(Editorial) Abortion in Canada

CMAJ

Canadian Medical Association Journal, CMAJ
Canadian Medical Association Journal

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. . .


CMAJ. (Editorial) Abortion in Canada. Can Med Assoc J. 1970 Aug 01;103(3):298-299.

(Op/Ed) CMA anti-abortion

ADK

Canadian Medical Association Journal, CMAJ
Canadian Medical Association Journal

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”.


ADK. CMA anti-abortion. Can Med Assoc J. 1970;102(13):1342.

(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) Pregnancy Termination

Garth Jones

British Medical Journal, BMJ
British Medical Journal

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.


Jones G. (Correspondence) Pregnancy Termination. Br Med J. 1969 Aug 02;3(5665):297.

(Correspondence) Abortion Act in Practice

DC Sturdy, RJD Browne

British Medical Journal, BMJ
British Medical Journal

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.

(Correspondence) Abortion Act in Practice

Richard De Soldenhoff

British Medical Journal, BMJ
British Medical Journal

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.

(Correspondence) Abortion Act in Practice

Myre Sim

British Medical Journal, BMJ
British Medical Journal

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.

(Correspondence) Abortions and Gynaecological Practice

DHK Soltau, WJ Baker

British Medical Journal, BMJ
British Medical Journal

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.

(Editorial) Demand for Abortion

British Medical Journal

British Medical Journal, BMJ
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) GMC and Abortion Act, 1967

Myre Sim

British Medical Journal, BMJ
British Medical Journal

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.