Memorandum 11
Submission from the Guild of Catholic
Doctors
GUILD OF CATHOLIC DOCTORS RESPONSE TO THE
PARLIAMENTARY SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE'S REQUEST FOR
EVIDENCE CONCERNING: THE EFFECTS OF THE ABORTION ACT 1967
We in the Guild of Catholic Doctors believe
that, apart from an ethical argument, which is proscribed by your
committee on this occasion, the 40 years of abortion, largely
"on demand", have had a number of serious ill-effects
on our Society:
1. The effect of the loss of six million,
largely healthy, young citizens from our society as a result of
abortion is impossible to calculate, but it has seriously diminished
our capability of looking after ourselves, without outside help,
and has led, to some extent, to the large requirement for immigration
which our economy now has. Amongst this huge number will have
been the average incidence of geniuses and prospective leaders,
and we may well have killed the very people who could have led
our Society forward more successfully.
2. The effect on mothers having abortions
has been serious, with more depression (1), suicide (2,3,13) despite
less suicide after normal birth (4), future gynaecology problems
(5,6,7), increased risks of "medical abortions" at home
(8), and breast cancer (9,10)). Post-Abortion Syndrome is now
accepted as a long-term problem (11,12).
3. The effects on those carrying out abortions
(nurses, doctors etc) is difficult to calculate, but the notion
that vulnerable life (frail elderly, disabled, and premature)
is less worthy of care is increasingly apparent (Joffe Bill, &
Mental Capacity Act for example). The Hippocratic Standards of
the Medical Profession have been eroded.
4. Society wants to see less abortion; a
study by Communicate Research Ltd in April-May 2006 showed that
65% of women wanted less abortion; 80% of women believe that aborting
a baby at 24 weeks (the upper limit) is cruel. 95% of people want
the Abortion Act to be kept under regular review. People are far
better informed now than they were in 1967, and know that at 24
weeks 72% of babies can survive, and at 23 weeks nearly 50% can
survive. The general public has seen the ultra-sound pictures
of babies in the womb. People want a proper debate, in the country
and in Parliament, not just a Private Member's Bill situation.
5. The "Blue form", which still
has to be signed by two doctors, is woefully misused and remains
unchanged after 40 years. It is not even necessary for both doctors
to have seen and spoken with the mother, and one may be the surgeon
who is soon to do the abortion operation. Most abortions take
place under the "Ground C" section of the Act, where
the "Physical or Mental Health" of the mother is said
to be at risk, and proper data on this is not available, but it
appears that less than half a percent of these are due to risk
of damage to the physical health of the woman.
6. There is a need for Ground C of the form
to be properly divided in to separate physical and mental health
sections. Forms are quite often lacking proper reasons for the
abortion to be performed and the law is being broken all the time.
7. The mental problem is sometimes a new
psychiatric problem, and sometimes an aggravation of a pre-existing
disorder. The data collected by the Office of National Statistics
(1994) shows an impressive but rather vague list of mental disorders
cited as a reason for abortion:- Affective Psychosis-71.
Other non-organic Psychosis-1
Neurone disorders-99,012
Personality disorders-91
Depressive disorders-44,005
Mental Retardation-20.
"Neurone disorder" (The majority)
is a particularly vague disorder to most doctors.
8. Doctors should find more difficulty in
justifying these reasons in a Court of Law, but very rarely is
there a challenge. The case of R v Smith (1974) A11 ER 376 is
an illustration however; Scarman. L. J. apparently approved of
the view that before forming an opinion on the mental health aspect,
one would want to know as much as one could about the patient's
general background, such as her past medical history, and whether
there had been mental illness in the family. In this case the
only ground given was that the girl was "depressed".
The Court took the view that such a cursory comment following
an apparently superficial examination of her mental health, and
the lack of enquiry into matters affecting it, made it reasonable
for the Jury to conclude that the doctor had not genuinely formed
an opinion in good faith after balancing the risks involved, as
the Act required him to do. The doctor was fined £1,000 and
given a two year suspended prison sentence.
9. A surgeon carrying out an abortion under
the Act bears the greater responsibility and should be very clear
as to the facts. In balancing the risks involved, as recorded
by the two doctors signing the Blue Form, he/she must be satisfied
that the operation is proceeding within the terms of the Act,
and we believe that this is not often the case. There is an urgent
need to improve the Blue Form and ensure it is fully complied
with.
10. We in the Guild, as is known, do not
approve of abortion at all, but it is clear that, with improvements
in neonatal care, the upper limit of 24 weeks needs to be reduced.
11. The abortion of disabled babies up to
term is abhorrent to many in our Society, and creates negative
attitudes to all who are disabled, when everyone should be accorded
equal standing as unique human beings. It therefore follows that
we believe that there should be no distinction between babies
"in utero". Especially is late-abortion, for whatever
reason, most stressful on the mothers.
12. We remain deeply concerned about the
use of screening tests to identify children with disabilities
before birth, when the usual outcome is that the children are
killed. We are very aware of the huge diversity and joy that,
for example, children with Down's Syndrome bring to Society, and
that this "screening out" of such children is discriminatory.
13. Finally, it is appalling that, after
40 years, and six million abortions, we have so little useful
data upon which Society can deliberate and find ways of reducing
the killing. We call for much more research into the problem,
more resources in antenatal genetic research and treatment, more
help for those who face this dilemma and the many agencies who
try to give balanced help and advice; more care for those who
suffer the after-effects, and more genuine debate in Parliament
and in the Country at large.
REFERENCES
(1) Cougle J R, Reardon D C, et al. 2003. Medical
Science Monitor.9. CR 105-112.
(2) Professor David Ferguson. 2006. J of Child
Psychology & Psychiatry.47 16-24.
(3) Finland's National Research & Development
Centre for Welfare & Health. December 2005.
(4) CEMACH Report-"Why mothers die".
1997-2002 figures. Chapter 20.
(5) Wilkinson, French et al. 2006. Lancet.378.
1879-86.
(6) UNICEF Report. "An overview of child
well-being in rich countries". 2007.
(7) British Journal of Obs & Gynae. Vol 112
(4). Page 430.
(8) Creinin M. et al. 2006. MedGenMed. 8.26.
(9) Brind, Chinchilli et al. 1996. J. of Epidemiol
& Community Health. 50. 481-496.
(10) Brind J 2005 J of American Physicians &
Surgeons. 10.(4)
(11) Speckhard A C & Rue V M 1992. Journal
of Social Issues. 48. 95-119.
(12) Reardon D C, Cougle J R, et al. 2003 J of
Canadian Medical Association. 168. 1253-56.
(13) Gissler, Hemminki et al. 1996. BMJ. 313.
1431-34.
August 2007
| 
