April 27, 2008
Eveleen, on What do you call the fear of tokophobics?:
I suffer from extreme tokophobia. You have no idea what you are talking about. It’s horrible. I had an abortion rather than face childbirth. If I had not been able to have that abortion, I would have committed suicide. No amount of treatment was going to change that situation.
You just don’t get it.
________________________________
Loretta Westin, on “Abortion Man”:
I was not offended. I didn’t think it was funny, I thought it was blunt.
I couldn’t help thinking of Obama… poster boy for ‘Abortion Man’.
In a couple of short minutes, they managed to succinctly express a major issue in black culture in America.
________________________________
Frosti, on “Abortion Man”:
Hey, what’s the problem!? It isn’t half as explicit and offensive as those photographs of aborted fetuses displayed publicly by some maniacs.
Besides, it’s art, reminds me of Cinema Verite! And, I like the acting, too! The super-abortionman is especially… hard hitting, shall we say?
________________________________
Loretta Westin, on No decay of the human family here:
That’s such a laugh! I can’t even count how many times I’ve been asked that as a FIRST question regarding homeschooling!
WE HOMESCHOOL SO THAT OUR CHILDREN WILL BE PROPERLY SOCIALIZED!!
And our children stay out of day-care for the same reason.
Hmmmmm, what makes a child feel secure, loved, and happy…..a day with 15 other 2 yr olds and a ‘worker’, or a day with Mommy and baby sister?
It takes a rocket scientist for this?
________________________________
Tamara M, on Are food and water extraordinary?:
An alarm went off when I read this:
An obligation to provide extraordinary care to dying patients, including patients who are minimally responsive, forces one to breach the everyday duty of care, which is to provide the best balance between probable harms and foreseeable benefits.
&
for it privileges religious patients over others who may need care more urgently and whose chance of a favourable outcome may be better.
So it seems that after a write up of pro’s and con’s, you may not deserve to receive medical care in this country if you have too many in the con’s slot. It’s also sad how they mention that these dying people are taking up beds that could be used for others. Will there be a time when the dying aren’t seen as just “taking up space”?
And:
First, the considered withholding or withdrawal of life sustaining care is not “murder”…..In these circumstances, it is the disease that kills the patient, not the doctor or the treatment.
I wonder if any child neglect/murder cases have tried to use this line yet, “Oh, it wasen’t because I wasen’t feeding my child, their disease, [insert disease name here], did this to them”.
________________________________
Suzanne, on No decay of the human family here:
At seven bucks a day, anyone could leave their kids in daycare. Even full-time stay-at-home mothers who are tired of spending time with their kids. A neighbour’s daughter did that very thing - she wasn’t working outside the home or planning to do so, and she left her daughter at the local at-home daycare. For seven bucks, why not? And isn’t she taking a spot from someone who could really use it?
After having raised five kids myself as a full-time mom you can’t tell me that spending time with a stranger all day is better for them than spending the whole day with mom, even on her grumpy days. That’s reality, and not some sugar-coated “let’s play all day together and have interesting outings” environment. Okay, so I’m grumpy today…
________________________________
Karin, on Health care workers and the right to choose:
The problem with being pro-life in medical school is that it is usually an unspoken bias against you (with some exceptions when there is something blatant). Although we are all intelligent, strong-willed people in order to get to med school, we all (hopefully) feel a sense of inadequacy once we are there. It is not uncommon for us to share a sense that there was some mistake that got us accepted to school and that there are so many other worthy people not afforded the same opportunity.
The natural consequence of this is that when professors and preceptors tell you that something is or it not mandated, depending on the vehemence with which they tell you, it becomes difficult to buck the system. Lip service is paid to being willing to challenge accepted dogma, but in practice from my experience, there are a number of instructors who do not practically embrace a student looking for a debate on a difficult topic.
Sometimes we are told things that are frankly incorrect, i.e. there is a legal duty to refer. Sometimes we are subtly influenced, as when a “pro-choice” group such as Med Students for Choice is embraced but “pro-life” groups are not allowed to post literature on campus. Other times there is simply an attitude of what is acceptable behaviour, put forth as the only reasonable and scientific approach to patient care, the breach of which is unprofessional, as in bringing any part of your personal religious or moral convictions to your practice compromises patient care. Whether that is defensible or not isn’t really up for debate, it is just presented as the truth.
Usually, there is a sense that there is a big stick awaiting anyone who does not play by the rules, although no university in Canada that I am aware of has forced a student to participate in an activity that he or she has found acceptable. (I do know of a case that was settled in Manitoba, but the student was not forced to participate when all was said and done.) To my knowledge, no school has a written policy on the subject. It is my opinion that this is to avoid the battle that would inevitably ensue if a written policy were in place, as there is no legal precedent to back up such a policy.
There is substantial support available for pro-life medical students if they know where to look. Canadian Physicians for Life is a great resource of mentors and colleagues, and pro-life students that I know often seek each other out and support each other. It can happen, but a person, depending on how willing he or she is to endure conflict, can find the road quite difficult.
The sad thing is that there are pro-life students who choose not to pursue certain career paths (obstetrics or family medicine) in order to avoid the land mines that can accompany these specialties; a tremendous loss to the patients who would have had these tremendous people as doctors.
________________________________
babysaver, on Health care workers and the right to choose:
It is true that D&C’s are often done for non-abortive reasons. Whether a medical student could request to ‘practice’ on these procedures vs. abortive D&C’s would probably depend upon the unique culture of the medical school or the leeway afforded by the preceptor. I would suggest that knowing how to do a D&C isn’t a necessary skill for most doctors anyway. You could argue that it would be essential for Obs/Gyn and potentially useful for other surgical specialties like Gen Surg though.
As for actually being present for an abortion in the context of mandatory clinical / educational duty, this was not a problem at my school. In fact, the administration seemed to take pains to keep medical students away from OR’s where these procedures were occurring. I am sure that one could choose to be present by request though.
Personally, the pro-choice mandate was more oppressive to me during the didactic education in the pre-clinical years. Phrases like “duty to refer” were spouted by faculty and peers almost without exception. I had to print off the CMA position statement and bring it into class to convince anybody otherwise. Basically, the most liberal / pro-choice physicians tend to practice and teach at academic centres. Medical students come away with a skewed view of normality because of this. During several controversial classroom “discussions,” I was concerned that people might begin to throw things at me…
The most uncomfortable situation that happened to me during the clerkship period was during weekly informal teaching sessions by an Obs/Gyn. He would give little 2-hour workshops and a roughly weekly basis. During these sessions (which might include instruction on delivery, comparison and contrast of hormonal contraception, STD’s, etc.) he would “step out” about every 15 or 20 minutes. At one point a friend of mine noticed that when he returned to continue teaching us, his greens looked a bit rumpled and that small areas of blood spatter were apparent that were not present earlier. Based on the location of where we were being taught, his job description, the day of the week, and the time course, it became painfully obvious that he was simultaneously performing surgical abortions.
To think that this man was capable of “changing modes” from describing the miracle of healthy delivery in animated tones, to killing an innocent child, and back again, made our stomachs churn.
I stopped attending his teaching sessions (which were only semi-mandatory, so nothing else came of it), and avoided him as much as possible for the rest of my rotation.
________________________________
Smartmom, on Feminist wants women to be women:
As a former lawyer and teacher who is currently home with my child, I say hear hear to this. Generally I find there to be two responses to my saying I am home with my child - one is positive - good for you - no better job - this kind of thing. The other is often not so subtle disparagement of the choice (and I mean this is coming from other women) - asking me whether I’m home because I plan on having more children soon (as if it wasn’t legitimate to stay home with just one child…), or comments like - oh it must be nice to be ABLE to do that (i.e., lucky for you that you can afford to get by on one income). Which makes me think about the lifestyle choices of some of those I know who have chosen to return to work - and it is not because they need the second income. So to this latter group - I feel like saying - I CHOOSE to be at home with my daughter. Witness all her first moments. Be there to support and nurture and care for her. Be there for quality and quantity time, as if there was a division between those two things. This is a choice that I find more fulfilling than my years lawyering and teaching. And I’m not saying that careerism couldn’t be fulfilling for a lot of people. But I don’t like being made to feel that I have to apologize or explain my choice.
________________________________
Suzanne, on Health care workers and the right to choose:
It’s interesting but Morgentaler has said that medical people should not be forced to perform abortions. And I believe that is the position of the Canadian Medical Association.
________________________________
Tony Gosgnach: How to protest the Federation of Medical Specialists of Québec’s anti-life stance
Legal Name: Federation of Medical Specialists of Québec
Operating Name: Federation of Medical Specialists of Québec
Mailing Address
P.O. Box 216
Place Desjardins Stn
MONTRÉAL, Quebec
H5B 1G8
Location Address
3000-2 Complexe Desjardins
East Tower, 30th Floor
MONTRÉAL, Quebec
H5B 1G8
Telephone: (514) 350-5000 Toll Free Phone: 1(800) 561-0703 Fax: (514) 350-5100 Email: [email protected] Website URL: http://www.fmsq.org
http://www.fmsq.org/c-484/e/anglais.html
The Facts
C-484, a Private Member’s Bill was tabled in the House of Commons by Conservative Ken Epp, on November 21, 2007, may bring Canada back several decades and reopen a debate that was ended 20 years ago.
Purpose of Bill C-484 (Unborn Victims of Crime Act), is to amend the Criminal Code so that charges can be laid in all cases causing the death of an unborn child. This could, implicitly, give legal standing to the fetus, which has none under the current legislation. Such status would mean that the murder of a pregnant woman could, for example, carry a double term of imprisonment.
It should be remembered that on January 28, 1988, after 20 years of judicial wrangling and 15 months of deliberations, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down section 251 of the Criminal Code. Would Bill C-484 be a subterfuge to grant separate legal status to the fetus? If so, this would be equivalent to wiping out at a single stroke 20 years of jurisprudence with regard to women’s choice and legal rights to dispose of their bodies as they wish.
We would like to make ourselves clear: a violent crime against anyone is heinous and unacceptable. Even if we could consider a violent crime against pregnant women be double, such statement does not justify the adoption of a bill that could disrupt the existing balance in women’s rights.
If Bill C-484 passes, it could open the door to all kinds of demands or legal proceedings calling for the recriminalization of abortion. It is clear that, under such circumstances, health professionals, including many medical specialists could, ipso facto, find themselves in the dock.
Before it becomes to late…
Bill C-484 passed second reading on March 5, 2008 in a climate of virtually total indifference.
We must not let Bill C-484 be adopted in third reading and moreover, never obtain Royal Assent.
Bill C-484 represents a definite setback for our society. Endorsing this Bill would be equivalent to reopening a debate with an unpredictable outcome, yet with all the attendant consequences for medical practice.
What have done the Members of the House of Commons?
On March 5, 2008, at the second reading of the Bill, 147 Members of Parliament voted in favour of it, 118 of them were Conservatives. A majority of members of the Opposition voted against Bill C-484, though in an insufficient matter.
The Bloc Québécois and the New Democratic Party issued party’s guidelines opposing to Bill C-484.
Conservatives gave its members freedom to vote.
Since no clear guidelines were issued, members of the Liberal Party of Canada voted as they wished. Their leader, who is also Leader of the Opposition, was absent from the House of Commons for this vote.
You can help:
Let Opposition Leader Stéphane Dion know time is important in this matter:
He must give clear guidelines to his members in order to block Bill C-484.
Three simple ways to give your support against Bill C-484!
Sign the petition against Bill C-484. The petition will be deposited at the House of Commons before Bill C-484 gets to the third reading.
Send a message to your House of Commons representative, to the Leader of the Official Opposition, Stéphane Dion or to the Prime Minister, Stephen Harper.
Spread this information around you; invite your colleagues, relatives and friends to sign the petition.