E Allan, Phyllis Taylor, Kirsten Walker, MS Fisher, John Nixon, GR Spencer
British Medical Journal
Extract It is reported that over 90,000 pregnancies in Britain are now terminated annually and this must place a considerable extra burden on the already overstretched resources of the N.H.S., resulting in even longer delays for those women needing other forms of gynaecological surgery. Some young hospital doctors and nurses who wish to gain experience in the field of obstetrics and gynaecology are discouraged from doing so by the pressures which would inevitably be put upon them to assist at, or perform, abortions.
Extract . . . man’s right to live and work according to the dictates of conscience is an asset precious to him and medicine itself. Because of their religious conviction two senior members of this division of obstetrics and gynaecology do not perform abortions. . . If when they leave . . . they can be replaced by men or women of equal calibre Oxford will be fortunate. The integrity, experience, skill, and potential of applicants for these posts will be more important than their willingness to terminate pregnancy.
Extract One certainty at least about the situation as regards the liberalization of abortion in Canada is that the problem it presents is not going to go away. . . . one cannot but conclude that the dilemma posed by this state of affairs cannot be dismissed by the ingemination of ready-made phrases such as “rights of the fetus” and “reverence for life”, no matter how respectable these may sound. One suspects that sometimes such phrases are used to rationalize inflexible attitudes and spare a probing of deeper motivation. In some instances they may well suffice for individual physicians who wish to dissociate themselves completely from the issue. But they will not satisfy society at large, to whom another set of slogans (“every baby a wanted baby” and “a woman has the right to the control of her own body”) has a stronger appeal. . . Has not the time come, therefore, for society, including the medical profession, to admit the state of affairs that prevails and face up to its obligations? . . . No serious person believes that abortion should be considered as an alternative to the regular practice of birth control. The by-no-means negligible morbidity associated with abortion and the occasional fatality, apart from the demands it makes on hospital and medical staff, make it much too costly when simple means of conception control are readily available. . . the escape from this dilemma is not in saying that birth control should have been used. . . [advocates sex education as described in Brave New World]. . . as long as human beings are sometimes careless and irresponsible, even if they are no longer ignorant, unwanted pregnancy will occur and the question of its termination, if we have the respect for motherhood we profess, will have to be faced.
Extract The appearance of the two letters on abortion in sequence in the Journal . . . illustrated the diverging ethics of the members and future members of our profession. Reading the letter by Dr. Heine was indeed like feeling a breath of fresh unpolluted air in the smog of today’s confused thinking. . . .How different was the letter by the President of the Medical Students’ Society of McGill University stating the unanimous opinion of their Executive Council.
Extract . . . Apart from a difference in maturity, there is no essential difference biologically between the prenatal and the postnatal child. It would appear, however, that those who believe in liberalized abortion ignore completely the most simple biological facts about the prenatal child and assume that life begins at birth and that whatever goes on before this is so mysterious that it can hardly be called life. . . Those who say that a law should be passed making abortion a purely medical question and independent of the law are in fact saying that the prenatal child does not deserve any legal right to life whatsoever. . .
Extract Canadians, including those within the medical profession, range from a truly “liberal” pole, which views abortion within the first 12 weeks of gestation as simply a means of secondary birth control, to a truly “conservative” pole, which views interruption of pregnancy in any circumstances as murder. . . In a just Canadian society in the year 1970 it would seem appropriate that occupants of neither polar position should be allowed to impose their moral attitudes on the rest of the country. . .
Parenthetically one must question why any group requires the assistance of state law to ensure that its members adhere to its ethical, moral or religious code. Certainly proponents of the truly “liberal” position have no intention of trying to force any woman to have an abortion against her will. . .
. . . Doctors should not be obliged to assume the function of gatekeepers to decide which unwanted children should be allowed into this overpopulated world and which ones should not. The moral aspect of this question should reside solely with the patient and not with the physician. His role should be to ensure that the patient really does want the pregnancy terminated and to make sure that the procedure is carried out early and safely. If the doctor’s moral position on this question precludes his providing her with the care required, he is now ethically bound by The Canadian Medical Association’s code of ethics to inform her that this is so, while making it clear that this is his own personal attitude. . .
Summary Page long comment by CMA official who encountered feminist pickets outside the CMA office accusing the association of being anti-abortion, accusing gynecologists of lying about legality of abortion and refusing to distribute contraceptives to the unmarried. Also demanding abortion on demand. “I hope that the demands of the Women’s Liberation Movement will not prevail, if for no more lofty reason than that the plight of doctors, nurses and hospitals would be worse than it is”.
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.
Extract . . . the popular demand for abortion in our present permissive society is hardly going to decrease, and if the B.M.A. and Royal College are successful in their present efforts the entire abortion demand will then be directed solely at the N.H.S. consultants and the N.H.S. hospital beds to the detriment of both. The essential point, surely, is that the Act as it stands is a bad Act and no amount of piecemeal tinkering will make it better.
