Journal Correspondence Archives - Page 15 of 29 - Protection of Conscience Project Library

(Correspondence) A question of conscience

R Salm

British Medical Journal, BMJ — British Medical Journal

Extract
I was not concerned with the rights and wrongs of abortions; the point I made was that if an individual, or a minority group, contracted out of this service the burden on the remaining consultants (gynaecologists and anesthetists) would be correspondingly increased and that it is understandable that employing authorities will tend to avoid creating a situation which is fraught with friction and dissatisfaction. I would agree that it is a further illustration of the potential dangers of an inflexible monopoly employer.

Salm R. (Correspondence) A question of conscience. Br Med J. 1976;2(6029):235.

(Correspondence) A question of conscience

Herbert H Pilling

Extract
Some of your correspondents on this subject seem to be ignoring the fact that the NHS Acts and Regulations impose upon all doctors employed in the Health Service a duty to make available to their patients any treatment which their condition may warrant, and in certain cases one such treatment is the termination of pregnancy. These cases are defined in the Abortion Act 1967 and the clear implication of section 1 (1) of that Act, taken in conjunction with the general duty outlined above, is that a doctor must consider whether any patient requesting a termination of pregnancy falls within the criteria set out in the Act, and if so he must make the appropriate treatment available to her. He need not, however, participate in the treatment.

Pilling HH. (Correspondence) A question of conscience. Br Med J. 1976;2(6029):234-235.

(Correspondence) A question of conscience

John M Hudson

Extract
Dr R Salm’s letter (26 June, p 1593) saddened me because in it he fails to make clear that he understands the grave injury that Mr Walley and many others have suffered. I am sure that he does not think that having to give up for life one’s ambition to practise the specialty of one’s choice in one’s own country is a mere inconvenience. Both to change one’s specialty and to go into exile are poor alternatives. Has he considered that it would be possible to arrange a system for abortions in which all the parties concerned obtained reasonable satisfaction and nobody was hurt in this way ? I am far from convinced that this is impossible.

Hudson JM. (Correspondence) A question of conscience. Br Med J. 1976;2(6029):234. Available from: .

(Correspondence) A question of conscience

Margaret White

Extract
Parliament went out of its way to avoid the situation Mr Walley describes by inserting a conscience clause. At no stage of the debate was there any suggestion that this clause was only to apply to the present holders of jobs, and had there been any such suggestion it is extremely unlikely that the bill would ever have been passed.

White M. (Correspondence) A question of conscience. Br Med J. 1976;2(6027):108-109.

(Correspondence) A question of conscience

W Lindesay Neustatter

Extract
While I respect Mr Walley’s sincerity, like Dr Salm I question his logic. I have in mind in particular his reference to the conscientious objector’s exemption from service in the armed Forces in war. For there the comparison with Mr Walley’s experience breaks down. To be analogous it would mean that the conscientious objector could have the privilege of holding a commission-somewhat similar to a consultancy- but reserving the right not to shoot at the enemy when in action.

Neustatter WL. (Correspondence) A question of conscience. Br Med J. 1976;2(6027):108.

(Correspondence) A question of conscience

David Hooker

Extract
The “will of the people, as expressed through Parliament,” does not make abortion right any more than bashing old ladies on the head would be if made “legal” in this way. Moreover, for those of us who oppose abortion it is more than a matter of conscience. It is a very positive conviction that abortion is wrong.

Hooker D. (Correspondence) A question of conscience. Br Med J. 1976;2(6027):108.

(Correspondence) A question of conscience

Lillian Versteeg

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.

(Correspondence) A question of conscience

JM Alston

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.

(Correspondence) A question of conscience

R Salm

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.

(Correspondence) The Canadian abortion law

Wendell W Watters, May Cohen, Linda Rapson

Canadian Medical Association Journal, CMAJ — Canadian Medical Association Journal

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.