Bias in the CMAJ?
CMAJ 1997;157:1514
A review of the articles relating to ethical issues published by CMAJ over the last year indicates a definite bias against pro-life advocates. For example, the following statements appeared in articles with blatant bias:
- "The term 'maternal' suggests the existence of parental obligation toward the fetus, whereas the woman is yet to become a mother to the fetus she is carrying"1 (italics in original).
- "To encourage physicians to perform abortions . . . consideration should be given to providing financial compensation to cover staffing, supplies and equipment."2
- ". . . the neurologist's decision [to stop IV and intubation] was both humane and correct. . . ."3
There are other examples. It is a general journalistic principle that people are named according to how they name themselves. Groups who endeavour to protect unborn children are and call themselves "pro-life."
The media can create false impressions, which can determine attitudes, which may change behaviour. It appears from reading the CMAJ that there is nothing to be said for the pro-life stance, yet there exist reasonable observations and cogent arguments that lead to conclusions different from those usually expressed in the CMAJ. These are never heard, and because they are not heard, it is assumed that they do not exist.
I would like to see evidence, if not in the past then in the future, that the journal is both in policy and in practice unbiased on major ethical issues.
Philip G. Ney, MD, MA
Victoria, BC
References
- Flagler E, Baylis F, Rodgers S. Bioethics for clinicans: 12. Ethical dilemmas that arise in the care of pregnant women: rethinking "maternalfetal conflicts." CMAJ 1997;156(12):1729-32.
- Power MG. Ensuring access to abortion in an era of cutbacks. CMAJ 1997;156(11):1545-7.
- Waugh D. Medical ethics at the bedside. CMAJ 1996;155(3):313.
 |
Send a letter to the editor responding to this letter
Envoyez une lettre à la rédaction au sujet de cette lettre |
Letters