Obstetrics & Gynecology Archives - Page 4 of 5 - Protection of Conscience Project Library

The Abortion Act

T.L.T. Lewis

British Medical Journal, BMJ — British Medical Journal

Extract

The part played by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists in the framing of the Abortion Act is familiar. The College aimed to make it legal to terminate a pregnancy only on medical grounds . . . Moreover, we wished to preserve the right of a doctor to refuse to participate in the treatment of any case to which he had an objection on grounds of conscience: hence the famous “conscience clause.” . . . we did not expect a very great change in practice . . . How wrong we were….

Lewis TLT. The Abortion Act. Br Med J. 1969 January 25; 1(5638): 241–242

(Correspondence) Abortion Bill

Myre Sim

Extract
Under the title of Medical Termination of Pregnancy, this Bill would expose to legal action a surgeon who refused to abort on sound clinical grounds, and therefore in good faith, yet his defence would be stronger if he claimed he refused to abort on grounds of conscience.

Sim M. (Correspondence) Abortion Bill. Br Med J. 1967 May 20;2(5550):511.

(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) Abortion Law Reform

DG Wilson Clyne

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.

(Correspondence) Abortion Law Reform

Richard De Soldenhoff

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.

(Correspondence) Abortion Law Reform

SF Hewetson

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.

(Correspondence) Abortion law reform

Philip Rhodes

Extract

I am sorry that Dr. K. S. Jones (23 April, p. 1050) found some of my words potentially offensive. They were not intended to be so, and I agree with him that relations between gynaecologists and psychiatrists should be good, so that patients who need them both shall not suffer. . .

Rhodes P. (Correspondence) Abortion law reform Br Med J. 1966 May 7; 1(5496): 1168–1169

(Correspondence) Abortion law reform

A.F. Lushby

Extract

Following the recent correspondence in the B.M.7., I would like to comment on some of the proposed changes in the law with regard to abortion. I feel that too little respect is being shown to the gynaecologist, who will be the person to perform the operation. The concept of ” medical certificates ” is distasteful. . .

Lushby AF. (Correspondence) Abortion law reform. Br Med J. 1966 April 23; 1(5494): 1050

(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

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