Press Releases (2000 - 2003)
P R E S S R E L E A S E May 13, 2003
"ABORTION FOLLOWED BY MENTAL HEALTH PROBLEMS: NEW STUDY"
Women who have an abortion are more likely to be hospitalized afterward for psychiatric care, compared to women who carry their baby to term, according to a landmark new U.S. study.
The study, published this week in the Canadian Medical Association Journal, is based on a review of the medical records of 56,741 California women. It revealed that those who had abortions were 2.6 times more likely than women carrying a child to term to be hospitalized for psychiatric treatment in the first 90 days following the abortion or the birth. All of the women in the study were free of any psychiatric hospital admissions or pregnancies in the year before the study.
Author Dr. David Reardon and colleagues have published seven studies on abortion complications in the last eighteen months. Among the earlier revelations were higher rates of suicide and substance abuse among women who had recently undergone abortions.
This latest study is likely to deal a blow to the conventional medical wisdom that abortion is therapeutic for women in a crisis pregnancy.
Over 110,000 abortions are carried out each year in Canada, ending one in every three pregnancies. This latest California study suggests that, aside from the public moral controversy created by abortion, there may be serious public mental health concerns for women who make this choice. A comprehensive approach to a woman’s health in pregnancy may required a new paradigm, one that offers a range of supports through the completion of pregnancy, rather than the potentially troubled outcome of abortion.
Canadian Physicians for Life
Will Johnston, MD, President
Vancouver, BC
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
P R E S S R E L E A S E January 30, 2003
"WRONGFUL BIRTH" A WRONG DIAGNOSIS
Attitudes toward the disabled in Canadian society took a wrong turn today with the announcement that a doctor has been ordered to pay $300,000 for failing to insist that his patient undergo amniocentesis.
Amniocentesis is a relatively dangerous procedure, often performed in situations where it has more chance of causing the death of the baby than of discovering a chromosome defect. A recent British study discovered that a year's worth of amniocentesis in that country had likely caused the deaths of 400 healthy children.
It is deplorable that anyone's birth be declared in a Canadian court as a wrong thing warranting legal action. The disability community has swiftly condemned this decision and we urge further appeal to correct this insult to the dignity of disabled Canadians
Will Johnston, MD, President
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
P R E S S R E L E A S E January 27, 2003
15 YEARS OF "CHOICE?"
It has been 15 years since the Supreme Court struck down Canada’s abortion law and effectively removed all barriers to abortion on demand. In this time, abortion has erased over 1.5 million Canadian children from our families, our playgrounds, our schools, and our future.
In Canada today it is often easier for a woman to obtain an abortion than pregnancy support or crisis pregnancy counselling. As a result, many a woman finds the only "choice" available to solve her problems is a dead baby.
Many in today’s abortion-rights establishment are determined to avoid straight talk about what abortion really is. The "no choice but pro-choice" ideology endangers women by not respecting their right to fully informed choice. Women's health is being harmed by abortion, without their knowledge or consent.
An informed abortion choice must start with the clear understanding, easily available through ultrasound, that a child is really there, beating heart and all. Next, why are women not being told about studies reporting a strong correlation between abortion, especially of a first pregnancy, and breast cancer risk? They should also be warned of the risk of post-abortion emotional trauma and harmful premature delivery of future children.
Withholding basic information shows disrespect for women and is both dishonest and patronizing, since it implies that women are "intimidated" by the truth. Ignoring or suppressing what we now know about the dangers of abortion serves a coercive agenda, which fails to care about women’s most important needs.
A government which demands warnings on every pack of cigarettes should require every Canadian health care provider who counsels about, arranges, or performs abortions to tell women about the risks involved. Fundamental respect for the concept of informed consent should place these dangers above the politics of abortion so that lives can be saved.
Canadians remain deeply divided on the morality of abortion and rights of the fetus. But we believe there is general consensus that over 110,000 abortions annually in Canada is evidence of a social failure and that it is unacceptable that thousands of women take risks about which they are denied the information to truly consent.
Will Johnston, MD, President
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
P R E S S R E L E A S E - October 7, 2002
Physicians say abortion is evidence of a social failure
"…obviously abortion is a medically necessary service, therefore it has to be insured whether it's performed in a hospital or a private clinic." Health Minister Anne McLellan, NB Telegraph-Journal, Oct. 2, 2002
Canada’s health minister should be focusing on improving women’s health, not funding additional abortion services. Women's health is being harmed by abortion, without their knowledge or consent. Available studies make this clear and the politics of abortion is keeping this information from women - they are not fully informed before they make their choice for abortion. (1)
The warning that thousands of women are increasing their risk of breast cancer by submitting to an abortion has been sounded, convincingly, since 1996, when Dr. Joel Brind published the pooled data from 28 abortion/breast cancer studies and found a connection which could not be ignored.(2)
Overall, a minimum 30% increase in breast cancer risk can be expected as one of the consequences of a typical abortion. It is possible that 1 out of 4 women currently battling breast cancer, and who have had an abortion, owe their cancer to that "choice".
Women should be warned of the risk of post-abortion emotional trauma.(3) Withholding this basic information shows disrespect for women and is both dishonest and patronizing, since it implies that women are too weak to know the truth.
Abortion has been credibly blamed for another expensive and tragic consequence, the loss or impairment of children through premature delivery in subsequent pregnancies. Pre-maturity is a leading cause of cerebral palsy and various learning problems. The best data show that one abortion raises the woman’s risk of a later premature delivery by 30% and two abortions by a distressing 90%. (4)
The Minister of Health should require every Canadian health care provider who counsels about, arranges, or performs abortions to tell women about the risks involved. Fundamental respect for the concept of informed consent should place these dangers above the politics of abortion so that lives can be saved.
We believe there is general consensus that over 110,000 abortions annually in Canada is evidence of a social failure and that, together, we must resolve to improve this situation.
Will Johnston, MD, President - Vancouver, BC
1. Elizabeth Ring-Cassidy and Ian Gentles, Women's Health after Abortion: The Medical and Psychological Evidence, deVeber Institute 2002 http://www.deveber.org/text/whealth.html
2.Brind et al., "Induced abortion as an independent risk factor for breast cancer: a comprehensive review and meta-analysis," J of Epidemiology & Community Health, 1996;50:481-496
3. Coleman PK, Reardon DC, Rue VM, Cougle JR. State-funded abortions vs. deliveries: A comparison of outpatient mental health claims over five years. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 2002, Vol. 72, No. 1, 141–152.
4. Henriet L, Kaminski M. Impact of induced abortions on subsequent pregnancy outcome: the 1995 French national perinatal survey. British J Obstetrics Gynaecology 2001;108:1036-1042.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
P R E S S R E L E A S E May 10, 2002
No human dignity in destructive research
The long-awaited legislation on assisted human reproduction in Canada falls short on Health Committee recommendations to recognize human individuality and dignity.
The proposed law approves of destructive experimentation on embryos originally created as the children of infertile parents. It seems ethically inconsistent that the permissibility of research using any one embryo relies on it not having been created for that purpose. If there is something wrong with a proposed action, surely it cannot be justified by recalling that one initially meant to do something else.
Treating a human embryo in this way is a declaration that it is not a good in and of itself, but that it has actually to be destroyed to yield good. Moreover, that its destruction must proceed while it is healthy and viable because its continued existence is not so useful to others as its destruction.
An arbitrary 14-day age limit is proposed to restrain this philosophy from being applied to older human beings. There is no logical reason or historic precedent why this restraint should be expected to hold, even if it were built on firmer foundations. No distinct biological marker supports the creation of a 14-day limit for permitting the destruction of a unique human being. The 14-day rule is capricious and unscientific.
The Canadian scientific community has limitless fields of exploration open to it which do not require the breach of this particular bulwark of principle. The scientific literature overwhelmingly demonstrates that adult stem cells are already fulfilling the goals only hoped for with embryonic stem cells, making the destruction of human embryos unjustifiable.
We recommend that all research on human embryos as well as any treatment that is not for their benefit be prohibited and not simply regulated as proposed. The regulatory body will no doubt be comprised of research advocates, and Canadian scientific restraint with human embryos will continue to reflect technical limits in preponderance to ethical ones.
The Standing Committee on Health heard that many Canadians have moral and ethical concerns about reproductive technologies. Destroying living human embryos for research is unacceptable.
Will Johnston, MD, President
Vancouver, BC
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
P R E S S R E L E A S E - March 4, 2002
Taxpayer funding to destroy human embryos unacceptable
The Canadian Institutes for Health Research announcement today that federal funding is available for research on human embryos is appalling.
This is not a compromise. It is naïve to assume that "surplus" embryos will not be created with experimentation purposes in mind. The embryo researchers and fertility doctors must, of necessity, work hand in hand. It is realistic to take note of the incentive to create surplus embryos when fertility clinics will be the only source for these commodified human beings.
It is illogical that the permissibility of experimentation up to 14 days on any one embryo relies on it not having been created for that purpose. If there is something wrong with a proposed action, surely it cannot be justified by recalling that one initially meant to do something else.
Treating a human embryo in this way is a declaration that it is not a good in and of itself, but that it has to be destroyed to yield good, moreover that its destruction must proceed while it is healthy and viable because its continued existence is not so useful to others as its destruction.
An arbitrary 14-day age limit is proposed to restrain this philosophy from being applied to older human beings. There is no logical reason or historic precedent why this restraint should be expected to hold. No distinct biological marker supports the creation of a 14-day limit for permitting the destruction of a unique human being. The 14-day rule is capricious and unscientific.
The Canadian scientific community has limitless fields of exploration open to it which do not require the breach of this particular bulwark of principle. Such ethical firewalls are much easier to maintain than to rebuild in a crisis, and it would seem prudent and wise to expect this new technology to provide us with unforeseeable crises.
We recommend that all research on human embryos as well as any treatment that is not for their specific benefit be prohibited and not simply regulated as proposed. We clearly set out our position in April 2001, when comment was invited by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. The request for public guidance with the embryo destruction issue has satisfied the etiquette of consultation, but it appears that Canadian scientific restraint with human embryos will continue to reflect technical limits in preponderance to ethical ones. We question whether the Canadian media are aware of even one CIHR decision maker who is opposed to embryo research.
Our position paper can be viewed at www.physiciansforlife.ca/stemcells.html
Will Johnston, MD, President - Vancouver, BC
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
P R E S S R E L E A S E - November 5, 2001
Canadian health dollars funding medically unnecessary procedure
The issue of abortion funding was again recently addressed by Canadian legislators.
(House of Commons Finance Committee, October 31, 2001; "Abortion target for delisting as medical costs spiral skyward: Many MLAs, two in cabinet, strongly back saving $5M a year on procedure" - The Edmonton Journal, Mon 05 Nov 2001, Ric Dolphin)
In a submission to the House of Commons Finance Committee on October 31, Canadian Abortion Rights Action League Executive Director Marilyn Wilson said that women who seek abortions: "... do so for socio-economic reasons. Sometimes it is a desire to complete their education and become financially independent. In many cases, couples with children wish to restrict their family size in order to provide adequate financial support. Often, choosing abortion is a conscious decision not to become a socio-economic burden on society."
Canadian Physicians for Life questions why Canadian taxpayers are funding abortions through provincial health insurance plans? Abortion is not an essential medical service. Pregnancy is not an "injury, illness or disease." There is no proof that abortion improves health. In fact it disrupts a normal physiological process, poses a risk to the mother, and ends the life of her developing child. There is no "medical necessity" where no medical benefit or health risk exists.
Most Canadians do not support public funding of abortion as revealed in polls performed in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, and New Brunswick. The most recent poll by Corporate Research Associates found that only 31% of respondents in New Brunswick supported this use of taxpayer's dollars. Of women poll respondents, 63% were opposed to funding of clinic abortions.
As a statement of federal policy, the Canada Health Act (CHA) respects that the provinces must have flexibility in deciding how to best organize, finance and deliver health services. However, in defending abortion funding, some provincial leaders argue that they have no choice due to CHA requirements. Provinces that do not comply with federal demands are threatened with clawing back of their transfer payments.
Canadians cannot opt out of paying taxes for the public system of universal healthcare which also funds ending a healthy pregnancy. Taxpayers are funding abortions while many areas of healthcare are deteriorating for lack of funds. To add insult to injury, the federal Liberal government is not honouring the right of provincial governments to determine limits to abortion funding, respecting the majority view of citizens. In recent years, the Ministry of Health has ordered the governments of Newfoundland, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Quebec, and Manitoba to change their abortion funding policies.
The Canada Health Act (CHA) does not require that elective procedures be funded. As an unmedical act and an untherapeutic act, abortion does not deserve a place in the roster of paid services.
Will Johnston, MD, President - Vancouver, BC
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
P R E S S R E L E A S E - June 5, 2001
RE: "Even doctors ethically must make referrals for abortion services, whether they morally support that or not." Melanie Anderson - Planned Parenthood Alberta (CTV News and Current Affairs - June 2)
The erroneous allegation that physicians who object to abortion for reasons of conscience are obliged to refer patients for the procedure continues to be promulgated in Alberta.
Our correspondence with Alberta College of Physicians and Surgeons registrar, Dr. Ohlhauser, states clearly that physicians do not have a professional obligation to refer a patient for an abortion. The College requires, as does the Code of Ethics of the Canadian Medical Association, that physicians "inform a patient when their personal morality would influence the recommendation or practice of any medical procedure that the patient needs or wants."
A pro-life physician should declare her personal views to a pregnant patient considering an abortion, in order to place her subsequent discussion in context. The doctor then has every right, indeed, a responsibility, to outline the potential mental and physical risks of abortion just as she would before prescribing a drug or weighing the merits of surgery.
A number of studies report a close correlation between abortion, especially of a first pregnancy, and breast cancer. Are Alberta physicians telling abortion seekers of this threat to their health? Are women being informed of the risk of post-abortion emotional trauma? Are patients being warned that some physicians' ardent pro-abortion beliefs bias the "counselling" process?
A physician's duty of care extends to two patients in the case of a pregnant woman - the woman and her unborn child. For a woman to make a truly "informed decision" she must be presented with the facts of human embryology of her unborn child so that she will know that what she is aborting is a human being, not just a clump of cells or a piece of her own tissues. Withholding basic information shows disrespect for women and is both dishonest and patronizing, since it implies that women are too weak to know the truth.
The suggestion that morally troublesome issues need only be referred to a colleague is oblivious to the principled objections of pro-life physicians. Increasingly exotic reproductive technologies may eventually offend even the most laissez-faire physicians. There may come a day where no physician feels free from coercion to violate his or her conscience.
Will Johnston, MD, President
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
P R E S S R E L E A S E April 11, 2001
"DO NO HARM" Abandoned in Holland
Promoting premature death is no solution to disability, suffering, aging, and rising health costs. By legalising euthanasia, the Netherlands is going against the Hippocratic tradition in medicine of "Do No Harm." Canadian Physicians for Life submits that once a law embarks upon comparing the relative worth of human lives, under whatever guise, it rejects any commitment to protect the inherent dignity of all persons and absorbs into itself a principle which will only result in the abuse and killing of the most vulnerable in society.
According to CPL President, Dr. Robert Pankratz, "In Canada, good palliative care seeks to aggressively relieve the symptoms of a person's suffering without needing to confuse the issue by deciding whether that person deserves death. Ensuring quality palliative care and keeping euthanasia illegal protects the vulnerable from self and their doctor. People need good care, not doctors playing God - they aren't qualified for the job."
Palliative care physician, Dr. Margaret Cottle adds, "Hippocrates knew that killing patients is wrong and leads to abuse. The Netherlands is going against almost 2500 years of societal wisdom."
The Dutch Health Minister states that their law has "careful supervisory provisions." Some Canadians believe euthanasia should be available in special cases only--with strict safeguards in place. But it is clear from the Dutch experience that safeguards do not work. The Netherlands has gone from euthanasia for terminal illness to chronic illness to psychological distress to no illness at all. A doctor in Holland was recently acquitted for killing an elderly man who was "tired of life" but had no physical or mental illness.
Palliative care physician, Dr. Margaret Cottle, questions, "Who would provide these so-called "safeguards"--ie. laws? The government seems the only viable possibility to most citizens. Ergo... the folks who brought us Canada Post and Revenue Canada would be administering and enforcing the regulations which may determine if we live or die. This thought should be sobering."
Canadians want to invest in high quality palliative care, not the uncontrollable and cheap methods of euthanasia.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
P R E S S R E L E A S E January 18, 2001
Supreme Court Affirms Value of Life
Canadian Physicians for Life supports equality of the right to life of all members of society. Upholding the conviction of Robert Latimer not only underscores the importance of the rule of law in Canadian society but also the inherent value of every person in our society. Canadians can not allow the lives of those who are mute and disabled in our country to be stripped of value. "The victim in this case was a helpless child. Her killer was in a position of trust." (Mr. Bernstein) The premeditated killing of Tracy Latimer by her father was clearly second degree murder. The ten year minimum sentence "shows the extent of the value Canadians place on the lives of all our citizens."(Justice L'Hereux-Dubè). We laud this confirmation of the right of disabled Canadians to be a welcome part of our society.
As an Intervenor to the Court, Canadian Physicians for Life submitted that to grant a lesser sentence for the murder of a person with a disability says to the disabled that they are lesser beings who do not enjoy the full protection of Canadian law. This would put many people at risk. Mr. Latimer should receive the same punishment as any other Canadian who deliberately kills another human being and therefore the Court was just in dismissing his appeal .
Latimer argued that since he made all health care decisions for his daughter, he also had the power to end her suffering by suicide. We submit that any weakening of the laws regarding the duties and responsibilities of guardians or decision makers is a serious threat to the many disabled individuals in Canada who trust others to make health care decisions for them. Those decisions are to be made "in the best interests" of the person. It would be very alarming if those who make health care decisions for others had the power to kill.
Dr. Robert Pankratz, MD - President
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
P R E S S R E L E A S E July 12, 2000
CPL condemns attack on Dr. Garson Romalis
In response to the recent injury to Dr. Garson Romalis, Canadian Physicians for Life (CPL) reiterates our strong stand against all violence against humanity.
"The pro-life cause is only harmed by this kind of violence," according to CPL president Dr. Robert Pankratz. "We do not condone violence in any way, shape or form."
Adds Dr. Paul Ranalli, Canadian Physicians for Life vice president, "Any act of violence strikes at the very heart of what it means to be pro-life. I hope the person who attacked Dr. Gary Romalis in Vancouver, for whatever motive, is quickly captured, brought to trial and dealt swift justice."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
P R E S S R E L E A S E July 7, 2000
Re: RU486 (mifepristone) arrives in Canada
The arrival of a new potent hormonal poison on the medical scene can hardly be seen as an advancement to civilization. It does not make us more humane when we invent new ways to poison the tiniest members of our family.
The standard text Williams' Obstetrics states that the status of the human being within the mother has been "established as our second patient," who will be given the same meticulous care by the physician that we have long given the pregnant woman. This Hippocratic tradition in medicine of "Do No Harm" has become a casualty of anti-life ideologies.
How much confidence can we have in an abortion industry, which suppresses the link between abortion and breast cancer, to document the harm done on women by this hormone? What effect will the prolonged nature of this do-it-yourself abortion have on women? Post-abortion emotional trauma experienced by numerous women has been downplayed too long by proponents of choice.
The use of tax dollars to promote new methods of abortion at the cost of increasing womens' health risks is unconscionable. RU-486 is a threat to women's health and deadly for her preborn child.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
P R E S S R E L E A S E June 10, 2000
On June 14 the Supreme Court will hear Robert Latimer's appeal of his conviction and sentence for the murder of his disabled daughter seven years ago. As an Intervenor to the Court, Canadian Physicians for Life will submit that to grant a lesser sentence for the murder of a person with a disability will say to the disabled that they are lesser beings who do not enjoy the full protection of Canadian law. This would put many people at risk. Mr. Latimer should receive the same punishment as any other Canadian who deliberately kills another human being and therefore his appeal should be dismissed.
Latimer argues that since he made all health care decisions for his daughter, he also had the power to end her suffering by suicide. We submit that any weakening of the laws regarding the duties and responsibilities of guardians or decision makers is a serious threat to the many disabled individuals in Canada who trust others to make health care decisions for them. Those decisions are to be made "in the best interests" of the person. It would be very alarming if those who make health care decisions for others had the power to kill.
Promoting premature death is no solution to disability, suffering, aging, and rising health costs. We submit that once the law embarks upon comparing the relative worth of human lives, under whatever guise, it rejects any commitment to protect the inherent dignity of all persons and absorbs into itself an insidious principle which will only result in the abuse and killing of the most vulnerable in society.
Canadian Physicians for Life applauds the recent Senate committee report "Quality End-of-Life Care: The Right of Every Canadian." In its report, the committee noted that the Canadian Bill of Rights is founded upon the "dignity and worth of the human person."
"That dignity and worth compels the provision of excellent end-of-life care at a time when each person is at his or her most vulnerable ... Each person is entitled to die in relative comfort, as free as possible from physical, emotional, psychosocial, and spiritual distress," the report said. Committee proceedings generated 14 recommendations, challenging the federal and provincial governments to build the necessary relationships to improve the availability of quality end-of-life care and discuss appropriate measures for funding of end-of-life initiatives.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
P R E S S R E L E A S E April 12, 2000
Conscience Protection Bill Applauded
Canadian Physicians for Life applauds efforts before the Alberta legislature to grant protection of conscience to health care professionals who support the sanctity of life.
Recent suggestions by several regulating bodies that morally troublesome issues need only be referred to a colleague is oblivious to the principled objections of pro-life physicians. Increasingly exotic reproductive technologies may eventually offend even the most laissez-faire physicians. There may come a day where no physician feels free from coercion to violate his or her conscience.
Bill 212 is an amendment that, if adopted in the Alberta Legislative Assembly, will establish the rules up front. Health care professionals can confidently provide life-affirming care while retaining the choice of conscientious objection.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
P R E S S R E L E A S E March 22, 2000
Re: Availability of Preven over-the-counter
Overheard yesterday: One 15 year old told another that she planned to take the morning-after-pill even though she knows she is pregnant. With Preven available over-the-counter, this scenario will repeat many times - with what harm to the developing child?
The marketing of the morning-after-pill as a safe medication to avoid pregnancy is false on both counts. This practice is neither safe nor does it "prevent" fertilization as the CTV news indicates. This deliberate overdose of a virtually obsolete high dose contraceptive pill completely overwhelms the body's natural hormone balance. It works by preventing the implantation of a newly formed unique human being, contrary to what the drug company claims.
We all know that we all started to exist at fertilization. The morning-after-pill works by discarding that unique human being.
|
