This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

David S. Starr, MD
Georgetown, Tex

JAMA. 1990;264(2):183.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

To the Editor.—

The article "The Right of Privacy Protects the Doctor-Patient Relationship"1 could be seen as an understandable attempt to enlist the support of physicians in the abortion movement by interpreting the traditional doctor-patient privilege in terms of the relatively new "right to privacy." The notable omission from the article was any discussion of one of the involuntary parties to the abortion procedure: the unborn baby.

At best, abortion is a morally unsatisfying and barbaric method of family planning, and its trivialization is to be deplored. Abortion is a morally significant event to most doctors, not the mere "disposition of tissue" like some benign polyp taken from the colon. Abortion for such reasons as the social convenience of the mother or to select a more desirable baby (eg, of a different sex) instinctively repels us. There is some merit in the argument that a society that considers itself morally . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?