(Correspondence) A question of conscience

John M Hudson

British Medical Journal, BMJ
British Medical Journal

Extract
Dr R Salm’s letter (26 June, p 1593) saddened me because in it he fails to make clear that he understands the grave injury that Mr Walley and many others have suffered. I am sure that he does not think that having to give up for life one’s ambition to practise the specialty of one’s choice in one’s own country is a mere inconvenience. Both to change one’s specialty and to go into exile are poor alternatives. Has he considered that it would be possible to arrange a system for abortions in which all the parties concerned obtained reasonable satisfaction and nobody was hurt in this way ? I am far from convinced that this is impossible.


Hudson JM. (Correspondence) A question of conscience. Br Med J. 1976;2(6029):234. Available from: .

(Correspondence) A question of conscience

Margaret White

British Medical Journal, BMJ
British Medical Journal

Extract
Parliament went out of its way to avoid the situation Mr Walley describes by inserting a conscience clause. At no stage of the debate was there any suggestion that this clause was only to apply to the present holders of jobs, and had there been any such suggestion it is extremely unlikely that the bill would ever have been passed.


White M. (Correspondence) A question of conscience. Br Med J. 1976;2(6027):108-109.

(Correspondence) A question of conscience

W Lindesay Neustatter

British Medical Journal, BMJ
British Medical Journal

Extract
While I respect Mr Walley’s sincerity, like Dr Salm I question his logic. I have in mind in particular his reference to the conscientious objector’s exemption from service in the armed Forces in war. For there the comparison with Mr Walley’s experience breaks down. To be analogous it would mean that the conscientious objector could have the privilege of holding a commission-somewhat similar to a consultancy- but reserving the right not to shoot at the enemy when in action.


Neustatter WL. (Correspondence) A question of conscience. Br Med J. 1976;2(6027):108.

(Correspondence) A question of conscience

David Hooker

British Medical Journal, BMJ
British Medical Journal

Extract
The “will of the people, as expressed through Parliament,” does not make abortion right any more than bashing old ladies on the head would be if made “legal” in this way. Moreover, for those of us who oppose abortion it is more than a matter of conscience. It is a very positive conviction that abortion is wrong.


Hooker D. (Correspondence) A question of conscience. Br Med J. 1976;2(6027):108.

(Correspondence) A question of conscience

Lillian Versteeg

British Medical Journal, BMJ
British Medical Journal

Extract
Mr R Walley’s “Personal Paper” (12 June, p 1456) shocked me profoundly. Those of us who recall the policy of appointing to mental institutions in Nazi Germany only those doctors prepared to take part in “euthanasia” of mentally defectives must recoil from the implications of the policy he encountered.


Versteeg L. (Correspondence) A question of conscience. Br Med J. 1976;2(6026):43.

(Correspondence) A question of conscience

JM Alston

British Medical Journal, BMJ
British Medical Journal

Extract
The account which Mr Walley gave of the pressure put on him to agree to carry out abortion against his conscience is a more fully explained example of this method of appointing consultant gynaecologists than others recorded before. . . Whether a candidate believes that abortions should be on demand or restricted, he should answer the questions put to Mr Walley by saying, “I shall do what I think is right and best for each patient.” . . .Can the Department convince anyone that it will suppress dragooning of the kind that Mr. Walley and others have experienced, or should the Minister be taken to court for making a directive which takes away the benefit to Mr. Walley and others of the conscientious objection clause of the 1967 Abortion Act ?


Alston J. (Correspondence) A question of conscience. Br Med J. 1976;2(6026):43.

(Correspondence) A question of conscience

R Salm

British Medical Journal, BMJ
British Medical Journal

Extract
R Walley’s article (12 June, p 1456) makes sad reading, for he is both illogical and, if I may say so, a little selfish. The will of the people, as expressed through Parliament, now lays down that certain abortion facilities shall be provided in the NHS, and the area health authorities have the duty to see that this regulation is implemented. In all fairness, it is wrong of Mr Walley to object if the authorities prefer to engage staff who are willing to comply with the current service requirements.


Salm R. (Correspondence) A question of conscience. Br Med J. 1976;1(6025):1593b.


A question of conscience

Robert L Walley

British Medical Journal, BMJ
British Medical Journal

Extract
It was indeed a surprise to be informed by an eminent professor, after a hospital interview, that as a Roman Catholic gynaecologist “there is no place for you to practise within the National Health Service.” One had always assumed, quite naively it seems, that the British “system” is based on fair play and, above all, respect for the individual conscience. It soon became quite obvious that in order to stay in the specialty in Britain I would have had to change a conscientiously held abhorrence to the direct taking of human life. I chose to leave country, home, and family in order to practise medicine in full freedom of conscience.


Walley R. A question of conscience. Br. Med. J.. 1976;1(6023):1456-1458.


(Points from Letters) Abortion (Amendment) Bill

JB Clarke

British Medical Journal, BMJ
British Medical Journal

Extract
Medical ethics are the collective conscience of the profession. It is axiomatic of a profession that its ethical standards are decided by its members. A profession sets a standard of conduct for its members and the essence of professional freedom for a doctor is his right to act in professional matters uninfluenced by any consideration other than the judgement of his fellows.


Clarke J. (Points from Letters) Abortion (Amendment) Bill. Br Med J. 1975 Aug 09;3(5979):373.

(Correspondence) Abortion and Promiscuity

RG Wilkins

British Medical Journal, BMJ
British Medical Journal

Extract
To refuse to terminate a pregnancy on a matter of conscience is both legally and ethically acceptable, as is a refusal in the absence of the requisite medical, psychiatric, and social indications. But to refuse a termination because the continuation of the pregnancy is held to be a valid means of managing a behavioural disorder, “promiscuity,” is a more questionable matter. In such circumstances the continuation of the pregnancy becomes a therapeutic procedure for which valid consent must surely be obtained.

Keywords:

Wilkins R. (Correspondence) Abortion and Promiscuity. Br Med J. 1975 Jul 26;3(5977):233.