Protection of Conscience Project Library
Service, not Servitude
Extract
I am sorry that Dr. K. S. Jones (23 April, p. 1050) found some of my words potentially offensive. They were not intended to be so, and I agree with him that relations between gynaecologists and psychiatrists should be good, so that patients who need them both shall not suffer. . .
Rhodes P. (Correspondence) Abortion law reform Br Med J. 1966 May 7; 1(5496): 1168–1169
Extract
I feel myself in broad agreement with the answers given by Mr. Philip Rhodes (2 April, p. 859) to Lord Brain’s points, with the exception of his categorical ” No ” to the question, ” Should the fact that a pregnancy is the result of rape be a ground for its legal termination ? ” . . .I feel that rape per se should be a ground for legal abortion, but at the same time it is important that the flood-gates to abuse should not be opened wide.
Robinson TG. (Correspondence) Abortion law reform. Br Med J. 1966 April 16; 1(5493): 978
I am grateful to Lord Brain (19 March, p. 727) for putting the points in this matter so clearly. Since you ask for wide discussion I put my personal answers to the questions. . . My answers to the questions are necessarily brief for the considerations of your space. A general comment would be that the law needs reform for the sake of the law and not medicine. I have performed abortions for what I and my colleagues have considered to be good reasons. I do not like to perform the operation, and those who assist me like it even less. . .
Rhodes P. (Correspondence) Abortion law reform. Br Med J. 1966 April 2; 1(5491): 859–860