A recap of a film screening of Abandoned on 16 January 2020
For many couples, the news that they are expecting a child is a joyous occasion filled with many dreams for the future. While most pregnancies involve countless doctor appointments and endless testing to ensure that the baby is developing normally, many women submit to this gladly to fulfill their hopes of having a healthy child. There is an implicit trust between the mother-to-be and her doctor that she receives all the information she requires to choose the best care for her and her unborn child.
Abandoned, a documentary by filmmaker Patricia Josefine Marchart in conjunction with the Initiative for Reproductive Health Information, examines how doctors’ and other medical practitioners’ legal right to conscientiously object to performing abortions on religious and other grounds prevents women from receiving sometimes lifesaving treatments or exercising their choice to bodily autonomy in terminating pregnancies.
The documentary sheds light on how “conscientious objection” clauses, which were first included in abortion laws to allow doctors to refuse to perform otherwise legal abortions in order to placate opposition of such legislation by certain groups in society, have been increasingly invoked by doctors, causing what can only be described as a medical crisis in certain regions of the world. However, the documentary’s ability to demonstrate the magnitude of impact that “conscientious objection” has had on women lies in its presentation of the stories of women denied abortions because of doctors’ personal beliefs.
Each of the women included in the documentary were excited to become mothers. Some were told that they had nothing to be concerned about in continuing the pregnancy, even after they noticed signs of potential complications. It was only upon further investigation, often involving travel to hospitals hundreds of kilometres away from their home, that the women discovered that their children were at risk of being born with disabilities or with deformities so severe that they would not survive long after birth. It was clear in these cases that “conscientiously objecting” doctors intentionally hid information about the pregnancy in order to prevent the woman from making an informed choice about whether or not to seek an abortion. However, forcing the mother to give birth to the child could cause extensive physical and psychological damage to the woman and her family which could otherwise have been avoided.
Other cases presented in the documentary highlight that conscientious objection can be tantamount to medical negligence in instances where a woman is denied a therapeutic abortion, even if the continuation of the pregnancy would be life-threatening to the mother. Some doctors may refuse to terminate a pregnancy if the fetus’s heart is beating, even if the mother’s life is at risk due to sepsis and other medical conditions associated with the pregnancy. Such a decision is often fatal.
The reasons for conscientious objection to abortion are often founded in religion, especially in predominantly Catholic countries like Spain, Italy, and Ireland. However, the documentary makes clear that the effects of conscientious objection clauses go far beyond individual doctor-patient relationships. Many people in the medical field may claim to be conscientious objectors in order to avoid the stigma associated with abortion procedures, whether they agree with on religious grounds or not. The result is that in some regions, 90 to 100 percent of obstetricians and gynaecologists identify as “conscientious objectors”, forcing women to go elsewhere to get medical advice or denying them vital care altogether. Furthermore, a widespread culture of conscientious objection can lead to inadequate professional training in the techniques needed to carry out safe abortions. These factors often culminate in the inaccessibility of safe abortions, causing many women to risk complications associated with illegal abortions rather than continue an unwanted pregnancy.
Following the screening, Joyce Arthur, one of the filmmakers and the founder and executive director of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada, spoke with Ashley Major of the International Human Rights Program about her involvement in the film. While she noted that doctors have an obligation to provide care, conscientious objection is “simply the refusal of care.”
Ms. Arthur highlighted that where conscientious objection clauses are in place, there is no supervision to ensure that doctors who refuse to perform abortions will refer women to practitioners who are willing to perform the procedure. There is “no follow up on what happens to women after being denied abortion for reasons of conscience,” she said, indicating the level of harm that a woman may endure depending on her doctor’s beliefs. She also pointed to the lack of accountability and monitoring of conscientious objectors as a pitfall of the system, as women often do not know if they are being treated by a conscientious objector until much later.
The development of abortion pills gives Ms. Arthur hope regarding women’s rights to bodily autonomy. However, she cautioned that in instances where abortion pills cause complications that require medical treatment, women run the risk of being reported for undergoing an abortion, which in some countries may carry criminal penalties.
