I had to read this several times to understand that this doctor did not mean this in a good way.
I am at a loss for words (for now…)
UPDATE: The above link has been removed but this article mentions the same doctor. The LA Times then ran an explanation here
A September 11 post on this blog based on a September 9 story in the Globe and Mail in Toronto mischaracterized executive vice president of the Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in Ottawa Dr. Andre Lalonde’s sentiments as expressed in the Globe and Mail story. The headline for the post read “Canadian doctor warns Sarah Palin’s decision to have Down baby could reduce abortions.” And the second paragraph said, “But a senior Canadian doctor is now expressing concerns that such a prominent public role model as the governor of Alaska and potential vice president of the United States completing a Down syndrome pregnancy may prompt other women to make the same decision against abortion because of that genetic abnormality. And thereby reduce the number of abortions”. Doctor Lalonde’s point of view should not have been portrayed as a concern that the number of abortions would decline but rather, as expressed in the Globe and Mail, that women would be influenced by Gov. Palin’s decision to keep Down syndrome children that they were neither emotionally nor financially prepared to care for. Here’s a link to the article on which the post, since removed was based.
(h/t: sheepcat).
The LA Times explained in a “For the Record” note that it pulled its piece.
But if, as the LAT now suggests, “Doctor Lalonde’s point of view should not have been portrayed as a concern that the number of abortions would decline,” in that all he meant was that some mothers who were ill-equipped to keep the baby instead of giving it up for adoption might now choose the former course, it’s hard to see quite what this has to do with the originally quoted worry-provoking “implication for abortion issues.”
Sheepcat:
Thanks for the ‘excellent response’ link. A very well-written piece.
I honor Sarah Palin’s choice to keep her child. It strikes me as a tad odd that it’s being discussed as a political statement. Everything I’ve read indicates that it was a very private and personal choice. I doubt that the notion that it would make an international statement on the sanctity of life was even considered.
During my mother’s last pregnancy, things took a serious turn and the doctors feared both for the life of my mom and the baby she was carrying. Finances weren’t great; there were six boys ages 3 to 13 who could lose their mother; the odds were that the baby, if it survived, would have birth defects. But terminating a life was not a possibility for my mom. She had to place everything in God’s hands and so she did.
I was 8 at the time. I remember that mom was in the hospital ‘a long time’ after the baby was born. He was in even longer. For the first 3 years of his life, he was in and out of the hospital for surgeries. But he survived. Now 48, he was one of the people at mom’s side in her last days a year ago. ..along with five grandchildren and even a few great-grandchildren that he brought into her life. A whole lotta love and life that she would have missed…that I would have missed…that the world would have missed…if she’d taken the prevailing advice to terminate the pregnancy.
I am not at all comfortable with restricting a woman’s right to choose; I am, however, encouraged when real life examples of lives that were considered ‘valid for temination’ reach the public eye. It helps to assure me that those choices will, at the least, be more informed.
As much as I disagree and dislike her in general, this is one thing I do not disapprove of, it certainly doesn’t look like taking care of Trig has impacted her life as dramatically as doctors like this doom-say to women.
I would hate to think he could possibly destroy babies and ruin women’s lives AND LOOSE MONEY AT THE SAME TIME. Let us take up an offering for him! Who will be the first? Not me.
The LA Times link isn’t working now, but here’s a Globe and Mail article in which a doctor (the same one?) says of Palin’s decision, “The worry is that this will have an implication for abortion issues in Canada.”
Felix hominum writes an excellent response.
I’d like to hear the opinion of other doctors too.
Thanks for drawing my attention to this. I posted my own blog about my reaction of disgust. To me, this is not a pro-life issue. This is a pro-human-dignity issue. This doctor brings shame to the profession and negates the Hippocratic Oath.
Wow – fewer abortions – what a concept! Perhaps the next revelation is going to be that Sarah Palin is someone women of all ages can aspire to because she integrates her words and actions with intelligence, credibility, grace and dignity. Maybe this doctor can give us a warning about that too.
Incredibly disturbing.