Protection of Conscience Project Library
Service, not Servitude
Extract
It is true that the Nazis were opposed to abortion for “wanted Aryans” (they, like Miss Simms, were interested in eugenics), but any society, including our own, is judged by how it treats its “unwanted” people. Careful thought might determine whose beliefs are closest to the Nazis’ we all affect to despise.
White MS. (Correspondence) Attitudes to Abortion. Br Med J. 1974 Jun 29;2(5921).
Extract
I would like to draw to the attention of the readers of the Journal a new organization called the “Friends of Hippocrates”. It is an association of physicians and nurses pledged to defend the traditions enshrined in the Hippocratic Oath and to maintain the utmost respect for human life from the time of conception as set out in the 1948 Declaration of Geneva of the World Medical Association. . . . With most of the press, radio and television covertly or overtly supporting abortion, it is depressing to see the same slant becoming predominant in medical journals . . . I do not think it is possible to change this trend unless concerned physicians and nurses join together and express themselves firmly in large numbers. The Friends of Hippocrates could provide a voice for physicians and nurses who are opposed to abortion.
Bannister J. (Correspondence) Friends of Hippocrates. Can Med Assoc J. 1974;110(12):1337.
Abstract not available
Dickens BM. The ‘conscience clause’ and the law on abortion. Nurs Times. 1974;70(25):968-969
Extract
In the reorganized Health Service it should be easier than hitherto for adequate teams to provide a comnprehensive service in obstetrics and gynaecology if there is the necessary financial support. High ethical standards, conscience, and differing religious beliefs, when associated with freedom, of thought and expression within the fellowship of a team, can prove enriching for the doctors and therefore beneficial to the patients.
Stallworthy J. (Correspondence) Attitudes to Abortion. Br Med J. 1974 Jun 01;2(5917):501.
Extract
Conscience must be seen to have its positive face. The “conscience clause” cannot be regarded as merely a negative one allowing only the right of abstention from helping the distressed. It also entitles those who are humanly concerned enough to wish to do so the right to ensure, within the law, proper medical help for those who would otherwise pass into the hands of the backstreet abortionists, with all the awful consequences of this that Professor McLaren and I, and all our generation, know very well.
Chisholm N. (Correspondence) Attitudes to Abortion. Br Med J. 1974 May 25;2(5916):441.
Extract
It is suggested by Professor H. C. McLaren (12 May, p. 329) that one termination of pregnancy every three months is all that a consultant “practising modern obstetrics, offering compassion and advice” should be doing. This statement is, with respect, that of someone living in another world.
Binning R. (Correspondence) Attitudes to Abortion. Br Med J. 1974;2(5916):441.
Extract
The right to conscientious objection is embodied in the Abortion Act, and the Lane Committee has not suggested that this section should be amended. It is difficult to understand why you advocate that a consultant gynaecologist, alone among surgical specialists, should be compelled to perform a particular operation other than on the basis of his own judgement. The right to conscientious objection to the performance of therapeutic abortion continues to be the law of the land. . . But it must remain the duty of the medical profession to protest that therapeutic abortion involves the destruction of human life.
Banwell G. (Correspondence) Attitudes to Abortion. Br Med J. 1974;2(5915):383. Available from:
Extract
You suggest that while a conscience clause was “manifestly essential” seven years ago, now “the situation has changed.”In what way? The extermination chambers of the Third Reich were no less of an affront to civilization at the end than they were at the beginning of their existence; the few who continued to speak against them were every bit as right ultimately as initially. Lest it be said that this is quite remote from the British abortion situation, I record that I have been faced with a healthy and affluent young woman demanding abortion”because the father is a Jew.” That the abortion was carried out, though not by me, may give some of your readers pause for thought.
Scott J. (Correspondence) Attitudes to Abortion. Br Med J. 1974 May 11;2(5914):329-330.
Extract
Abortion for a wide range of indications is, however, now an established part of conventional medical practice in Britain and the committee seemed a little impatient with those who would not recognize that fact. A conscience clause was manifestly essential when the Act came in, since many gynaecologists had sincere moral or ethical objections to abortion on some of the grounds introduced by the new Act. Seven years later the situation has changed. As the committee points out,the number and attitude of gynaecologists are important in determining the level of service which can be provided, so that “it is inevitable that the health authorities should prefer for appointment to certain posts those who see abortion as properly part of clinical gynaecological practice.” What this implies is that a young doctor may find some difficulty in taking up a career in gynaecology in the N.H.S. if he is fundamentally opposed on ethical grounds to abortion in the terms of the Act.
BMJ. (Editorial) Attitudes to Abortion. Br Med J. 1974;2(5910):69-70.
Extract
The fact remains that, however technically safe and socially acceptable induced abortion becomes, it is a destructive procedure with some onerous implications. . . We even tolerate the ridiculous and completely unsupportable notion that a fetus is parasitic until 20 weeks and somehow human after that time. It is my hope that we shall reconsider our age-old pledge to preserve life and relieve pain and not sell out to the madness of social expediency.
Curran E. (Correspondence) Abortion and the pregnant teenager. Can Med Assoc J. 1974 Feb 02;110(3):261.