paul II wrote of the novelty of this menace, due to its internal nature. “They are not only threats coming from the outside,” he wrote,“from the forces of nature or the ‘Cains’ who kill the ‘Abels’; no, they are scientifically and systematically programmed threats.”22 Later, he remarked on the peculiarity of abortion as a legal right. After listing a series of terrible threats to human life, such as poverty, malnutrition, war, and the arms trade, he then contrasted them with a new class of threats on life. Not only are these attacks on life no longer considered as crimes, he wrote,“paradoxically they assume the nature of ‘rights,’ to the point that the State is called upon to give them legal recognition and to make them available through the free services of health-care personnel.”23
4. A fourth distinguishing aspect of abortion is its arbitrary division of human beings into those worthy of life and those unworthy. Abortion deals not with the random killing of unrelated individuals, but the circumscription of an entire class of human beings (the unborn) as non citizens and non-persons, excluded from the basic rights and protections accorded to all other human beings. In this way abortion mimics the great historical tragedies of all time, which always began with the denigration of an entire class of people as unworthy of life or freedom. Historically the greatest social evils perpetrated on humanity—genocide, racism, abortion, anti-Semitism, sexism, slavery—have always violated the principle of equality, relegating an entire sector of the human family to an inferior status, with a dignity lower than the rest. Since human rights flow from human dignity, once dignity is called into question, equal rights cannot but share in the same fate. If human dignity depends on anything other than simple membership in the human race—be it intelligence, athletic ability, social status, race, age, or health—we immediately find ourselves in the situation of having to distinguish between persons.
5. Abortion even distinguishes itself from related bioethical questions such as euthanasia and assisted suicide because of the absence of the possibility of informed consent. The status of the unborn as voiceless and most vulnerable adds a further dimension to the discussion of the morality and gravity of abortion. Here the bioethical category of“autonomy” cannot be applied, since unborn children have no way of speaking for themselves.
6. Finally, abortion differs from other major social ills such as unemployment and divorce because of its relative invisibility. Not only are the victims themselves voiceless, those who perpetrate abortion have no interest in speaking publicly about it, and neither do the women and girls who abort. It takes place behind closed doors and relies on persons and institutions uninvolved in the process to speak out. Yet even legislators are squeamish about frank discussions of the phenomenon of abortion, and pro-life advertising is banned from most network television. Abortion takes place behind closed doors, and is hushed in public. As in the case of slavery, the social injustice of abortion relies on the courage of persons and institutions uninvolved in the process to speak out."
Father Thomas gives six characteristics to illustrate the uniqueness of abortion:
"1. Abortion deals specifically with the destruction of innocent life. This differentiates discussion of abortion from many other related social justice issues. We are not discussing the killing of enemies, as in war, or “guilty life,” as in capital punishment, with all the moral considerations that must be brought to bear on these cases. This is why then- Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger in June 2004 wrote: “There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.”18 Though all life is precious, moral theology has always differentiated the destruction of “innocent life” as particularly heinous and always and everywhere worthy of condemnation. 19 No one can “in any circumstance, claim for himself the right to destroy directly an innocent human being.”20 No one is more innocent and defenseless than an unborn child.
2. A further distinguishing factor of abortion as a social phenomenon is the sheer magnitude of the problem. Though completely reliable statistics are unavailable, conservative estimates place the number of legal abortions performed worldwide each year at 25–30 million, a figure that alone makes abortion a social problem of staggering proportions. “Humanity today offers us a truly alarming spectacle,” wrote Pope John Paul, “if we consider not only how extensively attacks on life are spreading but also their unheard-of numerical proportion.”21 An isolated murder would be a social problem, but one of reduced proportions. A serial killer would pose a more serious social problem still. But yearly killings in the millions cry out for immediate and decisive action. The volume of abortions underscores the social nature of the problem, and makes abortion one of the most serious social-justice issues not only of the present day, but of all time.
3. Unlike other instances of massive killing of human life, like terrorism or serial killing, which stand clearly outside of the law, abortion enjoys legal sanction. Abortion involves the systematic, hygienic, legal elimination of human life. Pope John Paul II wrote of the novelty of this menace, due to its internal nature. “They are not only threats coming from the outside,” he wrote,“from the forces of nature or the ‘Cains’ who kill the ‘Abels’; no, they are scientifically and systematically programmed threats.”22 Later, he remarked on the peculiarity of abortion as a legal right. After listing a series of terrible threats to human life, such as poverty, malnutrition, war, and the arms trade, he then contrasted them with a new class of threats on life. Not only are these attacks on life no longer considered as crimes, he wrote,“paradoxically they assume the nature of ‘rights,’ to the point that the State is called upon to give them legal recognition and to make them available through the free services of health-care personnel.”23
4. A fourth distinguishing aspect of abortion is its arbitrary division of human beings into those worthy of life and those unworthy. Abortion deals not with the random killing of unrelated individuals, but the circumscription of an entire class of human beings (the unborn) as non citizens and non-persons, excluded from the basic rights and protections accorded to all other human beings. In this way abortion mimics the great historical tragedies of all time, which always began with the denigration of an entire class of people as unworthy of life or freedom. Historically the greatest social evils perpetrated on humanity—genocide, racism, abortion, anti-Semitism, sexism, slavery—have always violated the principle of equality, relegating an entire sector of the human family to an inferior status, with a dignity lower than the rest. Since human rights flow from human dignity, once dignity is called into question, equal rights cannot but share in the same fate. If human dignity depends on anything other than simple membership in the human race—be it intelligence, athletic ability, social status, race, age, or health—we immediately find ourselves in the situation of having to distinguish between persons.
5. Abortion even distinguishes itself from related bioethical questions such as euthanasia and assisted suicide because of the absence of the possibility of informed consent. The status of the unborn as voiceless and most vulnerable adds a further dimension to the discussion of the morality and gravity of abortion. Here the bioethical category of“autonomy” cannot be applied, since unborn children have no way of speaking for themselves.
6. Finally, abortion differs from other major social ills such as unemployment and divorce because of its relative invisibility. Not only are the victims themselves voiceless, those who perpetrate abortion have no interest in speaking publicly about it, and neither do the women and girls who abort. It takes place behind closed doors and relies on persons and institutions uninvolved in the process to speak out. Yet even legislators are squeamish about frank discussions of the phenomenon of abortion, and pro-life advertising is banned from most network television. Abortion takes place behind closed doors, and is hushed in public. As in the case of slavery, the social injustice of abortion relies on the courage of persons and institutions uninvolved in the process to speak out."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)