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

George J. Annas, JD, MPH; Leonard H. Glantz, JD; Wendy K. Mariner, JD, MPH
Boston (Mass) University School of Medicine

JAMA. 1990;264(2):183-184.

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

In Reply.—

Our article was an effort to explain why the abortion cases and legislation have much wider implications for physicians and patients than is generally recognized. Dr Lytle's letter is an example of how focusing on abortion rather than general legal principles causes one to overlook these implications. In his zeal to condemn abortion, Dr Lytle distorts what we wrote. We did not say that the actions of physicians can never be regulated by law. We said, "Obviously, the state can regulate medical practice.... Legitimate medical regulation generally requires reference to the safety, efficacy, or cost of the procedure at issue." It is these concerns that justify narcotics laws. The prohibition of abortion is related to none of these legitimate concerns, but rather is the imposition of moral beliefs of some on others who do not share those beliefs.

Dr Lytle also implies that we oppose the doctrine of . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

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