(TCT) Was this pregnancy planned or unplanned, desired or undesired? From surgeons to primary care providers, every physician you've encountered in your life has asked this question at some point in his or her career.
There are, after all, important medical reasons to know the answer. Unplanned pregnancies are known to have higher rates of complications, for example. Asking the question becomes muscle memory for a physician conducting a mother's first prenatal visit. But as a student, new to the world of clinical practice, there is no more jarring experience than witnessing how a singular word can so drastically alter what comes next.
"Undesired" -- the word that changes everything. No longer do we joyously ask about selected names, nursery preparations or how "baby" is doing. As if by instinct, we sternly speak of the "fetus," demurely listen for "cardiac activity" rather than a heartbeat, and wouldn't dare ask what the little one's name is destined to be. Only a culture which devilishly pits the interests of a mother against those of her child would tolerate this dichotomy.
How can we, as future physicians, have any credibility in our pursuit to preserve human life if we are forced to trivialize it when it takes the form of an undesired child? How can we call ourselves physicians when our forebears, who devised the original Hippocratic Oath, had the moral clarity to include the line: "Moreover, I will give no sort of medicine to any pregnant woman, with a view to destroy the child?"
[Click here to subscribe to Pregnancy Help News!]
This November, Ohioans vote on Issue 1, which has the potential to enshrine, among other things, the right for a doctor to perform an abortion procedure on a human fetus until the moment the child takes his or her first breath. As medical students, we strongly urge a "no" vote on Issue 1. Contrary to what other healthcare providers or professional organizations may say, we argue that Issue 1 is a wolf in sheep's clothing, undermining the healing purpose of medicine.
While there has been much discussion about what Issue 1 does or does not accomplish, we must be unambiguous – Issue 1, in effect, will constitutionally mandate abortion's availability until the baby takes his first breath. It is not moderate. It is not reasonable. It is not pro-choice but rather celebrates abortion as a positive good.
Without Issue 1, abortion policy will continue to be set by our elected representatives, just as regulations concerning all other medical practices are. Issue 1 goes far further than Roe ever did. Issue 1's defenders will say this is untrue, that Issue 1 preserves the ability of the legislature to restrict abortion after viability. Issue 1, however, mandates the availability of abortion, at any time during pregnancy, if it "is necessary to protect the pregnant patient's life or health."
Those of us in medicine know this weaponized ambiguity will be used to justify any and all abortions. Under the standard set by Issue 1, mild heartburn caused by pregnancy could be utilized as a reason necessitating abortion, despite the fact that abortion is never legitimately necessary to save a mother's life (Note: ectopic pregnancy treatment is not considered abortion, neither by Planned Parenthood nor the Catholic Church).
Tweet This: Those of us in medicine know the weaponized ambiguity with Issue 1 will be used to justify any and all abortions.
But what special perspective do we, as medical students, possess on the issue? Our pro-choice colleagues posit that "abortion is healthcare." By this argument, then, someone must provide such "healthcare."
It is a physician who must prescribe the mifepristone medication abortion that detaches the placenta from the uterine wall, causing the baby to suffocate and die from lack of oxygen. It is a physician who performs the suction D&C procedure, dilating the cervix and sucking the growing baby through a straw-like tube. It is a physician who performs the D&E procedure, dilating the cervix, dismembering the baby, and counting the various arms and legs to ensure all body parts are removed.
An abortion is not purely the decision of a woman but requires the participation of a physician who very well knows another human life is present. There is no case in which one of the above procedures is the only or best life-saving option available to a mother in peril.
Even if you support the right of a physician to perform these procedures, which we transparently do not, should abortion be the only medical procedure which is constitutionally protected, especially considering that pro-life and pro-choice physicians alike acknowledge that some form of human life is ended in that procedure?
Make no mistake – Issue 1 would have us treat abortion as more important and fundamental than any life-saving procedure. And though some of our colleagues would be more than happy to perform abortions, allowing them to do so imperils their own ability to maintain respect for the miracle that is human life, a miracle we've dedicated our lives to safeguarding.
In a culture of dehumanization, what recommendation might a physician make to a patient in dire medical straits if further treatment is available, but hospice or "medical aid in dying" is an easier option?
We, as the future doctors of tomorrow, ask you to vote "no" on Issue 1.
For those mothers afraid of their inability to pay for care, it is we who provide free and charitable care now and will continue to do so. For the mother whose child faces a significant birth defect, we will be present to utilize the miracles of modern medicine to support life. For the mother whose life is imperiled by pregnancy, Issue 1 is not going to save you – we will, and we can do so without the supposed "protections" of Issue 1. In fact, we'll provide care for both of you, mother and baby, rejecting the culture of death promoted by Issue 1 in favor of the sacred pursuit of life.
Editor's note: The authors are current students at various medical schools across central Ohio. There are countless pressures on physicians to support abortion in contradiction to basic biology. For example, the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG) and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), from which physicians in those specialties must receive board certification, have made the decision to support abortion with deference to politics and not science. Knowing that many students agree with these positions, though cannot state them out of fear, these students have chosen to speak for all medical students in fear of being silenced. This article was published by The Catholic Times and is reprinted with permission.
