Protection of Conscience Project Library
Service, not Servitude
Extract
I have during recent years encountered two patients who when asked about anxiety recalled abortions that had been carried out 20 or more years before. There are few people so miserable as the childless menopausal woman who bitterly recalls the abortion of her first child. Unfortunately the human conscience has a long memory.
Capper W. (Correspondence) Termination of Pregnancy Bill. Br Med J. 1967 Feb 18;1(5537):426.
Extract
During the whole of that time I have proudly shouldered both the duty and the responsibility of being permitted to carry out any medical or surgical treatment needed by any of my patients, even abortion, albeit this latter only subject to certain reasonable legal safeguards. In fact, I have not carried out a single abortion, or even felt tempted to. Under the proposed Abortion Bill, as I see it, I am summarily to be deprived of this professional right for no fault of mine, and only a limited number of certain doctors are to be designated as having a licence to kill unborn babies. But in an emergency, it seems, my right-and duty-to do the necessary are restored to me. Aren’t we back to ” square one “? What constitutes an emergency ?
Jolles K. (Correspondence) Professional Freedom Threatened. Br Med J. 1967 Feb 18;1(5537):426.
Abstract
How is the doctor to know that the patient (and any relative or friend who backs her up) is not lying about the alleged misfortune which makes or will make the bearing of a child intolerable ? Here the temptation would surely be for the puzzled medical officer or general practitioner to sit back and meekly accept the role of ” sucker.” It seems to me that the proposed clause would operate simply as a clumsy method of ” abortion on demand.”
Fairfield JLD. (Correspondence) Termination of Pregnancy Bill. Br Med J. 1967 January 21;1(5533):173.
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.
Extract
The B.M.J. of 17 December shed a welcome ray of hope over what has otherwise seemed a dismal Christmas scene. I refer to the contributions from the Medical Women’s Federation (p. 1512) and Mr. D. Pells Cocks (p. 1531) on abortion law reform. The excellent memorandum of the Medical Women’s Federation puts the problem in proper and humane perspective and provides an ideal rallying point for medical opinion. . .
Scott JT. (Correspondence) Termination of pregnancy bill. Br Med J. 1966 December 31; 2(5530): 1654
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.
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.” . .
Wright LH. (Correspondence) Therapeutic abortion. Br Med J. 1966 July 23; 2(5507): 240
Extract
The Abortion Law reformers will not be pleased with the moderate proposals put forward by Dr. E. A. Gerrard and his Special Committee (2 July, p. 40), although the proposals will be greeted with relief by most gynaecologists. The recommendations amount to the giving of power over the life of the foetus to two practitioners, one of whom should be a gynaecologist, both, of course, acting in good faith. . .
McLaren HC, (Correspondence) Therapeutic abortion. Br Med J. 1966 July 23; 2(5507): 240
Extract
Legislation can be disastrous if it is ill-considered. Attempts to tidy up existing law, as in the case of betting and gambling, have proved in the last few years liable to proliferate what the law sought originally to discourage.
Browne R, Kirk DL. (Correspondence) Abortion Law Reform. Br Med J. 1966;1(5502):1541.
Extract
If we consider the medical indications for therapeutic abortion whereby the patient’s life may be expected to improve as a result of the operation, then its scope is very limited indeed. Rare indications include pregnancy complicated by carcinoma of the cervix; chorea gravidarum; status epilepticus; severe hyperemesis gravidarum; multiple sclerosis; pernicious anaemia ; and polyneuritis. . . Medically and psychiatrically therapeutic abortion is seldom indicated because it is very seldom indeed that it does any medical good.
Clyne DW. (Correspondence) Abortion Law Reform. Br Med J. 1966 Jun 11;1(5501):1482-1483.