Ethics Archives - Page 77 of 81 - Protection of Conscience Project Library

(Correspondence) Abortion Act Amendment

Norman Chisholm

British Medical Journal, BMJ — British Medical Journal

Extract
While claiming that there is no suggestion that any general practitioner be excluded from assessing that an abortion is necessary or desirable, what is being sought by the opponents of the Act in its present form is that one of the two doctors should be a consultant gynaecologist holding office in the N.H.S. . . By restricting the operation of ‘the Act to a minority of the profession, many of whom are opposed to it on religious and other grounds, will cripple it.

Chisholm N. (Correspondence) Abortion Act Amendment. Br Med J. 1969 Sep 27;3(5673):783. Available from:

(Correspondence) Abortion Act in Practice

Myre Sim

Extract
The Act does not give Dr. Hughes the right to castigate those psychiatrists who, acting “in good faith,” are seriously in doubt as to whether an abortion is justified, and for good reasons know that support and treatment would be at least as effective as abortion in dealing with the problem be it-social or medical. They have ample clinical evidence- to support the ” good faith ” of their decisions . . .. It would be of great interest to see- what factual evidence could be produced to support the many decisions to abort under the present Act.

Sim M. (Correspondence) Abortion Act in Practice. Br Med J. 1969 Apr 5;2(5648):50-51.

Responsibility and Conscience

Lynne Belaief

Extract
In philosophical ethics, if one asks the question, is ethics possible, it is inconveniently, and, I will argue, erroneously assumed that he has also raised the notorious problem, what is the definition of “the good”? Various confusions attend the latter inquiry, including the remarkably ambiguous insistence that “the good” cannot be defined – implying that one in fact knew a great deal about its meaning in order to know this. I here intend to reject this typical but inconvenient quest principally because all such initial inquiries into the definition of “the good” are potentially important only within a particular ethical perspective, which is already therefore presupposed as true. The logic and ethical value of that perspective, here named legalistic or authoritarian ethics, is to be contrasted with the perspective called creative ethics, and discarded.

Belaief L. Responsibility and Conscience. Philos Today. 1969;13(1):60-79.

(Editorial) Demand for Abortion

British Medical Journal

Extract
. . .at the present rate and with no further increase in demand the annual number of abortions in England and Wales would be at least 35,000. He compared this demand with an estimate from the Ministry of Health and Registrar General’s Office of 1,600 therapeutic abortions in 1958 and 2,800 in 1962. The public have thus endorsed the Act and are asking doctors to implement it in a liberal way. . . . It is apparent that the Abortion Act has brought many people what they wanted-namely, a more liberal attitude towards the termination of pregnancy. . . The number of unwanted pregnancies indicated by the latest figures underlines the need for all doctors working in the National Health Service to provide adequate and accurate advice on contraception.

BMJ. (Editorial) Demand for Abortion. Br Med J. 1969;1(5638):199-200.

(Correspondence) Requests for Abortion

PG Seed

Extract
[suggests] the establishment of abortion clinics staffed by personnel adept at processing all cases referred. Doctors who claim conscientious objection could be assigned compensatory work in the present infertility clinics.

Seed P. (Correspondence) Requests for Abortion. Br Med J. 1968 Aug 24; 3(5616):499.

(Correspondence) Requests for Abortion

HB Bagshaw, TT Lee, J McAuley

Extract
patients requesting abortions are taking up considerable outpatient time, sidestepping our long waiting-lists, and occupying valuable hospital beds-all these at the expense of the genuine gynaecological patients. . . At a recent count, one in five of the patients in our wards are cases for termination of pregnancy. Their increasing numbers have been an embarrassment to many medical and nursing staff who have conscientious objections, especially those working in the operating- theatre.

Bagshaw H, Lee T, McAuley J. (Correspondence) Requests for Abortion. Br Med J. 1968;3(5616):499.

(Correspondence) GMC and Abortion Act, 1967

Myre Sim

Extract
It is difficult for the ordinary doctor like myself to understand the role of the G.M.C. as regards medical ethics. Its change in attitude over abortion would suggest that the law of the land takes precedence over medical ethics, for the present law permits abortion for non-medical reasons. Does this mean that the G.M.C. will maintain only those medical ethics which do not conflict with the law, and that laws permitting euthanasia and sterilization of the unfit would receive similar sanction ? There is surely a conflict here not only between the G.M.C. and individual doctors but between the G.M.C. and those medical ethics which have international recognition..

Sim M. (Correspondence) GMC and Abortion Act, 1967. Br Med J. 1968 May 4;2(5600):298.

(Correspondence) Ethics and Abortion

JP Crawford

Extract
Surely a decision by Parliament in a democracy cannot be described as sinister ” superior orders” echoing Nuremberg 20 years ago (or rather what ended there and then). The boot could be argued to be on the other foot-namely, that doctors are prepared to dictate to the nation.

Crawford J. (Correspondence) Ethics and Abortion. Br Med J. 1968 Apr 20;2(5598):173.

(Editorial) Ethics and Abortion (Response)

British Medical Journal

Extract
[Re: comparison of legal dictation of ethical norms to “superior orders” defense at Nuremberg] “It was a plea of ” superior orders ” in justification of a profession changing an ethical rule which we said would be the ” sinister echo ” not the superior orders themselves (in this case the provisions of the Abortion Act).”

BMJ. (Editorial) Ethics and Abortion (Response). Br Med J. 1968;2(5598):173.

(Editorial) Ethics and Abortion

British Medical Journal

Extract
So the B.M.A., representing most doctors in Britain, had clearly stated its views on the ethics of abortion. Parliament then made it legal for a doctor to terminate pregnancy on wider indications than the B.M.A. thought ethically permissible. Should the Association’s opinions on ethics be altered to bring them into line with the law? Posed with that question last week the Council decided that they should not (Supplement, p. 3), and the Representative Body is to be asked in June to ratify this decision . . . The principle at issue is fundamental if doctors are to preserve their right to call themselves professional men. 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 considerations other than the judgement of his fellows. Medical ethics are the collective conscience of the profession, and a plea of ” superior orders ” would be a sinister echo of some- thing that ended 20 years ago at Nuremberg.

BMJ. (Editorial) Ethics and Abortion. Br Med J. 1968;2(5596):3.