Journal Correspondence Archives - Page 23 of 26 - Protection of Conscience Project Library

(Correspondence) Professional Freedom Threatened

KE Jolles

British Medical Journal, BMJ — British Medical Journal

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.

(Correspondence) Termination of Pregnancy Bill

J Letitia D Fairfield

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.

(Correspondence) Termination of Pregnancy Bill

JT Scott

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.

(Correspondence) Therapeutic Abortion

Liam H Wright

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.

(Correspondence) Abortion Law Reform

Robert Browne, David L Kirk

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.

(Correspondence) Abortion Law Reform

DG Wilson Clyne

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.

(Correspondence) Abortion law reform

H.J. Liebeshuetz

Extract

It is surprising that in the discussion on abortion law reform paediatricians have so far taken only a small part. Yet their work will be profoundly influenced by the change in moral attitudes which is behind the pressure to alter these laws. If it becomes generally accepted that any foetus that has, say, a 20% chance of being abnormal is killed, it may become difficult to defend the preserving of life in very premature babies, where the risk of abnormality is similar. . .

Liebeshutetz HJ. (Correspondence) Abortion law reform. Br Med J. 1966 May 28; 1(5499): 1359

(Correspondence) Abortion Law Reform

Richard De Soldenhoff

Extract
Without wishing to appear pompous, as a senior obstetrician who has been in charge of an obstetrical service in a large provincial district for 20 years, I think that to bring in legalized abortion would be a terrible mistake. It has been our policy to carry out an abortion where necessary on any case deserving it for therapeutic, social economic, or moral reasons, and to consider the question of sterilization with ,sympathy whenever requested.

Soldenhoff RD. (Correspondence) Abortion Law Reform. Br Med J. 1966 May 07;1(5496):1168.

(Correspondence) Abortion law reform

Robert J. Hetherington

Extract

. . . It ought to be understood, once and for all, that abortion is an operation like any other operation: the law can neither compel a surgeon to perform it
nor, provided his position is ethical, punish
him for performing it. What needs changing
is not the law but the myth. . .

. .

Hetherington RJ. (Correspondence) Abortion law reform Br Med J. 1966 May 7; 1(5496): 1168–1169

(Correspondence) Abortion Law Reform

SF Hewetson

Extract
It would be a pity if changes in the law insisted that abortions should be performed only by gynaecologists, for this might at times saddle gynaecologists with judging issues in realms beyond the normal scope of gynaecology or with the obligation to perform operations at the behest of other experts but against their own conviction.

Hewetson S. (Correspondence) Abortion Law Reform. Br Med J. 1966 May 07;1(5496):1168.