A striking example of the lengths to which they will go to avoid that
debate are manifested in a motion just passed unanimously by the three
parties in the Quebec National Assembly, in favour of unrestricted
access to free abortion, with no limitations mentioned.
Margaret Somerville: Busting some myths on abortion and the Globe's Margaret Wente
www.news.nationalpost.com/holy-post/busting-some-myths-on-abortion-and-the-globes-margaret-wente
By Margaret Somerville, Christianity.ca
It’s an oft-repeated truism in ethics: “Good facts are essential for
good ethics.” So surely we need the facts about an issue as ethically
fraught as abortion. Yet not only do we not have them, but they are
intentionally not gathered or, if some are or might be available, access
to them is denied.
That allows two myths that favour the pro-choice stance on abortion
to be propagated: That late-term abortion is rare and that there is a
consensus in Canada on the public-policy regime that should govern
abortion (which, at present, is the complete absence of any law).
Margaret Wente, writing recently in the Globe and Mail,
articulates both myths in one succinct sentence. She states that “a
broad social consensus shapes actual (abortion) practice … (and) there
are virtually no late-term abortions.” But to the extent one can obtain
the facts, the evidence is otherwise.
The facts on late-term abortions are intentionally made difficult to
obtain. Some time ago, I contacted a staff member at Statistics Canada
to ask about the numbers of late-term abortions. She told me they were
instructed for political reasons not to collect statistics on the
gestational age at which abortion occurs.
She explained, however, that
hospitals must report the number of abortions and about 45 per cent had
continued to report gestational age. From these unsolicited reports,
it’s known that at least 400 post-viability abortions take place in
Canada each year and the actual number is most probably more than twice
that. The Canadian Medical Association sets viability (some chance of
the child living outside the womb) at 20 weeks gestation.
Read full story
Busting the Abortion Myths
There
are two such myths in Canada: One is that there is a general consensus
on the issue and the other is that late-term abortions are rare. Both
are wrong.
by Margaret Somerville
It's an oft-repeated truism in ethics: "Good facts
are essential for good ethics." So surely we need the facts about an
issue as ethically fraught as abortion. Yet not only do we not have
them, but they are intentionally not gathered or, if some are or might
be available, access to them is denied.
Margaret Wente ... articulates both myths in one succinct sentence.
|
That allows two myths that favour the pro-choice stance on abortion
to be propagated: That late-term abortion is rare and that there is a
consensus in Canada on the public-policy regime that should govern
abortion (which, at present, is the complete absence of any law).
Margaret Wente, writing recently in the Globe and Mail,
articulates both myths in one succinct sentence. She states that "a
broad social consensus shapes actual (abortion) practice ... (and) there
are virtually no late-term abortions." But to the extent one can obtain
the facts, the evidence is otherwise.
The facts on late-term abortions are intentionally made difficult to
obtain. Some time ago, I contacted a staff member at Statistics Canada
to ask about the numbers of late-term abortions. She told me they were
instructed for political reasons not to collect statistics on the
gestational age at which abortion occurs. She explained, however, that
hospitals must report the number of abortions and about 45 per cent had
continued to report gestational age. From these unsolicited reports,
it's known that at least 400 post-viability abortions take place in
Canada each year and the actual number is most probably more than twice
that. The Canadian Medical Association sets viability (some chance of
the child living outside the womb) at 20 weeks gestation.
In Canada, infant-mortality statistics include the death of any
breathing infant. Statistics Canada's records on causes of death in the
perinatal period (defined as after 22-weeks gestation) list a category
"Termination of pregnancy, fetus and newborn," which shows a total of
241 deaths for the years 2000 to 2005, inclusive, the latest numbers
available. Because babies born dead as a consequence of abortion are not
reported in these statistics as infant deaths, one can only assume that
these must be babies who were born alive as a result of abortion after
22 weeks gestation, breathed, but later died. This also raises further
ethical questions about how such babies are treated. Are they given
medical care or just left to die, as has happened in the past?
In discussion of abortion in classes in the Faculty of Medicine at
McGill University, taught by faculty with relevant knowledge, no one
challenges statements that there is a special clinic for post-22- weeks
gestation abortion in downtown Montreal and that there is one designated
hospital for abortion of 20- to 22-week gestation pregnancies. It's
also been reported in the media that the Quebec government sent a
specialist obstetrician to the United States for training in late-term
abortion. Although these facts are only circumstantial evidence, they
hardly make it seem likely that late-term abortions are truly rare - at
least in Quebec.
Anecdotally, as an ethicist, I have been consulted in a professional
capacity on two late-term abortions, both of which were carried out. One
involved a 34-week gestation pregnancy, where the mother was an
unmarried graduate student from a foreign country; the other a 32-week
gestation pregnancy, where the married parents did not want to have a
"defective child" - the baby had a cleft palate (a relatively minor
physical deformity that can be largely corrected with surgery).
As to trying to get specific facts on abortion, in general, two
British Columbia hospitals, Vancouver General and Kelowna General, have
applied to stop a freedom-of-information inquiry initiated by pro-life
activists, John Hof and Ted Gerk. After the hospitals refused their
request last year for information on abortion statistics, Hof and Gerk
initiated applications for access to the information through the B.C.
Office of Information. The province's Freedom of Information Act was
amended in 2001 to specifically exclude access to information about
abortion, but they are using a "public-interest-override" clause in the
privacy legislation, to argue that the release of the information is in
the public interest and should not be withheld. The hospitals have
applied for a Section 56 exemption to Freedom of Information rules
requiring disclosure, claiming that it was "plain and obvious that the
records sought by the Applicant will not be disclosed." The dispute
remains to be resolved.
These situations raise the issue of the ethics of intentionally blocking access to information on abortion.
Such blocking is not neutral, but a strategy to help to maintain the
status quo of the complete void regarding abortion law. The
unavailability of this information makes the pro-choice lobby's claims
that late-term abortion is rare and that there is a consensus on
abortion in Canada, much less likely to be challenged, and, therefore,
bolsters its case that we do not need any law on abortion.
It is also a stance that appeals to many politicians who are
terrified of an abortion debate for political reasons. A striking
example of the lengths to which they will go to avoid that debate are
manifested in a motion just passed unanimously by the three parties in
the Quebec National Assembly, in favour of unrestricted access to free
abortion, with no limitations mentioned. One can only wonder whether
they all, or even just some of them, understood that they were endorsing
a position that there should be no legal restrictions on aborting
viable babies. If they did not understand that, it's deeply concerning;
if they did, in my opinion, it's horrifying.
And here, too, an appeal to a "broad social consensus," as Wente
calls it, is proffered as a justification. Premier Jean Charest is
quoted by La Presse columnist Lysiane Gagnon as saying that "The
consensus expressed in the National Assembly reflects the consensus in
Quebec society." Apart from the fact that a consensus does not mean that
what is agreed to is ethical, there is certainly no consensus that the
situation should remain as it is with no law at all governing abortion.
Moreover, even if there were such a consensus, it would not be likely to
last if the facts on late-term abortion became widely known and people
were willing to face up to the reality they reveal.
The facts on what Canadians believe with respect to using law to
govern abortion are, again, difficult to obtain, because depending on
the nature of the questions asked in a survey and how the results are
interpreted, different claims can be made. One survey showed that about
two- thirds of Canadians believe unborn children deserve some legal
protection, at the latest at viability. Another said more than 50 per
cent of Canadians believe we should leave the abortion legal status quo
as it stands.
The strongest consensus that a woman should have the option of
abortion, that is, it should not be legally prohibited, exists in
relation to pregnancy resulting from rape (Gagnon cites 94 per cent of
Quebecers surveyed took this position) or where there is a serious risk
to a woman's life or health in continuing the pregnancy, a very rare
situation. Most people also believe that abortion-on-demand should not
be available where the baby, if delivered, would be viable, that is,
there should be legal restrictions, at this point at the latest.
But between the two poles of a spectrum from unrestricted
availability of abortion throughout pregnancy - the present situation -
to prohibiting it entirely, there is a wide variety of opinion and
certainly no overall consensus on any given approach.
If Cardinal Marc Ouellet's recent call for a national debate on
abortion is heeded, the pro-choice advocates who attacked him and
precipitated that call might regret their action. Provided the debate is
open and honest, the myths about late-term abortion being rare and that
in Canada there is an overall consensus on whether we need some law to
govern abortion will be exposed. It would then be up to Canadians to
decide what to do. In making this decision, we would need to keep in
mind that the law expresses and carries our shared values and having no
law to protect unborn children is a choice that reflects certain values
and is not a neutral stance.
The likely possibility is, however, that pro-choice advocates and
politicians will continue to argue there is no need for a debate.
But if the consensus they claim does exist, they have nothing to
fear. And if it does not, then in a democracy a debate is exactly what
is required.
Margaret Somerville DCL, LL.D, is the founding director of the Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law at McGill University.
The Ethical Imagination
The Ethical Imagination
takes us "on an ethical wallaby"—a "rambling journey" that grapples
with the natural and the spiritual dimensions of life and strives to
weave them together.
Death Talk: The Case Against Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide
A reasoned, passionate, and wide-ranging enquiry into the euthanasia debate and its consequences for individuals and society.
