Project Administrator, Author at Protection of Conscience Project Library

Constitutional Law: Private Hospital May Refuse to Perform Abortion

Betty Berger

Extract
Conclusion
It is evident that the abortion question in relation to private hospitals is being fought on two grounds. One ground is state action. The other is freedom of religion and moral conviction. Decisions are beginning to indicate that public hospitals may have to perform abortions if they have the facilities. On the other hand, decisions such as Bellin, indicate that courts may not find sufficient state action when a private hospital is involved even if that hospital has received public funds. Even if they do, Bellin indicates that the right of conscience may protect the private hospital which is also sectarian and opposed to abortion on religious and moral grounds.’ Furthermore, the United States Congress has established a policy that receipt of funds from Hill-Burton or any other programs covered by the Health Services Extension Act of 1973 should not force a hospital to provide personnel and facilities for abortions. In addition, the first amendment protects the rights of individuals and groups to refuse to do what their religion prohibits. Abortions are generally a convenience and not a matter of life and death if not performed in the private hospital. In the balance of convenience versus first amendment freedoms, courts are unlikely to let convenience prevail. Private hospitals have sold neither their rights nor their private status..

Berger B. Constitutional Law: Private Hospital May Refuse to Perform Abortion. Saint Louis U Law J. 1974;18(3): 440-460.

(Correspondence) Inquiry into British law on abortion

PE Shea

Extract
Alan Massam’s article “Abortion Act gains outweigh drawbacks – British inquiry” (Can Med Assoc J 110: 1301, 1974) is a disturbing example of slanted journalism, aimed at further poisoning the minds of the bulk of doctors who sit on the fence in the abortion issue. . . .Mr. Massam, and apparently the inquiry, attempt to subtly convince us that abortion is a socially, morally, legally acceptable fact of life and we need only concern ourselves with its details. . . . Surely all our human rights are secondary to the right to life. This is the basic principle that the inquiry and Mr. Massam choose to ignore.

Shea P. (Correspondence) Inquiry into British law on abortion. Can Med Assoc J. 1974 Sep 7;111(5):388.

(Correspondence) Le medecin et l’avortement

Lidia Maria Adamkiewicz

Canadian Medical Association Journal, CMAJ — Canadian Medical Association Journal

Extract
(Translation) I feel deeply upset after reading in The Gazette of June 28 that “C.M.A. Head Pledges Fight for Abortion “and especially since the leadership belongs to a woman I respect. I would like to point out that 3000 doctors from Quebec and 15,000 physicians from France have signed a declaration against abortion. This statement says that medicine remains at the service of life from the fertilization of a living being until his death. Protecting life is the role of the doctor.

Adamkiewicz LM. (Correspondence) Le medecin et l’avortement. Can Med Assoc J. 1974;111(4):307.

(Correspondence) Attitudes to Abortion

Margaret S White

British Medical Journal, BMJ — British Medical Journal

Extract
It is true that the Nazis were opposed to abortion for “wanted Aryans” (they, like Miss Simms, were interested in eugenics), but any society, including our own, is judged by how it treats its “unwanted” people. Careful thought might determine whose beliefs are closest to the Nazis’ we all affect to despise.

White MS. (Correspondence) Attitudes to Abortion. Br Med J. 1974 Jun 29;2(5921).

(Correspondence) Friends of Hippocrates

JR Bannister

Extract
I would like to draw to the attention of the readers of the Journal a new organization called the “Friends of Hippocrates”. It is an association of physicians and nurses pledged to defend the traditions enshrined in the Hippocratic Oath and to maintain the utmost respect for human life from the time of conception as set out in the 1948 Declaration of Geneva of the World Medical Association. . . . With most of the press, radio and television covertly or overtly supporting abortion, it is depressing to see the same slant becoming predominant in medical journals . . . I do not think it is possible to change this trend unless concerned physicians and nurses join together and express themselves firmly in large numbers. The Friends of Hippocrates could provide a voice for physicians and nurses who are opposed to abortion.

Bannister J. (Correspondence) Friends of Hippocrates. Can Med Assoc J. 1974;110(12):1337.

The ‘conscience clause’ and the law on abortion

Bernard M Dickens

Abstract not available

Dickens BM. The ‘conscience clause’ and the law on abortion. Nurs Times. 1974;70(25):968-969

(Correspondence) Attitudes to Abortion

John Stallworthy

Extract
In the reorganized Health Service it should be easier than hitherto for adequate teams to provide a comnprehensive service in obstetrics and gynaecology if there is the necessary financial support. High ethical standards, conscience, and differing religious beliefs, when associated with freedom, of thought and expression within the fellowship of a team, can prove enriching for the doctors and therefore beneficial to the patients.

Stallworthy J. (Correspondence) Attitudes to Abortion. Br Med J. 1974 Jun 01;2(5917):501.

(Correspondence) Attitudes to Abortion

NA Chisholm

Extract
Conscience must be seen to have its positive face. The “conscience clause” cannot be regarded as merely a negative one allowing only the right of abstention from helping the distressed. It also entitles those who are humanly concerned enough to wish to do so the right to ensure, within the law, proper medical help for those who would otherwise pass into the hands of the backstreet abortionists, with all the awful consequences of this that Professor McLaren and I, and all our generation, know very well.

Chisholm N. (Correspondence) Attitudes to Abortion. Br Med J. 1974 May 25;2(5916):441.

(Correspondence) Attitudes to Abortion

Rex Binning

Extract
It is suggested by Professor H. C. McLaren (12 May, p. 329) that one termination of pregnancy every three months is all that a consultant “practising modern obstetrics, offering compassion and advice” should be doing. This statement is, with respect, that of someone living in another world.

Binning R. (Correspondence) Attitudes to Abortion. Br Med J. 1974;2(5916):441.

(Correspondence) Attitudes to Abortion

GS Banwell

Extract
The right to conscientious objection is embodied in the Abortion Act, and the Lane Committee has not suggested that this section should be amended. It is difficult to understand why you advocate that a consultant gynaecologist, alone among surgical specialists, should be compelled to perform a particular operation other than on the basis of his own judgement. The right to conscientious objection to the performance of therapeutic abortion continues to be the law of the land. . . But it must remain the duty of the medical profession to protest that therapeutic abortion involves the destruction of human life.

Banwell G. (Correspondence) Attitudes to Abortion. Br Med J. 1974;2(5915):383. Available from: