The Editor, Sir:

Putting oneself in someone else's shoes, usually affords a less judgmental, more honest perspective. As a man I may not personally have to worry about having an abortion or not. But there are many women who have to. Could I bring to term an infant resulting from rape? Could I bear the thought of giving birth to my own father's child? Indeed, there are brave women who have answered in the affirmative. But there are those who cannot. And what of these children as they grow up? Whose choice is it anyway?

Beyond these extremes, socio-economic and psychological factors are also important determinants of the quality of parenthood and quality of that prospective life. I do strongly agree that dealing with the social and cultural factors that contribute to unwanted pregnancies should receive due attention, as for certain, abortion is no condom. Even when performed by the most skilled doctor, there can still be complications, not least of which are psychological/psychiatric ones. Some advocate the individual's right to choose, providing it does not impede the rights of others. I would expect to be asked then "what of the rights of the foetus?"

Hypocrisy?

It is a fair question and clearly with no easy answer. When does this foetus assume rights? Indeed when does life begin? The latter of these two questions may be relatively easier to answer. Since conception - the moment egg and sperm fuse - is a view held by some, including the Church. Some persons, however, are of the sentiment that the Church's irrelevance seems set to outpace its flagrant disregard for moral standards, even as defined by the Church itself. They recount the numerous recent scandals involving the Church, and try to make the case that it seems a historical trait of this institution. It would seem that the Church is losing its listeners because of its own hypocrisy. But that may be another debate.

Conception alone is not the sine qua non of a successful pregnancy. There are many other factors that determine the progression of that pregnancy, and indeed there are natural processes of foetal abortion, usually when there is some underlying foetal abnormality or even maternal physiological abnormalities. Furthermore, the morning-after pill and other medications target these early events in pregnancy and have been available in Jamaica for some time. Others, including some bioethicists, hold the view that life begins when that foetus would be able to survive outside of its mother's womb - usually about 20 weeks (down from 24 weeks some years ago).Obviously, as technology advances, this seemingly vertiginous fact of "age of viability" will continue to decrease.

Overwhelming evidence

The evidence is overwhelming regarding the dangers to mothers who have to resort to botched abortions. Of these exact numbers we are uncertain. Even more uncertainty exists regarding those abortions that went without any obvious complications. Pundits try to spin the numbers, already dubious, according to their own biases. Some argue that in Jamaica, abortion itself contributes in only a small way to maternal deaths. But there are causes listed as 'haemorrhages' and 'sepsis', that invariably will have abortion as an unignorable factor. And how many mothers' lives qualify for 'significant contributor'? Besides death, there are other complications associated with an unsafe abortion including chronic infections, chronic pain, and infertility.

There have been several recent advances in the status of women in Jamaica. Affording women the right to choose a safe abortion, with access to appropriate counselling, because of threat to maternal physical and mental health and well-being, circumstances of rape and incest, socioeconomic and other important factors, may well be another endorsement of a woman's right to self-determination.

I am, etc.,

Dr Y. WHITE, MBBS

yohannwhite@yahoo.com

Via Go-Jamaica