Ethics Archives - Page 79 of 81 - Protection of Conscience Project Library

(Correspondence) Termination of Pregnancy Bill

JT Scott

British Medical Journal, BMJ — British Medical Journal

Extract
It would be a sad reflection upon our medical generation if it went down in history at our recent preoccupation with salaries and terms of service allowed the passage of a Bill which opened the door to abortion on non-medical indications. How many realize that clause I” (1) c says that abortion may be performed legally if the ” woman’s capacity as a mother will be severely overstrained ” ? In medical terms this means precisely nothing, but the pressures upon doctors to perform or authorize abortions under this clause will be hard to resist, and the way to ” abortion on demand ” will be wide open.

Scott J. (Correspondence) Termination of Pregnancy Bill. Br Med J. 1966 Dec 31;2(5530):1654.

(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.

Therapeutic Abortion: Report by the BMA Special Committee

British Medical Association

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.

(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

KS Jones

Extract
No doubt more intensive social facilities would often be welcome, but to suggest that individual workers need to be forced to ” take up their full responsibilities ” is strongly to be deprecated.

Jones K. (Correspondence) Abortion Law Reform. Br Med J. 1966 Apr 23;1(5494):1050.

(Correspondence) Abortion Law Reform

GW Theobald

Extract
Parliament must clearly decide whether they are mainly concerned with preventing the birth of defective children or with accommodating pregnant women. If they intend to move further than they have done in Scandinavia and give ” abortion rights ” to women they will have to set up special abortion clinics staffed by ” committed” gynaecologists. . . the profession, for its part, must devise simpler and more effective means of birth control and of sterilization, and perhaps be willing to offer the latter to all women who have had two or more children.

Theobald G. (Correspondence) Abortion Law Reform. Br Med J. 1966;1(5493):977-978.

(Correspondence) Abortion Law Reform

DG Withers

Extract
I should like to question the right of a gynaecologist to refuse to do the work he is employed to do on grounds of moral prejudice. What would be the consequence, I wonder, if a surgeon refused to order blood transfusion on the basis of his beliefs as a Jehovah’s Witness ? It is a well-accepted principle of medical ethics that treatment should not depend on race, colour, or creed of patient or doctor. I maintain, therefore, that it is clearly wrong for a person not prepared to perform abortions to follow a profession which requires him to do so.

Withers D. (Correspondence) Abortion Law Reform. Br Med J. 1966 Apr 16;1(5493):978.

(Correspondence) Abortion Law Reform

RW Taylor

Extract
No doubt we could eventually be so conditioned that abortion, or the destruction of any other life too for that matter, gave no concern to our professional consciences. It is at least debatable whether any such alteration, not to say lowering, of our ethical standards would benefit either our patients or ourselves.

Taylor RW. (Correspondence) Abortion Law Reform. Br Med J. 1966;1(5489):738.

Medical Issues in Abortion Law Reform

Lord Brain

Extract
There remain for consideration some general problems to which very little attention has so far been paid. It is necessary to distinguish (1) the law relating to abortion, (2) professional ethics relating to abortion, and (3) individual ethical standards. Hitherto (1) and (2) have coincided, in that an offence against the law relating to abortion has also been treated as an offence against professional ethics. Personal ethical standards, however, may differ from those of the law or of the profession as a whole. If the law is relaxed the General Medical Council will presumably have to consider whether professional ethical standards should be correspondingly relaxed. Individual judgements, however, may well show a much wider range than in the past, when doctors who were not opposed to abortion in principle were usually prepared to accept the standards laid down by the Bourne judgement. . . Doctors will, of course, remain free to exercise their own judgements in these matters, and the same must apply to the nurses and others who have to cooperate with them.

Brain L. Medical Issues in Abortion Law Reform. Br Med J. 1966;1(5489):727-729.

(Correspondence) Abortion Law Reform

James Campbell

Extract
In actual fact we know that many primitive tribes have practised abortion and child destruction for long periods. I suggest that Mr. Mills should examine the cultural origin of his feelings, then perhaps he would come to the conclusion that there are many occasions when termination of pregnancy would prevent many years of suffering, so that neither revulsion nor guilt need be felt.

Campbell J. (Correspondence) Abortion Law Reform. Br Med J. 1966 Mar 05;1(5487):613-614.