young woman 4

 

Abortion and subsequent mental health: Review of the literature

Authors: Carlo Bellieni, MD and Giuseppe Buonocore, MD.

Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences 2013; 67: 301-310.

"The studies analyzed here show that abortion is a risk factor for subsequent mental illness when compared with childbirth; data show that even when compared with the other two possible outcomes (miscarriage or the birth of an unplanned baby) the risk is greater or similar. Even miscarriage is a risk factor for subsequent mental illness, although the evidence for this risk has not been investigated so widely and seems lower than for abortion. Some consequences can be drawn. The first is that fetal loss is traumatic. It is a risk factor for mental illness – both in the case of abortion and in miscarriage – and its impact on a woman’s life can erroneously be underestimated. Most studies show that abortion has a greater impact on women’s mental health than childbearing; all remaining studies show similar mental consequences and only one seems to have noted a worse outcome for childbearing."

 

Download PDF:

Abortion and subsequent mental health

The Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI) reported 83,576 abortions in Canada for the year 2019. However, the true number is likely much higher since the statistics are incomplete. Consider that CIHI reports 27,911 abortions for the province of Ontario. A Freedom of Information request to the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care (OMHLTC) revealed that there were actually 46,189 abortions billed for in 2019 in the province. This means that CIHI data is missing 18,278 abortions for Ontario. CIHI’s abortion numbers do not come from provincial billing records. They say that “Due to variations in use of fee for service (FFS) payments for induced abortion across the country, these figures are not based on pan-Canadian FFS data.” 
 
Discrepancies between the Ontario data and CIHI data are a longstanding problem. Numbers for Ontario in the table below come from the OMHLTC. They are based on billing records and were obtained through Freedom of Information requests. Read more at Run With Life: 2021 (run-with-life.blogspot.com), March 23rd.
 
 Ontario vs CHIH
 
 
CIHI notes in its annual abortion statistics document: “For Ontario, volumes reported in the column Number of Induced abortions reported by clinics include services from non-hospital settings.” Non-hospital settings include clinics, surgical facilities, and physicians’ offices. CIHI reports 7,326 hospital abortions and 20,585 clinic abortions for the province of Ontario.
 
 Nova Scotia’s abortion numbers from Nova Scotia Health and Wellness ministry show 2,226 abortions for 2019. CIHI reports 1,268 abortions for the province for 2019. Nova Scotia’s abortion numbers like that of the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long term Care are based on billing records. This is a difference of 958.
See Run With Life: 2020 (run-with-life.blogspot.com), June 10, 2020.
 
 
 
Nova Scotia abortion statistics
 
CIHI number for 2019 for Nova Scotia is 1,268 abortions.
 
 
Using CIHI data, we find:
 
⦁ Abortion continues to be most common among women in their twenties. They still account for higher abortion numbers than other age groups. The age of the woman undergoing abortion is unknown for thousands of abortion in 2019. 
 
⦁ Clinics perform more abortions than hospitals; 24,852 hospital abortions versus 58,724 clinic abortions.
 
⦁ CIHI does not report numbers for abortions done using the abortion pill regimen, Mifegymiso.
 
⦁ Gestational age is unknown for 21.3% of hospital abortions. Information on gestational age is not available for clinic data or from Quebec data.
 
⦁ 31.6% of hospital abortions occur at 8 weeks or less gestation. 29.3% occur at 9-12 weeks gestation. 9.1% occur at 13 to 16 weeks gestation. 4.7% at 17 to 20 weeks gestation. 4.0% at 21+ weeks gestation. Quebec data is not included in these numbers.
 
⦁ Number of previous deliveries based on hospital data (excluding Quebec); 34.8% had no previous deliveries. 15.6% had one previous delivery.12.8% had 2 previous deliveries. 9.3% had 3 or more previous deliveries. The number of previous deliveries is unknown for 27.5 of hospital abortions (excluding Quebec).
 
⦁ According to hospital data (excluding Quebec), 47.0% of women undergoing abortion had no previous abortions. 16.0% had one previous abortion. 9.6% had 2 or more previous abortions. The number of previous abortions is unknown for 27.4% of hospital abortions. Information on the number of previous abortions is not available for clinics or Quebec hospitals.
 
⦁ The exact number of abortions done using the abortion pill regimen, Mifegymiso is unknown. 
 
⦁ Hospital data (excluding Quebec) lists aspiration and curettage as the most common method of abortion at 65.9%. 7.4% of abortions were done using dilation and evacuation. 2.9% were done using dilation and curettage. 1.9% were done using “other surgical procedure.” Other surgical procedure includes hysterotomy, hysterectomy and menstrual extraction. 13.5% were done using surgical and medical procedures combined. Medical abortions involve the use of drugs. 8.4% of hospital abortions were medical meaning through the use of drugs only.
 
 
Complications reported for hospital abortions (excluding Quebec) within 28 days of initial procedure were as follows:
⦁ 97.6% had no complications.
⦁ 0.9% hemorrhage
⦁ 0.3% infection
⦁ 0.4% retained products of conception 
⦁ 0.2% combination of complications
⦁ 0.5% other complications.
⦁ Information on complications “is not available from clinic data or from Quebec data.”
⦁ Complications occurring after 28 days “for cases where the heath care number was not recorded during the initial visit or hospitalizations are not included; complications may therefore be undercounted.”
 
Hospitals must report abortion data to government. However, there is no legislative requirement for clinics to report. Prior to the Supreme Court decision in Morgentaler in 1988, abortions were only available in hospitals. Following the Morgentaler decision, abortion clinics began to appear across the country.
 
In CIHI’s History of the Therapeutic Abortion Survey (as it was formerly called), it is stated: “Some hospital and provincial ministry respondents interpreted the absence of an abortion law as the basis for no longer having to report to the Therapeutic Abortion Survey. The law had contained a provision enabling provincial ministries of health to obtain abortion data from hospitals. At the federal level, however, Statistics Canada surveys (including the Therapeutic Abortion Survey) are mandatory unless otherwise specified, but Statistics Canada chose to treat the Therapeutic Abortion Survey as ‘voluntary’ and encouraged respondents to continue to supply data for health-related purposes.”
 
The quality and coverage of abortion statistics declined thereafter with clinics reporting only numbers, and no other demographic information such as the age of the woman undergoing abortion, the gestational age of the child, method of abortion, complications and previous number of deliveries or abortions. On occasion, some abortion clinics did not even report numbers for a specific calendar year.
 
 
 Canadian Institute for Health Information
 
 
 
 

 

lifeinthewomb 450x6341x

The Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI) reported 85,195 induced abortions for 2018. Hospitals accounted for 26,498 abortions and 58,697 abortions were performed in a clinic setting.

CIHI reported 94,030 abortions for 2017. Has there been an actual decline in the number of abortions in Canada? In 2017, the abortion pill Mifegymiso became available in our country. Women can obtain a prescription for the abortion pill from their family doctor or obtain it from a clinic and use the drug regimen at home. How many abortions were done by using Mifegymiso in 2018? We do not know.   According to Global News, “…CIHI researchers said it was not possible to know how many of the reported cases involved the drug.” Do the 2018 statistics capture any of the Mifegymiso abortions? 

There remains a long standing problem with abortion statistics in Canada with some abortion clinics at times not reporting their numbers. Additionally, abortion clinics do not report demographic data such as gestational age of the child, method of abortion, complications, previous induced abortions and previous deliveries. Since abortion is publicly funded in almost all private clinics, they should be legally required to provide a full accounting including number of abortions and demographic data.

The private abortion clinic in New Brunswick, which does not receive public funds, did not report the number of abortions done at its clinic in 2018. Hospital abortions are publicly funded in New Brunswick.

  • CIHI tells us in the following notes:

-Information on gestational age is not available from clinic data or from Quebec data.

-Information on the number of previous deliveries is not available from clinic data or from Quebec data.

-Information on the number of previous induced abortions is not available from clinic data or from Quebec data.

-Detailed information on the type and method of abortion is not available from clinic data or from Quebec data. 

-Information on complications is not available from clinic data or from Quebec data.

-Complications during subsequent visits, transfers or readmission for cases where the health care number was not recorded during the initial visit or hospitalization are not included; complications may therefore be undercounted.

 Why is clinic reporting so dismal? The simple answer is because it is merely voluntary for clinics to report abortion data but not for hospitals. CIHI explains that “Hospitals are mandated by their provincial /territorial ministry of health to report all hospital activity (not limited to abortion);therefore, coverage of abortions performed in Canadian hospitals can be considered complete. However there is no such legislative requirement for clinics to report their activity (reporting is voluntary).” 

Here’s what we do know from hospital data (excluding Quebec) for 19,444 hospital abortions as reported by CIHI:

As concerns the number of previous deliveries, for women undergoing abortion, out of 19,444 hospital abortions: 7,465 had one or more previous deliveries. 6,908 had no previous deliveries.  For 5,073 abortions, the number of previous deliveries is unknown.

Number of previous induced abortions as reported by Canadian hospitals (excluding Quebec):

9,390 had no previous abortions.

3,155 had one previous abortion.

1,845 had 2 or more.

The number of previous abortions is unknown for 5,054 hospital abortions.

Gestational age of the child as reported by Canadian hospitals (excluding Quebec):

8 weeks or less: 6,649

9-12 weeks: 5,975

13-16 weeks: 1,560

17-20 weeks:783

21+ weeks: 659

Unknown : 3,818

Combined data for hospital and clinic abortions by age group, show that the numbers were highest for women in their twenties.

  • 19,894 abortion were reported for women aged 18-24.
  •  21,051 abortions were reported for women aged 25-29.
  • age of the mother at the time of abortion was unknown for 9,193 abortions.

Annual abortion statistics are not merely numbers. They represent the death of thousands of unborn human beings. Until we have complete abortion statistics in Canada, we cannot know if a decline actually occurred in the number of abortions in 2018.

Abortion’s impact on women and the family
woman pensive
 
A report on research dealing with the psychological and relational effects of abortion on women was conducted by the Institute of Marriage and Family Canada. The paper titled Interconnected: How abortion impacts mothers, families and our society outlines the harm caused by abortion:
 
The impacts of abortion include (but are not limited to):
 
⦁ 42% of post-abortive women reported major depression by age 25
⦁ 39% of post-abortive women suffered anxiety disorders
⦁ 27% of post-abortive women experienced suicide ideation
⦁ A meta-analysis published in the prestigious British Journal of Psychiatry showed an overall 81% greater risk of mental health problems for post-abortive women
⦁ Women having abortions are 37% more likely to divorce and twice as likely to never marry
⦁ 34% of women reported a decrease in sexual desire post-abortion
⦁ Women who aborted had more positive attitudes toward risky sexual behavior including sex with strangers and being forced to have sex
⦁ Men whose partners aborted had more positive attitudes toward group sex, sex with strangers and paying for sex.
 
The Institute for Marriage and Family says: “It is not helpful to overstate the negative ramifications of abortion. However, by far the biggest concern Canadians face today is the problem of pretending there are none.”
 
The adverse effects of abortion on women are not limited to the woman alone but harm society as well. The full report can be accessed at www.imfcanada.org/interconnected. 

The tragic euthanasia death of Alan Nichols

Written by Tuesday, 11 January 2022 16:17
 
Alan Nichols Flyer Front
 
November 10, 2020
To:  The Committee on Justice and Human Rights
Please accept this as our brief opposing Bill C-7 in expanding Canada’s euthanasia law. We also include our story of a MAiD procedure our brother Alan Nichols received on July 26th, 2019.
 
Why is our Federal Government willing to proceed with Bill C-7 before allowing the review of the current Bill C-14 and MAiD? It was legislated that no changes would be made to Bill C14 until the 5 year review was complete. Is Bill C-7 is expanding euthanasia in Canada, without this review first? Review Bill C-14 first, to revisit laws and how MAiD has worked in the system for the past five years. If not, then the government should hire an independent board to conduct the review of the past 5 years of MAiD, looking at all cases and history, before adding, adding to or striking any existing legislation in place until such time as review is complete. Honor the original legislation please.
 
There needs to be more safeguards in place to protect our most vulnerable. We have experienced this personally. Please read our story below. Is there no-one overlooking the physicians or MAiD teams for erroneous MAid approvals? Are all doctors submitting reports for each MAiD? Is there no accountability for the person administering lethal injections for an erroneous MAiD approval? 
 
Eliminating the 10 day waiting period would allow too much room for error. How can you possibly consider taking out one of the only two safeguards, other than a reasonably foreseeable death, that are fortunately in place to protect vulnerable or mentally challenged individuals? To approve a lethal injection and receive it the same day that has been requested from a mentally unstable and vulnerable person without accountability is absolutely unacceptable and appalling that our government  would approve of this action against any Canadian citizen. A 90 day waiting period may have prevented the premature death by MAiD in the case of our brother Alan. 
 
This is the short story of Alan Nichols, Chilliwack, BC who received MAiD on July 26, 2019. A detailed in-depth account can be provided upon request.
 
On June 16, 2019, Alan was brought to the Chilliwack General Hospital (CGH) Emergency Department by ambulance, against his will, after Alan’s neighbor contacted the RCMP to conduct a wellness check. On this same night, I was with my brother Alan in the CGH Emergency Department (flew in from Edmonton). He was terribly upset and agitated and wanted me to take him back home. At the time, I thought he was in very safe hands and could see he needed medical attention as he had been admitted by RCMP under The Mental Health Act for his own safety. So, I told him no, he needed to stay, to get better. He was vulnerable and in the best hands for immediate care. Shortly after I left the hospital that night, Alan was transferred to Psychiatric Department, unbeknown to us.
 
We learned months later that he was prescribed anti-depressants for the next two days. The Administration Department said they would follow up with us when information on his condition would become available as they told us Alan would now not see anyone, including family. We were concerned, but understood, that this was in his best interest. An assessment that would let us know what the next steps would be for his care. It may be time to have Alan look at assisted living, an option he had not yet considered. We honored and supported his decision to live independently for as long as possible. 
 
It should be noted that Alan was hearing impaired and had been diagnosed with severe depression, anxiety and paranoia that had been left untreated when he stopped taking prescribed medications. This made life difficult for Alan who had weak coping skills and could not handle change. The weeks leading up to June 16, 2019, Alan was upset with everyone because of several changes and events that were unfolding in his life:
 
Safeway where he had shopped was closing their doors for good.
The bank where he dealt would not process his property tax payment and homeowner grant as they had done in previous years.
His neighbor, who assisted him with his well being, was moving in July.
His brother Wayne was leaving for a trip across Canada. Wayne was providing weekly assistance each Wednesday, driving Alan to do his banking and grocery shopping.
 
After only four days that Alan was in the psychiatric department, they transferred him back to the hospital, to Unit 5 Path Ward (Patient Assessment and Transition to Home). Is this when Alan applied for MAiD? We legally followed protocol and requested all medical records, as we are next of kin, from CGH. Unfortunately, they were intercepted by the notary public who prepared Alan’s Will on July 12th in his hospital room and who is also the Executor of Alan’s will. So, a year and a half later, we have yet to see any legal documents on the date he applied, any of Alan’s signatures or his medical records and reports from the various doctors who worked on Alan’s case. 
 
Our family was left in the dark and inappropriately mislead during the entire time Alan had left the Emergency Department. We had no knowledge of Alan requesting MAiD. We would contact the CGH several times and were finally able to speak with Andrea, a social worker, on July 9th about Alan’s admittance. She assured us he was doing fine, eating etc. and that when his doctor returned from her holiday, she would have her contact us to discuss our concerns that Alan would need assisted living when he was released. 
 
It was July 22, 2019 when Dr. Alison Henry called me at work and informed me that Alan was to receive MAiD in four days on July 26th. We later learned that Alan had been scheduled to receive MAiD a week earlier on July 19th but due to negligence of protocol on behalf of CGH (no doctor present, no directive on what to do with his body upon his death, and that no family had been notified) Lisa Helgeson, who was to give the injections (MAiD) that day to Alan, stopped the procedure until the hospital was in compliance with MAiD protocol. Against our pleading and with limited time to help our brother, Alan received MAiD on July 26th, 2019. We were with him, sitting in total disbelief that this was happening and there was nothing we could do to stop it. He was not in any pain, he has no terminal illness, he was eating, drinking, talking, laughing, his vitals were great, he was looking after his own personal hygiene, he was walking the halls with us the night before.
 
Because he was unable to cope with his depression, he would suffer from mental anguish. That makes him vulnerable, mentally ill. How does Alan receive MAiD if he does not meet the required criteria under the existing guidelines of Bill C14 and MAiD?  According to Bill C-14, Alan was required to meet ALL the criteria in order to be eligible for MAiD.
 
Who is eligible for MAID under Canadian law?
Under Bill C-14, two independent health care professionals need to evaluate an individual to determine whether he/she qualifies for MAID. To qualify for MAID, a person must satisfy all of the following eligibility criteria. They must:
 
-Be eligible for government-funded health insurance in Canada.
-Be 18 years of age or older.
-Have a grievous and irremediable condition, as defined by Section 241.2, para. 2 of the Criminal Code.
-Have made a voluntary request for MAID that was not made as a result of external pressure; Alan was hospitalized by RCMP under The Mental Health Act. He was angry, upset, and vulnerable and did not want to get in the ambulance. He was under duress and given anti depressant medication to calm him down.
-Give informed consent to receive MAID after having been informed of the means that are available to relieve their suffering, including palliative care.
 
In order to have a “grievous and irremediable medical condition,” as defined by Bill C-14, a person must satisfy allof the following requirements:
-Have a serious and incurable illness, disease, or disability; NO, Alan did not have an incurable illness, disease, or disability.
-Be in an advanced state of irreversible decline in capability; NO Alan was not in an advanced state of decline. He was a fully functioning human being.
-Endure physical and psychological suffering that is intolerable to them; and Yes, because he refused to take the medications to relieve this suffering.
-Their natural death has become reasonably foreseeable. NO, with assisted care and medications, Alan would have lived for several years. I asked his doctor at best guess. She said maybe a couple more years. That’s two more years at least. Is that a reasonably foreseeable death?  He never received the necessary medical attention for his mental illness.
 
Alan did not meet ALL the criteria for MAiD. This is a clear case where a MAiD eligibility was in question and should not have been approved. In his mind, we feel Alan had convinced himself that it was just easier to die, rather than to go through the hassles of living and adjust to an assisted living lifestyle. This law legally prevented us from helping our brother. This law was even misunderstood by the hospital and staff that did not follow the MAiD protocols and could have easily taken our brother’s life, without us ever knowing about it. 
 
Alan’s death is a prime example of why Bill C-14 and MAiD laws MUST be reviewed independently, and stronger safeguards put in place to protect our most vulnerable. The loosely legal interpretations of this Bill are a pitfall for precious lives to be snuffed out far before their natural time. There is not enough protection for vulnerable people under the current legislation nor clear medical definitions included such as psychological suffering, which is not defined in the bill. 
 
Fraser Valley Health, acting on behalf of CGH, indicated in their December 30, 2019 letter to address our concerns, that “though Alan had a history of depression, his request for MAiD was not based on this or any other mental health condition.” What? That is exactly why he was admitted to the hospital under The Mental Health Act. Mentally unstable, not eating, tired of living. They also noted in this same letter that “The law does not require patients to be dying from a fatal illness or be terminally ill to be eligible for MAiD.”
 
There were no safeguards in place for Alan. He was a vulnerable person with untreated mental illness and left completely vulnerable in the hands of a medical facility, behind closed doors, that our family had been assured were taking care of his medical needs. Not one doctor called his family to verify any information on his medical history or background of the years of extra care, time and attention that were necessary to give to Alan so we could honor his desire to live independently. We asked him why he opted to have the MAiD injections, (he hated needles) rather than just simply take the pills to end his life. He said he didn’t want to take the pills. He was afraid of the side effects. 
 
Sincerely,
Gary and Trish Nichols
 
 
 
Published  with permission of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.
 
N.B.: This brief was written prior to the passage of Bill C-7 in March 2021. Bill C-7 expanded access to euthanasia.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

The Breast Cancer Prevention Institute provides a compilation: Epidemiologic Studies: Induced Abortion and Breast Cancer Risk. There are 76 studies on the list with the earliest published in 1957. Of the 76 studies listed, 61 found a positive association between abortion and breast cancer. 41 of these were statistically significant. For more information, read:

bcpi-factsheet-epidemiol-studies_2020.pdf (bcpinstitute.org)

young woman 8 

 

                                                                                             MIFEGYMISO                                                                                                                                                                                                                (RU486/The Abortion pill)                                                                        
 
These are violently active chemicals and they have violent reactions on the organism...what is the situation in whcih a woman would undergo                                 that kind of assault? 1                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                — Dr. Germaine Greer           
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            
 
The adverse effects of the two drugs were unpredictable and dangerous and the research undertaken inadequate...We concluded that the RU 486/PG abortion had the making of a new wave of DIY backyard abortions which burdened women who had decided they needed an abortion with unnecessary days of agony:  haemorrhaging, vomiting, cramping and the well-founded fear of sepsis. We predicted deaths and also wondered why pro-choice activists could not see that this abortion method only benefited pharmaceutical companies and doctors.2                                                                                                                                                                         
 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    — Renata Klein, Pro-Choice Feminist

 

young woman pensive image 022

I felt like I was dying...it hurt so much. I had contractions coming so fast, and I was sick to my stomach and dry heaving. I couldn't stop trembling and I felt so hot. - RU486 patient Aimee, talking about ther experience.

Darton, N., Surprising journey for abortion drug, New Yorl Times, 23 march 1995 p.C12.

What is Mifegymiso? 
(RU486/The Abortion Pill)
Mifegymiso does not prevent pregnancy but causes the induced abortion of an established pregnancy up to 9 weeks gestation, in Canada. 
Mifegymiso is a combination product containing one mifepristone [RU486] 200mg tablet and four misoprostol (Gymiso) 200μg.
 
Mifepristone (RU486) blocks progesterone, a hormone needed to support pregnancy and provide nutrition to the embryonic child. The second drug, Misoprostol (Gymiso) given 24-48hours later causes uterine contractions to expel the dead or dying child from the womb. Each tablet is taken buccally placed between the teeth and the cheek.
 
Mifegymiso - according to… Health Canada 
Fact: Mifegymiso is a prescription drug with serious potential risks requiring physician oversight. The need for medical supervision is based on strong evidence for good health and safety outcomes. For example, it is estimated that up to 1 in 20 women who use this drug will require a follow-up surgical procedure because their pregnancy is not successfully terminated. Health Canada has put in place requirements that will help ensure that women have access to medical services in case of a serious adverse event taking place.3 
 
The initial restrictions(4) on Mifegymiso in Canada included the following: 
⦁ 7-week / 49-day gestational limit (since [first day of]last menstrual period);
⦁ Physicians must receive training in order to be on a registry to prescribe; 
⦁ Physicians must dispense drug directly to the patient; 
⦁ Physicians must supervise the patient’s ingestion of the first dose; 
⦁ Physicians must exclude ectopic pregnancy and determine gestational age by ultrasound. 
 
Women were asked to sign a consent form and take the Mifepristone tablet in front of the physician. Misoprostol was provided but could be taken at home. A return visit 14 days later was strongly advised to ensure the abortion is complete and that there is no infection.
 
In November 2017, the restrictions on Mifegymiso were changed:
⦁ Can now be prescribed up to 9 weeks /63 days gestational limit (since [first day] of last menstrual period);
⦁ Physicians no longer need to undergo training in order to prescribe;
⦁ Removed the regulation that only physicians can dispense the drugs to patients. Pharmacists as well a prescribing health professional can dispense the drug directly to the patient;
⦁ Physicians no longer required to supervise the patient’s ingestion of the first dose. The patient can take the drug at home or a health facility;
⦁ Women will no longer have to sign a consent form to use Mifegymiso;
⦁ Ultrasound still mandatory to rule out ectopic pregnancy and determine gestational age.
 
In 2019, the requirement for ultrasound was removed by Health Canada. An ultrasound is no longer required to confirm gestational age and to rule out an ectopic pregnancy. Health Canada says “prescribers now have the flexibility to use their medical judgment on how best to determine the gestational age and to rule out ectopic pregnancy”.
 
 
There is also the grisly possibility that a woman will deliver her tiny but unrecognisable dead fetus of 6-12 weeks development alone and at home.
-Duffy A, Santamaria DR J. The how and why of RU486., Thomas More Centre Bulletin 1990;2(9). 1-5

Something women might wish to know 
4 to 8 Weeks Gestation - Fetal Development 
By 5 weeks, development of the brain, spinal cord, and heart is well underway. The heart begins beating at 5 weeks and one day (from the first day of last menstrual period) or 21 days from conception and is visible by ultrasound almost immediately.
 
By 6 weeks, the heart is pumping the embryo’s own blood to his or her brain and body. All four chambers of the heart are present and more than 1 million heartbeats have occurred. The head, as well as the chest and abdominal cavities have formed and the beginnings of the arms and legs are easily seen. The 6-week embryo measures less than ¼ of an inch long from head to rump.
 
Rapid brain development continues with the appearance of the cerebral hemispheres at 6½ weeks. The embryo reflexively turns away in response to light touch on the face at 7½ weeks.5
 
Side Effects of Mifegymiso 
Use of RU486/prostaglandin may cause any of the following: 
haemorrhage requiring blood transfusion, severe pain requiring strong pain killers, incomplete abortion, rupture of the uterus, vaginal bleeding, abdominal cramping, nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea, headache, muscle weakness, dizziness, flushing, chills, backache, difficulty in breathing, chest pain, palpitations, rise in temperature and fall in blood pressure.
 
Yet some say: 
Mifegymiso is the World Health Organization’s (WHO) gold standard of medical abortion...with an outstanding safety and efficacy record...7
Still others say: ...and has maintained an outstanding safety record throughout the world...
 
Gold Standard and Safe? 
Do they think all women are stupid?
 

 Finland(9) 

  • -Chemical abortion [has] roughly four times the rate of adverse events than surgical abortion: 20.0% of women in the medical[chemical]-abortion group and 5.6% of women in the surgical-abortion group had at least one type of adverse event. 
⦁ Hemorrhage, as an adverse event, was experienced by 15.6% of medical [chemical] abortion patients compared with 2.1% for surgical patients.
 
 
Failures: The non-negligible risk of failure makes the follow up visit mandatory to check that the abortion is complete. 
— Risks related to the method, from Product Characteristics for Mifegyne, electronic Medicines Compendium
 
  
• Incomplete abortions were experienced by 6.7% of medical [chemical] abortion patients while only 1.6% of surgical patients had incomplete abortions. 
 
• The rate for surgical (re)evacuation of the uterus was 5.9% medical [chemical] versus 1.8% (surgical) for all causes (hemorrhage, infection, incomplete abortion). 
 
• The study was conducted in Finland where there is a comprehensive network of medical registries that could be used to track abortion outcomes in that country’s government-based medical system. From 2000-2006 all women (n=42,619) who had abortions up to 63 days gestational age were followed up until 42 days. 
 
• Chemical abortion had approximately 4 times the rate of adverse events! 
 
In summary, the Finnish registries revealed that first-trimester chemical abortions with mifepristone and a prostaglandin – typically misoprostol – resulted in: 
 
1. 20 out of every 100 women with a significant adverse event; 
 
2. about 16 out of 100 women hemorrhaging excessively; 
 
3. 7 out of every 100 women with tissue left inside; 
 
4. approximately 6 out of every 100 women needing surgical reevacuation of the uterus.
 
 Australia10 
A newspaper story by Jamie Walker in The Australian summed things up with the headline “Abortion Pill ‘Less Safe than Surgery.” The journalistic audit of approximately 6,800 surgical and chemical abortions produced important data comparing first-trimester RU-486 and surgical abortions:
 
• 3.3% of the women who used RU-486 in the first trimester of pregnancy reported to an emergency room compared with 2.2% who used a surgical method; 
 
• 5.7% (1 in 18 patients) of the women who used RU-486 had to be re-admitted to hospitals compared with 0.4% (1 in 250) of surgical abortion patients. With respect to second-trimester RU-486 abortions: 
 
• A staggering 33% (16/49) required some form of surgical intervention; 
 
• 4% had “significant haemorrhage;” one of the two patients in this category required a transfusion. 
 
Walker also noted in The Australian, “Two of the 5,823 surgical patients suffered severe haemorrhage, involving the loss of more than a litre of blood.” That approximated “a rate of one in 3000.” Walker observed as well “four of the 947 women who had medical abortions had the same problem, lifting the rate to one in 200.” These statistics pertain to first-trimester abortions… 
 
United States of America(11) 
 
FDA’s April 2011 RU-486 Adverse Events Summary states that “[t]he estimated number of women who have used mifepristone in the US through the end of April 2011 is approximately 1.52 million women.” As noted above, FDA calculated that by that date there had been 2,207 adverse event reports submitted to FDA. 
 
Hospitalization, Excluding Deaths 
There were 612 reports of hospitalization received as of April 30, 2011. 
 
Hemorrhage 
339 women “experienced blood loss requiring a transfusion” after taking the RU-486 abortion regimen.
 
Infections 
 
There were 256 baseline infections cases defined as: [including] endometritis (involving the lining of the womb), pelvic inflammatory disease (involving the nearby reproductive organs such as the fallopian tubes or ovaries), and pelvic infections with sepsis (a serious systemic infection that has spread beyond the reproductive organs…. 
 
There were also 48 reports of severe infections which were described as a subset of infections including: Severe infections generally involve death or hospitalization for at least 2-3 days, intravenous antibiotics for at least 24 hours, total antibiotic usage for at least 3 days, and any other physical or clinical findings, laboratory data or surgery that suggest a severe infection. 
 
Deaths
 
• FDA states that eight of fourteen fatalities it had tracked were associated with sepsis 
 
• 7 cases tested positive for Clostridium sordellii, 1 case tested positive for Clostridium perfringens[].” All but one fatal sepsis case reported vaginal misoprostol use; buccal misoprostol use was reported in one case. 
 
 
If you did not know any of this until you read this pamphlet you could not have given an informed consent - what else are you not being told?
 We keep hearing - you can trust women to make decisions. Well, it is not about trusting women but providing all information to them and keeping them safe. Mifegymiso almost always kills the developing child and can have severe and even fatal consequences for some - all women deserve to know that.
 
 Regret taking the abortion pill - It may not be too late! 
Abortion Pill Reversal 
 
Have you taken the first dose of the Abortion Pill, Mifepristone [Mifegymiso], (Mifeprex or RU-486)? Do you regret your decision and wish you could reverse the effects of the abortion pill? There is an effective process for reversing the abortion pill, called Abortion Pill Reversal. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
So call today! Call rightnow, someone will talk with you and offer you help. Call the 24/7 HOTLINE at 1.888.612.3960 or visit www.abortionpillreversal.ca.
 
 
 Girl on circles Quarter Page
 
 
 
FIND OUT MORE
www.RU486facts.org 
www.abortionprocedures.com
 
Resources 
 
1. Dr. Germaine Greer described RU486 as a powerful and unpleasant succession of experiences at the Best For Women Gynaecologists and Obstetricians conference in Sydney, October 2002. Reported in The Age, 4 October.
 
2. http://www.abc.net.au/religion/ articles/2013/09/24/3855497.htm 
 
 
 
 
6. Wilks J, A Consumers Guide to the Pill, All Inc., Stafford, Virginia p164, Wilks J, A Consumers Guide to the Pill, All Inc., Stafford, Virginia p165, Product Characteristics for Mifegyne, electronic Medicines Compendium, Product Characteristics for Gemeprost, electronic Medicines Compendium, https://www.spuc.org.uk/abortion/methods/ ru486 
 
 
8. http://www.srhweek.ca/caring-for-yourself/pregnancy/ positive-test-pregnancy-options/mifegymiso
 
 
      (pages4/5) 
 
Mifegymiso (RU486/The Abortion Pill) A publication of Alliance for Life Ontario 26 Norfolk Street Guelph, ON N1H 4H8 Phone: 519.824.7797 1 866 LUV BOTH (588-2684) c2017. Updated 2021.
We have relied heavily on Dr Christopher M. Gacek's research "RU-486(Mifespristone) side effects 2000-2012” and thank him for his diligent work.
 
 
 
 
 

 

Pro Life Sunday 2011 poster corrected age

Abortion kills a Human Being

Certain animal species receive protection under the law in Canada.  Yet at the same time, there exists a complete absence of protection for the unborn child.  Animals are treated with more regard than the baby awaiting birth.

Is the child in the womb a human being?

Yes, science proves beyond a doubt that the unborn child is human.  The unborn is the offspring of a human mother and father and is a living human being distinct from his parents.  The child in the womb has his/her own DNA, a unique genetic finger print.  Scientific knowledge about the life of the unborn baby has revealed to us that this child eats, sleeps, moves, feels pain, can suck his or her thumb and yawns.  His little heart starts beating 22 days after conception.  Yet, this innocent child is callously treated as a non-human and a non-person.

In Canada, the baby in the womb is not even recognized as a human being in law.

Section 223 of the Criminal code states that a child becomes a human being after birth when it has fully emerged in a living state from the womb of its mother.  Only then, will this child receive legal protection.

What are the differences between the unforn child and born human beings?

SIZE:  Yes, the child in the womb is smaller than a newborn child or an adult but since when is size a factor in determining a person's right to life?

LEVEL OF DEVELOPMENT:  Yes, the child in the womb is less developed than a newborn.  A newborn child is also less developed than a three year old toddler.  The newborn child is no less human than the toddler in spite of differences in their level of development.  If we use the development criteria to determine who is deserving of protection, then should the newborn child be denied his right to life because he is less developed than the toddler?  May we kill a newborn baby because he is less developed than others?  The unborn child is also less developed at certain stages but this is irrelevant.  The toddler, the newborn baby and the child in the womb are all human beings.

ENVIRONMENT:  Where you are does not change who you are.  Location does not alter the value or the nature of a human being.  If the unborn child is not human, then a short journey down the birth canal will not make him/her a human being.

DEGREE OF DEPENDENCY:  If viability and independence become the criteria, then is a diabetic who is dependent on insulin less valuable than a person who is not?  The newborn child is totally dependent on others for his care as is the child in the womb who is totally dependent on his/her mother for survival.

Finally, our location, level of development, dependency and size do not make us lesser humans or non-humans nor are they requirements to determine our right to life.

Since 1969, more than 4 million unborn children have been aborted in Canada.  The 1988 Supreme Court decision striking down the 1969 law has left Canada without a law on abortion.

In the absence of any legal restrictions, abortion is allowed during all nine months of pregnancy.  Consider that abortion is the only circumstance in which it is permitted for an individual to end the life of an innocent human being.

Do you care about the unborn child?  We cannot remain indifferent to this injustice and the loss of so many lives.  Each and everyone of us can in some way be a voice for the unborn.  We are a people of life and for life!

We love them both mother and child.

 

 

Pick a Number Cover 2

This document delves into abortion statistics in Ontario and examines the use of the abortion pill regimen Mifegymiso.

Abortion-By-Numbers-2021_FINAL_WEB.pdf

SUMMARY

For decades, it has been difficult to obtain any current and accurate statistics on abortion. In Canada, ONLY hospitals are required to report all numbers and demographics, but clinics (surgical facilities and doctors offices) have no such legislative requirement. With each passing year, data is lacking and often inaccurate. It would seem there is no other medical procedure for which incomplete data is permitted to perpetuate. In every other healthcare procedure, data collection is considered important, to ascertain the patient’s journey, both before and after the procedure, to ensure best practices and informed decision making, to create a picture of the patient’s history and to ensure follow-up. Why when it comes to abortion, are all the normal practices of medicine no longer valid?

Alliance for Life of Ontario calls on the provincial government to craft legislation which would mandate any facility, providing abortion, whether surgically or chemically, to report all demographics and numbers of every woman undergoing the procedure and make it a requirement of receiving OHIP. If women’s health matters as much they say it does, then we should see it in practice, especially with regard to induced abortion.

Elderly male patient

PP_Euthanasia_Web_Final.pdf    

This Powerpoint looks at the 2015 Supreme Court Decision in the Carter Case which struck down the prohibition on euthanasia and assisted-suicide in Canada.  It provides data on the euthanasia experience around the world.

 

Bill C-7 amends Canada’s law on euthanasia, which is euphemistically referred to as medical assistance in dying, in the bill. The federal government proposed Bill C-7 as its response to the September 2019 Quebec Superior Court decision striking down the requirement in Bill C-14 that natural death be reasonably foreseeable in order to qualify for euthanasia. The government could have exercised its option to appeal the decision but chose not to. While Bill C-7 removes the clause that natural death be reasonably foreseeable, it goes much further than the Quebec Superior Court decision mandated.

elderly man hospital bed

This bill greatly expands access to euthanasia. It allows physicians and nurse practitioners to euthanize a patient even if the patient is no longer able to consent as long as the patient has previously indicated consent. In Bill C-14 which was passed in 2016, the ability to consent prior to receiving a lethal injection was presented as a safeguard to protect vulnerable persons from involuntary euthanasia:

"Immediately before providing the medical assistance in dying, give the person an opportunity to withdraw their request and ensure that the person gives express consent to receive medical assistance in dying."

Consider in addition that the 2015 Supreme Court decision in Carter explicitly stated that euthanasia would be allowed “for a competent adult person who clearly consents to the termination of life."

The Summary of Bill C-7 states that “this enactment amends the Criminal Code, to among other things”:  permit medical assistance in dying to be provided to a person who has been found eligible to receive it, whose natural death is reasonably foreseeable and who has lost the capacity to consent before medical assistance in dying is provided, on the basis of a prior agreement they entered into with the medical practitioner or nurse practitioner: and permit medical assistance in dying to be provided to a person who has lost the capacity to consent to it as a result of the self-administration of a substance that was provided to them under the provisions governing medical assistance in dying in order to cause their own death.

Page 2 of the bill says:  "while recognizing the inherent risks and complexity of permitting medical assistance in dying for persons who are unable to provide consent at the time of the procedure, Parliament considers it appropriate to permit dying persons who have been found eligible to receive medical assistance in dying and are awaiting its provision to obtain medical assistance in dying even if they lose the capacity to provide final consent, except if they demonstrate signs of refusal of the procedure."

Section 3.2 of Bill C-7 now permits euthanasia of a patient who is no longer competent if the patient has previously given consent as long as “the person does not demonstrate by words, sounds or gestures, refusal to have the substance administered or resistance to its administration.”
However, section 3.3 which follows says: “For greater certainty, involuntary words, sounds or gestures, made in response to contact do not constitute a demonstration of refusal or resistance for the purpose of paragraph 3.2c.” According to these two sections of the bill, it seems that the decision depends entirely on how the physician interprets the words, sounds or gestures of the incompetent patient. Clause (3.3) provides protection to the physician not the patient.

Consider the following report from Holland. An elderly woman with dementia had given her consent to euthanasia in an advance directive. A physician at the facility where she lived decided later that the time had come for euthanasia. Prior to administering the lethal injection, the physician had placed a sedative in the elderly woman’s coffee. The patient struggled when the physician began the injection at which point, the physician asked the woman’s family to hold her down so she could finish the injection. The family agreed to do so.

Changing the law to allow euthanasia by advance consent was not required by the Truchon decision of the Quebec Superior Court. In such cases, there is always a risk that a person may receive euthanasia against their wishes. Secondly, Bill C-14 required two independent witnesses to a patient’s request for euthanasia. Bill C-7 requires only one witness and that person can be a paid caregiver or a medical professional responsible for your care. It cannot be however, the physician or nurse practitioner who will deliver the lethal injection.

It also eliminates the 10 day waiting period between the time of the request and the provision of the lethal injection for those whose natural death is reasonably foreseeable. It means that it would be possible for someone to request and receive euthanasia on the same day. For those whose natural death is not reasonably foreseeable but meet other criteria, a 90 day reflection period is required.

Persons with chronic illnesses or disabilities are at risk with this change in the law. Adequate support services are still lacking for them. Under Bill C-14, cases of coercion towards euthanasia were reported in Canadian media. CTV featured the story of Roger Foley and CBC, the story of Candice Lewis. Persons with disabilities are now eligible for euthanasia and in two years, persons with mental illness will be as well.

Finally this bill lacks specific conscience rights protection for health care professionals and institutions who object to participation in euthanasia. Prior to the 2015 Supreme Court decision in Carter, euthanasia was considered homicide. Now, we are told that giving lethal injections is health care. Patients need care not killing.

In December 2020, Justice Minister Lametti asked and obtained from the Quebec Superior Court, an extension to give more time for the federal government to pass Bill C-7. The government was given until February 26, 2021. Bill C-7 became law on March 17th, 2021.

By Jonathon Van Maren

On December 16, 1985, a little girl was born in Vancouver General Hospital. No joy greeted her arrival—her birth mother had already tried to have her aborted at an abortion clinic just across the border in Bellingham, Washington and had only come to VGH due to complications. Hospital staff delivered her into a bedpan. The pan was then swiftly carried off by Vera Wood, a senior nurse, and according to court documents was placed in the room where “dead foetuses were stored.” She was “moving, gasping, and crying weakly,” but it was assumed that she wouldn’t last long. They never did.

A year later, nurse Kathryn Larouche told the Vancouver Sun that “there were a couple of people…I don’t want to say who. They told us, ‘Don’t do anything. Leave it alone. It will die.” The attending doctor told nurses not to bother resuscitating the child.

Her name was Ximena Renaerts, and she wanted to live. When the nurse checked back on her about a half hour later, she was still alive—a defiantly wheezing baby in a room meant for dead babies. Ximena was supposed to be a corpse, too—she’d already been thrown out. But as she kept on breathing, in and out, the hospital staff decided that it was probably best to call a nursing supervisor, who arrived nearly an hour after the little girl had been born into the cold bedpan. She was still lying in the pan, uncovered and sitting on a stainless steel counter when the supervisor arrived. Moved with compassion, the supervisor initiated a Code Blue and called for the Infant Transport Team.

At that point, the little girl had become extremely cold from lying uncovered and untended in the bedpan, and the loss of heat had caused permanent brain damage—but her life was saved. Her story made big news again when her adoptive family sued Vancouver General Hospital for ten million dollars over a decade later, and when faced with the possibility of a public trial, the Hospital backed down and settled with the family (who lived in Chilliwack) for an undisclosed sum of money to be used for Ximena’s round-the-clock care, made necessary by her disabilities. Several police investigations went nowhere, and Vancouver General Hospital did its best to kill the story.

There is some reason to believe that Vancouver General Hospital wanted to avoid a trial because Ximena was not the only baby born alive and left to die—while they insisted that this had never happened before, they stated that no “viable” babies had been abandoned in this fashion, without defining what they meant by “viable” and ignoring the fact that Ximena had not been considered “viable,” either. Kathryn Larouche told the Vancouver Sun that she saw at least three other infants “die after they were delivered alive…We were supposed to turn the other way. We weren’t supposed to do anything.” Due to the emotional trauma these events caused, she and five other nurses quit working for VGH.

Some of you may wonder why I’m bringing up Ximena’s story, all these years later. The reason is simple: Every year, in Canadian hospitals, the same thing is happening to other boys and girls just like her. As I wrote last week, some of these babies—abortion victims who lived just a little bit longer than was intended—are actually issued Canadian birth certificates and death certificates. Pro-life activists try to draw attention to deaths of these children, but they are usually ignored. These dead children are simply considered to be the collateral damage of a society that has allowed abortion since 1969, and their brutal passing elicits only yawns from the politicians, the media, and the abortion industry.

So perhaps the story of Ximena Renaerts can remind us that these were real children, even if they were so cruelly abandoned that they remained nameless in life and in death. Perhaps our collective national conscience is not so congealed with blood that we cannot feel a twinge when we imagine a tiny little girl, gasping for breath in between little cries that desperately tried to remind those who had abandoned her that she was alive. And then, perhaps, we can set ourselves to work creating a culture that refuses to look away from what we have done, and refuses to walk away from those who need us most.
_____________________________________________
Reprinted with permission.

https://lop.parl.ca/staticfiles/PublicWebsite/Home/ResearchPublications/BackgroundPapers/PDF/2015-139-e.pdf

 

Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide in Canada. Library of Parliament. Publication no.2015-139-E, 15 December 2015.

Nicol, Julia & Tiedemann, Marlisa. Legal and Social Affairs Division. Parliamentary Information and Research Division.

 

This background paper by the Library of Parliament provides a history of case law relating to euthanasia and assisted suicide, parliamentary bills and motions and a complete chronology of cases, laws and bills. 

There have been numerous cases of patients with disabilities denied the basic necessities of life, meaning food and fluids, in order to end their lives. Terri Schiavo of Florida and Vincent Lambert of France are two high profile cases which received international attention. In both instances, the parents fought for the maintenance of food and fluids for their adult children. Tragically, these families lost their battle in court.

Section 25f of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities stipulates that countries must:
“Prevent discriminatory denial of health care or health services or food and fluids on the basis of disability.”

Withholding or withdrawing food and fluids from a person who is not imminently dying, with the intention of causing death, is euthanasia. Even if food and water are provided by feeding tube, it does not transform basic care into a medical treatment.

hands

The case of Hannah Cement, an Ottawa woman went to court recently. The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC) reported on July 11, 2019:

“Today EPC was informed that Hugh Scher, the lawyer for the Cement family, achieved a negotiated agreement whereby Hannah will continue to be fed and hydrated and receive basic medical care until she dies a natural death.

Hannah Cement is a 62 year-old woman with Down Syndrome and dementia, who is a life-long member of an Orthodox Jewish family and community. The substitute decision makers for Hannah, her family, refused to consent to a course of treatment that constituted the withdrawal of all treatment and care, including food and fluids and providing only comfort care.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC) was granted limited intervention standing, in the court, based on our concerns related to the definition of food and fluid as medical treatment.

In late March, 2019, the Consent and Capacity Board (medical decision making tribunal) made a terrible decision in the Cement case, essentially ordering the withdrawal of all medical treatment from Hannah. This would have led to Hannah dying a similar death as Vincent Lambert.

The family appealed the decision to the Ontario Court of Appeal and the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, once again, sought intervention standing in the case.

The news that the doctor, the hospital and the Cement family reached an agreement to assure that Hannah will continue to receive basic medical care until she dies a natural death is an incredible victory.

While we mourn the death of Vincent Lambert, we are very thankful for the legal agreement to enable Hannah Cement to continue living until she dies a natural death.”

By Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Kristen Holliday wrote a ground breaking article that was published in the Vancouver Sun on December 11. Holliday examines how Bill C-7, the bill to expand euthanasia in Canada, creates a situation where it is easier to die by MAiD (euthanasia) rather than receive effective medical treatment. Holliday examines several stories of deaths that were "outside" of the law.
Unknown 2

Holliday tells us about the euthanasia death of Cheryl Lowen, who died in December 2019 by MAiD. Cheryl did not have terminal condition. Ray Chwartkowski, Lowen's brother, comments on the death of his sister. Holliday reports:

The last time Ray Chwartkowski saw his sister, Cheryl Lowen, was two days before she died in December, 2019.

On that day, he was shocked to learn that her death was scheduled, as she had been approved for medical assistance in dying, often referred to as MAID.

“She never had a diagnosis for any terminal illness,” he said. “I consider her death a total tragedy.”
Chwartkowski is convinced that his sister did not qualify for MAiD:

He said Lowen, who was 50 when she died, had a difficult childhood and struggled with physical and mental health problems throughout her life. In mid-2019, she was diagnosed with median arcuate ligament syndrome, a chronic illness that causes severe abdominal pain.

Chwartkowski said he has compassion for her pain but is certain she didn’t meet MAID’s criteria of a reasonably foreseeable death. He also questions her ability to make a well-informed decision after receiving the difficult diagnosis.

“From what I understood, she was refusing to eat, she was refusing immediate medical attention,” said Chwartkowski, adding that she also refused surgery to treat her condition.

Chwartkowski believes his sister, confronted with a chronic medical condition after a life filled with difficulty and mental health struggles, simply gave up hope.

“It’s like she just had so much heartache,” he said. “It just doesn’t make sense. She had so much going for her.”

Chwartkowski said, to his knowledge, Lowen applied for MAID twice and was denied the first time.

Alan (left) in July 2019

Unknown

Holliday also tells us the story of Alan Nichols, who died by MAiD in July 2019, even though he was not physically ill, but rather living with chronic depression. Holliday interviews Gary Nichols, Alan's brother:
Gary said Alan was a healthy child and an excellent hockey goalie until he was diagnosed with a brain tumour at the age of 12. After two brain surgeries, he suffered from hearing loss, loss of co-ordination, and the occasional seizure. He also suffered from severe depression, said Gary.

“After a while, he really started to withdraw from people. He’d go through cycles, wanting to die. But then, he would change his mind, find something good.”

Gary moved to Edmonton in 2011, where he works as an accountant, while Alan remained in their hometown of Chilliwack.

In 2019, when Alan was admitted to a Chilliwack hospital and his family was notified that he was scheduled to die by MAID, Gary said he was appalled. He received the news four days before his brother’s death.

He believes Alan should not have been approved under current legislation.

“He didn’t have a terminal illness, his natural death was not foreseen,” Gary said.
Gary is convinced that if Alan received the proper care that he would be alive today.
“Of course, we would have tried to stop it because we know that probably in a week or two he’s going to change his mind,” Gary said. “Overall, they don’t know how to handle mental illness. It’s quite obvious. There’s such a high percentage of suicide with mental illness.”

Krista Carr

Unknown 1

Holliday interviewed Krista Carr, a leader with the disability organization, Inclusion Canada, who is concerned about how euthanasia has been implemented:
Carr said she receives calls from Canadians with physical and mental disabilities who say health providers have suggested MAID is now available to them.

Carr said advocates for MAID stress the importance of personal autonomy and the right to choose. However, people living in poverty and social isolation, and those without access to treatment, sometimes feel they don’t have a real choice, she said.

“They can’t get assistance in living, but they can get quick assistance in dying,” Carr said.
The question is how many stories, like Alan Nichols and Cheryl Lowen exist? How many lives have been ended by euthanasia (MAiD) rather than providing the necessary care to enable that person to live? 

The government should have tried to assess how many abuses of the current MAiD law existed before expanding the law. This could have been one of the topics examined in the Five-year review of the law that was supposed to begin in June 2020.

If you have a story, please contact This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

We want to help you find justice.

Article used with permission of the EPC 2021.

RU-486, mifepristone is a synthetic steroid drug with only one purpose – to induce abortion.

A woman takes two drugs for a chemical abortion, a method referred to as medical abortion by advocates. Myfegymiso is a combination product containing one mifepristone tablet (RU 486) 200 mg tablet and four misoprostol (Gymiso) 200ug tablet. Mifegymiso was approved by Health Canada in 2015.

young woman 10

Ru-486 is used for abortions from 5 to 9 weeks gestation. Initially Health Canada had approved Mifegymiso for use up to 7weeks gestation. Under pressure from abortion advocates to change original requirements and guidelines for the use of mifepristone, Health Canada in 2017 extended the period of use up to 9 weeks gestation, removed the requirement that physicians had to undergo training before dispensing mifegymiso to a patient and removed the regulation that only physicians could dispense the drug to the patient and supervise the patient’s ingestion of the first dose. The abortion pill had to be given in the physician’s office. Now a physician can write a prescription and the woman can take the drugs at home without medical supervision. Health Canada advises that “follow-up is important to confirm whether the pregnancy has completely ended and to verify that there is no prolonged heavy bleeding or infection.” In the updates to the product monograph and risk management plan, you find: “Ensure that patients have access to emergency medical care in the 14 days following administration of mifepristone and schedule a follow-up 7 to 14 days after talking mifepristone to confirm complete pregnancy termination and monitor side effects.”

How does this combination abortion pill work? The first drug, mifepristone kills an unborn child by destroying the lining of the uterus. It blocks the hormone progesterone thus depriving the developing child of nutrients. A second drug misoprostol given 24 to 48 later is used to stimulate contractions to expel the dead child.

                         

teen at locker

An RU-486 abortion is a drawn-put process with severe risks and complications. Ru-486 kills the child and in some cases has also killed the mother.

Australian pro-choice feminist Renata Klein writing in 2013 about the findings of years of research on RU 486 with her colleagues Professor Janice Raymond and Dr. Lynette Dumble warned in their 1991 book: “The adverse effects of the two drugs were unpredictable and dangerous and the research undertaken inadequate…We concluded that the RU/486/PG abortion had the making of a new wave of DIY backyard abortions which burdened women who had decided they needed an abortion with unnecessary days of agony: haemorrhaging, vomiting, cramping and the well-founded fear of sepsis. We predicted deaths and also wondered why pro-choice activists could not see that this abortion method only benefited pharmaceutical companies and doctors.”

The National Post reported on October 16th,2018 that at least 13,000 prescriptions were written for the abortion drug since January 2017. This number doesn’t include however data from the Yukon, Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia. The cost of Mifegymiso is covered in some provinces including Ontario, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Quebec, Manitoba and British Columbia.

 

teen girl

 

The abortion pill regimen is sometimes referred to as 'medical abortion'. Medical abortion means a chemically induced or drug induced abortion.

If a woman has taken the first drug in the abortion pill regimen and has changed her mind about abortion, the abortion pill reversal process offers women an option of continuing the pregnancy. To find out more about this choice, read this analysis by the Charlotte Lozier Institute:

On-Science-4-FINAL-2.pdf (pcdn.co)

Abortion Pill Reversal: A Record of Safety and Efficacy - Charlotte Lozier Institute.

 

 

 

Unborn child 20 weeks after conception

In a February 17th article in Public Discourse, the authors state: “There are rare circumstances in which a mother’s life is in jeopardy due to either pre-existing conditions or pregnancy complication. It is extremely rare for this to occur prior to the point of viability (currently 22 weeks after last menstrual period, 20 weeks after fertilization). After 20 weeks fertilization age, it is never necessary to intentionally kill the fetal human being in order to save a woman’s life.

In cases where the mother’s life actually is in danger in the latter half of pregnancy, there is not time for an abortion, because an abortion typically is a two to three-day process. Instead immediate delivery is needed in these situations, and can be done in a medically appropriate way (labor induction or C-section) by the woman’s own physician. We can, and do, save the life of the mother through delivery of an intact infant in a hospital where both the mother and her newborn can receive the care that they need. There is no medical reason to intentionally kill that fetal human being through an inhumane abortion procedure, e.g. dismembering a living human being capable of feeling pain, or saline induction which burns off the skin, or feticide with subsequent induction.” (1)

Consider as well the following statements made by other physicians:
“In more than 25 years of medical practice, I have come to learn that if a woman is healthy enough to become pregnant, she is healthy enough to complete the term –in spite of heart disease, liver disease, almost any disease. As far as I’m concerned there are no medical indications for terminating a pregnancy.” Dr. Hymie Gordon, Director of Medical Genetics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, October 15, 1974.

In 1951, Dr. Roy Heffernan, then president of the American Medical Association and Dean of Tufts Medical School stated in a presentation to the American College of Surgeons:
“Anyone who performs a therapeutic abortion is either ignorant of modern methods of treating the complications of pregnancy or unwilling to take the time to use them.”

In a letter to the Health and Welfare Committee of the Parliament of Canada in 1968, Dr. Henry Fitzgibbon provided more evidence that induced abortion was not needed for medical reasons. Dr. Fitzgibbon was at the time an obstetrician and gynecologist. He was a member of the Canadian Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, a Certified Specialist in Obstetrics and Gynaecology of the Royal College of Surgeons of Canada and a fellow of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Dr. Fitzgibbon wrote:
“As has been repeatedly pointed out at the hearings, there are no longer any valid reasons for the termination of pregnancy on medical grounds. The requests for abortion made to practising physicians are almost invariably on social grounds and as such are not covered by any of the suggested bills.”

More than 1,000 medical professionals signed the Dublin Declaration on Maternal Healthcare which states in part: “As experienced practitioners and researchers in obstetrics and gynecology, we affirm that direct abortion – the purposeful destruction of the unborn child is not medically necessary to save the life of a woman.”
Abortion is never required to save the life of the mother or to treat complications that may arise in pregnancy.

(1) Source: Harrison, Donna, M.D., Cretella, Michelle, M.D., Schirger, John, M.D., Stevens, David, M.D., Orient, Jane, M.D. It is never necessary to intentionally kill a fetal human being to save a woman’s life: In support of the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. The Public Discourse, February 17th, 2019

Babies born alive following abortion is not a new phenomenon in Canada. It has occurred since the 1969 abortion law was passed with an amendment made to the Criminal Code of Canada which allowed abortion under certain conditions. A 1975 brief by Alliance for Life presented to Parliament highlighted this often ignored outcome of abortion:

“For the past few years, there have been several hundred hysterotomies performed annually in Canadian hospitals. A hysterotomy, which is similar to a caesarean section, results in the delivery of a live child. The child is then left deliberately to die, a process that takes anywhere from a few minutes to several hours. Nurses are forbidden to make any attempts to save the lives of these children.”

A Vancouver Sun article from May 1974 reveals that an abortion was done on a woman because she was more than 40 years old and “distraught” at being pregnant at that age. The baby born alive weighed 2 ½ pounds, approximately the size of a six or seven months old fetus. The baby lived for 24 hours.
In another case, an alderman for Surrey, British Columbia said she was informed of a baby aborted at five months gestation at the Burnaby General Hospital. “That baby lived four hours after the abortion,” she said.”

From the same Vancouver Sun report, we also learn that in 1970 “a baby of 24 weeks (six months) was aborted, put in a pan and left to expire there.”
In a 1976 brief, the Victoria Pro-Life Society recounted a horrific situation first reported in a news article from the Daily Colonist, Victoria B.C. dated April 5, 1972: “Dr. C.C. Merry, a pathologist at the Winnipeg General Hospital, found a baby boy whimpering in a garbage bag by the hospital incinerator waiting to be burned. He said those who take part in abortion become “blasé” to such occurrences and would not try to save the life of such a baby because the point of the abortion has been to destroy the life.”

Unborn baby at 20 weeks