Listen to Buddhadasa talk about abortion
by Asst. Prof. Dr. Sanya Bhatarachai, Department of Obstetrics–Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Ramathibodi Hospital
The issue of abortion, or what is currently called pregnancy termination, is an important issue that remains an ethical dilemma as to whether it is permissible (Ethical dilemma) There are many theories about abortion, ranging from not allowing abortion at all under any circumstances to the other extreme of allowing abortion in all cases, with many other schools of thought in between. However, it can be roughly divided into two major groups: the group that supports women’s choice or Pro-choice and the group that supports the right to life of the embryo or Pro-life
The Pro-life group is a group that opposes abortion because they believe that the life of an embryo or fetus is as valuable as another person, or what is called having personhood (personhood) Therefore, it has the right to life (right to life) and no one can violate it. The organization that most strongly and clearly supports the Pro-life concept is the Roman Catholic Church, which believes that life is created according to God’s plan and is sacred (sanctity of life) and cannot be violated by humans.
In 1968, Pope Paul VI issued a papal encyclical (papal encyclical) called Humanae Vitae(1) which is a very important letter that clearly states the philosophical stance of absolutely prohibiting abortion and also prohibiting all methods of contraception except for periodic abstinence (periodic abstinence) Since Roman Catholicism has the most followers in the world, the Vatican’s stance on this issue has a wide impact globally, especially among couples who want to use contraception or terminate a pregnancy. Other religions also generally support the life of the fetus, with some minor differences. In Buddhism, killing is considered a sin, violating the first precept of the five precepts. The Pro-life concept is therefore very strong in Latin American countries that follow Roman Catholicism and in Arab and Asian countries that follow Islam and Buddhism.
The Pro-choice group believes that women have the right to their own bodies, which is a basic human right (basic human right) Therefore, women have the right to decide whether to continue or terminate a pregnancy. Forcing a woman to continue a pregnancy against her will is considered a violation of human rights. This concept developed alongside the idea that human health is related to rights, freedom, and justice in society. Coercion (coercion) discrimination (double standard, prejudice) and denying access to medical services are considered violations of human rights and have serious ethical implications. The concept of human rights exists in almost every religion, to varying degrees depending on interpretation, but became more concrete after the French Revolution and the United States Declaration of Independence, leading to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Universal Declaration of Human Rights) by the United Nations in 1948 (2)
The Pro-choice group believes that the embryo or fetus in the womb is unlikely to have personhood because it does not yet meet all the conditions of personhood, such as being unable to live independently outside the mother’s womb. Therefore, abortion is not considered murder. The embryo or fetus in the womb does not have any rights to claim or override the rights of the pregnant woman. However, even if the embryo or fetus is considered a complete person, it still does not have rights equal to those of the woman who owns the body.
Judith Jarwis Thomson an American philosopher, proposed an interesting idea to support that the fetus does not have the right to remain in the womb if the pregnant woman does not consent Thomson proposed a hypothetical analogy: A world-renowned violinist is in a coma due to a severe blood disease, and the only way to save him is to find someone with a perfectly matching blood type to connect their circulatory system for 9 months, after which the violinist will recover. The music lovers’ association found from medical records that you are the only person with a matching blood type.
So one night, while you are sleeping soundly, the music lovers’ association breaks into your house, sedates you, and connects your circulatory system to the violinist’s. When you wake up and discover the truth, the music lovers’ association asks you to stay connected to the violinist for 9 months, after which you will be free, and the violinist will survive to continue creating music.
Thomson asks whether you would be willing to stay connected to the violinist for 9 months to save his life. If you refuse and he dies, would you be considered morally wrong? Does the violinist have the right to use your body?
Thomson states that if you agree to let your body be used for 9 months, you would be praised for your kindness and generosity. However, if you do not consent, it does not mean you are acting unethically, because the violinist never had the right to use your body in the first place(3)
In Thailand, where there is currently a problem with unsafe abortions, most obstetricians avoid facing this issue because they do not want to commit a sin, pushing unprepared pregnant women to seek inappropriate and substandard services, leading to complications or even death. The World Health Organization estimates that 13% of maternal deaths (maternal deaths) are due to unsafe abortions (unsafe abortion ) (4) In obstetric practice, it is extremely difficult to avoid the problem of unplanned or unwanted pregnancies.
Especially in today’s society, where Thailand is experiencing a high number of teenage pregnancies, many young girls lose their future or even their lives due to unsafe abortions. When obstetricians agree to perform abortions for these girls, it at least helps preserve their future or save their lives, but it is considered a sin. This issue has always been a conflict in the minds of obstetricians. The author spoke with a fellow doctor (Dr. Somchai Harnchaipiboonkul, an internist at Chachoengsao Hospital ) who had the opportunity to discuss this issue with a world-renowned Buddhist scholar, Phra Dhammakosajarn, or Buddhadasa Bhikkhu, and found it interesting enough to share, so I present the letter here.
Is abortion a sin? The issue of whether abortion is a sin has been a long-standing ethical dilemma in medicine. When the author was working to repay a scholarship at a district hospital in the south, around 1980, Buddhadasa was still alive. The author once visited Suan Mokkh to discuss the issue of abortion, thinking it was interesting enough to be recorded as evidence and shared
The hospital where the author worked had a practice of performing abortions, with the director performing them. There was a fee, treated as a medical procedure, with all the money going to the hospital. The performing doctor received no personal benefit. The author was curious and asked the director for the reason. The director replied that those who came for abortions were people with problems and suffering, some were students who would face educational issues if pregnant, some would have to leave school and lose their future. If we did not perform the abortion, they would go to a quack doctor, get infected, and eventually come to us for help anyway. Some we could save in time, others we could not, and they died. So why not help them from the start, as it would be safer if we did it ourselves. Hearing this, the author agreed, as a patient had just died from septicemia due to an infected abortion.
After performing abortions for a while, the author felt uneasy and went to Suan Mokkh to ask Buddhadasa. As soon as the author asked if abortion was a sin, Buddhadasa asked if it was considered hired killing. The author replied no, as no compensation was received, all the money went to the hospital. The author explained that the reason for performing abortions was to help those in suffering, as if we did not, they would go to a quack doctor and risk death. If we performed the abortion from the start, it would be safer.
Buddhadasa replied that if that was the case, it was merit, considered a good deed because it helped relieve suffering. Hearing this, the author felt relieved and happy that their actions were not sinful but meritorious. Buddhadasa continued, saying that many people had asked similar questions, such as whether executioners who execute criminals are sinful, or whether police and soldiers who kill enemies invading our country are sinful. Buddhadasa said these actions are not considered sinful because they are done as a duty, without personal anger or resentment. The author then asked if the morality of an action depends on the intention, to which Buddhadasa replied yes.
These sensitive issues, if the author had not asked and heard the answers directly from Buddhadasa, would not have been believed. How could abortion be considered a good deed? But the author assures that what is recounted here is true, and it is shared at the request of a fellow obstetrician. The author does not intend to persuade doctors who disagree with abortion to perform them, nor to encourage doctors to become hired killers of children, nor to promote free sex among youth. The author simply sees the issue of abortion as an interesting ethical topic, especially if it is an opinion from Buddhadasa, and believes it should be recorded as evidence and may help doctors who perform abortions to help those in suffering without suffering themselves.
References
1. The encyclical letter Humanae Vitae from Vatican website. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html
2. United Nations Human Rights. http://www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Pages/Introduction.aspx
3. Thomson, J. “A Defense of Abortion”. Philosophy and Public Affairs 1:1 (Autumn 1971): 47-66.
4. World Health Organization. Unsafe abortion: global and regional estimates of the incidence of unsafe abortion and associated mortality in 2003. Geneva. http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2007/9789241596121_eng.pdf