Protection of Conscience Project Library
Service, not Servitude
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
Extract
The Abortion Law reformers will not be pleased with the moderate proposals put forward by Dr. E. A. Gerrard and his Special Committee (2 July, p. 40), although the proposals will be greeted with relief by most gynaecologists. The recommendations amount to the giving of power over the life of the foetus to two practitioners, one of whom should be a gynaecologist, both, of course, acting in good faith. . .
McLaren HC, (Correspondence) Therapeutic abortion. Br Med J. 1966 July 23; 2(5507): 240
Extract
The Special Committee of the British Medical Association was appointed by the Council on the instruction of the Representative Body, and first met in November 1965.* Its task was to bring up to date the Association’s earlier report of 1936. At the same time as the Committee began its task the House of Lords gave a second reading to an Abortion Bill promoted by Lord Silkin. The Committee therefore prepared, in January 1966, an interim report in the form of comments upon the clauses of this Bill. Simultaneously it sought information from 22 Commonwealth and foreign medical associations on the state of law and practice obtaining in their countries. The replies received have assisted materially in the preparation of the following definitive report on the legislative aspects of the problem. During the early months of 1966 a number of other important statements have appeared, notably the report of the Council of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, and these too have been considered.
BMA. Therapeutic Abortion: Report by the BMA Special Committee. Br Med J. 1966;2(5504):40-44.
Extract
The Royal Medico-Psychological Association issued last month a memorandum on possible changes in the law relating to therapeutic abortion. Emphasizing that it would be opposed to legislation which might bring pressure on an individual doctor to act contrary to his conscience, the memorandum states that the Royal Medico-Psychological Association has approached the problem of therapeutic abortion with the firm view that, in addition to traditionally accepted medical and psychiatric criteria, all social circumstances should be taken into account. . . .
Summary of memorandum by R.M.P.A. Br Med J. 1966 July 2; 2(5504): 44
Extract
Legislation can be disastrous if it is ill-considered. Attempts to tidy up existing law, as in the case of betting and gambling, have proved in the last few years liable to proliferate what the law sought originally to discourage.
Browne R, Kirk DL. (Correspondence) Abortion Law Reform. Br Med J. 1966;1(5502):1541.
Extract
If we consider the medical indications for therapeutic abortion whereby the patient’s life may be expected to improve as a result of the operation, then its scope is very limited indeed. Rare indications include pregnancy complicated by carcinoma of the cervix; chorea gravidarum; status epilepticus; severe hyperemesis gravidarum; multiple sclerosis; pernicious anaemia ; and polyneuritis. . . Medically and psychiatrically therapeutic abortion is seldom indicated because it is very seldom indeed that it does any medical good.
Clyne DW. (Correspondence) Abortion Law Reform. Br Med J. 1966 Jun 11;1(5501):1482-1483.
Extract
It is surprising that in the discussion on abortion law reform paediatricians have so far taken only a small part. Yet their work will be profoundly influenced by the change in moral attitudes which is behind the pressure to alter these laws. If it becomes generally accepted that any foetus that has, say, a 20% chance of being abnormal is killed, it may become difficult to defend the preserving of life in very premature babies, where the risk of abnormality is similar. . .
Liebeshutetz HJ. (Correspondence) Abortion law reform. Br Med J. 1966 May 28; 1(5499): 1359
Extract
Without wishing to appear pompous, as a senior obstetrician who has been in charge of an obstetrical service in a large provincial district for 20 years, I think that to bring in legalized abortion would be a terrible mistake. It has been our policy to carry out an abortion where necessary on any case deserving it for therapeutic, social economic, or moral reasons, and to consider the question of sterilization with ,sympathy whenever requested.
Soldenhoff RD. (Correspondence) Abortion Law Reform. Br Med J. 1966 May 07;1(5496):1168.
Extract
. . . It ought to be understood, once and for all, that abortion is an operation like any other operation: the law can neither compel a surgeon to perform it
nor, provided his position is ethical, punish
him for performing it. What needs changing
is not the law but the myth. . .
. .
Hetherington RJ. (Correspondence) Abortion law reform Br Med J. 1966 May 7; 1(5496): 1168–1169
Extract
It would be a pity if changes in the law insisted that abortions should be performed only by gynaecologists, for this might at times saddle gynaecologists with judging issues in realms beyond the normal scope of gynaecology or with the obligation to perform operations at the behest of other experts but against their own conviction.
Hewetson S. (Correspondence) Abortion Law Reform. Br Med J. 1966 May 07;1(5496):1168.