Search the Project Site

 
 Examining the Issues
Circumstances Indicating Potential for Conflict
-Abortion-
 

Map

Not only medicine, but also our whole society was strongly influenced by communist ideology. Denying any and all Christian values was in our branch especially remarkable in dampening and denying respect to the conceived and unborn child. The embryo was a thing, which could be manipulated as wanted. The pregnancy interrupting -abortion -was considered to be a routine; it helped to get rid of an unpleasant and bothering burden. And to stress that it was not interrupting of pregnancy, ending a life, it was even called the "menses control" in the 80s.

All the young, starting from basic schools, were educated in such an attitude and girls and women were being convinced that it was only them who had the right to decide what would happen to the conceived child and if they did not want to be pregnant that there was a public facility, which would take care of everything and a doctor, thinking socialistically, who would solve the situation.

The entire process of pregnancy interrupting was under the state control. There were so called abortion committees established under the District People's Committee, which, upon the woman's request, decided about being or not being of the conceived child. The committees also decided when and who would be allowed to undergo an abortion. Although such committees should have represented a certain restriction, the abortion was not a problem at all due to high corruption. The attitude of the socialistic state with regards to this problem was also apparent in the committee structure.

The committees were formed by members of parliament who did not have any medical, psychological or social education and they also were not professionally familiar with the problem. I myself remember a structure of the committee in Karlovy Vary, where at that time a shop-assistant from the vegetable shop was a chairman, a sift department worker of a big company was a member together with another state administration clerk -but all of them with excellent political background. It is true that a doctor-gynaecologist was invited to the committee proceedings, but he/she should only confirm that a request for abortion made due to health problems met the particular Ministry decree. He/she could not influence the decision of the committee.
The committees were dissolved in 1986 when the act on "artificial interrupting of pregnancy" was upgraded. The paradox is that the act was much more liberal and according to the act, it was just a woman who decided when, where and how many times she would undergo the abortion. Actually, the only limit is that the woman can ask for abortion twice a year at the most but there exist a lot of exceptions, which make it possible to undergo abortions e.g. each month.

The abortions could have been done only in hospitals, the doctor-gynaecologist was forced to and had to perform them, if he/she had refused, they had to leave the field in which they worked and had to go to another one or to an ambulatory department where their duties were to fill in applications for abortion. The lack of respect to even an unborn child led to such situations that children, who were born in advance or were immature and seriously ill, were not provided any care (not even basal) in order not to influence prenatal and postnatal mortality (and by that the socialistic health service as seen by the surrounding world). Children who died in such a way were proclaimed to be born as dead even in front of the parent and were dying somewhere in the hospital nooks. When the political situation was changed after the year 1989, the situation concerning abortion has not changed a lot. Still, the same very liberal socialistic act of 1986 is in force. The amount of abortions has decreased maybe because of bigger possibilities of birth control and change in thinking of a number of women (concerning middle aged women). But abortion is still something normal for young women and girls! (In our department more than 1000 artificial interruptions a year were normally done there in the 80s, while at present the number is 250 a year.)
But the attitude towards unborn children has changed remarkably. At present, in any or all obstetric departments the relevant care has to be provided to a new-born of any weight categories. I think that it is also influenced by the fear of legal proceedings.

The change of the political system brought a great change in the work of doctors- gynaecologists. No doctor is forced to perform abortions or has to be involved (particular investigation, pre-surgical preparation, anaesthesia, etc.), without stating reasons. This is only a brief introduction of a great number of problems. In our consuming society, where there is still a lack of Christian values, a few Czech Catholic gynaecologists can act on an open wide evangelical sphere.