(Correspondence) Abortion (Amendment) Bill

GS Banwell

British Medical Journal, BMJ
British Medical Journal

Extract
In the part of the home counties in which I practise as a consultant gynaecologist abortion in early pregnancy is in fact available on request, contrary to the intentions of Parliament. . .Since it can (be shown statistically that in terms of the risk of death termination in early pregnancy for a healthy woman is a lesser risk than that of bearing a child, the legal case for abortion on request was established. . . Doctors who decline to abort a woman in early pregnancy and who do not plead conscientious objection are liable to criminal prosecution under the current Act . . .The Abortion (Amendment) Bill merely seeks to reword the code using phrases such as, “grave” or “serious” risk. Rather than constitute a threat to professional freedom, it would release doctors from the duplicity inherent in the present badly worded Act.


Banwell G. (Correspondence) Abortion (Amendment) Bill. Br Med J. 1975;3(5975):99.

(Correspondence) Attitudes to Abortion

GS Banwell

British Medical Journal, BMJ
British Medical Journal

Extract
The right to conscientious objection is embodied in the Abortion Act, and the Lane Committee has not suggested that this section should be amended. It is difficult to understand why you advocate that a consultant gynaecologist, alone among surgical specialists, should be compelled to perform a particular operation other than on the basis of his own judgement. The right to conscientious objection to the performance of therapeutic abortion continues to be the law of the land. . . But it must remain the duty of the medical profession to protest that therapeutic abortion involves the destruction of human life.


Banwell G. (Correspondence) Attitudes to Abortion. Br Med J. 1974;2(5915):383. Available from: