Protection of Conscience Project Library
Service, not Servitude
Extract
No doubt we could eventually be so conditioned that abortion, or the destruction of any other life too for that matter, gave no concern to our professional consciences. It is at least debatable whether any such alteration, not to say lowering, of our ethical standards would benefit either our patients or ourselves.
Taylor RW. (Correspondence) Abortion Law Reform. Br Med J. 1966;1(5489):738.
Extract
In actual fact we know that many primitive tribes have practised abortion and child destruction for long periods. I suggest that Mr. Mills should examine the cultural origin of his feelings, then perhaps he would come to the conclusion that there are many occasions when termination of pregnancy would prevent many years of suffering, so that neither revulsion nor guilt need be felt.
Campbell J. (Correspondence) Abortion Law Reform. Br Med J. 1966 Mar 05;1(5487):613-614.
Extract
Nowadays therapeutic abortion is performed relatively rarely for organic disease, and the indications are largely psychiatric with often associated secondary social factors. Whilst some clarification of the old law may be necessary in order that all can understand the situation, we must beware lest in reframing the law this results in the opening of the floodgates in the demand for termination on more liberal grounds.
Cocks DP. (Correspondence) Abortion Law Reform. Br Med J. 1966 Feb 26;1(5486):539.
Extract
As you will see this amendment makes a fundamental separation of doctors into two classes, those employed under the N.H.S. in hospitals, and all others. . . it would seem that any fully registered hospital doctor, however junior and in whatever specialty, is able to certify the need for operation, whereas a senior and highly qualified gynaecologist in private practice or possibly just retired from hospital practice would be debarred. . .
Diggory P. (Correspondence) Abortion law reform. Br Med J. 1966 February 26; 1(5486): 539
Extract
It seems reasonable, therefore, to conclude that an increasingly large number of therapeutic abortions will be dealt with privately in the future. I am therefore perturbed that an attempt is being made to limit the activities of medical practitioners who are not in the N.H.S. I refer to the desire of Lord Dilhorne to make it necessary that at least one of the two doctors who will take responsibility for a therapeutic abortion must be in the N.H.S.
Burns R. (Correspondence) Abortion Law Reform. Br Med J. 1966;1(5485):482.
Extract
Mr. Wilfrid G. Mills was right when he stated (5 February, p. 355) that the present law permits the medical profession to perform all necessary abortions. But I think he was wrong when he inferred that there was no need for reform of the law. . .
Paintin DB. (Correspondence) Abortion law reform. Br Med J. 1966 February 19; 1(5485): 482.
Extract
. . . Dr. Sim suggests the B.M.A. should press for delay in legislation on this important subject, and a leading article (29 January, p. 248) makes the same point. I do not think it is right to plead for postponement in a matter which so deeply affects the health of a very large number of women. Abortion is not a new condition like some previously unknown virus or unreported drug reaction. . . .
Potts M. (Correspondence) Abortion law reform. Br Med J. 1966 February 12; 1(5484): 422, 423
Extract
In view of the report which you printed (Supplement, 22 January, p. 19) of the Special Committee on Therapeutic Abortion, the following points may be of interest: (1) The Abortion Law Reform Association strongly opposes any special procedure of notification of medical termination of pregnancy . . .
Darby P. (Correspondence) Abortion law reform . Br Med J. 1966 February 12; 1(5484): 423
Extract
The controversy regarding reform of the laws relating to deliberate termination of pregnancy has not yet been resolved within the medical profession, nor does there appear to have been any statement from a body of practising gynaecologists on their personal attitude to this matter. It was in order to test such an opinion that my colleague Mr. G. S. Lester and I circulated the memorandum which appears below to the practising gynaecologists among the Fellows and Members of the Birmingham and Midland Gynaecological and Obstetrical Society asking for their comments. . .
Mills W. (Correspondence) Abortion law reform. Br Med J. 1966 February 5; 1(5483): 355
Extract
The question of retaining, mending, or ending the above clause will shortly have to be settled. There are many medical men in favour of, and seriously advocating, the last alternative. They argue (i) that a “conscience clause” is altogether wrong in principle; that it is an anomaly without precedent, and opposed to the spirit of all other compulsory legislation; and that if vaccination is to be compulsory, it should be compulsory for all. (2) That the ” conscience clause ” is greatly abused, and that its administration is becoming a farce. (3) That it has not succeeded, in the sense of securing more vaccination. . .
Millard CK. The “conscience clause” of the Vaccination Act, 1898. Br Med J. 1903 January 3; 1(2192): 49.