Examination of Witnesses (Questions 240-245)
DR VINCENT
ARGENT, DR
TONY CALLAND,
LIZ DAVIES
AND KATHY
FRENCH
17 OCTOBER 2007
Q240 Dr Harris: I have a reference here:
the UK Department of Health Register of Pregnancy Advice Bureaux.
My understanding is that, even if you are not aware of it, your
services are registered. Do you think there is an argument that
all people purporting to provide pregnancy advice services ought
to be registered so that they are not providing information that
is clearly outside what would be considered reasonable and rational
information?
Liz Davies: Again, I think we
need to separate out the two. Any premises we use for abortion
advice, in other words for initial consultation if they are outside
our clinics, have to be registered with the Department of Health.
Counselling services as a discrete entity within that do not and
we do not necessarily register them as counselling; it is for
consultation. We use qualified counsellors within that process
if women choose to see them.
Q241 Dr Harris: My question is: should
outside bodies that offer pregnancy counselling in your view be
subject to the same regulation and registration as you are?
Liz Davies: Yes, I think they
should.
Mrs Dorries: Dr Argent, you claimed that
lowering the upper limit from 24 weeks will mean that there is
not enough time for women who have had an abnormality scan then
to proceed to abortion. Would you not accept that all abortions
that took place post-24 weeks in this country in 2006 for foetal
abnormalities were all carried out on Ground A? Your claim is
not the case because abortion for foetal abnormalities can take
place at any stage, and that foetal abnormality is identified
at 20 weeks, of the pregnancy. So your claim that reducing the
upper limit from 24 weeks is wrong. Would you agree with that?
Chairman: I think that is a leading question.
Q242 Mrs Dorries: Dr Argent has made
the statement. You have said that lowering the upper limit from
24 weeks will mean that there is not then enough time for women
who have an abnormality scan to proceed to abortion. That is not
the case because abnormalities are able to be aborted on Ground
E up until birth.
Dr Argent: My principal reason
for suggesting that the upper limit should be reduced from 24
weeks, and I said to 16 weeks, is a purely pragmatic and practical
view based on other factors and not to do with foetal abnormality.
Q243 Mrs Dorries: You concede that
foetal abnormalities can take place up until that time?
Dr Argent: Yes. I was suggesting
that because under the current law under Section E termination
of pregnancies are allowed right throughout pregnancy for foetal
abnormality, that that fulfils the requirement under Section E.
Q244 Dr Harris: Is 16 weeks your
personal view or that of an organisation, and is it based on science
or is it just your own feeling as someone who has worked in the
field?
Dr Argent: My reason for suggesting
that termination of pregnancy under C and E sections should be
reduced from 24 to 16 weeks was partly a pragmatic quid pro
quo view because very few practitioners actually perform abortions
after 16 weeks. Very few NHS services provide abortion after 16
weeks. In many hospitals they have a cut-off figure of about 13,
14, 15, 16 weeks. That is what actually happens in practice. This
is not written up in the literature very much. That corresponds
generally with public opinion in the MORI polls. That suggests
that the general public would like to see easier access
Q245 Dr Harris: I asked you two questions:
the science behind that and whether it was a personal view or
not.
Dr Argent: It is a personal view
and there is no scientific evidence behind that.
Chairman: May I thank Dr Argent, Dr Calland,
Liz Davies and Kathy French for coming.
|