LIFE DIGEST: HHS challenges physicians board on threat to pro-life doctors

By Tom Strode - Mar 25, 2008 - comment

The Bush administration has challenged the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ABOG) to clarify it will not punish pro-life doctors for refusing to refer patients for abortions.

Michael Leavitt, secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, called on ABOG in a March 14 letter to confirm it will not rely on a controversial recommendation issued in November by the Committee on Ethics of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG).

In its position paper, the ACOG committee said pro-life physicians should refer women seeking abortions to doctors who will perform the procedures. The statement even says doctors “with moral or religious objections” should locate their practices near physicians who will perform abortions.

Leavitt wrote ABOG Executive Director Norman Gant after a new bulletin from his organization seemed to indicate support for the ACOG committee’s language, thereby threatening pro-life doctors with loss of their certification if they refuse to violate their conscience and refer women to other physicians who will perform abortions.

“I am concerned that the actions taken by ACOG and ABOG could result in the denial or revocation of Board certification of a physician who – but for his or her refusal, for example, to refer a patient for an abortion – would be certified,” Leavitt wrote.

In a December letter, the Christian Medical Association and other pro-life advocates urged ACOG to withdraw the ethics panel’s paper. “The paper indicates that ACOG views the exercise of conscience and faith not so much as a cornerstone right in a democracy or as a historic hallmark of medicine, but rather as an inconvenient obstacle to abortion access,” the letter said.

Oregon reaches new high for assisted suicides

More people than ever before took their lives in Oregon last year by means of physician-assisted suicide.

The Oregon Department of Human Services reported March 18 that 49 people committed suicide in 2007 using lethal doses of drugs prescribed by doctors. The previous yearly high was 46 in 2006.

Oregon, the only state to legalize assisted suicide, has recorded 341 such deaths since its Death With Dignity Act took effect in late 1997.

None of those who committed suicide last year with the assistance of a doctor were referred to a psychologist or psychiatrist before receiving a lethal prescription, a fact criticized by opponents of the practice.

Oregon’s latest report also showed:

— The number of physicians who prescribed the drugs and were present when patients took them was 11, only 22 percent. In 2006, it was 33 percent.

— The median duration of the patient-physician relationship was just eight weeks.

— About one-third of those who took their lives said they experienced inadequate pain control or expressed concern about it.

— Cancer was by far the No. 1 disease, with 86 percent of those who committed suicide having a malignant tumor.

— Twenty-six of the 49 people who died by assisted suicide were males; all but one were white; only 21 were married; 43 were enrolled in hospice care, and all had medical insurance.

— Prescriptions written for lethal doses totaled 85, though many were not used last year.

The Physicians for Compassionate Care Education Foundation continued to express its opposition to assisted suicide, saying it:

— “Undermines trust in the patient-physician relationship;

— “Changes the societal role of physicians from healer to executioner;

— “Endangers the value that society places on life, specifically for those who are most vulnerable.”

More than 1,300 British women had at least fifth abortion in 2007

Last year, more than 1,300 British women had at least their fifth abortion.

Statistics released March 19 by the government showed about 950 women had their fifth abortion in 2007, nearly 200 had their sixth, 110 had their seventh and 54 had at least their seventh, the Daily Mail reported.

“What harder evidence do we need that the abortion law as it stands is being abused?” said Nadine Dorries, a Tory in Parliament, according to the newspaper. “Abortion is supposed to be allowed if a pregnancy poses a significant risk to a mother’s health or well-being. But in fact it’s being allowed over and over again for purely social reasons. Girls now get pregnant and think, ‘It doesn’t matter; I’ll just get an abortion.’”

Ultrasound viewing bill becomes law in Ohio

Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland signed into law March 21 a bill requiring a woman seeking an abortion be given the option of seeing an ultrasound image of her unborn child before undergoing the fatal procedure.

Ohio became the 13th state to adopt legislation mandating abortion doctors must at least offer a woman the opportunity to see a sonogram of the child in her womb.

Pregnancy care centers have reported dramatic upswings in clients choosing to give birth after viewing ultrasound images of their babies.

The House of Representatives passed the Ultrasound Viewing Option Act 73-20, while the Senate voted 24-8 for its passage.

The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission works to protect the sanctity of human life. If you would like to learn more about this issue, additional resources are available here. If your church is interested in purchasing materials on the sanctity of human life, please visit our online bookstore and erlc.com.

Further Learning

Learn more about: Faith, Life, Abortion, End-of-Life Issues, Infertility, Suicide

Post a Comment




Notify me of follow-up comments?

Before You Submit Your Comment (below), Read This:

Thank you for your interest in the ministry of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission (SBC).

Comments are moderated to preserve the family-oriented nature of this website and in an attempt to avoid comment spam. We welcome opposing viewpoints, and we will not turn comments away as long as your views are presented with respect to everyone.

Your comments will not appear immediately and are subject to editing or deletion. We will make every attempt to check new comments in a timely manner, though there will likely be delays on the weekends and around holidays.

Please follow the these guidelines to insure your comments will be posted:

  1. Use a real name, at least a real first name. We find folks are less-rude online when not hiding behind a screen-name.
  2. Name-calling and vulgar-language will not be tolerated. Zero-tolerance is our policy. We will not spend time editing profanity. If it contains foul language, your post will be deleted. Oh, and we decide what is and what is not vulgar.
  3. Comments must be on topic. General comments (compliments, complaints, and otherwise) are best delivered here or expressed on your own personal Web site.
  4. And please, do not type in ALL CAPS. It looks like you're screaming at people.

Additionally, within Baptist polity, please recognize that many issues and decisions are addressed at a local church level. SBC denominational (national) offices have no control and desire no control over the activities of a local church. This entity is not responsible for overseeing and insuring the ethical behavior of Southern Baptist pastors or church members. If your concern involves a legal civil or criminal matter, we suggest you contact the proper local officials.

Issues involving pastoral staff or other church members, local Baptist associations or state Baptist conventions are local issues. Therefore the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission cannot and should not address such issues. While we regret we are unable to assist you, we encourage you to seek a biblical resolution of the issue at the local church level. If your question or submission pertains to a matter covered in this text, it is likely we will not acknowledge your submission.

Other than that, we welcome you and hope to see thoughtful discussions at ERLC.com