© 15/2/08

Dear APA board member………..                                                                                                                  
      I am heartened to hear the American Psychological Association is having done a critical review of the evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of induced abortion. I am pleased to learn the APA has taken the position that abortion “should be treated like any other medical procedure”. My own position is that the more good research the better. I am convinced that most, if not all, questions about abortion can be resolved scientifically.

I write as a psychologist and an academic psychiatrist who has attempted to research this thorny issue and treated many who have experienced the adverse consequences of abortion. I remind you, as I remind myself, that it doesn’t matter how safe a medical or psychological therapeutic procedure may be, if there is no evidence it is good treatment and if there is no indication it is required, that intervention is considered by law to be an assault. If there is no medically valid reason to do an appendectomy, it doesn’t matter how expert the surgeon or how sterile the conditions, anyone who performs that appendectomy is liable. This is particularly true if the effect of the procedure is irreversible, or if it is invasive or if no less potentially harmful alternatives have been tried.

I hope the APA is seeing this as an opportunity to help correct the scientifically shoddy way abortion is currently regarded in medicine. To do that the APA must free itself of polemics and utilize the best of science and the most objective of scientists. History has shown that in this life, truth and gravity always win. None of us wish to be known to history as one of those who were more motivated by a desire to agree with public opinion or to gain momentary prestige than by a determination to find the truth no matter how unpopular it makes us.

I am reminded of Philippe Semmelweise who lost his hospital privileges and honor among his colleagues when he persistently recommended they change their obstetric procedures. He discovered that washing his hands between doing an autopsy and giving a woman a vaginal examination prevented her from contracting puerperal fever. Physicians of his day refused to believe him and persisted in their usual routine. As a result many women in Budapest and other teaching hospitals died. I do not wish to be among those physicians and psychologists who hang their head in shame when the truths of abortion are finally known.

From ancient time, the onus of proof lies with anyone who performs, supports or pays for a treatment to convincingly show it is: necessary, therapeutic, reasonably free from harm, done by someone in good conscience and done only after informed consent is obtained and after all other less onerous treatments have been tried. If these criteria are not met, primum non nocere must apply.

In the medical profession, the patient’s choice only matters after a treatment plan has been clearly recommended. No professional accepts only the desires of his patient or client to determine how they should be treated.

For Example, having injured his arm in an industrial accident, Joe Bloke tells his physician, “Doc, I have tried everything and the pain keeps getting worse. Please cut this good for nothing arm right off.”

His apparently reasonable doctor reply’s, “Hold on Joe. I’ve examined your arm and there are many ways we could treat you that we haven’t even tried.”
Joe. “No doc. my mind is made up and it is my body. Cut it off!”
MD “Okay Joe, take it easy. If that is your choice, of course I will.”

           No law or court can protect this doctor who practices according to the patient’s wishes instead of evidenced based medicine. No legislation or court ruled precedence can permit anyone to knowingly harm another. This was determined at Nuremberg.

          If an authoritative body such as the Canadian Medical Association gave as their official opinion, after examining the evidence, that a particular drug or surgical procedure was almost free from harming a patient and if:

1. They were biased in their investigation by a covert support for a political party or pet philosophy,

2. They gave this opinion along with the idea that physicians did not need to evaluate the patient and make recommendation for treatment based on whether or not it was needed and therapeutic according to evidence based medicine,

3.  The members of the association were persuaded more by the CMA’s authority than by the quality of it’s investigation,  

4. Some physicians had reported there were serious side effects yet the CMA persisted in it’s false reasurrance,

5. A patient who had severe deleterious consequences sued the physician who gave the medication or performed the procedure,

then the CMA would also been considered liable and would be sued.

As long as the APA is giving an opinion which influences how their membership provides services to those who come to them for advice and therapy, the above also applies to them.  Since the APA has affirmed their position is that abortion should by treated like any other medical procedure and because their opinion influences physicians, they can be included as a defendant in any malpractice suit brought against a physician for an abortion he/she performed. This opinion has been verified by a prominent attorney.

I trust the APA will take these important principles into serious consideration when issuing the result of their findings.

Yours truly        Philip G Ney MD FRCP(C) MA