GESTIÓN EN SALUD PÚBLICA: BioEdge: Argentinian doctor given jail sentence for refusing to do an abortion

domingo, 22 de marzo de 2020

BioEdge: Argentinian doctor given jail sentence for refusing to do an abortion

BioEdge: Argentinian doctor given jail sentence for refusing to do an abortion

Bioedge

Argentinian doctor given jail sentence for refusing to do an abortion

by Michael Cook | 21 Mar 2020 | 1 comment

^{Dr Leandro Rodriguez Lastra}

An Argentine court has upheld the criminal conviction of a gynaecologist who refused to abort the child of a rape victim in 2017. Dr Leandro Rodriguez Lastra was sentenced to a 14-month suspended jail term, plus 28 months of disqualification from holding public office. Dr Rodriguez Lastro will appeal.

The victim was a 19-year-old in her fifth month of pregnancy, the result of sexual abuse by a relative. At first she used an abortion drug provided by an NGO. That failed and she was referred to the hospital where Rodríguez Lastra was head of gynecology.

The doctor said that abortion posed a risk to both the unborn child and the mother. However, the judges said that the only thing necessary for a legal termination of pregnancy was a formal request from the rape victim.

The child was later given up for adoption.

In a divided vote, judges Miguel Angel Cardella and María Rita Custet Llambí considered that in this case "the gender perspective should be applied," and therefore held that the accused is guilty of the crime of "failure to comply with the duties of a public official”.

"A woman who is pregnant as a result of rape has the right to access the medical practice of legal abortion in public health facilities and the defendant obstructed that process," the judges declared. "The accused did not respect the personal autonomy of the woman in the exercise of his medical profession as an employee of the province's public hospital.”

In a rather florid elaboration of her views, Justice Custet declared:

"… from a structural, contextual and intersectional approach, it does not escape me that the victim finds herself traversed by multiple vulnerabilities that accompany her gender condition, such as her youth, and her quality as a victim of various forms of violence since childhood. Added to this is added her condition as a pregnant woman resulting from sexual assault, with great difficulty in communicating her opinions and expressions in the debate, plus the violence to which she was subjected in the health system that was supposed to assist her.

“Faced with the intersection of so many vulnerabilities, the accused ignored the autonomy of the young woman, giving priority to the reproductive function that she symbolized as a woman, over her dignity, over her right to health and to be informed, accompanied, contained and respected in the process of interrupting the pregnancy, an interruption to which she had a right over any other right or interest".

" … ignoring a woman's voice, ignoring her vital needs, subjugating reproductive rights, devastating the psyche and enslaving the body in order to force pregnancy after a rape, means denying the victim's status as a subject of rights and is the incarnation of gender violence in its most painful form".

The lawyer for Rodríguez Lastra commented that the verdict "is a mere ideological expression that shows that they did not look at anything in the trial, in fact they practically do not cite the witnesses or anything that happened there. It's as if they didn't see it. … if the Superior Court or the Court applies the law, as it should, we will be able to overturn this ruling.”

Michael Cook is editor of BioEdge

One of the guidelines of the UK’s Nuffield Council on Bioethics about the coronavirus pandemic (see below) is that “Liberty-infringing measures to control disease, such as quarantine and isolation, can be justified if the risk of harm to others can be significantly reduced.”

I agree, but I am still surprised at how few questions have been raised about the draconian restrictions on civil liberties prompted by the crisis. These are sure to lead to recession, soaring unemployment, bankruptcies, and social dislocation. They are the harshest that I have ever experienced in my lifetime – and, with few exceptions, there’s been nary a peep of opposition. In fact, my impression is that op-ed pages segued smoothly from anger at government overreach to anger at government underreach in a month.

How long can lockdowns be sustained? As the Wall Street Journal points out, “no society can safeguard public health for long at the cost of its overall economic health.” I don't think that it is utilitarian to observe that deferring or suppressing discussion of the costs, financial and social, of our response to the coronavirus could backfire. Human dignity is paramount; acting ethically is essential. But good ethics is based on a knowledge of all the facts -- and not just the facts about hand-washing.