Project Administrator, Author at Protection of Conscience Project Library

(Correspondence) Termination of Pregnancy Bill

J Martyn Thomas

British Medical Journal, BMJ — British Medical Journal

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

(Correspondence) Termination of pregnancy bill

A.M. Rankin

Extract

The B.M.A. Council was not unanimous in approving the joint B.M.A./ R.C.O.G. report on Mr. Steel’s Bill. I for one spoke against and voted against acceptance on precisely the two grounds which Dr. P. A. T. Wood (4 February, p. 299) finds objectionable. . .

Rankin AM. Termination of pregnancy bill (Letters). Br Med J. 1967 February 18; 1(5537): 426.

(Correspondence) Termination of Pregnancy Bill

WM Capper

Extract
I have during recent years encountered two patients who when asked about anxiety recalled abortions that had been carried out 20 or more years before. There are few people so miserable as the childless menopausal woman who bitterly recalls the abortion of her first child. Unfortunately the human conscience has a long memory.

Capper W. (Correspondence) Termination of Pregnancy Bill. Br Med J. 1967 Feb 18;1(5537):426.

(Correspondence) Professional Freedom Threatened

KE Jolles

Extract
During the whole of that time I have proudly shouldered both the duty and the responsibility of being permitted to carry out any medical or surgical treatment needed by any of my patients, even abortion, albeit this latter only subject to certain reasonable legal safeguards. In fact, I have not carried out a single abortion, or even felt tempted to. Under the proposed Abortion Bill, as I see it, I am summarily to be deprived of this professional right for no fault of mine, and only a limited number of certain doctors are to be designated as having a licence to kill unborn babies. But in an emergency, it seems, my right-and duty-to do the necessary are restored to me. Aren’t we back to ” square one “? What constitutes an emergency ?

Jolles K. (Correspondence) Professional Freedom Threatened. Br Med J. 1967 Feb 18;1(5537):426.

(Correspondence) Termination of Pregnancy Bill

J Letitia D Fairfield

Abstract
How is the doctor to know that the patient (and any relative or friend who backs her up) is not lying about the alleged misfortune which makes or will make the bearing of a child intolerable ? Here the temptation would surely be for the puzzled medical officer or general practitioner to sit back and meekly accept the role of ” sucker.” It seems to me that the proposed clause would operate simply as a clumsy method of ” abortion on demand.”

Fairfield JLD. (Correspondence) Termination of Pregnancy Bill. Br Med J. 1967 January 21;1(5533):173.

(Correspondence) Termination of Pregnancy Bill

JT Scott

Extract
It would be a sad reflection upon our medical generation if it went down in history at our recent preoccupation with salaries and terms of service allowed the passage of a Bill which opened the door to abortion on non-medical indications. How many realize that clause I” (1) c says that abortion may be performed legally if the ” woman’s capacity as a mother will be severely overstrained ” ? In medical terms this means precisely nothing, but the pressures upon doctors to perform or authorize abortions under this clause will be hard to resist, and the way to ” abortion on demand ” will be wide open.

Scott J. (Correspondence) Termination of Pregnancy Bill. Br Med J. 1966 Dec 31;2(5530):1654.

Abortion law reform: memorandum prepared by a sub-committee of the Medical Women’s Federation

R.E. Bowden, A.M. Pantin

Extract

. . .A Bill seeking to reform the law governing abortion is now in the committee stage. The apparently increasing requests for abortion, the legal anomalies, and the practice of abortion by unskilled persons dictate the presentation of this interim report, despite the present dearth of factual information. . .Matters on which the Committee is Agreed . . . (8) No doctor or patient should be required to act against conscience in this matter of termination of pregnancy. . .

Bowden RE, Pantin AM. Abortion law reform: memorandum prepared by a sub-committee of the Medical Women’s Federation. Br Med J. 1966 December 17; 2(5528): 1512–1514

(Correspondence) Termination of pregnancy bill

J.T. Scott

Extract

The B.M.J. of 17 December shed a welcome ray of hope over what has otherwise seemed a dismal Christmas scene. I refer to the contributions from the Medical Women’s Federation (p. 1512) and Mr. D. Pells Cocks (p. 1531) on abortion law reform. The excellent memorandum of the Medical Women’s Federation puts the problem in proper and humane perspective and provides an ideal rallying point for medical opinion. . .

Scott JT. (Correspondence) Termination of pregnancy bill. Br Med J. 1966 December 31; 2(5530): 1654

(Correspondence) Therapeutic Abortion

Liam H Wright

Extract
Dr. D. G. Withers (16 April, p. 978) questions the right of a gynaecologist to ” refuse to do the work he is employed to do on the grounds of moral prejudice.” I would question Dr. Withers’s knowledge of the current medical status of termination of pregnancy. I would question, too, his use of the words ” moral prejudice.” As it is axiomatic that in medical discussions on this subject a Catholic is held incapable of an objective and unbiased view, my personal opinions will carry no weight with Dr. Withers. He should know, however, that there is no indication for termination of pregnancy about which there is universal agreement among gynaecologists (or other doctors). For each and every suggested indication there is a substantial body of competent informed non-Catholic medical opinion which opposes termination. These doctors, too, may be accused of (or praised for) moral prejudice.

Wright LH. (Correspondence) Therapeutic Abortion. Br Med J. 1966 Jul 23;5507):240.

(Correspondence) Therapeutic abortion

Liam H. Wright

Extract

Dr. D. G. Withers (16 April, p. 978) questions the right of a gynaecologist to ” refuse to do the work he is employed to do on the grounds of moral prejudice.” I would question Dr. Withers’s knowledge of the current medical status of termination of pregnancy. I would question, too, his use of the words ” moral prejudice.” . .

Wright LH. (Correspondence) Therapeutic abortion. Br Med J. 1966 July 23; 2(5507): 240