Martinuk covers the waterfront from A to Z,
explaining all the reasons why muzzling a
physician's conscience on abortion is wrong
as well as all the good reasons why a
physician cannot in good conscience refer
for abortions. At issue is a proposal being
debated by the Alberta College of Physicians
and Surgeons.
According to Martinuk most of the changes
are "unremarkable," except for one area. "The proposed changes are being debated this
week and, if accepted as drafted, doctors
who oppose abortion (for whatever reason)
will no longer have the option of refusing
to assist a woman requesting abortion," she
writes.
"The college claims doctors won't have to refer her directly
to abortion providers, but they will have to ensure she has
'access to information and assistance in making an informed
decision and access to available medical options.'" This, of course, reminds
us of our own situation here at home where
the right of physicians to stay completely
away from abortion is under attack.
Martinuk catches the fundamental irony–"that the college has
acted according to its own moral framework (believing that
abortion is a right) in telling its doctors that they cannot act
according to their moral framework. Ultimately, it means having
a moral framework for making medical decisions isn't wrong--but
having a particular moral framework (where abortion isn't a
right) is."
Indeed, this also reminds us of pro-abortion
President Barack Obama's pompous and
insincere profession that in changing our
government's policy on embryonic stem cells
it was all about "science" and had nothing
to do with hewing to his own moral
framework/policy preference.
Please take five minutes and read Ms.
Martinuk's superior essay.
