By Steve Calvin, M.D.
In 1973, Roe
v. Wade shattered the issue of abortion into sharp fragments. We are
still dealing with the medical and political fallout of the Supreme Court's
willingness to go far beyond the traditional boundaries of medical ethics
and practice.
The tenets of Hippocratic medicine have served us well for more than 2,000
years. But the last 25 years of abortion on demand caused the practice of
medicine to become increasingly schizophrenic. The tension between valuable
traditions and currently legal medical practice is untenable.
My subspecialty of maternal-fetal medicine has been heavily influenced by
the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision.
I am one of 11 high-risk pregnancy specialists in a busy practice serving
a complicated referral population. I also teach medical students and residents.
Our practice is unique in that we care for two patients: the mother and
her unborn child. (Sometimes our colleagues involved in the treatment of
infertility are so successful we have even more than two patients.) Only
on very rare occasions are the medical interests of the mother and child
in conflict.
In 1973, fetal ultrasound imaging technology was early in its development.
The anatomic development and activities of the fetus were invisible. Today
the practice of obstetrics is much more effective because of our ability
to obtain detailed views of the fetus inside the uterus.
Current ultrasound imaging techniques reveal the marvelous complexity of
prenatal growth and development. Just as parents of newborns mark their
baby's developmental progress with milestones of activities, thanks to modern
technology we can see similar developmental milestones in unborn babies.
However, this wonderful window on the womb has become increasingly embarrassing
to ardent supporters of abortion who would rather refer to the fetus as
"pregnancy tissue" or "the products of conception."
That is why pro-abortionists so vigorously oppose any requirement for an
ultrasound prior to an abortion. Let me offer a personal example.
Ten years ago I was on the faculty at the University of Arizona medical
school. After numerous requests, I was finally permitted to give a pro-life
counterpoint presentation to a class of first-year medical students. During
the planning of my presentations, however I was told that the use of a fetal
ultrasound videotape would be "confusing" and "irrelevant."
A discussion of the First Amendment and its extension to academic freedom
was enough to allow the use of the ultrasound images.
In the last two and one-half decades our ability to obtain clear images
of the fetus has expanded the concept of the fetus as a patient. For example,
unborn babies can be treated with medications for irregular heartbeats and
receive blood transfusions. Indeed, blood flow patterns in tiny blood vessels
can be analyzed using color Doppler techniques. Increasingly, there are
surgical procedures that can benefit an unborn baby.
A frequent use of ultrasound is to evaluate the health of our unborn patients.
In high-risk situations we recommend weekly ultrasound "checkups"
that look for prenatal breathing movements and other activities.
There is inescapable schizophrenia when modern medicine works under an ethical
construct in which a fetus is a patient only when the mother has
conferred this status on him or her. The trouble is that this status can
be withdrawn. But how can one fetus at five months deserve abortion when
an anemic fetus of the same age can undergo a blood transfusion in the next
room?
Even abortion supporters are horrified by the possibility of abortions based
only on the sex of the unborn child. But why is abortion for the most sexist
of reasons any worse than abortion for any other reason?
Likewise, I am concerned by the degree to which modern obstetrics has become
an impersonal technospecialty dedicated to the concept of "the perfect
baby." Much of prenatal diagnosis is designed to detect fetal abnormalities
early so that the choice of abortion is available. The majority of these
abnormalities, such as Down syndrome, are not usually lethal.
So far we do not have an overtly eugenic social policy but we are certainly
encouraging family-based eugenics. This use of abortion will unquestionably
further weaken society's commitment to the disabled.
It is troubling that abortion is the only medical "procedure"
for which supporters fear full disclosure. Many physicians suspect that
multiple abortions lead to an increased incidence of future reproductive
problems such as incompetent cervix which increases the chance of miscarriage.
Even more concerning is the evidence linking abortion and an increased risk
of breast cancer.
The women of America have a right to a calm, factual presentation of the
facts about abortion knowledge. The requirement for truly informed consent
is long overdue.
History teaches us that medical leaders and experts can be fatally wrong.
In the mid-19th century Oliver Wendell Holmes and Ignaz Semmelweiss clearly
showed that lethal germs could be transmitted by physicians' unwashed hands
between the anatomy lab and the delivery room. They were both viciously
attacked for their willingness to tell the truth.
Today many medical leaders are intent on making the health care system into
an efficient utilitarian tool serving the god of choice. Unfortunately,
genuine compassion and caring will never come from such a system.
American medicine must awaken from the moral anesthesia induced by 25 years
of unrestricted abortion. Just as the lithographs of slaves stacked like
cordwood in the holds of slave ships led to the end of the British slave
trade, I believe that ultrasound technology showing detailed fetal anatomy
forces us to honestly face the fetal side of the abortion question.
Dr. Steve Calvin is a practicing perinatologist and co-chair of the Program
in Human Rights and Medicine at the University of Minnesota. The program's
web address is www.umn.edu/phrm.