Ford J H
Calif Med. 1972 Nov;117(5):80-4.
The incidence of psychologic sequelae associated with abortion cannot be established scientifically, and so continues to be disputed. Since there are no truly scientific criteria on which to make a prediction as to the psychologic outcome, it seems only proper that elective abortion be labeled "experimental," rather than "therapeutic."This uncertainty as to therapeutic benefit is compounded by the fact that adequate studies and information about physical sequelae are also lacking. Furthermore, preliminary statistics from the Population Council indicate that the morbidity rate of abortion performed even under proper medical auspices is unacceptably high. Viewed in this light and in relation to our own ethical code, the current practice of performing innumerable, mechanized, elective abortions can only be considered unethical. If it is argued that abortion can be ethically validated merely by surrounding it with the same controls used in other experimental procedures, then the medical profession should insist on such controls forthwith.
与堕胎相关的心理后遗症发生率无法通过科学方法确定,因此仍存在争议。由于没有真正科学的标准来预测心理结果,将选择性堕胎标记为“实验性”而非“治疗性”似乎才是恰当的。关于治疗益处的这种不确定性因缺乏有关身体后遗症的充分研究和信息而更加复杂。此外,人口理事会的初步统计数据表明,即使在适当的医疗条件下进行堕胎,发病率也高得令人无法接受。从这个角度并结合我们自己的道德准则来看,目前进行无数次机械化选择性堕胎的做法只能被视为不道德。如果有人认为,只要像其他实验程序那样进行控制,堕胎在伦理上就是合理的,那么医学界应该立即坚持进行这样的控制。