Poles excel
at finding divisive issues to argue about. Was imposition of martial law
legitimate? Was the Smolensk crash an assassination or a tragic accident? Was
colonel Kuklinski a hero or a traitor? What does the rainbow on Plac Zbawiciela
symbolise and should it stay there?
The most
recent area of disputes among public figures and ordinary people is the
controversial decision of head of one of Warsaw’s hospitals who declined to
perform an abortion to a woman whose child was bound to be born grossly
disfigured and die soon after birth from severe deformations (it happened last
Wednesday) and who did not refer her to another doctor who would terminate the
pregnancy (as set forth in the doctor profession law). The story has been
succinctly recapped by BBC, yet the short write-up focuses only on facts and
does not broach a wide spectrum of dilemmas involved.
Clearly,
there is a conflict between Catholic Church teachings and official legislation.
For Catholics, life is indefeasible since the moment of conception until
natural death and this precept cannot be compromised in any situation. The
Polish law, passed in 1990s and until recently serving as example of
give-and-take in lawmaking, allows for abortion in clearly specified
situations, when pregnancy is the aftermath or rape, incest, life of mother is
at serious risk or when child’s defects are abject and incurable. Actually the
short list of exceptions to general prohibition of pregnancy termination covers
situations when lesser of two evils has to be chosen. The law also states a
doctor whose beliefs do not permit them to get involved in some forms of
treatment (e.g. performing an abortion), is allowed to refuse to grant a
patient’s request, but is obliged to refer the patient to another doctor. This
provision also clashes with the Church teachings, according to which a doctor
who abides by the law becomes an accomplice. No wonder strong is the line of
defence of the professor who draws a comparison to a pharmacy assistant who
refuses to sell a poison to a would-be suicider, but refers him to another
pharmacy round the corner. On the other hand, the pregnant woman was bestowed a
free will and the doctor’s role could have been to persuade her not to have an
abortion, but he should have been confined to a firm refusal.
The
ever-lasting problem with assessment of abortion, in-vitro and other similar
issues is whether an embryo is a child or not. Once you take a stand on this
issue, your perception of the problem is easily (not an apposite word) tackled.
If you think an embryo is already a human being, an abortion will be a murder.
If you see an embryo as a bunch of cells unable to function on its own that can
develop into a human being inside a woman’s body, your approach will be more
liberal…
The
provision under which doctors can decline to engage in some forms of treatment
is called ‘the conscience clause’. Oddly enough, professor Chazan is most often
accused of lack of conscience in his demeanour. He does not deny his aspiration
was not to commit a sin and to prevent a woman (whose beliefs could have been
different from his and who was legitimate to have an abortion under the statutory
law) from committing the same sin. He also owns up to being in violation of
law. His rules do matter, but in his pursuit of moral superiority he failed to
fulfil each doctor’s obligation of care to the patient’s welfare. Each
situation when pregnancy is the effect or rape or incest, or as in that case,
the child would be born dead or with deformations or other afflictions
resulting in immediate death is difficult. To reiterate, the choice is between
the lesser of two evils. Some women would definitely prefer to give birth to a
child with mangled skull, undeveloped brain, lacking nose and with dangling eye
(press articles describe such obnoxiously the child) and keep it company in its
suffering until natural death. Some women would prefer not to go through the
trauma of prolonged watching their child’s anguish or spare it the suffering.
Technically, the delivery was to be accelerated and the child would die
naturally during it, or shortly thereafter…
The
interesting paradox is that a fundamentalist Catholic’s conscience reaches as
far as refusal to carry out an abortion, is some cases comes up a referral to a
hospice or psychological care centre. There is much bitter truth in accusation
that life-defenders are interested in defending the life between conception and
birth. What happens later or what happens to a matter, not to mention the
intercourse by which a woman got pregnant is beyond the scope of their
interest. The child is to come to this world and who is going to bring it up,
whether it will have proper care, a normal family whether it will have
guaranteed means for subsistence, who it will grow into, etc. The Catholic
doctrine thus fosters values and ideas and gives little care about humans,
their feelings, suffering.
There are
several other, more down-to-earth questions that deserve to be asked when
looking into the scandal…
Why did the
woman who wanted to have an abortion, turn to the hospital in charge of which
professor Chazan was and why, after being turned away, did not she seek help
with any other hospital? This question, though asked frequently, is a kind of
pointless, as each and every public hospital should provide the woman with
medical service she is legally entitled to have and the ‘conscience clause’ can
be invoked by specific doctors, not institutions.
Is the
timing of the breakout of the scandal accidental? Is it a coincidence it was
publicised shortly after several doctors and students of medicine signed so-called
declaration of faith, surrounded by controversies?
Is it the
coincidence the lawyer who represents the woman is Mr Dubieniecki, the
ex-son-in-law of the late president Kaczyński? Is he just grabbing the
opportunity to put in an appearance in the media, to boot in complete
opposition to his ex-wife’s uncle?
Mr Chazan’s
decision to break the law conflicting with his beliefs was an example of civil disobedience. A big pity he is inconsistent in his deeds to refuses be
disobedient all the way to reckon with a punishment. As a man of honour he
would submit his resignation and suffer consequences, including paying a
penalty imposed on the hospital he ran from his own pocket.
Reaction of
the church and Catholic journalists speaks volumes about their attitude towards
humankind. Professor Chazan has been made a martyr, is depicted as a victim,
while suffering and feelings of the mother of the defected child are far in the
background. The doctor who has saved the life is a persecuted while the
moralists do not give a damn about the prolonged ordeal of the woman and her
unborn child. While reading internet forums, one can see commentators almost
unanimously take side of the woman. Again we see a growing dissonance between
official statistics saying 90% of population of Poland are Roman Catholics and
beliefs of majority of commentators (not necessarily on leftist / liberal
forums) who think Mr Chazan is a cruel, unsympathetic bastard.
The
disparity between Church’s official teachings and folks’ personal beliefs is
unsurprising. The Church has not moved with the times and some points in its
doctrine are inhuman. I doubt the Church will ever change its stance on
abortion, but I believe in 100 years in-vitro will be accepted by the Church,
just in the same way as other medical discoveries have been embraced by the
Church, with considerable delay. Cross my heart, I recognise the problem the
Church has with in-vitro insemination, but do not understand the evil of
in-vitro. If people want to give their love to children, but for some medical
reasons cannot have them, why should the medicine be prohibited from helping
them?
Formally,
Poland is a secular country. In practice, fundamentalist Catholics are growing
in power. There is nothing wrong about high percentage of deeply religious
people. The reason for concern is that they attempt to impose their beliefs on
other people, with little respect to their autonomy. Unjustified withdrawal
from the performance of ‘Golgota Picnic’ in Poznań in the wake of protests is
one of the examples. The play was staged in theatres or other closed buildings
and no one was compelled to buy tickets and see the performance, but defenders
of morality wanted to prevent visitors from entering theatres… Another illustration
is a ludicrous objection of a priest from Warsaw against putting up figurines
of bull and bear (associated with symbols of demand and supply on stock market)
outside the edifice of the Warsaw Stock Exchange who interprets bull and bear
as pagan symbols. The more hilarious, although absolutely serious, hence
absurdly scary, instance is a protest against Sunday yoga classes in Poznań…
The
constitution of Poland guarantees its citizens freedom of religion, beliefs and
autonomy of individuals. I hold those values dear and I do respect views of
dissenters. I do understand someone might think yoga is a demonic set of
exercises enslaving people and pushing them straight on the road into Satan’s
arms. But they should understand other individuals might have a different
opinion and the constitution guarantees them the right to attend the classes
they want… And oddly enough, the louder the lunatics bleat they are persecuted,
the more they meddle into not their businesses… How come?
