Protection of Conscience Project Library
Service, not Servitude
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
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
Under the title of Medical Termination of Pregnancy, this Bill would expose to legal action a surgeon who refused to abort on sound clinical grounds, and therefore in good faith, yet his defence would be stronger if he claimed he refused to abort on grounds of conscience.
Sim M. (Correspondence) Abortion Bill. Br Med J. 1967 May 20;2(5550):511.
Extract
It has gradually dawned upon the politicians that a doctor might have objections, and at a very late stage a ” conscience clause” has been included, but only against strong opposition. . . . The clause allows for objection on moral or religious grounds, but how does the doctor stand if he objects on clinical grounds ? As a psychiatrist, patients are referred to me for termination of pregnancy, usually the sole grounds for referral being that the patient is depressed as a result of having an unwanted pregnancy. Many psychiatrists consider that there are no, or virtually no, psychiatric grounds for termination of pregnancy, but how will the psychiatrist stand when the new Bill becomes law ? If he does not consider that there are adequate clinical grounds for termination of pregnancy, is he liable to be sued for negligence? The situation must have no parallel in the whole of the history of medicine, and clarification of the doctor’s position is, in my opinion, urgently needed.
Stanley W. (Correspondence) Abortion Bill. Br Med Journal. 1967 Apr 22;2(5546):247.
Extract
Of course, one must accord anybody the right to act according to his or her conscience, but where a conscientious objection precludes normal medical practice, it is surely right to ask whether it is proper to inflict one’s views on one’s patients. While fully aware that it might provoke serious objections on many grounds, I would suggest that each regional hospital board has a duty to ensure that situations such as these, where the entire consultant establishment in a specialty refuses for conscientious reasons to follow accepted practice, to the possible detriment of patients, do not in future arise.
Thomas JM. (Correspondence) Termination of Pregnancy Bill. Br Med J. 1967;1(5538):502. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1840881/pdf/brmedj02124-0088a.pdf