Protection of Conscience Project Library
Service, not Servitude
Extract
Mr R Walley’s “Personal Paper” (12 June, p 1456) shocked me profoundly. Those of us who recall the policy of appointing to mental institutions in Nazi Germany only those doctors prepared to take part in “euthanasia” of mentally defectives must recoil from the implications of the policy he encountered.
Versteeg L. (Correspondence) A question of conscience. Br Med J. 1976;2(6026):43.
Extract
The account which Mr Walley gave of the pressure put on him to agree to carry out abortion against his conscience is a more fully explained example of this method of appointing consultant gynaecologists than others recorded before. . . Whether a candidate believes that abortions should be on demand or restricted, he should answer the questions put to Mr Walley by saying, “I shall do what I think is right and best for each patient.” . . .Can the Department convince anyone that it will suppress dragooning of the kind that Mr. Walley and others have experienced, or should the Minister be taken to court for making a directive which takes away the benefit to Mr. Walley and others of the conscientious objection clause of the 1967 Abortion Act ?
Alston J. (Correspondence) A question of conscience. Br Med J. 1976;2(6026):43.
Extract
R Walley’s article (12 June, p 1456) makes sad reading, for he is both illogical and, if I may say so, a little selfish. The will of the people, as expressed through Parliament, now lays down that certain abortion facilities shall be provided in the NHS, and the area health authorities have the duty to see that this regulation is implemented. In all fairness, it is wrong of Mr Walley to object if the authorities prefer to engage staff who are willing to comply with the current service requirements.
Salm R. (Correspondence) A question of conscience. Br Med J. 1976;1(6025):1593b.
Extract
It was indeed a surprise to be informed by an eminent professor, after a hospital interview, that as a Roman Catholic gynaecologist “there is no place for you to practise within the National Health Service.” One had always assumed, quite naively it seems, that the British “system” is based on fair play and, above all, respect for the individual conscience. It soon became quite obvious that in order to stay in the specialty in Britain I would have had to change a conscientiously held abhorrence to the direct taking of human life. I chose to leave country, home, and family in order to practise medicine in full freedom of conscience.
Walley R. A question of conscience. Br. Med. J.. 1976;1(6023):1456-1458.
Extract
It is obvious even to the federal government that there is a paucity of information on how the Canadian abortion law is working. . . .From the Statistics Canada figures, only one third of eligible hospitals in Canada have therapeutic abortion committees – on paper. In fact, the figures are even lower. . . .an estimated 78 hospitals out of the 258 were essentially nonoperational as far as abortions were concerned. . . Many hospitals place unofficial quotas on the number of abortions performed . . .Physicians on the staffs of many hospitals have little input into hospital policy regarding abortion. . .a large number of Canadian women are unable to obtain this type of medical care in their own communities and are forced to travel great distances in Canada or go to the United States at their own expense. The law clearly discriminates against women who are poor, the group most often in need of this kind of help.
Watters WW, Cohen M, Rapson L. (Correspondence) The Canadian abortion law. Can Med Assoc J. 1976 Apr 03;114(7):593.
Extract
Why should an unreasonable jury have the unchecked power to make decisions against the law and the evidence? In my view the court’s power to order a new trial may be inadequate to control a perverse jury. Would justice be served by the unchecked power of juries in Eire refusing to convict IRA murderers, or of all-white juries in the southern United States refusing to convict whites of murdering blacks, or of juries in Sicily regularly discharging members of the Mafia? . . . Morgentaler, I believe, has been justly imprisoned.
Carruthers G. (Correspondence) The Morgentaler case. Can Med Assoc J. 1975 Nov 08;113(9):818.
Extract
Dr. Ough correctly points out that “the abortion controversy is essentially a conflict of ethical systems” and acknowledges that one may practise within either a “traditional” or “utilitarian” ethic. . . . A utilitarian ethic, or a social ethic, may lead to legalization of abortion on demand . . . However, I do not believe the medical ethic embraces the concept of abortion (or hysterectomy, or providing narcotics, or commitment to a mental hospital) on demand. We are medical practitioners, not agents or practitioners for a theory of social engineering…
Halliday R. (Correspondence) Therapeutic abortion. Can Med Assoc J. 1975 November 8;113(9):821.
Extract
. . . This year’s abortion debate departed from tradition by ignoring the ethics of the procedure in favour of a call for steps to ensure the safety of Alberta women. The association passed a series of resolutions aimed at urging women to avoid unwanted pregnancies or, if that fails, to seek abortion counselling as soon as possible to reduce the number of more dangerous late abortions. . .
Imlach A. Alberta Medical Association votes to opt out of medicare, bill direct. Can Med Assoc J. 1975 Oct 18;113(8):771-772.
Extract
As a psychiatrist I have examined many patients who were referred for emotional or psychological assessment and, where appropriate, I have recommended that the pregnancy be terminated. . . While I am prepared to agree that in this area there may be dispute, nevertheless it is quite different from the so-called “abortion on demand”, which has no ethical medical basis. . . The solution would be to train and legalize abortionists, who would not be physicians, to perform abortion on demand, a procedure that has nothing to do with the ethical practice of medicine..
Halliday R. (Correspondence) Therapeutic abortion. Can Med Assoc J. 1975 August 23;113(4):276-278.
Extract
I believe that the statement authorized by the Board of Directors after the meeting of General Council regarding our colleague Dr. Henry Morgentaler shows professional bias and unclear thinking tempered with extreme conservatism. . . .The fact that anyone, for whatever charge, can be acquitted twice by a jury and still be in jail is hard to comprehend. The fact that the appeal courts overturned the jury’s verdict and passed sentence without ordering a new trial is a threat to everyone’s liberty.
Coles PN. (Correspondence) The Morgentaler case. Can Med Assoc J. 1975 Aug 09;113(3):181.