Journal Correspondence Archives - Page 23 of 29 - Protection of Conscience Project Library

(Correspondence) Risks of Abortion

K Vernon Bailey

British Medical Journal, BMJ — British Medical Journal

Extract
Although the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists considers that most cases will be referred to N.H.S. hospitals and will come under the care of consultant gynaecologists, it is nevertheless probable that some will be admitted to ” a place approved for the purpose by the Ministry of Health or the Secretary of State,” and additionally may not come under the care of a trained and experienced obstetrician. Therein to my mind lies a danger to these women, as the numbers seeking abortion continues to increase and as hospital beds become so severely taxed as to necessitate delay in admission. The difference between the risks of the operation in the early weeks and in the weeks between the ninth and the fourteenth is considerable, and after this point an abdominal approach must be considered. . .

For these reasons, in my earlier letter I feared the possibility of panic measures leading to unethical surgery in inadequate surroundings (apart from authorized units) and stressed the need for the hospital consultant to be directly concerned in all cases.

Bailey KV. (Correspondence) Risks of Abortion. Br Med J. 1968;2(5604):557.

(Correspondence) GMC and Abortion Act, 1967

Myre Sim

Extract
It is difficult for the ordinary doctor like myself to understand the role of the G.M.C. as regards medical ethics. Its change in attitude over abortion would suggest that the law of the land takes precedence over medical ethics, for the present law permits abortion for non-medical reasons. Does this mean that the G.M.C. will maintain only those medical ethics which do not conflict with the law, and that laws permitting euthanasia and sterilization of the unfit would receive similar sanction ? There is surely a conflict here not only between the G.M.C. and individual doctors but between the G.M.C. and those medical ethics which have international recognition..

Sim M. (Correspondence) GMC and Abortion Act, 1967. Br Med J. 1968 May 4;2(5600):298.

(Correspondence) Ethics and Abortion

JP Crawford

Extract
Surely a decision by Parliament in a democracy cannot be described as sinister ” superior orders” echoing Nuremberg 20 years ago (or rather what ended there and then). The boot could be argued to be on the other foot-namely, that doctors are prepared to dictate to the nation.

Crawford J. (Correspondence) Ethics and Abortion. Br Med J. 1968 Apr 20;2(5598):173.

(Correspondence) Ethics and Abortion

RS Ferguson

Extract
It will be interesting to learn, when the Representative Body takes its decisions, whether this ” official ” medical ethics will concede the right, sometimes even the duty, of the convinced dissenter to adopt the stand of conscientious objector. Or will the moral empire be essentially totalitarian in nature ?

Ferguson R. (Correspondence) Ethics and Abortion. Br Med J. 1968 April 20;2(5598):173.

(Correspondence) Ethics and Abortion

Dugald Baird

Extract
What the Act does is to make clear beyond doubt that termination of pregnancy is legal and that the decision to terminate or not should be left, as far as possible, to the clinical judgement of the doctors concerned, and that in reaching their decision doctors may take into account the effect of the patient’s total environment on her health.

Baird D. (Correspondence) Ethics and Abortion. Br Med J. 1968;2(5598):173.

(Correspondence) Requests for Abortion

R Geoffrey Bird

Extract
Bearing in mind the expense of caring for the disturbed unmarried mother and the unwanted child, abortion clinics might well prove to be more economical for the country generally.

Bird RG. (Correspondence) Requests for Abortion. Br Med J. 1968;1(5587):311.

(Correspondence) Abortion and Conscience

Myre Sim

Extract
That the W.H.O. includes such a phrase [“well-being”] in their definition of mental health does not give it legal validity. Neither does it give it medical sanction, for W.H.O. definitions are notoriously unstable and liable to change, as is evidenced by those on alcoholism and drug addiction. There is no agreement on a definition of ” mental health ” in spite of national associations, institutes, and research funds devoted to its cause.

Sim M. (Correspondence) Abortion and Conscience. Br Med J. 1967 Dec 16;4(5580):684.

(Correspondence) Abortion and Conscience

Alan Sanderson

Extract
Dr. Myre Sim (4 November, p. 297) exhorts those of us without religious objections to abortion to heed our medical consciences. He is so convinced of the rightness of his views that he brands any doctor who acts differently as lacking in conscience. I do not agree with this assumption. Many highly conscientious doctors favour abortion on social grounds. . . . For most of us it takes courage to recommend or to perform an abortion. It is an operation from which we shrink with a natural abhorrence. How much easier it is to do nothing, especially if inaction can be condoned by invoking ” medical conscience.”

Sanderson A. (Correspondence) Abortion and Conscience. Br Med J. 1967 Dec 09;4(5579):621.

(Correspondence) Abortion and Conscience

Peter Darby

Extract
Dr. Sim quite rightly feels that the doctor who advises a termination of pregnancy should have a clear conscience that the dangers threatening the pregnant woman are real. Should he not feel that the doctor who, advises against termination of pregnancy also has a clear conscience that no dangers threaten the patient ?

Darby P. (Correspondence) Abortion and Conscience. Br Med J. 1967 December 02;4(5578):549.

(Correspondence) Abortion and Conscience

Myre Sim

Extract
One point seems clear, and that is the new law will permit a doctor to refuse to recommend or perform an abortion on grounds of conscience. This clause was intended to protect those doctors (and nurses) with strong religious objections to abortion. There are, however, conscientious objections other than religious. There is a medical conscience which dictates that one should not interrupt the process of human life unless there is good evidence that such a measure is entirely justified in order to avert a dangerous situation. . . That the law makes it permissive for doctors who have not got this medical conscience does not remove from the doctor who possesses one the right to act according to it. It would be intolerable for a doctor to be pressurized into what he considers to be bad medical practice in order to conform with a new law.

Sim M. (Correspondence) Abortion and Conscience. Br Med J. 1967 Nov 4;4(5574):297.