More on Why Physicians Do Not Become Abortionists

By Dave Andrusko

Thanks to each and every one of you whose responses signal that you were as fascinated as I was by the counter-intuitive study coming out in the Guttmacher Institute's Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health. Let me immediately clarify.

The results were exactly what we would have expected: the primary reasons would-be abortionists remain healers is not fear of harassment but disapproval from institutions and colleagues. That this came from the shop that was formerly Planned Parenthood's think-tank--well, that came as a shock.

I mentioned yesterday that I would comment further as soon as we got something besides a press release and a synopsis of the study conducted by Lori Freedman, Uta Landy, Philip Darney, and Jody Steinauer. I didn't realize that we could secure the full article--which will be in the journal in September--by paying online ahead of time.

You probably remember the general picture from Tuesday's TN&V. In 2006 in-depth interviews were conducted "with 30 obstetrician-gynecologists who had graduated 5–10 years earlier from residency programs that included abortion training."

They found that "Eighteen physicians had wanted to offer elective abortions after residency, but only three were doing so at the time of the interview."

What new is added by reading the full report? Motivation is clearer for Obstacles to the Integration of Abortion Into Obstetrics and Gynecology Practice.

A study had appeared in 2008 in the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology. The major finding is that "only half of residents who intend to continue provide abortion after residency ultimately do." Being passionately pro-abortion these authors wanted to know what were "some of the obstacles"?

Fear of harassment is far down the ladder explaining why abortion has not been "integrated into medical practice." The real explanation is resistance by colleagues and institutions.

Most would-be abortionists "desire to avoid conflict," we read, which is "highly pervasive, but unsurprising, given the persistent controversy that profoundly affects physician behavior and patient care surrounding abortion." Put another way, the authors tell us, "Ultimately, the stigma of abortion and ideological disagreement are at the root of the policy restrictions and collegial strain surrounding abortion."

Okay, what do these pro-abortionists see as the remedy? Have residency programs figure out "what kinds of information and resources might help them to continue performing abortion if they so wish."

How about some help in "instruction on skills need for contract negotiation or on leadership skills related to conflict management and change of practice"? What else might be "beneficial," according to the authors? "Linking new physicians with colleagues and community members who support abortion provision."

The most nefarious "solution" is for residency programs to "adopt values clarification curricula." What would this accomplish? "[T]hey would help physicians develop tolerance for practice diversity, as well as a nuanced understanding of distinctions between personal beliefs and professional obligations."

They add wistfully, "Use of values clarification curricula could slowly change the culture of obstetrics and gynecological practice."

Thank you, no. Shelving ones personal religious and ethical objections to the slaughter of unborn children is not a "professional obligation," but an abandonment of what makes medicine a honorable and noble calling.