Journal Correspondence Archives - Page 22 of 24 - Protection of Conscience Project Library

(Correspondence) Abortion and Conscience

Myre Sim

British Medical Journal, BMJ — British Medical Journal

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.

(Correspondence) Abortion Bill

Myre Sim

Extract
Under the title of Medical Termination of Pregnancy, this Bill would expose to legal action a surgeon who refused to abort on sound clinical grounds, and therefore in good faith, yet his defence would be stronger if he claimed he refused to abort on grounds of conscience.

Sim M. (Correspondence) Abortion Bill. Br Med J. 1967 May 20;2(5550):511.

(Correspondence) Abortion Bill

WJ Stanley

Extract
It has gradually dawned upon the politicians that a doctor might have objections, and at a very late stage a ” conscience clause” has been included, but only against strong opposition. . . . The clause allows for objection on moral or religious grounds, but how does the doctor stand if he objects on clinical grounds ? As a psychiatrist, patients are referred to me for termination of pregnancy, usually the sole grounds for referral being that the patient is depressed as a result of having an unwanted pregnancy. Many psychiatrists consider that there are no, or virtually no, psychiatric grounds for termination of pregnancy, but how will the psychiatrist stand when the new Bill becomes law ? If he does not consider that there are adequate clinical grounds for termination of pregnancy, is he liable to be sued for negligence? The situation must have no parallel in the whole of the history of medicine, and clarification of the doctor’s position is, in my opinion, urgently needed.

Stanley W. (Correspondence) Abortion Bill. Br Med Journal. 1967 Apr 22;2(5546):247.

(Correspondence) Termination of Pregnancy Bill

J Martyn Thomas

Extract
Of course, one must accord anybody the right to act according to his or her conscience, but where a conscientious objection precludes normal medical practice, it is surely right to ask whether it is proper to inflict one’s views on one’s patients. While fully aware that it might provoke serious objections on many grounds, I would suggest that each regional hospital board has a duty to ensure that situations such as these, where the entire consultant establishment in a specialty refuses for conscientious reasons to follow accepted practice, to the possible detriment of patients, do not in future arise.

Thomas JM. (Correspondence) Termination of Pregnancy Bill. Br Med J. 1967;1(5538):502. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1840881/pdf/brmedj02124-0088a.pdf

(Correspondence) Termination of Pregnancy Bill

WM Capper

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.

(Correspondence) Professional Freedom Threatened

KE Jolles

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

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.