ASPIRE – Sunday, October 18th, 2026 at 4:45 PM
Dear Editor:
In the four years that our team has conducted surveys on abortion and abortion law in Dominica, and in the two years of our constitutional challenge to the abortion law, there has not been a single statement from any professional health association. Nor has there been so much as a whisper from the Bar Association. So much for civil society.
Yet, among health professionals, 77% agree that “abortion is a medical issue, and healthcare associations should take an active role in the dialogue.”
An even higher percentage, 84%, agree that their “associations should explore the link between our criminal law and unsafe abortion.”
And a still higher figure, 86%, believe that their “associations have a duty to promote fairness within the health system.”
How do we explain this enormous chasm between individual views, privately expressed in anonymous surveys, and the abject public silence of their professional organisations?
We think the answer is abundantly obvious: it derives from the strong social taboo about sex and especially abortion, and the tension between evangelism and professionalism.
Despite several appeals to each association – medical, nurses’, pharmaceutical, and social workers – only the Nurses’ Association has more than once accommodated our request to share our research findings.
These are not requests for advocacy. They are simply requests for an opportunity to hold a mirror to the healthcare community and share their results with them. It’s called science.
It would seem that the religious beliefs of the leadership are in tension with their own professional obligations as well as the interests of their members. And clearly their strong Christian evangelical beliefs suppress their professional duties.
This tension is as dangerous as it is unethical, unlawful and pathetic. It means that the rights of patients to healthcare are subordinate to the religious beliefs of their caregivers. That is dogma, not professionalism; religion, not healthcare.
A health professional’s obligation is to apply the science and ethics of their profession to the care of their patient, not to treat the patient according to their personal religious beliefs.
Of course, there is room for conscientious objection. But when at least 80% of the members agree, it is clear that simple, individual objection is not the issue. Something else is blocking any openness to dialogue. This amounts to active hostility and sabotage by the leadership.
Many years ago, when the USA was a different country, Dr. C. Everett Koop as the Surgeon General, was trapped in exactly this dilemma of faith and professional duty. He was a devout evangelical Presbyterian and staunchly anti-choice. The first President Bush asked him to develop a policy against abortion.
Although his personal religious faith was perfectly aligned with such a policy, he refused to take any action without scientific data. So, he asked for millions of dollars to conduct research to inform such a decision. He knew that in doing so he would lose his job. And he did.
But both his faith and his professionalism were preserved. He did not allow his faith to determine health policy, and he did not yield to a non-scientific order. That is leadership.
What is happening in Dominica is disgraceful: it is a misuse to faith in the suppression of science and service.
Sincerely,
ASPIRE
ASPIRE is a pro-motherhood, pro-family, pro-choice, non-governmental advocacy group registered in Dominica and five other Caribbean countries. It promotes research and dialogue with civil society and governments to advance fairness and justice in reproductive health.
SOURCE: LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Abortion stigma – evangelism v professionalism – Dominica News Online