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. . .
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.
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. . .
. . . 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. . . .
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 . . .
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. . .
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. . .
. . . The title of my lecture may sound peculiar, but as my story unfolds I trust that the need and importance of public interest in obstetric practice will become apparent. The art of obstetrics is age old, and the risks to mother and child as old as recorded history, but the science of obstetrics and the appreciation of the necessity for active measures to reduce the risks are of relatively recent origin. Many factors contributed to this lack of social conscience, factors which may seem strange to a public accustomed to see all the details of a confinement portrayed in the cinema.
Extract [The following extract from an appreciation of the situation by the senior medical officer after 24 hours’ contact with the camp will serve to illustrate the state of affairs at the beginning.] . . .
. . .It has been found necessary due to the lack of doctors and nurses from home to employ German doctors and nurses. No doubt the additional medical skill thus added have proved beneficial in a general sense, but the patients are naturally terrified of being looked after by Germans even under supervision, remembering how they were tortured in the past. It has been established that patients were often given intravenous infusions of benzol and creosote by the German medical staff, so that now, when the doctors approach with hydrolysate for intravenous infusion, the patients often cry out begging not to be taken to the crematorium. . .
Conclusion This is a brief preliminary report of Belsen Camp to give the medical profession in Britain some idea of the medical problems involved. It is a complete understatement. No words can describe the stench of decaying faeces, rotting bodies, and burning rags, which in the first weeks one could begin to smell miles from the camp, and it can but be left to the imagination of the medical men who read this article to appreciate what the doctors, nurses, and students at Belsen have endured and accomplished. Since the camp was taken over from the Germans more than 20,000 internees have been buried; some 30,000 are left, of whom 11,200 are in the main hospital area. . . .
Extract . . . What to do with the hopelessly unfit? I had thought at a younger time of my life that the legalizing of euthanasia . . . Now my face is set against the legalization of euthanasia for any person, who, having been well, has at last become ill . . . But I am in favor of euthanasia for those hopeless ones who should never have been born-Nature’s mistakes.
. . . should the social organism grow up and forward to the desire to relieve decently from living the utterly unfit, sterilize the less unfit, and educate the still less unfit-then the Law must also grow, along with the amplitude of our new ideas for a wiser and better world, and fit the growing organism easily and well; and thereafter civilization will pass on and on in beauty.
