Protection of Conscience Project Library
Service, not Servitude
Extract
[Re: comparison of legal dictation of ethical norms to “superior orders” defense at Nuremberg] “It was a plea of ” superior orders ” in justification of a profession changing an ethical rule which we said would be the ” sinister echo ” not the superior orders themselves (in this case the provisions of the Abortion Act).”
BMJ. (Editorial) Ethics and Abortion (Response). Br Med J. 1968;2(5598):173.
Extract
What the Act does is to make clear beyond doubt that termination of pregnancy is legal and that the decision to terminate or not should be left, as far as possible, to the clinical judgement of the doctors concerned, and that in reaching their decision doctors may take into account the effect of the patient’s total environment on her health.
Baird D. (Correspondence) Ethics and Abortion. Br Med J. 1968;2(5598):173.
Extract
So the B.M.A., representing most doctors in Britain, had clearly stated its views on the ethics of abortion. Parliament then made it legal for a doctor to terminate pregnancy on wider indications than the B.M.A. thought ethically permissible. Should the Association’s opinions on ethics be altered to bring them into line with the law? Posed with that question last week the Council decided that they should not (Supplement, p. 3), and the Representative Body is to be asked in June to ratify this decision . . . The principle at issue is fundamental if doctors are to preserve their right to call themselves professional men. A profession sets a standard of conduct for its members, and the essence of professional freedom for a doctor is his right to act in professional matters uninfluenced by any considerations other than the judgement of his fellows. Medical ethics are the collective conscience of the profession, and a plea of ” superior orders ” would be a sinister echo of some- thing that ended 20 years ago at Nuremberg.
BMJ. (Editorial) Ethics and Abortion. Br Med J. 1968;2(5596):3.
Abstract
Dr. Woolley, referring to the Committee’s recommendation on the ethics of termination of pregnancy, said that Lord Cohen had accepted that the General Medical Council’s rulings had to agree with the law of the land, but he (Dr. Woolley) pointed out that any society was permitted to have its own code and standards, and the B.M.A. was one of those soceties. . . Dr. E. A. GERRARD, Chairman of the B.M.A.’s Committee on Therapeutic Abortion, said that if, as it would seem, the General Medical Council was not the guardian of the ethos of medicine in the matter of abortion, the Ethical Committee’s recommendation, backed by the Council, was the correct one. In other words, the British Medical Association must become the guardian of the ethos of medicine.
BMA. BMA Council: Central Ethics Committee (Proceedings). Br Med J. 1968;2(5596 (Supplement)):3.
Extract
Bearing in mind the expense of caring for the disturbed unmarried mother and the unwanted child, abortion clinics might well prove to be more economical for the country generally.
Bird RG. (Correspondence) Requests for Abortion. Br Med J. 1968;1(5587):311.
Extract
That the W.H.O. includes such a phrase [“well-being”] in their definition of mental health does not give it legal validity. Neither does it give it medical sanction, for W.H.O. definitions are notoriously unstable and liable to change, as is evidenced by those on alcoholism and drug addiction. There is no agreement on a definition of ” mental health ” in spite of national associations, institutes, and research funds devoted to its cause.
Sim M. (Correspondence) Abortion and Conscience. Br Med J. 1967 Dec 16;4(5580):684.
Extract
Dr. Myre Sim (4 November, p. 297) exhorts those of us without religious objections to abortion to heed our medical consciences. He is so convinced of the rightness of his views that he brands any doctor who acts differently as lacking in conscience. I do not agree with this assumption. Many highly conscientious doctors favour abortion on social grounds. . . . For most of us it takes courage to recommend or to perform an abortion. It is an operation from which we shrink with a natural abhorrence. How much easier it is to do nothing, especially if inaction can be condoned by invoking ” medical conscience.”
Sanderson A. (Correspondence) Abortion and Conscience. Br Med J. 1967 Dec 09;4(5579):621.
Extract
Dr. Sim quite rightly feels that the doctor who advises a termination of pregnancy should have a clear conscience that the dangers threatening the pregnant woman are real. Should he not feel that the doctor who, advises against termination of pregnancy also has a clear conscience that no dangers threaten the patient ?
Darby P. (Correspondence) Abortion and Conscience. Br Med J. 1967 December 02;4(5578):549.
Extract
One point seems clear, and that is the new law will permit a doctor to refuse to recommend or perform an abortion on grounds of conscience. This clause was intended to protect those doctors (and nurses) with strong religious objections to abortion. There are, however, conscientious objections other than religious. There is a medical conscience which dictates that one should not interrupt the process of human life unless there is good evidence that such a measure is entirely justified in order to avert a dangerous situation. . . That the law makes it permissive for doctors who have not got this medical conscience does not remove from the doctor who possesses one the right to act according to it. It would be intolerable for a doctor to be pressurized into what he considers to be bad medical practice in order to conform with a new law.
Sim M. (Correspondence) Abortion and Conscience. Br Med J. 1967 Nov 4;4(5574):297.
Extract
As a reader of the British Medical Journal for more than a quarter of a century I feel compelled to write and say how much I deplore the recent trend in your leading articles of allowing other considerations than the welfare of the patient to influence your reasoning and conclusions. . .
Leyton GB. Abortion Bill. Br Med J. 1967 May 20; 2(5550): 511