Let the woman decide

Errol Daley, Guest Columnist

Last week, The Gleaner's guest columnist, theologian Clinton Chisholm, made some injudicious comments that compel me to respond.

His first comment concerned denigrating statements about Minister Lisa Hanna. I would like, conversely, to commend Minister Hanna for her brave defence of women's rights in Jamaica. It has been at least 40 years since I have seen any local politician do so on the matter of abortion.

It is clear that like American heroine Margaret Sanger, the minister feels, "No woman can call herself free who does not own and control her body. No woman can call herself free until she can choose consciously whether she will or will not be a mother."

Having thoroughly scolded the minister, Rev Chisholm turned his vitriolic attention to me. He lambasted me for comments I made on a live television programme with him on Wednesday, September 10, 2003. Fortunately, I recall the entire evening well.

My opinion of September 2003 has not changed. I still believe that the developing embryo/foetus is a part of the woman's body.

Medical ethics affect us all. It emerges from sober discussions between physicians, lawyers, philosophers, theologians, ethicists and lay people. It involves the whole society. Every sentiment counts. Ethical decisions are arrived at after patient debate.

controversial issue

The question of abortion, however, creates more controversy, venom and vexation than most other ethical issues. After due consideration on abortion, three equally convinced groups become apparent. Each group is fully assured that it is right. (In ethics, it is possible for more than one viewpoint to be correct).

One group feels that every woman has a right to determine whether or not she carries a pregnancy inside her body. Another thinks a woman has no moral right whatsoever to make any such decision regarding a pregnancy. Yet another group thinks that abortion should only be allowed under specific conditions such as a pregnancy resulting from rape or incest.

Each group, like the good reverend portrays, believes that the other is talking "claptrap". Their beliefs and arguments have been going on for centuries and will no doubt continue to be unresolved for centuries to come.

We must all concede that the developing embryo/foetus has its own DNA, brain, heart and circulation. That is a fact. Unfortunately, that does not convert into the embryo/foetus becoming capable of independent existence.

In fact, even though we are able to cause an embryo to survive "in limbo" for many years, it can only grow and develop into a human being while it is inside a woman's womb. Indeed, it has to remain there for many months before it can survive on its own.

foetus is part of a woman's body

For these reasons, many academics (including one of the brightest among them, Noam Chomsky) feel with confidence that the foetus is part of a woman's body. I agree with him. There are others who do not agree with this thinking. Reverend Chisholm seems to be one of them. It is important to note that neither Professor Liley's nor Professor Chomsky's views is universally accepted.

So the answer to the question about whether the foetus is or is not part of a woman's body is at least bipolar. There are at least two widely accepted opinions. I believe that the foetus/embryo is part of a woman's body at least until it can survive on its own. It cannot subsist any other way. But that is only my opinion.

To me, a more relevant question concerns whether or not the written law in Jamaica will ever allow abortion. Common law/custom in Jamaica may allow it, causing even more confusion. Barbados and Guyana have passed such legislation after public consultation.

Jamaica is characterised as having more churches per square mile than any other country in the world. Jamaican congregations are, in the main, 'pro-life' in outlook. I doubt very strongly that any Jamaican government would pass an abortion act even after many, many public consultations. That would seem to me to be politically naïve, and we all know that our two major parties are insightful on political matters. They both continually and shrewdly evade the issue of abortion on a public platform.

Perhaps the Jamaican people should be allowed to decide whether or not to change its written law on abortion through a referendum, but with all our problems, can we afford that now?

Errol A. Daley is a consultant obstetrician and gynaecologist. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com and drerroldaley@gmail.com.