Victor R. Claveau, MJ
The destructive and abortifacient nature of birth control pill has been one of the best kept secrets in the U.S. Most medical professionals neglect to inform their patients about the adverse effects of the “pill”. Some maintain that providing the information would only alarm the patient. Others, for whatever reason, are simply not aware of the inherent dangers of prescribing birth control pills or other methods of artificial birth control.
Not too long ago, I delivered a series of lectures at a Southern California church. One of the presentations was on Catholic moral teaching, during which I presented some of the information contained in this book. During a question-and-answer session after the presentation a physician, who at the time was a department head specializing in family health care, at a major Southern California medical center, challenged my information on the abortifacient nature of the pill. He introduced himself to the group and stated that he had been a physician for 19 years, and just could not believe what he had heard. I stuck to my guns, and challenged him to do his own research. As a result, he spent a day at the University of California, Irvine, fertilityclinic. He poured through their library and spoke to a number of the physicians. A week later, he returned to the class and sheepishly admitted that he had been in ignorance and supported everything that I had taught.
The information I provided motivated him to do additional research and he eventually became a member of Physicians for Life (http://www.physiciansforlife.org/). He also contacted the Couple-to-Couple League to obtain material about Natural Family Planning, and readily provided that information to his patients.
The hospital prescribed birth control pills and made abortion referrals. Whenever he counseled a patient who requested birth control pills, he informed them of the harmful side effects and the abortifacient nature of the pill and other artificial methods of birth control. He stated that the vast majority of women changed their minds and asked for a referral to a Natural Family Planning class.
On occasion he was able to consult with both the husband and wife together. Once informed of the destructive effects of birth control drugs, not one husband wanted his wife to undertake such risks.
I also recommended that he read Sex and the Marriage Covenant: A Basis for Morality, by John F. Kippley (Ignatius Press). The thesis of this book is that God intends that sexual intercourse should be at least implicitly a renewal of the marriage covenant. From this it follows that the marriage covenant provides the criterion to evaluate the morality of every sexual act.
Reading this book opened his eyes to the broader issues involved. He kept it displayed on his desk in the hope that his staff members might see it and ask about it. Some were not interested, but others, who took their physician’s oath seriously, were anxious to learn as much as they could about the issue.
The Physician’s Oath states[i]:
“At the time of being admitted as a member of the medical profession:
- I solemnly pledge myself to consecrate my life to the service of humanity;
- I will give to my teachers the respect and gratitude which is their due;
- I will practice my profession with conscience and dignity; the health of my patient will be my first consideration;
- I will maintain by all the means in my power, the honor and the noble traditions of the medical profession; my colleagues will be my brothers;
- I will not permit considerations of religion, nationality, race, party politics or social standing to intervene between my duty and my patient;
- I will maintain the utmost respect for human life from the time of conception, even under threat; (emphasis mine)
- I will not use my medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity.
- I make these promises solemnly, freely and upon my honor.”
Unfortunately, many physicians either do not take the oath or if they do, don’t live up to the standard of ethical conduct proposed.
Dr. James Walker, in his paper “Oral Contraception: A Different Perspective” after citing the Pill’s potential to cause abortion, then states, “A large percentage of consumers would undoubtedly refuse to use this form of birth control if they were aware that oral contraceptives worked in this way. Also, a large number of physicians would refrain from using this method of contraception if they were aware of the abortifacient mechanism of oral contraceptives . . . why is the medical (or prescribing) and consumer population so poorly informed? It could be that the pharmaceutical industry is interested in making large profits without regard for the sanctity of human life. Or it could be that the medical community has become so conditioned to supply means for instant gratification, that our eyes have been blinded to the eternal consequences of our daily action.”[ii]
In the Archives of Family Medicine, an out-of-print journal published by the American Medical Association, Drs. Walter L. Larimore and Joseph B. Stanford, in a 2000 paper entitled Post-fertilization Effects of Oral Contraceptives and Their Relationship to Informed Consent,[iii] recognize that “for many patients,decisions about contraception still have moral, ethical, andreligious implications. For patients who believe that humanlife begins at fertilization (conception), a method of birthcontrol that has the potential of interrupting development afterfertilization (a post-fertilization effect) may not be acceptable.”
The authors recommend an objective presentation of the potential for the abortifacient or post-fertilization effects to all patients during informed-consent discussions. They suggest that failure to disclose this information might violate the morals of some women and married couples and “would effectively eliminate the likelihood that the woman’s consent was truly informed.” They note that women who did not have full disclosure or understanding might learn of the abortifacient effect after taking birth control pills and respond with “disappointment, anger, guilt, sadness, rage, depression, or a sense of having been violated by the provider.” In addition, physicians may leave themselves open to malpractice lawsuits.
The authors conclude, “Physicians should understand and respect the beliefsof patients who consider human life to be present and valuablefrom the moment of fertilization. Since it would be difficultto predict which patients might object to being given an OC (oralcontraceptive) if they were aware of possible post-fertilization effects, mentioningthe potential for post-fertilization effects of OCs to all patientsand providing detailed information about the evidence to thosewho request it is necessary for adequate informed consent.” [iv]
It is the Fundamental duty of the physician to protect the life, health, privacy, and dignity of each and every patient. This includes providing specific information on the abortifacient nature of birth control pills to their patients whether they ask for it or not.
[i] Adopted by the General Assembly of the World Medical Association, Geneva, Switzerland, September 1948 and amended by the 22nd World Medical Assembly, Sydney, Australia, August 1968.
[ii] Oral Contraception: A Different Perspective” (Pharmacists for Life, PO Box 1281, Powell, OH, 43065).
[iii] http://archfami.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/9/2/126
[iv] Ibid.