Refine Search

The Abortion Business​—As a Doctor Sees It

IN MY more than thirty years of medical experience as a general surgeon I have seen a lot. But I was not quite prepared for the sight that met my eyes this morning, August 11, 1970. It was my first day at work at a Brooklyn hospital after it became legal for doctors of New York state to perform abortions at will.

As I approached the operating suite to do the surgical procedure I had scheduled for this day, I first noted the lineup of hospital gurneys [four-wheeled cots] in the hall outside the suite itself. On each there was a young woman patient dozing from the preoperative medication, waiting her turn for an abortion. Inside the operating suite, which consists of three operating rooms, it was immediately apparent that everyone​—doctors, nurses, anesthesiologists, orderlies and various aides—​was working under more than the usual tension in caring for the abortion cases. These operations were being performed at the rate of one about every fifteen minutes.

Revulsion Among Hospital Personnel

In checking the operating schedule for the day, I noticed that my case was the only “legitimate” one for the day​—the other twenty-four scheduled all being abortions. It was obvious that the operating crew was unhappy about this situation. When I commented that I felt somewhat out of place, in that I was doing the only real surgical procedure for the day, one of the anesthesiologists, a doctor entirely unknown to me, walked across the operating room, grabbed my hand and shook it and went off without a word. I took this as an indication that he was in agreement with my disgust over the situation.

During the course of the operating procedure, there was considerable conversation about the abortion issue. Several of the nurses and nurse’s aides indicated that they felt such revulsion working under these conditions that they were contemplating other kinds of work outside the operating room. Some even talked of leaving nursing itself.

Since the New York State law permits abortions to include pregnancies of as much as twenty-four weeks’ gestation, several of the two dozen cases scheduled for this day were being done on women who were in a condition of obviously well-advanced pregnancy. In such instances abortion is not the simple procedure that it ordinarily is in the case of a pregnancy of four to six weeks’ duration. To interrupt a pregnancy at twenty-four weeks, it is almost always necessary to do a hysterotomy. This means opening the uterus through an abdominal incision and removing the fetus much as in a cesarean section. One of the nurses who had been in attendance on a number of these cases confided in me that “the baby is removed and put in a pan to die.”

A fetus of twenty-four weeks’ gestation is, of course, developed to the point of being easily recognizable as a human creature with distinct parts. It is able to move and to make sounds and to make attempts, at least, at respiration. It is therefore considered a potentially viable individual.

One operating orderly told me that he had refused to mop the operating rooms where abortions were being done, since that activity violated his conscience relative to the sacredness of life. He said that on mopping one such operating room he had found the leg of a fetus on the floor, and others in the operating suite confirmed that this was so. Since that time he had decided against working in the operating rooms that were being used for this purpose. In fact, his intention was to quit working at the hospital altogether and look for a job in a factory. Even the assistant supervisor of the operating suite informed me that she too was quitting her position there to seek other employment.

A young Filipino doctor in surgical training, who assisted me with my operation, expressed his disappointment in the fact that he was not receiving training in all fields of medicine. This was because so much of his time was being taken up in caring for abortion cases. He too expressed his discouragement that American doctors were endeavoring to justify their actions on the basis that it would help the so-called population explosion. To him it was an instance of letting the end justify the means.

“Healthy” Patients

On the completion of my surgical case, I visited my patient in the recovery room. She was surrounded by half a dozen or so sleeping ex-mothers, who, upon arousing, would be taken from the operating suite to the wards for a few hours of hospitalization before being discharged. As I was about to leave the hospital I could not help but notice that the admitting office looked very unreal, with a line of healthy-appearing young women awaiting admission. A similar line was at the cashier’s window, where the previous day’s abortion cases were being discharged.

Outside the hospital were many girls and young women, some coming, some going. In some instances they were accompanied by older women who appeared to be their mothers. I recalled that reports in medical literature (Medical World News, August 21, 1970) described a backlog of 5,000 applications for abortions in New York City’s municipal hospitals, with six to eight weeks’ waiting times in some hospitals.

Who Is at Fault?

As I drove away from the hospital I was somewhat shaken, to say the least. Questions began crowding into my mind, demanding an answer. Who is at fault? What will be the next step man will take as he endeavors to correct certain social problems, or the continually increasing population?

I thought of the doctors who, in general, justify their part by saying that they feel they are helping unfortunate women. But is this their real or only motive? Are they not also interested in helping themselves, financially? Many, of course, have refused to participate. But others give every evidence of becoming “specialists” in a procedure that, until only a few weeks ago, was considered criminal and immoral.

I thought of the politicians who make such things as abortions legal. The fault, however, is only partly theirs, for they are really only reflecting the will and wishes of their constituents​—the people they represent.

I thought also of the churches of Christendom and their clergymen. While others were no doubt responsible in large measure, it seemed obvious to me that the clergy are most responsible. It is not the doctors’ prerogative nor the duty of the schoolteachers nor the province of the lawmakers to teach people moral principles, nor to inculcate in them a high regard for life. These are matters of a religious nature, and have for years been presumed to be the responsibility of the clergy.

How many of the young women whom I had seen this day were there for an abortion because they had not been taught by their clergymen that premarital sexual relationships are specifically condemned in their own Bible? How many were married women who were in good standing in their own church, and yet were demonstrating a complete lack of regard for the lives of their unborn babies?

Abortions have brought some outcries from religious organizations, but the force of these proclamations of horror is lost in the realities of today. The very people performing the abortions, passing the laws regarding abortions, fathering the unborn illegitimate children, as well as the women having the abortions, were for the most part raised in religious homes, and a great many of them are at present respected members of the churches in their communities!

I’m convinced that the churches have failed. The clergy have been delinquent in their role of teacher, counselor and supporter of morals and love of life. There is no question in my mind but that the churches have failed to impress a basic truth upon the minds and hearts of their people, namely, Life is one of our most valuable possessions!​—Contributed.