Category: Canada

Planned Parenthood and “Anti-Choice” Rhetoric

Sean Murphy*

A response to Mario Toneguzzi, “Planned Parenthood Targets ‘Anti-choice’ Docs”, Calgary Herald (19 August, 2004)

Planned Parenthood and "Anti-Choice" Rhetoric

In 1999, citing allegations by un-named “individuals,” a Councillor of the Alberta College of Physicians and Surgeons claimed that some physicians who were not “supportive” of women seeking abortions were “rude and bullying to patients.”(1) Canadian Physicians for Life rebuked the Councillor for relying upon “polemical hearsay” and demanded that the College substantiate the allegation.(2) No evidence was forthcoming.

Three years later the Assistant Registrar of the College indicated that complaints about physician ‘moralizing’ were largely hearsay “from groups who provide birth control and family planning counselling to women” – not a bad definition of Planned Parenthood.(3)First-hand accounts from individual patients were a “distinct minority” of the total.(4)

Planned Parenthood Alberta is now recycling the accusation that physicians who object to abortion may “scare” patients with “misinformation” or “impose their moral beliefs.”(5) One of the problems with this kind of generalized smear is that it may be unfairly applied to conscientious objectors to abortion who follow the guidelines of the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) and the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta (CPSA).

The CMA advises physicians to “inform a patient when their personal morality would influence the recommendation or practice of any medical procedure that the patient needs or wants,” and to advise patients of their objections to abortion so that they can consult another physician.(6) The CPSA does not require physicians to advise every pregnant woman that she can have an abortion or put her child up for adoption,(7) but does expect them to provide information to patients seeking abortion so that they can “make informed decisions on all available options for their pregnancies, including termination.”(8)

In following these guidelines an objecting physician must, at all times, be respectful of the patient’s dignity, and must not be threatening, overbearing or abuse his authority by preaching or moralizing in order to influence his patient’s decision. On the other hand, objecting physicians can hardly be expected to present morally controversial procedures as morally uncontroversial, or in such a way as to indicate that they approve of them or are indifferent to them (i.e., to adopt a ‘neutral’ position). Moreover, the information they reasonably believe necessary to permit the patient to make a truly “informed decision” may be more comprehensive or in other respects different from what Planned Parenthood is accustomed to provide its clients.

A third party who was not present during this kind of exchange, especially an interest group like Planned Parenthood, might well stigmatize the discussion as ‘moralizing’ and providing ‘misinformation’. Partisan polemics of this sort do not provide a basis for sound policy making.

Planned Parenthood Alberta suggests that patients who are unsure of their doctor’s position on abortion should contact the organization because it is compiling a list of what it calls “anti-choice doctors”. Asking the doctor directly seems a simpler and more reliable way for patients to resolve such doubts. If it is desirable to help patients find physicians who share their outlook on moral issues, it would be preferable for doctors to identify themselves, perhaps through the College of Physicians and Surgeons or professional associations.

In the meantime, if Planned Parenthood persists in its plan to identify “anti-choice doctors”, it should include in its list the names of physicians who believe that their colleagues should not be forced to provide or facilitate morally controversial procedures.

Notes

1. Kretzul E. Ethical Responsibilities in Dealing with Women Requesting Abortion Services. The Messenger. 1999 Sep; 73: 6.

2. Canadian Physicians for Life. News Release: Alberta College of Physicians and Surgeons challenged to think about conscience rights [Internet]. Powell River: Protection of Conscience Project; 1999 Oct 11.

3. Theman TW. Freedom of Conscience and the Needs of the Patient. Presentation to the Obstetrics and Gynecology Conference “New Developments-New Boundaries”; 2001 Nov 9-12; Banff, Alberta.

4. Theman, Trevor W. (Assistant Registrar, College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta). Letter to: Sean Murphy (Administrator, Protection of Conscience Project). 2002 Jan 2. 1 leaf. Located at: Protection of Conscience Project.

5. Be Aware of Anti-Choice Doctors and Radiologists [Internet]. Edmonton: Planned Parenthood Alberta; 2004 [cited 2004 Aug 28].

6. Canadian Medical Association. Induced Abortion [Internet]. CMAJ. 1988 Dec 15 [cited 2020 Sep 16]; 139:12 1176a–1176b. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1268491/pdf/cmaj00181-0059.pdf.

7. Theman, Trevor W. (Assistant Registrar, College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta). Letter to: Sean Murphy (Administrator, Protection of Conscience Project). 2002 Mar 27. 1 Leaf. Located at: Protection of Conscience Project.

8. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta. Termination of Pregnancy. 2000 Jun.

Canadian Pharmacists Association queried by Catholic bishops

The Canadian Pharmacists Association has been asked by the Canadian Organization for Life and Family to ensure that pharmacists disclose to patients the fact that the morning-after pill can cause the death of the early embryo by preventing implantation. COLF, which addresses life issues for the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, also asked the Association about its policy on freedom of conscience for pharmacists who do not wish to dispense the morning-after pill. [COLF letter]

Project Letter to the Western Standard

14 May, 2004

Sean Murphy, Administrator
Protection of Conscience Project

Should doctors be forced to abandon their faith?  by Terry O’Neill  draws attention to the problem of freedom of conscience in health care.

A bit of history is instructive. The first protection of conscience clause debated in the House of Commons was introduced by M.P. Robert McCleave as an amendment to the Omnibus Bill that legalized abortion in Canada in 1969. Mr. McCleave believed that abortion should be  legalized, but also believed that ‘freedom of choice’ should be extended to health care workers.

Compare Mr. McCleave’s notion of ‘choice’ with that espoused by Joyce  Arthur. Speaking for the “Pro-choice Action Network,” she refuses to  respect the choices of health care professionals who do not wish to participate morally controversial procedures. She seems to believe that freedom of conscience is a problem to be solved by abolishing it, at least  in the case of those who don’t agree with her. Arthur’s position is doubly ironic, since Henry Morgantaler justified his defiance of Canadian abortion law in a 1970 article titled, A Physician and His Moral Conscience.1

Referral is not a satisfactory solution for many physicians who have grave moral objections to a procedure. Objecting physicians hold  themselves morally culpable if they facilitate an abortion by referring a  patient for that purpose. Nor is this an unusual view. Consider the controversy in Canada over the deportation and torture of Maher Arar. This suggests that few believe that one can avoid moral responsibility for a wrongful act by arranging for it to be done by someone else.

Certainly, Joyce Arthur does not consider abortion to be a wrongful act. However, she has not explained why others should be forced to abide by her moral views.

Unfortunately, between the writer’s desk and publication, a couple of factual errors were introduced into the story.

In the first place, the Project followed the case from the outset, and the student was provided with the same kind of service extended to others in similar situations. His relationship with the Project has been cordial,  but it is incorrect to describe me as “a friend of the would-be doctor.” We have never met.

More important, the final paragraph attributes to me statements that I did not make. While I am, nonetheless, in agreement with a number of the points made, I did not suggest that a devout Muslim doctor might refuse to  treat women, nor make any statement to a similar effect.

It would be most unfortunate if this falsely attributed statement were  to contribute to the already adverse social pressures experienced by Muslims in North America. Muslim health care workers and students are welcome to contact the Protection of Conscience Project. One of the  Project advisors is Dr. Shahid Athar, a regent and former vice-president of the Islamic Medical Association of North America and the Chair of its       Medical Ethics Committee

Notes

1. The article appeared anonymously in The Humanist. Quoted in Pelrine, Eleanor wright, Morgantaler: The Doctor Who Couldn’t Turn Away. Canada: Gage Publishing, 1975, P. 79

Ethics Profiling in the Health Care Profession

Conscience Legislation  Needed to Stop Abuse of Authority

Ottawa
12 May, 2004

Will Johnston, MD President
Canadian Physicians for Life

The recent near-failing of a medical student at a Canadian university, solely because the student has pro-life convictions, shows how intolerant some people have become about choices they dislike. For years, Canadian     Physicians for Life has received anecdotal complaints from students who suspect that their medical school admission interview went badly after they truthfully answered questions which probed for pro-life beliefs. This recent case was blatant and completely documented, created undue anxiety for the student, and only ended after many months of unsuccessful appeals of the teachers’ intolerant actions. A modern democracy should have a keen interest in protecting vulnerable students from coercion by preceptors and professors who are unaware of, or insensitive to, the concept of freedom of conscience.

We don’t screen immigrants to Canada on the basis of race or religion. Why should such litmus tests be applied to citizens applying to enter key professions? Ethics profiling is no less objectionable than racial profiling.

Freedom of conscience, it seems, is now granted freely only to those whose views are acceptable to an authoritarian, secularist establishment. Others must endure the enormous costs and stress of legal challenges or implore sympathetic fellow citizens to petition those in power on their behalf. Until this situation is corrected, the Canadian experiment in pluralism will remain in a delayed adolescence.

Sincere proponents of multiculturalism and pluralism understand the importance of protection of conscience. But they must come to recognize that too many in positions of power need statutory reminders to treat fairly     those who disagree with them about the damage abortion does to women and children.

Basic conscience protection such as that provided in Bill C-276 begins to address the problems of abuse of authority and ethics profiling which lead to the kind of injustice seen in the recent case of the medical student. Such abuses must be explicitly treated in law, not left to an ad-hoc scramble by the victim and his or her friends.

The time is long overdue for the Parliament of Canada to follow the lead of countries like the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand, and 46 American states to protect and clarify freedom of conscience for Canadian health care workers. In addition to necessary employment protection, the proposed Canadian legislation corrects deficiencies found in many such laws by explicitly protecting persons of conscience from exclusion from health sciences education and from discrimination by professional licensing bodies.

Canadian Physicians for Life 29 Moore Street, R.R. # 2 Richmond ON K0A 2Z0 ph/fax: 613-728-LIFE (5433) info@physiciansforlife.ca

Some corrections and clarifications

Project letter to the Calgary Herald

Sean Murphy*

While I am pleased to see that Laura Wershler is willing to accommodate freedom of conscience among health care workers, I must correct some misleading statements included in her article (“The morning after: Pro-life agenda misrepresents the emergency contraceptive pill, or ECP”,Calgary Herald, 13 February, 2004).

In the first place, http://www.consciencelaws.org is the URL of the Protection of Conscience Project, not “Repression of Conscience”. Contrary to Ms. Wershler’s assertion, this is a non-denominational human rights project, not a not a pro-life initiative. Pro-lifers are interested in the Project and sometimes link to our website, but the Project does not take a position on the morality of controversial procedures. It is enough to recognize the controversy, and advocate the accommodation of conscientious objectors. At least one pro-life pharmacist does not use the Project pamphlet about the morning-after pill precisely because the pamphlet does not argue against its use.

Second, Ms. Wershler’s article incorrectly attributes to the Project the use of the terms “abortion drug” and “emergency contraceptive (ECP)”. The Project does not use either term, except when quoting other sources. They are confusing, and complicate articulation of freedom of conscience issues.

“Abortion drug” is an appropriate description of mifepristone (RU486), which is designed specifically to cause the abortion of an embryo that has implanted in the uterus. The morning-after pill has not been designed for that purpose, and does not act in that way.

“Emergency contraception” is a fabulously successful marketing term. However, 94% of the women who take the morning-after pill do not require it to prevent childbirth. This statistic, provided by the drug’s advocates,[1] belies the notion of ’emergency’ that is often used to browbeat conscientious objectors. As to “contraceptive”, Ms.Wershler herself acknowledges that these drugs have three mechanisms of action, one of which may prevent implantation of the early embryo, thus causing its death. This is considered by many conscientious objectors to be the moral equivalent of abortion, a term acknowledged as appropriate by some authorities,[2] though the usage is not uncontested. The Project refers to these drugs generically as the ‘morning-after pill’ because this term is widely understood. We describe the morning-after pill as “potentially abortifacient”, in the sense that it may cause the death of the early embryo, but does not necessarily do so.

A final note to prevent further confusion: the meaning of “abortifacient” in a medical or scientific context is not the same as its meaning in a moral context. In a medical context, a drug that prevents fertilization (acts contraceptively) 95 to 99 times out of a hundred would be called a contraceptive rather than a abortifacient. But in a moral context, when the outcome may be death, a drug may be treated as an abortifacient if there is even a 1% chance of it killing the embryo by preventing implantation. A number of disputes that arise about the morning-after pill are a regrettable consequence of failing to recognize these distinctions.

Notes

1. Apply a calculator to the following statement: “In 16 months of ECP services, pharmacists provided almost 12,000 ECP prescriptions, which is estimated to have prevented about 700 unintended pregnancies.” Cooper, Janet, Brenda Osmond and Melanie Rantucci, “Emergency Contraceptive Pills- Questions and Answers”. Canadian Pharmaceutical Journal, June 2000, Vol. 133, No. 5, at p. 28.

2. Keith L. Moore and T.V.N. Persaud, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology (6th ed.) (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998), p. 532. Quoted in Irving, Diane N., A “One-Act Drama:The Early Human Embryo:’Scientific’ Myths and Scientific Facts:Implications for Ethics and Public Policy, Medicine and Human Dignity.” International Bioethics Conference, ‘Conceiving the Embryo’, Centre Culturel, Woluwe-St. Pierre, Brussels, Belgium: October 20, 2002 (9:30 A.M.)(Revised 23 October, 2002) Note 23.