Category: Procedures & Services

Polish law and conduct of Polish physicians, clergy, activists and authorities leads to adverse judgement

Sean Murphy*

The European Court of Human Rights has issued a judgement adverse to freedom of conscience and ordered Poland to pay two complainants, a mother and daughter, a total of 61,000 Euros in damages and costs.  Subject to the possibility that the English translation of the judgement is faulty, the use of the term “anti-choice activist” by the judges brings their impartiality into question.  However, the facts of the case outlined in the judgement suggest that the conduct of Polish health care personnel, anti-abortion activists, clergy and state authorities effectively guaranteed an adverse outcome.

A 14 year old girl, P. supported by her mother, S.,  sought an abortion for a pregnancy alleged to have been the result of a rape.  While she obtained the necessary prosecutor’s certificate for the procedure, mother and daughter received contradictory information from two public hospitals in Lublin.  Further, health care personnel clearly violated principles of patient confidentiality and informed consent in an effort to dissuade the girl from having an abortion.  These violations included clearly coercive and manipulative tactics.  P and S experienced

  • the intervention of a priest and anti-abortion activists, unsolicited and unwanted,
  • importuning by anti-abortion activists that included confrontations in public,
  • national media attention, including a press release issued by a hospital concerning P,
  • detention and six hours of questioning by the police,
  • apprehension of the girl by state authorities, apparently for the express purpose of preventing the abortion,
  • posting on internet by the Catholic News Agency of the girl’s travel to Gdansk for an abortion,
  • the filing of criminal charges against the girl for having had unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor (i.e., the rape that resulted in pregnancy)

While the court found that objecting physicians had a legal obligation to refer patients for abortion, the source of that legal obligation was Polish law.  Article 39 of Poland’s Doctor and Dentist Professions Act imposes a legal obligation of referral.  The imposition is objectionable in principle, but the European Court of Human Rights can hardly be criticized for applying Polish law to Polish citizens.

American Nurses’ Association drafts policy against euthanasia and assisted sucide

The American Nurses’ Association has offered a draft policy document for public input until 8 November.  The position statement opposes nurse participation in euthanasia and assisted suicide.  Some of those opposed to the procedures remain concerned that the draft statement equates the provision of food and fluids with medical treatment that can be withdrawn from patients even if they are not dying.  [Lifesite News]

Serious mistake made in diagnosing death before organ transplantation

A 19 year old girl who was seriously injured in a car crash in October, 2011, narrowly escaped having vital organs removed for transplant following what appears to have been a misdiagnosis by attending physicians.  After consulting with the family, they removed a respirator and ceased treatment. However, the girl regained consciousness as they were preparing to harvest her organs. [Medical Daily]

Abortion described as a “right”

In a commentary on CBC Radio, Canada’s publicly funded state broadcaster, Prince Edward Island University professor Richard Raiswell  asserted that “abortion is a medically necessary, essential health care service” and insisted that all Canadian women have a “right” to the service.  Since the province does not provide abortion on the island, Raiswell argues that women who have to leave the island to obtain the procedure “are being denied access to safe medical care.”  He suggested that that is illegal. [CBC Radio]

Ethicist supports “positive” eugenics: likens current practice to Nazi policies

Julian Savulescu, an ethicist at the University of Oxford, argues that the current practice of using prenatal screening and abortion to eliminate embryos suspected of having disabilities or diseases is akin to Nazi eugenic policies, which were also directed at eliminating the ‘unfit.’  He supports the use of prenatal testing to identify and destroy embryos with disease or disabilities as long as it is understood that this implies nothing about the moral status of disabled people, but argues that people should also be able to select for desirable characteristics, like intelligence or sex.  His position is that “freedom of reproduction” can be restricted “for social purposes,” but only if the purposes are “uncontroversially good,” the restrictions are necessary, and that no less restrictive policies would be workable. [News Limited]