Tag: Alberta

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 Physicians for Life corrects Planned Parenthood Alberta

News Release

CANADIAN PHYSICIANS FOR LIFE

RE:  “Even doctors ethically must make referrals for abortion services, whether they morally support that or not.”  Melanie Anderson – Planned Parenthood Alberta  (CTV News and Current Affairs Sat 02 Jun 2001)

The erroneous allegation that physicians who object to abortion for reasons of conscience are obliged to refer patients for the procedure continues to be promulgated in Alberta.

Our correspondence with Alberta College of Physicians and Surgeons registrar, Dr. Ohlhauser, states clearly that physicians do not have a professional obligation to refer a patient for an abortion.  The College requires, as does the Code of Ethics of the Canadian Medical Association, that physicians “inform a patient when their personal morality would influence the recommendation or practice of any medical procedure that the patient needs or wants.”

A pro-life physician should declare her personal views to a pregnant patient considering an abortion, in order to place her subsequent discussion in context.  The doctor then has every right, indeed, a responsibility, to outline the potential mental and physical risks of abortion just as she would before prescribing a drug or weighing the merits of surgery.

A number of studies report a close correlation between abortion, especially of a first pregnancy, and breast cancer. Are Alberta physicians telling abortion seekers of this threat to their health? Are women being informed of the risk of post-abortion emotional trauma? Are patients being warned that some physicians’ ardent pro-abortion beliefs bias the “counselling” process?

A physician’s duty of care extends to two patients in the case of a pregnant woman – the woman and her unborn child.  For a woman to make a truly “informed decision” she must be presented with the facts of human embryology of her unborn child so that she will know that what she is aborting is a human being, not just a clump of cells or a piece of her own tissues.  Withholding basic information shows disrespect for women and is both dishonest and patronizing, since it implies that women are too weak to know the truth.

The suggestion that morally troublesome issues need only be referred to a colleague is oblivious to the principled objections of pro-life physicians. Increasingly exotic reproductive technologies may eventually offend even the most laissez-faire physicians.  There may come a day where no physician feels free from coercion to violate his or her conscience.

Will Johnston, MD
President – Canadian Physicians for LifeContact: 
Canadian Physicians for Life
10150 Gillanders Road; Chilliwack, BC  V2P 6H4
Phone:  604-794-3772  Fax:  604-794-3960
Email:  info@physiciansforlife.ca
Visit us at:  www.physiciansforlife.ca

Calgary Bishop supports conscientious objectors

Cameron Maxwell of the Edmonton Sun reported that Calgary’s Roman Catholic Bishop, Frederick Henry, supports pharmacists who refuse to sell “morning after” pills for reasons of conscience, as well as nurses who do not wish to participate in abortion.

Bishop Henry spoke of the need for protection of conscience legislation for all health care professionals. He noted that it was unfair that physicians could refuse to be involved in abortions, while nurses, pharmacists and others were denied similar consideration. Henry had first-hand experience with the problems faced by conscientious objectors when he was Bishop of Thunder Bay (See Bishop protests on behalf of nurses (Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada)(1997) ). He cited the more recent case of nurses at Calgary’s Foothills Hospital to illustrate the need for legislation. (See Foothills Hospital Now Forces Nurses To Participate In Genetic Terminations ; Nurses At Foothills Hospital Rebel Over The Horrifying Results Of Late-Term ‘Genetic Terminations’) .

 

Concerned Pharmacists cite lack of consultation in Alberta

News Release

Concerned Pharmacists for Conscience

In a controversial policy change, announced this week the College of Pharmacists of B.C. decided to allow pharmacists to hand out the morning after pill, Preven, over the counter without a doctor’s prescription.  In response, Greg Eberhart, registrar of the     Alberta Pharmaceutical Association (APhA) has stated that “The APhA hopes to follow  B.C.’s push…”

“There has been no dialogue between the membership of the APhA and its executive, as to how pharmacists stand on this position,” says Ms. Maria Bizecki, spokesperson for  the group Concerned Phamacists for Conscience (CPC).  Ms. Bizecki further states the  APhA executive finds itself under increased pressure from the Society of Obstetricians and  Gynecologists of  Canada (SOGC), to dispense this product over the counter.

In 1995, the issue of a “conscience clause” came before the  APhA  membership and was passed, but, after consideration, dismissed by the APhA’s self-appointed Regulatory Affairs Committee.   “Forcing pharmacists to dispense or refer patients requesting Preven, an abortion causing drug developed to primarily act during Implantation of an embryo, is an insult to the autonomy of the pharmacist, the profession of pharmacy, and a health risk to women” adds  Ms.Bizecki.

Concerned Pharmacists for Conscience (CPC) is opposed to pharmacists dispensing     medications that violate their conscience on moral, medical ethical, or religious grounds.

For further information: Ms. Maria Bizecki, spokesperson Tel: (403) 228-2190  Fax:(403) 228-2249

 

Down the Slope to Infanticide

Nurses At Foothills Hospital Rebel Over The Horrifying Results Of Late-Term ‘Genetic Terminations’

Calgary, Alberta, Canada

Marnie Ko

Genetic terminations unquestionably constitute murder in the minds of the Foothills nurses who contacted this magazine after hospital administrators demanded they assist with abortions. The nurses are backed by a February 26 administrative memo obtained by this  magazine which states that for Maternity Care Centre (MCC) staff, “not participating in terminations is not an option.”

At Calgary’s Foothills Hospital some premature infants are born alive, then routinely allowed to die. For instance, last  August a doctor told a mother-to-be that her baby suffered from lethal genetic defects. The mother was persuaded to undergo a “genetic
termination,” and a regularly used procedure called an induction abortion was performed only five weeks before the baby was due. Chemically induced labour was followed by a live birth. But because the mother had decided her child should not live, nurses were forbidden to provide even such basics as food and fluids. [Full text]