Project Administrator, Author at Protection of Conscience Project Library

Medical Issues in Abortion Law Reform

Lord Brain

British Medical Journal, BMJ — British Medical Journal

Extract
There remain for consideration some general problems to which very little attention has so far been paid. It is necessary to distinguish (1) the law relating to abortion, (2) professional ethics relating to abortion, and (3) individual ethical standards. Hitherto (1) and (2) have coincided, in that an offence against the law relating to abortion has also been treated as an offence against professional ethics. Personal ethical standards, however, may differ from those of the law or of the profession as a whole. If the law is relaxed the General Medical Council will presumably have to consider whether professional ethical standards should be correspondingly relaxed. Individual judgements, however, may well show a much wider range than in the past, when doctors who were not opposed to abortion in principle were usually prepared to accept the standards laid down by the Bourne judgement. . . Doctors will, of course, remain free to exercise their own judgements in these matters, and the same must apply to the nurses and others who have to cooperate with them.

Brain L. Medical Issues in Abortion Law Reform. Br Med J. 1966;1(5489):727-729.

(Correspondence) Abortion Law Reform

James Campbell

Extract
In actual fact we know that many primitive tribes have practised abortion and child destruction for long periods. I suggest that Mr. Mills should examine the cultural origin of his feelings, then perhaps he would come to the conclusion that there are many occasions when termination of pregnancy would prevent many years of suffering, so that neither revulsion nor guilt need be felt.

Campbell J. (Correspondence) Abortion Law Reform. Br Med J. 1966 Mar 05;1(5487):613-614.

(Correspondence) Abortion Law Reform

Denis Pells Cocks

Extract
Nowadays therapeutic abortion is performed relatively rarely for organic disease, and the indications are largely psychiatric with often associated secondary social factors. Whilst some clarification of the old law may be necessary in order that all can understand the situation, we must beware lest in reframing the law this results in the opening of the floodgates in the demand for termination on more liberal grounds.

Cocks DP. (Correspondence) Abortion Law Reform. Br Med J. 1966 Feb 26;1(5486):539.

(Correspondence) Abortion Law Reform

Peter Diggory

Extract
As you will see this amendment makes a fundamental separation of doctors into two classes, those employed under the N.H.S. in hospitals, and all others. . . it would seem that any fully registered hospital doctor, however junior and in whatever specialty, is able to certify the need for operation, whereas a senior and highly qualified gynaecologist in private practice or possibly just retired from hospital practice would be debarred. . .

Diggory P. (Correspondence) Abortion law reform. Br Med J. 1966 February 26; 1(5486): 539

(Correspondence) Abortion Law Reform

Robert Burns

Extract
It seems reasonable, therefore, to conclude that an increasingly large number of therapeutic abortions will be dealt with privately in the future. I am therefore perturbed that an attempt is being made to limit the activities of medical practitioners who are not in the N.H.S. I refer to the desire of Lord Dilhorne to make it necessary that at least one of the two doctors who will take responsibility for a therapeutic abortion must be in the N.H.S.

Burns R. (Correspondence) Abortion Law Reform. Br Med J. 1966;1(5485):482.

(Correspondence) Abortion law reform

D.B. Paintin

Extract

Mr. Wilfrid G. Mills was right when he stated (5 February, p. 355) that the present law permits the medical profession to perform all necessary abortions. But I think he was wrong when he inferred that there was no need for reform of the law. . .

Paintin DB. (Correspondence) Abortion law reform. Br Med J. 1966 February 19; 1(5485): 482.

(Correspondence) Abortion law reform

Malcolm Potts

Extract

. . . Dr. Sim suggests the B.M.A. should press for delay in legislation on this important subject, and a leading article (29 January, p. 248) makes the same point. I do not think it is right to plead for postponement in a matter which so deeply affects the health of a very large number of women. Abortion is not a new condition like some previously unknown virus or unreported drug reaction. . . .

Potts M. (Correspondence) Abortion law reform. Br Med J. 1966 February 12; 1(5484): 422, 423

(Correspondence) Abortion law reform

Peter Darby

Extract

In view of the report which you printed (Supplement, 22 January, p. 19) of the Special Committee on Therapeutic Abortion, the following points may be of interest: (1) The Abortion Law Reform Association strongly opposes any special procedure of notification of medical termination of pregnancy . . .

Darby P. (Correspondence) Abortion law reform . Br Med J. 1966 February 12; 1(5484): 423

(Correspondence) Abortion law reform

Wilfrid Mills

Extract

The controversy regarding reform of the laws relating to deliberate termination of pregnancy has not yet been resolved within the medical profession, nor does there appear to have been any statement from a body of practising gynaecologists on their personal attitude to this matter. It was in order to test such an opinion that my colleague Mr. G. S. Lester and I circulated the memorandum which appears below to the practising gynaecologists among the Fellows and Members of the Birmingham and Midland Gynaecological and Obstetrical Society asking for their comments. . .

Mills W. (Correspondence) Abortion law reform. Br Med J. 1966 February 5; 1(5483): 355

“Jencks and Administrative Proceedings: Conscientious Objectors and Government Employees,”

Indiana Law Journal

Extract

In this country persons who by reason of religious training and belief conscientiously object to participation in any war are exempted from military service. This immunization, however, is not derived from the constitutional “freedom of religion” right but “arises solely through congressional grace, in pursuance of a traditional American policy of deference to conscientious objection. ‘ To understand the problems that arise in this area, it is necessary to be familiar with the procedure by which a person may take advantage of this immunization. . .

“Jencks and Administrative Proceedings: Conscientious Objectors and Government Employees,” Indiana Law Journal: Vol. 34: Iss. 3, Article 4.