Article 10 Right to Life
Doctors Should Not Actively Recommend Abortion
In response to State Report section 67: According to Article 11 of the Genetic Health Act, if a fetus is found to have abnormalities during a prenatal examination, it is the duty of the physician to inform the patient and/or their partner and, if deemed necessary, make recommendations for an abortion. Article 9 states that in the event where the pregnant woman, her partner and/or their biological parents suffer from any form of hereditary, infectious or psychiatric disorders, the mother has the right to seek abortion procedures voluntarily. However, due to the general discrimination against people with disabilities, women with disabilities are routinely subjected to strong persuasions by physicians to terminate their pregnancies. Without adequate support and know-how, many feel pressured to take the advice of their treating doctor and ‘voluntarily’ seek abortions. We recommend that the law is amended to include a legal obligation for treating physicians to inform the pregnant mothers and provide them with assistance and appropriate consultations. Doctors should not influence the mother’s decision on her fetus’ right to life. Instead they should approach the matter with a neutral attitude and collaborate with social workers and other professionals to provide pregnant women with sufficient resources and information so that they can make their own informed decisions. This also deals with the reproductive autonomy of persons with disabilities, with reference to Article 17, Paragraph 142, and Article 23, Paragraph 164 of this Report.
It is worth noting that in the preparation of this report, we found that there were vast discrepancies among human rights groups, women’s groups and disability groups with regards to their opinion and stance on prenatal screening and fetal diagnoses. Related issues such as advice for abortion due to abnormalities, abortion rights and abortion timeframe are highly contentious amongst these groups. Human rights and women's groups tend to believe that women should have reproductive autonomy, the right to freely decide whether to give birth to the offspring with disabilities, and the right to decide for abortion without a stipulated timeframe. They argue that an arbitrary time frame placed without medical basis would only add to the stress they are under. In addition, many political philosophers such as Martha Nussbaum believe that the genetic health laws are not discriminatory against people with disabilities. In particular, it is noted that only a few genetic diseases can be effectively detected during prenatal screenings. If these pregnancies were terminated, it will not affect the overall gene pool or genetic diversity of the population. However, the parties involved in the report and disability rights group do not agree with the above position. We suggest that the words "abnormal" and "obstructing eugenics" be removed from the Genetic Health Act. In summary, all parties agree that the duty of the physician lies solely in informing the concerned parties of their diagnoses. Unlike stated in the Genetics Health Act, they should not be responsible for actively advising abortion for pregnant women whose fetus have been found with abnormalities.