• Print
  • Send to a friend
  • Comment (24)

Medical society president explains silence on abortion

Dr. Rachel Kassner, president of the Medical Society of P.E.I. Guardian photo by Jim Day

Dr. Rachel Kassner, president of the Medical Society of P.E.I.

Published on November 29, 2011
Published on November 29, 2011
Teresa Wright  RSS Feed
Topics :
The Guardian , Medical Society , P.E.I. Medical Society President , P.E.I.

The president of the P.E.I. Medical Society says her organization has refused to comment directly on the lack of abortion services in P.E.I. due to the divided opinion of P.E.I. doctors on the issue.

On Monday, P.E.I. Medical Society President Dr. Rachel Kassner submitted a letter to The Guardian for its editorial page explaining why the society has not provided a spokesperson to comment on the provision of abortion services on P.E.I.

Up until now, the Medical Society has refused comment on the controversial topic of P.E.I.’s abortion policies, despite its recent prevalence in both local and national media.

In her letter, Kassner says this is due to the polarization among the public and among doctors when questions about abortion are raised.

“Even though the current debate is suppose to be specific to access to abortion services in P.E.I., predictably and perhaps understandably, the mere mention of the ‘A’ word polarizes groups, and yes, that includes doctors,” Kasser says in her letter.

“It must be stated that to achieve consensus on the issue of abortion within any group is impossible and invariably divisive.”

That why, rather than providing a local spokesperson to speak about the lack of this medical service on P.E.I., the Medical Society has been directing media to the Canadian Medical Association’s official policy on abortion.

“MSPEI endorses this policy, which acknowledges that although abortion is a legal medical procedure, no physician is obliged to recommend or perform the procedure,” Kassner wrote.

“However, personal beliefs must not affect the health and safety of a woman seeking an abortion by delaying access to the procedure,” she added.

The Canadian Medical Association’s abortion policy states physicians with moral or religious beliefs preventing them from recommending an abortion should inform the patient of this so she can find another doctor.

Dr. Richard Wedge, executive director of medical affairs at Health P.E.I. told The Guardian last week doctors on P.E.I. can refuse to provide abortion referrals. But if they do refuse, they are medically obliged to refer the woman to another physician who will make the referral.

Officials at the society sent the request for information from Health P.E.I. after several P.E.I. women stated in the media recently their doctors refused to give them referrals or did not provide adequate information about abortion services available in the region.

MSPEI will be circulating the information it received from Health P.E.I. to all practising physicians on referral and access to abortion services.

Comments

  • Username
    Dr. PG. Ney
    - November 30, 2011 at 15:23:47

    No physician is under any legal or medical obligation to perform or refer for any medical act that is not well established as necessary and beneficial for the patient. It is necessary for those who perform or support or refer for all procedures to show beyond reasonable doubt with evidence based medicine that abortions are required and good treatment for women. No such evidence exists. In fact those who most loudly lament the lack of facilities are doing nothing to show the benefits to women. The best evidence shows only harms. Abortion does not prevent any mental illness but aggravates them all. Since there is no justification for 99.5% of all abortions, invading a woman's body with a curete is tantamount to criminal assault.

    Submit a Comment

    • Username
      Head Shaker
      - November 30, 2011 at 17:05:05

      Then there are some readers here who seem to think you should hand back your MD and go live in a monastary. The opinion seems to be if a woman asks, you must perform or quit.

    • Username
      Dr. Amac
      - December 2, 2011 at 17:29:58

      Where in the world did you come up with 99.5% of all abortions are not justified? Abortion is legal and if performed properly, completely safe, just as any other medical procedure. Saying that doctors shouldn't be obligated to perform abortions upon request, no matter the reasons behind the request, is like saying that doctor's aren't obligated to prescribe a form of birth control upon request just because it's against their personal beliefs. If a women requests an abortion or a prescription for the birth control pill, a medical doctor SHOULD NOT make any judgments or decisions based on their own beliefs. Doctors who are paid by the Government, should most definitely not have a choice, except whether to work for the Government or not. Abortion is LEGAL, made law by the Government. Deal with it, or work elsewhere. Every person in this world should have rights to their own body.

    • Username
      To Dr AMAC
      - December 5, 2011 at 12:30:50

      If it is legal, made so by the government, pleas cite the statute. V oodoo is not illegal. Should doctors be forced to perform voodoo if the patient asks for it?

    • Username
      Dr. Amac
      - December 5, 2011 at 22:35:16

      "Please cite the statute" ... are you kidding me? You don't know that abortion is a legally performed medical procedure in the Country of CANADA. January 28, 1988, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that Section 7 of the Charter and Rights and Freedoms was being violated by upholding the Abortion Law and struck it down. As for your voodoo comment, if it made any sense or had relevance to this debate, I would entertain an answer. But first, catch up on your history homework and come back to the table with an intelligent comment...or not!

    • Username
      Heat SHaker
      - December 13, 2011 at 15:19:07

      Why should doctors not be obligated to perform voodoo if requested by the patient. The whole debate here is that since it is not illegal, doctors should not be allowed to let their own beliefs or ethics interfere with the wishes of the patient or is abortion so special that it has it's own rules that son't apply to anything else in the medical field?

  • Username
    something
    - November 29, 2011 at 23:52:40

    This is a serious problem here in the USA where the political landscape is so dominated by religious nutcases that it's impossible even to have a conversation, let alone cite evidence. But I'd always been under the impression that Canadians were rather more sensible. Are things degenerating up north, too? Why? What can you learn from the collapse of reason in the USA? You'd better learn it quick!

    Submit a Comment

    • Username
      Well
      - November 30, 2011 at 09:30:36

      The first thing I hope people learn is it isn't true, what some people are saying, that no place else is there an issue. Then, there is not a constitutional right in Canada. Then, merely disagreeing with someone does not automatically make one a nutcase.

    • Username
      Head Shaker
      - November 30, 2011 at 09:29:27

      What? Not just PEI. Someone's got some 'splainin to do. I am not rabidly anti-abortion, but I hate people trying to convince me (especially the ones who are adamant that there is no way they could possibly be wrong) with really stupid arguments which they think are knock down blows or turn out to be just plain made up. It seems that PEI is the only place where this is even an issue doens't seem to be entirely accurate.

  • Username
    Twiggy Rathbone
    - November 29, 2011 at 17:13:18

    I don't think (at least I hope not) that medical schools teach young doctors that it is perfectly acceptable to deny medical treatment to a particular patient if doing so goes against a doctor's religious beliefs or morals. That is similar to telling a police officer it is OK for him to not protect pro-choice protesters or abortion clinics if it goes against his anti-abortion beliefs. Morals and ethics are fine, but when a woman needs a medical procedure the doctor has a duty to perform it despite his beliefs. As long as the doctor is not breaking any laws he is obligated to perform all medical procedures. If a doctor facing this dilemma cannot see that, maybe he or she should stop practicing medicine.

    Submit a Comment

    • Username
      Head Shaker
      - November 30, 2011 at 00:04:28

      Would you perform acts that you, personally, considered morally wrong simply because there wasn't a law against it? 200 years ago would you buy slaves simply because it wasn't illegal? How does this not violate the charter rights of the doctor. In the Ontario model, a doctor has to refer to someone who will perform, but is not legally obligated to do it themselves. Are you trying to reduce the number of doctors we have for everything else, over this one issue? If I was a doctor and had a chance to work elsewhere, I'd be gone the day after hat was announced. ( I know here is a lot here, but I very much think that your position is going to royally screw us if anyone takes it seriously)

    • Username
      Seriously
      - November 29, 2011 at 23:53:02

      Seriously, you think it is hard to recruit doctors now and you want to add that restriction when other jurisdictions like Ontario do not? Are you trying to screw things up for every other islander? What could possibly make you think that is a good idea? There are some of us who don't want to go to NB for a checkup.

  • Username
    Head Shaker
    - November 29, 2011 at 16:46:12

    Ya think? ;-)

    Submit a Comment

  • Username
    gale routh
    - November 29, 2011 at 16:00:24

    this is the law: ABORTION IS A CIVIL AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT SUPPORTED BY THE RIGHTS TO PRIVACY, THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF 14TH AMENDMENT, AND THE 13TH AMENDMENT. no human has a right to life or any due process rights by the 14th amendment to use another human's body or body parts AGAINST their will, civil and constitutional rights: that's why you are not force to donate your kidney---the human fetus is no exception; this is protected by the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause consensual sex =/= a legal, binding contract for an unwanted fetus to live. ALL THE REPUBLICANS ARE PRO-LIFE, SCHIZOPHRENIC FASCISTS WHO SUPPORTS REPRODUCTIVE SLAVERY OF AMERICAN FEMALE CITIZENS, WHICH IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL BY THE 13TH AMENDMENT.

    Submit a Comment

    • Username
      Head Shaker
      - November 29, 2011 at 16:45:53

      You do realize that we are in no way bound by the American constitution because WE ARE NOT AMERICAN!

    • Username
      Jim Cantrell
      - November 29, 2011 at 16:53:24

      Gale Routh, you DO know this is Canada and not the U.S.?If you are posting from Canada you are an idiot and if you are posting from the United States you are also an idiot.

    • Username
      Trent C
      - November 29, 2011 at 17:14:07

      What we have here is someone posting to random articles but not checking to see what country they are in, or someone who thinks the US constitution is a universal document. Down with manifest destiny!

  • Username
    eyes raised
    - November 29, 2011 at 15:59:42

    Doctors are entitled to their opinion..but should NEVER impose their religous beliefs right or wrong in the way of their treatment or any professional services.....if they PUT these religous values ahead of the rights of their patients...they should be taken to task.....remember they are not GOD......although some think they are

    Submit a Comment

    • Username
      Head Shaker
      - November 29, 2011 at 16:54:56

      Even so, but doctors should not be forced to actively do something that they don't consider moral or ethical. You may find it harder to find doctors after you start doing that. Don't screw over the rest of us on everything else.

    • Username
      Ya know
      - November 29, 2011 at 16:53:45

      Maybe they are not taking it to court because the actual decision was that you could not have a board of doctors make the decision on whether a woman is allowed to have an abortion. It did not rule that abortions are constitutional rights. It makes great rhetoric, but if you took it to court, and you lost, you have lost all your standing to push the government into providing the service. I say go for it and let's see that a judge decides.

  • Username
    Too many Mr Magoos
    - November 29, 2011 at 14:49:01

    The medical doctors, despite their education, don't seem any more able to focus on the issue at hand than some segments of the general public. The issue is not about the rightness or wrongness of abortion. The Supreme Court of Canada decided that matter many years ago. The issue is about a woman's right to accessibility for a legally-sanctioned medical procedure. PEI is an embarrassment to the country in making women leave the island like pariahs to have this service performed. There used to be a cartoon character called Mr MaGoo who had trouble seeing things properly. The doctors on PEI remind me of him. I don't know why these women don't take their case to court. I am convinced they would win and the province made to make the service available.

    Submit a Comment

  • Username
    First do no harm
    - November 29, 2011 at 14:48:08

    "I will maintain the utmost respect for human life from the time of conception, even under threat, I will not use my medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity..." The Physician's Oath

    Submit a Comment

  • Username
    Head Shaker
    - November 29, 2011 at 12:47:12

    “It must be stated that to achieve consensus on the issue of abortion within any group is impossible and invariably divisive.” How can this possibly be true? I think this must be absolutely wrong. I've been hearing that there is no place in the world where this is an issue except with overly fundemantalist christian islanders. Someone must be wrong. It must be the doctors. Pro-choice special interest groups are obviously unbiased and would never misrepresent things. So, Dr Kassner, perhaps you should defer to one of these groups to represent the medical of the situation because doctors oviously are not aware of how the medical profession sees the issue. Perhaps to should call the PEI Reproductive Rights Organization to what doctors really think as you don't seem to have a handle on this.

    Submit a Comment

    • Username
      Jeepers
      - November 29, 2011 at 14:48:30

      Head Shaker...I assume your comment is sarcasm?

Submit a Comment

Submit a Comment

This form is NOT used for emailing the article to a friend. Please use the "Send to a friend" link at the top of the page for that purpose.

The Guardian is not responsible for posted comments. Please be polite and confine your comments to the subject of the posted story. If you have an account, please sign on to it..

(we keep all emails private)
Agreement

We ask that users remain courteous. You may not post insulting, discriminatory or inappropriate content, which may be removed at our discretion. We are not responsible for user content and opinions. Use of this site as well as content submission & ownership are governed by our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.

Member organizations should be non-profit in nature, and promote legal activities. Any organization found promoting illegal activities or commercial products or services will be deleted from the site.

I agree with these conditions.

Advertising

Newsletter

Please enter your email to receive our free newsletter

Subscribe to news alerts
loading...

The Guardian Twitter

Advertising