Category: News Releases

Traumatised health care professionals forced to take part in abortion procedures

News Release

Doctors for Life, South Africa

The incident at Philadelphia Hospital again highlights the unbearable pressure exerted on healthcare professionals to take part in the Termination of Pregnancy Act against their conscience. The following quotes were collected from traumatized Health Care Professionals whom Doctors For Life contacted:

Healthcare worker 1: “I never really understood what a TOP was, and didn’t really think to find out, I didn’t ask the patient why she was crying before she went in, I just held her hand and told her it would be okay. When the procedure was nearing the end, I looked into the vacuum bottle to see what I could see. A hand with an arm attached to it, a tiny leg, with a kneecap, and a head without the mouth. This little tot must have been about 16 – 18 weeks. Then the realisation hit me, this is why she was crying.”

“On one occasion the nursing sister thrust open the door of the sluice room and demanded that I stay away. Being a woman, it’s never easy to say; ‘I must stay away’ we are all as inquisitive as cats. I peered into the sluice room and saw a tiny baby girl. She must have been about 23 – 25 weeks old. My heart lurched into my throat, to see this little girl gasping for air, and her little arms were grasping at air.”

“My response was to wrap her up and take her home and try and make her live. I didn’t, and she wouldn’t have made it. She tried to cry, and little grunting noises were falling on deaf ears. I too turned my back on her, and went to sit in the linen room until she passed away.”

Healthcare worker 2: ” I don’t know who to talk to, I don’t want to have part in abortion because of my convictions, but am being pressurised by the government to work in the woman’s ward. They give abortion tablets and we have to complete the mess. I am too afraid to speak over the radio for fear that my voice may be recognised and because I need to consider my income.”

Healthcare worker 3: “I work at the T.O.P. clinic but I do not want to work here yet I am being pressurised to do so. Somebody needs to stop this. They can’t do this”

Healthcare worker 4: “They are very subtle, I stood up against abortion, and afterwards there were the following repercussions: I did not get any promotion; everything I said they shot down. The district nominated me to attend a seminar, but the director said I could not go because I am against abortion. I don’t think I will speak over the radio. Everything to do with abortion gives me a mental block.”

Healthcare worker 5: “Of cause it is a traumatic experience to be part of an abortion procedure. Once I was called to take an aborted baby to the sluice. It traumatised me for a long time”

Doctors For Life International (DFL) represents 750 doctors, specialists and professors of medicine from different medical faculties across South Africa.

Doctors For Life will assist and give legal advice in cases where nurses, doctors and other healthcare workers are being pressurised to have part in abortion procedures against their conscience.

Enquiries: Dr Jay Mannie (Dep. CEO)

Mobile phone: +27(0)83 6414 382
More Information: www.dfl.org.za

 

Crisis at Philadelphia Hospital

Highlights The Violation Of Women’s Rights Due To Mismanagement Of Our Health System

NEWS RELEASE

EMBARGO: Immediate Release Date: 26 June 2002

Doctors for Life International

Doctors For Life (DFL), an organisation of about 770 doctors, places the blame for the lack of staff to support women having abortions at Philadelphia hospital, squarely on the shoulders of the South African government. Before the government bulldozed the law to legalise abortion on demand through Parliament, DFL warned via numerous press releases that the infrastructure to implement the law does not exist.

Firstly, there were not enough doctors and nursing staff who did not have conscientious objection against assisting with abortions. The government ignored us even when this fact was repeated in our submissions  before the Select Committee on Abortion in Parliament.

Secondly, the lack of sonographic equipment to determine the gestational age of the unborn baby before an abortion made a mockery of the legislation (the law allowed abortion for a certain gestational age for different reasons).

The biggest survey ever done amongst doctors showed that more than 80% of South African doctors are against abortion on demand. The government was fully aware of this attitude when they forced the members of the ANC to vote against their consciences in support of “Termination of Pregnancy”. They should therefore not be surprised when only 5 of the 27 hospitals in Mpumalanga have staff who are willing to take part in abortions.

In what appears to be a hypocritical move, the government seems concerned when women in the Carte Blanche programme had to deliver their own aborted babies, while the Department of Health is busy introducing the abortion pill (RU486) which will have the same result of causing women to abort at home.

DFL also had special meetings with the Health Professionals Council of South Africa where we explained the  dilemma of pro-life health professionals. We mentioned that it strikes us as unethical that some health professionals are prescribing abortifacients and then tell the patient to go to a hospital, manned by pro-life staff, to have the abortion completed. This appeared like a strategy to force unwilling, ethically sound health professionals to take part in killing one patient (the unborn child) at the request of another (the mother). It boiled down to a doctor starting the procedure and then referring the patient for the “mopping up” of the procedure to pro-life staff.

It is a well-known fact amongst nursing staff that doctors list abortions as sterilisation procedures on theatre lists. Once the staff is in the theatre, scrubbed and half way through the procedure, they discover that the doctor is doing an abortion.

DFL therefore calls upon the government to accept responsibility for the dilemma women find themselves in. Something should be done about the pressure on health workers to take part in the abortion procedure.  The public should be well informed if a certain clinic/hospital is unwilling to perform abortions. Once a hospital is identified as an abortion provider, the Department of Health must make sure that there are enough pro-abortion staff to render a 24 hour service, 7 days a week.

It must, however, be stated once again that health professionals do have the constitutional right NOT to  participate in ANY part of the abortion procedure.

Enquiries: Dr Jay Mannie (Dep. CEO) Mobile phone: +27(0)83 6414 382

Aryan Defender Highlights BC Medical Journal

News Release

Protection of Conscience Project

It is an unusual cover for a medical journal: a crouching, brawny Aryan hero, glowering murderously from under a horned helmet, a copper IUD clutched in his sword hand.

The Administrator of the Protection of Conscience Project wants to post the cover of the January/February edition of the BC Medical Journal on the Project website. In a letter to the editor of the Journal, he describes the cover as “a splendid illustration of the usual basis for conscientious objection to potentially abortifacient devices and drugs.”

Most physicians or others who object to the IUD (intrauterine device) and the ‘morning-after-pill’ do so because such things may act – not by preventing fertilization – but by destroying the developing human embryo by preventing its implantation in the uterine wall. This mechanism of action is explicitly acknowledged in the Journal’s article, written by Dr. Roey Malleson.

Rather than recognizing that the destruction of the developing embryo is a key moral issue – and a controversial one – Dr. Malleson defines the issue out of existence by adopting a coded vocabulary. Only readers familiar with authoritative embryological texts are likely to recognize the polemic behind Dr. Malleson’s use of words like ‘abortifacient’, ‘pregnancy’, and ‘contraception’.

The Project letter lauds the article as “an excellent example of moral obfuscation masquerading as science,” but challenges Dr. Malleson’s authority to tutor colleagues in faith and morals. It rejects the suggestion that civil suits might be used to suppress the freedom of conscience of those who do not share the BC Medical Journal’s enthusiasm for Aryan warriors.

No Equal Opportunities for Nurse With Pro-Life Views

NEWS RELEASE

Rutherford Institute

Salem, OR–January 30, 2002–Attorneys for The Rutherford Institute filed suit yesterday on behalf of Janice Turner, a public health nurse who lost her job with the Marion County Health Department due to her deeply held religious belief that life begins at conception. The complaint, filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, charges that Turner’s supervisor at the Women’s Clinic harassed and retaliated against her for her pro-life views and refused to accommodate her religious objections to discussing or promoting abortion procedures with her patients.

Turner, a public health nurse with the Health Department from 1990 until July 2001, had early on in her employment expressed her religious opposition to abortion and requested accommodation from having to discuss or promote abortion procedures with her patients.

According to Turner, her initial supervisor accommodated her religious beliefs and allowed her to refer those patients wanting to receive emergency contraception, a.k.a. “the morning after pill,” or information about abortion to another nurse.

As a result of Turner’s personal commitment to providing quality health care to those in need, she also worked as a Maternity Case Manager, making house calls to women undergoing high-risk pregnancies and educating them on how to have a healthy pregnancy. However, in 1995, a new supervisor was appointed to the Women’s Clinic who declared herself to be pro-choice and allegedly acted in a manner intolerant of other viewpoints.

According to Turner, this new supervisor stated her expectation that everyone on staff discuss emergency contraception, or “the morning after pill,” with patients as “a method of contraception that will prevent a pregnancy,” and discouraged the nurses from discussing it as a possible abortifacient. Turner claims that her supervisor continually reiterated her distaste for Turner’s pro-life views regarding emergency contraception and repeatedly told her that she “was not a complete nurse.” During Turner’s final evaluation, the supervisor informed her that budget cuts would soon be forthcoming. She then warned Turner that her position could be cut in the department budget, and if Turner wanted another position in the department, she would have to be willing to dispense emergency contraception. Shortly thereafter, Turner was notified that her position was to be cut.

Among the allegations detailed in the complaint filed by Institute attorneys are charges that Turner was discriminated against for her religious beliefs, a violation of Title VII, the Hill/Burton Conscience Act and Oregon’s conscience clause.

“It is unconscionable for anyone to force their beliefs on another person, especially forcing a pro-abortion message on a person who believes that life begins at conception,” stated John Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute. “What makes it even worse is that this was being done by an employer who was fully aware that she is in control of that person’s livelihood.”

The Rutherford Institute is an international, nonprofit civil liberties organization committed to defending constitutional and human rights.
THE RUTHERFORD INSTITUTE
Charlottesville, Virginia.
General inquiries: tristaff@rutherford.org
Press Contacts: Nisha N. Mohammed Ph: (434) 978-3888, Pager: 800-946-4646, Pin #: 1478257

Draft Bill Lacks Conscience Protection, Erodes Trial by Jury

News Release

Protection of Conscience Project

The Canadian government’s proposed Assisted Human Reproduction Act lacks protection for health care workers and others who do not want to participate in morally controversial procedures, and erodes the customary right to trial by jury, according to a letter sent earlier this month to Allan Rock, Canadian Minister of Health.

Project Administrator Sean Murphy noted that, beyond the procedures allowed in the draft text, the bill provides for ad hoc legalization of activities by Orders in Council, which do not require parliamentary scrutiny or approval.

Murphy suggested that the bill would establish an expectation of entitlement to legalized procedures, and cautioned that problems will arise for conscientious objectors, especially if provision of the “controlled activities” were made a condition for federal health care grants or transfer payments.

“Experience in Canada and elsewhere suggests that conscientious objectors will . . . be subjected to coercion and discrimination” or “forced into expensive litigation before human rights tribunals or courts . . . to buy the freedom that ought to have been their birthright.”

The letter requests that the bill be amended to include protection of conscience provisions.

Murphy also expressed alarm that the bill erodes the right to trial by jury for serious offences. He argued that it would be more consistent with Canadian legal traditions to reduce the bill’s summary conviction penalties to bring them into line with those now customary in criminal law.