Access to abortion

I am deeply disturbed by the negative responses (posted as e-letters) to the guest editorial by Sanda Rogers and Jocelyn Downie.1 Most of the authors articulate an uncompromising ideological position in favour of the right to life of a fetus, while ignoring the basic human rights of women who, presumably, are their patients. Most of these writers show a complete disregard for the consequences of the criminalization of abortion for women's physical and mental health and, indeed, their very right to life.2^,3 The lack of historical context evidenced by the writers is also striking. In particular, they ignore the importance of sexual and reproductive autonomy for women. Denying abortion services to a woman who does not want to carry a pregnancy to term is to make her the instrument of someone else's will.

Why should we allow a doctor's personal, ideological or religious bias against abortion to negatively affect his or her female patients? Why, in a rural region or a small town, should we allow these views to control the access to health care of a whole community? Why should an individual doctor's personal beliefs trump the legal definition of “person” and of “human being,” violate the constitutionally entrenched rights of women to sexual and reproductive autonomy, and violate international human rights?

In the face of the demonstrated resistance of individual doctors to offering adequate abortion services in most institutions and regions across Canada, the medical profession has a collective responsibility to ensure access to this procedure.