Informed Consent Rules Should Apply To Abortions

From the Concerned For Life blog:

Surely, we should have "informed consent" for every medical procedure in Canadian hospitals and clinics; however this 'given' is waived in the case of abortion. And no one seems to object to that.

Here, in Halifax, where abortions are performed in the Victoria General Hospital in a ward that has no name on the door, women and girls (many young girls) undergo blood tests, ultrasounds, and then suction aspiration abortions without true informed consent. Not only are they not made fully aware of the procedure and possible consequences, they are not even told who does the abortion or who assists in it. Doctors and nurses do not wear name tags, so I am told by a woman who had an abortion at the VG five years ago.

After World War II, many countries agreed to have a Nuremburg agreement, in which they stated that no medical procedure should be used on human beings without having been tested previously on animals. Guess which procedure has never been tested on animals? Suction aspiration abortion - the method used to perform abortions on fetuses from 6-14 weeks gestation. This procedure accounts for 95% of all abortions. Once again, medical wisdom is waived in the case of abortion.

More >>>

We've already seen the outcry from the abortion providers in Quebec, when the provincial government decided to apply uniform health standards (including the requirement to have separate sterile operating rooms) to their clinics. Obviously, any attempt to extend informed consent rules (those that already apply to all other clinics) to abortion facilities will be met with even fiercer resistance. But why should abortion providers be exempt from uniform health standards?

Abortion is a procedure that kills a living baby. Our opponents don't believe that life of a baby that dies in abortion has any value. They claim that it's just an ordinary medical procedure and that it's up to the woman to "choose" whether or not she wants to have it. But if abortion is a "choice", as our opponents claim, then shouldn't that be an informed choice? Doesn't a woman have the right to know what consequences such "choice" may bring?