Protection of Conscience Project Library
Service, not Servitude
Extract
It follows that any practitioner, whose treatment of pregnancy is interfered with by a colleague without his knowledge or against his advice, has a perfect right to make a complaint to the Central Ethical Committee of the B.M.A..
Sturdy D, Browne R. (Correspondence) Abortion Act in Practice. Br Med J. 1969;2(5654):447.
Extract
I think we must all be a little tired of the diatribes from some members of the medical profession in the press and on television against the Abortion Act. There are quite a number who find it is satisfactory. . . We see these patients at clinics, and we take them into National Health Service hospitals, either maternity units or gynaecological units, and whenever possible do the operation personally… I am a little amazed at the howls of protest that it is interfering with the ordinary work of units and outpatient clinics. . . .I have not, as yet, found that it is making my waiting-list longer or interfering with the intake of patients into the maternity units.
Soldenhoff RD. (Correspondence) Abortion Act in Practice. Br Med J. 1969 Apr 05;51.
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.
Extract
The Abortion Act is the law of the land and has already proved of immense benefit to many of my patients. It is there to be used and to be applied uniformly throughout the country. It is the antagonism to abortion reform of many doctors, particularly N.H.S. consultants in certain parts of the country, that creates long queues for abortion. . . If all doctors, general practitioners and consultants, put their patient’s welfare before their own religious and biased cobwebbed ideas on abortion, then the new Act would present no problems at all..
Hughes JH. (Correspondence) Abortion Act in Practice. Br Med J. 1969 Mar 8;1(5664):637-638.
Extract
Already we are finding that the impact of the Abortion Act is making great demands on hospital beds and operating time, and we agree wholeheartedly with Mr. Lewis’s statement to the effect that the whole character of the gynaecologist’s outpatient work has altered because of the numerous requests for termination at almost every session.
Soltau D, Baker W. (Correspondence) Abortions and Gynaecological Practice. Br Med J. 1969 Feb 22;1(5642):506-507.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.