Canadian Chat → Montreal Hospital denies woman abortion

I don't want to get into the pro life/pro choice debate it's been hashed over and over again, rather a comment on the newspaper article that says abortion is enshrined in Federal Law?What law, I thought there was no law for abortion at all in Canada since the SCC struck it down?

»news.nationalpost.com/ne ··· alformed

They way I understand it, it's a law that states a fetus has no legal rights, therefor the woman has complete control over the fetus.

»www.nafcanada.org/legal- ··· -ca.html

quote:

---

In 1988, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down Canada's abortion law as unconstitutional. The law was found to violate Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms because it infringed upon a woman's right to "life, liberty and security of person."

Chief Justice Brian Dickson wrote: "Forcing a woman, by threat of criminal sanction to carry a foetus to term unless she meets certain criteria unrelated to her own priorities and aspirations, is a profound interference with a woman's body and thus a violation of her security of the person."

Canada became one of a small number of countries without a law restricting abortion. Abortion was now treated like any other medical procedure and was governed by provincial and medical regulations.

---

Law was struck down as unconstitutional, and them speaking out so strongly... If any further laws were to be introduced, they'd be smacked down as unconstitutional as well.

Getting tests back at 30 weeks, so late.. And it being so severe.. That is kind of surprising.. Most of those tests come back earlier, unless its specialized tests... Heart issues maybe? Even then, heart issues are fixable, with various surgeries or transplants..

The way I understand it is the opposite. There is no law giving rights to a fetus, therefore the woman is free to abort just like she is free to cut her own arm.

That doesn't mean the doctor is forced to perform the abortion or cut the arm. Bascially abortion is possible as long as you find a doctor willing to do it.

Correct. A physician cannot be forced to perform an abortion. A late term abortion (viable fetus) presents additional complexity, especially when there is no medically necessary reason for it.

How is that opposite to what I wrote?

You said there is a law, I think it's a lack of law.

That is precisely what I'm trying to get to the bottom of, my understanding is there is no law too.

The 'law' they were referring to is, I assume is the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Anything they bring up to implement anti-abortion laws, will get taken out by the Charter, which overrules all.

Isn't this basically discrimination?

You refuse to serve a person because of sexual orientation or race at a business? Discrimination...

You refuse to perform an abortion not because of medical reasons? not discrimination?

Charter for the most part is a joke.
People's rights are violated all the time, a piece of paper to keep the sheeple in line.
We don't even have property rights.

No it's not discrimination.

I don't think you get it. Not all doctors are comfortable with or even know how to properly do an abortion at this stage. You can't force a doctor to do it just like you can't force a doctor to cut your arm even if you want to.

1+

This was a difficult and tragic situation.

And yet, when she first requested the abortion, she was at 30 weeks.

Almost all fetuses are viable babies at that point.

With the further delays, the abortion took place at 35 weeks.

That's practically full-term.

I am not against abortion, but at 30+ weeks this gives one pause.

Suppose a woman asks for an abortion at 38 weeks. Isn't that the same as killing a baby?

How ironic that a woman at 35 weeks could be placed on an operating room table, and the same obstetrician could take out the baby and kill it ("abortion") or take out the baby to save it ("C-section").

Why is it legal to kill a baby just a minute before birth, but murder to kill a baby a minute after birth?

I don't envy the woman in this case, nor the doctors, nor the hospitals. A very tough decision.

-----

A woman would not be able to get an abortion in the US at 30 weeks, in any state, unless her life was in danger.

That appears to not have been the case here.

We also don't know what the malformation was.

Certainly problems such as anencephaly, Sandhoff disease etc, are so tragic and severe that late-term abortion might be considered.

On the other hand there are many problems that are not so severe.

I specifically asked not to get into pro life/choice. it was a question wrt to the "law".

I don't know how one differentiates between the two.

Seriously.

And my entire discussion relates to the "law".

In any medical procedure, the physician or hospital physician board, has the final say, not the state.

There are many who are denied some types of cancer treatment, e.g. radiation instead or surgery, because in the opinion of the oncologist team, the type and location of the cancer supports one treatment over another. This decision may not agree with the patient's wishes.

Similarly, in the case of a late-term abortion, absent an ethical reason by the physician, (remember they can't be forced to perform one), the hospital physician board can refuse to perform if there is no medically necessary reason.

The SCC case in 1988 recognized this by pointing out that the state may have a compelling reason to regulate abortions in the third trimester, due to the viability of the fetus. In the absence of any law to that effect (most countries do regulate 3rd trimester abortions), such regulation is provided by physician hospital boards.

Bottom line: The right to security of the person is not absolute

They are... my wife was born with a congenital defect requiring a transplant.

She got the transplant when she was 11. Spent the first 11 years of her life being very sick, and has spent the subsequent years dealing with medical bills that top $15,000/year just for the drugs. That she's lived as long as she has post-transplant is, in and of itself, a miracle - usually transplants last less than half that long, not even considering how difficult it is to raise a child with no immune system. Thankfully we have Trillium and I have a further 90% coverage from work, but this woman may not be so fortunate. When we were looking into moving, they didn't have a plan like Trillium in Quebec.

EDIT - and yes, we don't even know what the defect is. It could be something like Down's syndrome, for all we know, in which case getting an abortion is reprehensible, even to a pro-choice arch-feminist like me. If it's a totally manageable condition that won't severely impact the child's ability to live a happy life, then I don't think a late term abortion should even be considered. If the child's old enough to be birthed premature and put up for adoption, then abortion shouldn't be on the table. (and 30-week premature births are not actually that rare - it's past the point where the baby would be considered medically viable out of the womb)

What about me the father who doesn't want to kill a child, what happens then? She can override me?

Yes. You can't force her to carry a child in her body if she doesn't want to.

One would do well to remember that in the absence of any such laws to that effect, there is no way of knowing just how far security of the person extends in this context. Similar arguments were made to this effect with regards to assisted suicide based on decades-old rulings, only for those assumptions to be thrown out the window based on the living tree doctrine which governs Canadian constitutional interpretation.

Bottom line: so long as no government remains willing, security of the person within this context does remain absolute, so long as there is a doctor able to perform. The willingness of a physician to perform a procedure is a different issue entirely.

As a father who's wife just delivered a very sick little baby boy 32 days ago that damn near died from the infection he contracted in utero, I can't find a way to wrap my head around this and the logic of these people. I just can't find a reason anywhere in me that would allow me to abort a baby at 35 weeks short of some issue that would harm both mom and baby.

I would have to write a novel to describe the emotional roller coaster the first 16 days of his life were to my wife and I and my story would be short compared to some of the other people I met during our time at McMaster.

This makes me feel as if these people are selfish pieces of crap who can't accept anyone who isn't in their definition of normal.

Edit: I want to add he was born at 36 weeks and 4 days so only a bit more than a week later than this baby that was aborted.

Sorry to hear about your boy. Will he be OK?

Thankfully yes.

There's some additional follow up appointments for him as one of the antibiotics he was given can have some negative side effects for his hearing but on the whole he's a happy little guy.

I've been in this situation. It is extremely difficult, devastating and heart-breaking.