Irish Times publishes false “abortion” story

Paper admits “abortion” did not happen

No explanation offered for fabricated “news”

Sean Murphy*

The controversy surrounding Ireland’s new abortion law has been further inflamed by a story by Irish Times Health reporter Paul Cullen.  The story first appeared on 23 August, 2013.  Its accuracy was immediately disputed, and the paper had to add note stating that the article was erroneous in claiming that an “abortion” had occurred at the National Maternity Hospital in Dublin “under the provisions of the new abortion legislation,” which had not yet come into effect. Nonetheless, in an interview the following day, Cullen continued to insist that the reported “abortion” had occurred at the hospital, and that the public had a “right to know” about it.

The Irish Times has now been forced to remove the article from its website because it was found to be false.  Despite Mr. Cullen’s concern about the public’s “right to know,” the paper has offered no explanation to account for the fabrication of the story and the failure of editorial oversight that permitted its publication.

A significant issue raised by the incident is a dispute about what constitutes an “abortion.”  A protest outside the Irish Times organized by Irish pro-life organizations Youth Defence and Life Institute included statements and signs to the effect that premature delivery of a baby (presumably resulting in death) is not an “abortion,” but “medical treatment” intended to save the life of the mother.  It is by no means clear that the Irish Times or those favouring legalization of abortion accept this distinction.  Differences on this point are likely to complicate the exercise of freedom of conscience by health care workers who do not wish to participate in abortion.

Activist complains that Catholic hospitals won’t facilitate assisted suicide

In an opinion piece published in the Seattle Times, Tom Preston,  a retired physician who was one of the leaders of the successful assisted suicide lobby in Washington State, complains that Catholic hospitals in the state will not facilitate assisted suicide. “Throughout Washington,” he claims, “doctors are being silenced and forced to adhere to religious rules that prevent any participation in death with dignity,” and that “many Washingtonians are denied access to legal and humane end-of-life medical care.”

Writers with a different view of assisted suicide would respond that Catholic hospitals provide “humane end-of life medical care” as well as “death with dignity,” though not assisted suicide.  In any case, the position taken by Preston demonstrates that the legalization of morally contentious procedures like euthanasia and assisted suicide tends to generate political and social pressures inimical to freedom of conscience among health care workers and institutions.

Philippines government demands referral by objecting physicians even if not “right”

In the closing hearings into the controversial Reproductive Health Law, judges of the Philippines Supreme Court questioned a provision in the law that makes it a crime to provide “incorrect information” about contraceptives.  When Senior State Solicitor Florin Hilbay explained that the Philippines Food and Drug Administration will determine what is “correct,” a judge pointed out that this would mean that no dissent from that would be allowed.  Another judge raised the possibility  of the imprisonment of physicians who disagree with the FDA about the safety of a drug.

Hilbay also claimed that objecting physicians have a “professional obligation” to facilitate the provision of the services to which they object by referral, asserting that refusal to refer makes a patient a “victim.” He insisted on this even though he admitted that referral might not be “right.” The court gave lawyers for both sides 60 days to submit memoranda concerning their arguments. [Manila Standard] [Philippine Daily Inquirer] [Inquirer.net]

Letter: If society wants to legalize euthanasia, physicians should not be the ones to carry it out  

The Gazette

J. Donald Boudreau, MD

Physicians who refuse to be co-opted into assisting patients  accelerate their death are not, as Dr. Dave Lambert seems to imply,  medical dinosaurs. And by rejecting his option, we are most certainly  not trying to save or prolong lives “at all costs,” that is, we are  not vitalists. One can simultaneously reject both vitalism and euthanasia. . . [Full text]