The proposed law ‘Listen to Her Heart’, driven by far-right lawmakers, advocates requiring women to hear fetal heartbeats before undergoing an abortion. This initiative continues to stir controversy due to its lack of clinical foundation and is viewed as a form of obstetric violence. The Chilean Medical Association (Colmed) has expressed its rejection of this initiative, cautioning that it constitutes a form of revictimization and emphasizing that «consent must be free from coercion».
The proposal mandates that doctors offer women the opportunity to listen to the embryo or fetus heartbeats prior to performing an abortion under the three legal circumstances, and states that practitioners must refuse to conduct the procedure if the patient does not consent to this condition.
The initiative, introduced in mid-June by representatives Crist1bal Urruticoechea (Libertarian National Party), Chiara Barchiesi (Republican Party), Catalina del Real (Republican Party), 1lvaro Jofr7 (Libertarian National Party), Ximena Ossand n (National Renewal), and Claudia Reyes (Republican Party), aims to amend Article 119 of the Sanitary Code. Specifically, it seeks to modify the informed consent procedure that doctors must follow before conducting an abortion, requiring medical practitioners to inform the woman in advance about the heart activity of the embryo or fetus. Doctors are obligated to verbally and directly offer her the option to listen to the heartbeat using electronic instruments, «along with an objective description of it».
According to the text , the presence of heart activity is deemed «an objective clinical data point and verifiable«, which «enhances the quality of informed consent for women seeking an abortion».
«Informed Consent Must Be Free from Coercion and Centered on Personal Autonomy»
Colmed has expressed concern over the ethical and clinical implications of this project aimed at altering the abortion procedure under legal conditions. It noted that a woman already facing deep suffering should not be subjected to a measure that could exacerbate her distress.
«Beyond the legal or political debate, the initiative poses a fundamental ethical clinical question: Is it compatible with patient-centered clinical care for the law to mandate a specific intervention in situations of profound suffering?» the organization posed in a public statement shared on its social media.
The association reminded that contemporary medicine acknowledges that informed consent is a dialogue process between the healthcare team and the patient, aimed at facilitating a decision that is free, autonomous, and based on pertinent information.
«Its purpose is not to persuade, but to ensure that individuals can decide in accordance with their values and circumstances,» it affirmed.
Additionally, it highlighted the importance of «ensuring that every woman receives respectful care and support aligned with her needs» and articulated that informed consent «is not strengthened through the mandatory incorporation of a specific practice, but rather through the quality of the clinical relationship, the trust between patient and healthcare team, and the ability to make decisions without pressure».
In this context, it emphasized that the World Health Organization (WHO), the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO), and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) all agree that «informed consent must be individualized, free from coercion, and centered on personal autonomy».
In its statement, Colmed argued that particularly in cases involving maternal vital risk, fetal lethal incompatibility, or pregnancies resulting from rape, «the state’s ethical response should be to strengthen respect for autonomy, grounded in evidence and the clinical judgment of healthcare teams, without revictimizing women».
For the association, the far-right initiative represents a direct intrusion into the relationship between the doctor and the patient undergoing the procedure.
«Bioethics demands that patient decision-making freedom is protected and the integrity of the medical act is preserved, avoiding the imposition of obligations that do not contribute to better care and could harm or affect the doctor-patient relationship», it concluded.
For Colmed, the essence of informed consent lies in a fluid, pressure-free dialogue, where the information provided must be relevant and not persuasive. The entity has emphasized that the purpose of health communication is not to convince the patient to choose one path over another, but rather to ensure that her decision is autonomous, based on her personal values and in the context of her specific circumstances.
The organization’s deepest criticism focuses on the nature of the proposed intervention. According to the official statement, contemporary medicine, supported by international standards such as those of the World Health Organization (WHO), maintains that consent must be individualized. Legally mandating a specific practice during a time of high vulnerability, such as terminating a pregnancy under conditions of vital risk, fetal incompatibility, or rape, is viewed as an act of revictimization.
Obtén tu Pasaporte y apoya a El Ciudadano
Elimina la publicidad, accede a contenido exclusivo y sé parte de la comunidad.
Cancela en cualquier momento · Sin permanencia
Artículos Relacionados
Children's Ombudsman Highlights Barriers to Abortion Access Under Three Causal Grounds for Minors
Hace 3 meses
