One in five GPs wants to ban abortion

Daily Mail ^ | 3rd May 2007 | By DANIEL MARTIN

[Eurotwit]

Opposition to abortions is growing rapidly among GPs, a startling survey has revealed.

One in five believe it should be banned completely. And a quarter refuse to send women for terminations because of deep moral objections.

More than half said the 24-week limit should be reduced because medical advances mean babies born earlier than that can survive.

The findings - revealed today in the GPs' magazine Pulse - will reignite the debate over abortion provision and, in particular, the right of doctors to turn away women seeking help.

Last month the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists warned of a potential crisis in NHS abortions, saying the increase in medical "conscientious objectors" was forcing more women to go private.

Michaela Ashton of the charity Life said last night: "This shows there has been a distinct shift in medical opinion and demonstrates the urgent need for the Abortion Act to be reviewed.

"People become doctors because they want to cherish life, not destroy it. We are delighted that doctors, particularly younger doctors, are increasingly having doubts and we call on the government to take heed and change the law."

But the Marie Stopes organisation, which carries out a third of the 180,000 abortions in England and Wales each year, said: "It's appalling that such a high percentage of doctors are refusing to sign abortion referral forms. It lends fuel to the argument that we should take doctors out of the picture.

"Doctors who refuse to sign the forms are committing an abuse of power. We believe they should send women to another doctor who will sign. If not, they should be investigated for malpractice.

"The only thing that's going to happen as a result of doctors refusing is that women will get delayed.

"They'll have to jump through more hoops which could result in health complications.

"Doctors aren't gods, they should not be allowed to sit in judgment on women."

Toni Belfield of the Family Planning Association also warned that any delays in obtaining an abortion could lead to complications and mental health problems.

She said: "Some women tell us they go along to their GPs and the GP says 'I can't help, I don't believe in it'."

The General Medical Council, which regulates Britain's 30,000 GPs, has laid down strict guidelines on how doctors with ethical objections should deal with patients who request abortion referrals.

It says: "If carrying out a particular procedure or giving advice about it conflicts with your religious or moral beliefs, and this conflict might affect the treatment or advice you provide, you must explain this to the patient and tell them they have the right to see another doctor.

"You must be satisfied that the patient has sufficient information to enable them to exercise that right.

"If it is not practical for a patient to arrange to see another doctor, you must ensure that arrangements are made for another suitablyqualified colleague to take over your role."

GPs with ethical objections are told to make them clear in advance to their colleagues in the practice and the surrounding area, to ensure a seamless transfer of a patient to another doctor.

Anyone who breaks these guidelines can be charged with malpractice and possibly struck off.

Last month the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists said the increasing numbers of doctors with objections to abortion has led to a doubling of terminations carried out by private clinics - from 20 per cent in 1997 to around 40 per cent today.

Some trainee doctors were also declining to learn how to carry out the procedures. A College spokesman said: "We are aware of the slow but growing problem of trainees opting out of training in the termination of pregnancy and are concerned about the abortion service of the future.

"Most women find the decision to go for termination very difficult and it is essential that there is a trained and sympathetic workforce to help."

Dr Rob Hardie, who left his Wiltshire practice in 2004 over the NHS stance on abortion, told Pulse that GPs should not be forced to refer patients to abortion clinics. He said: "With abortion, there's the ethical problem of destroying a life, and even if you have different beliefs, there's surely an ethical problem in doctors being forced to do something that they do not believe in.

"It's immoral and unjust. It's fantastic to see young doctors making a stand on this - not just Catholics but other Christians and Muslims too."

Abortion is legal in Britain up to full term if doctors believe the baby has a severe disability or the mother's life is at risk.

But termination for what are termed "social" reasons - the effect of pregnancy on the mother's mental health and well-being - is legal only up to 24 weeks. The limit was reduced from the 28 weeks of the original 1967 Act in 1990, because of medical advances.

Campaigners argue that it is now time for the Act to be reviewed once again because further advances mean more premature babies survive being born before the cut-off point.

A Health Department spokesman said last night: "GPs who are ethically opposed to abortion should follow the relevant professional

guidance for those with conscientious objections.

"If they feel their beliefs might affect their treatment, this must be explained to the patient, who should be told of their right to see another doctor."

Pulse contacted a random selection of GPs to ask them a range of questions on medical ethics, only three of which were on abortion, and 309 responded.

Of those, 19 per cent said they did not think abortion should be legal and 24 per cent said they would refuse to sign referral forms.

[Eurotwit]

Interestingly this is Sky News poll of the day: Should the 24 week limit be lowered. Last time they reported, 74 percent supported it.

[Bonaparte]

Just when it appeared British medicine was populated entirely by Dr. Mengele clones, comes a glimmer of hope.

[Eurotwit]

BTW: In Norway, abortions are illegal after week 12.

What is it like in the U.S.?

[britemp]

‘Just when it appeared British medicine was populated entirely by Dr. Mengele clones, comes a glimmer of hope.’

Yet Britain still aborts less children per capita than the US does - are all US doctors Mengele clones?

[rogernz]

catholic ping

[Nomorjer Kinov]

This is exactly my point in arguing that abortions and medical care cannot be "rights." One cannot have a right to another person's expertise or industry. In the absence of a doctor, how can one exercise their "right" to medical care?

A great test of a claimed right is if you still have it alone on a deserted island.

[theBuckwheat]

A lot of the news on this issue hinges on exactly how the poll question is worded and what the words mean to the person being polled.

Just what do we mean by “ban abortion”?

With their ‘one child policy’, China has the opposite issue: banning conception. To do this, they monitor (yes, actually monitor) the menstrual cycle of young women working in factory settings, so they can spot “unlawful” pregnancy.

If banning abortion means that a fetus has such full access to the law, then government has the right to demand that pregnancies must be registered (like we register cars or guns), so it can extend full protection of the law to the fetus. We could even make it a felony for a mother to fail to notify the State the instant she became aware of her pregnancy.

The public would never stand for such tyranny or invasion of the most private aspects of a person’s life.

But a growing percent of the public is becoming increasingly uneasy at just how trivial abortion has become with some people, as if it were removing a wart, or other minor office procedure. Forbidding doctors from performing abortions unless the life of the mother was called into question would suffice in the minds of many.

Those taking polls have the obligation to publish how they frame the question on such an important issue.

[Bonaparte]

"...are all US doctors Mengele clones?"

Only the ones who murder developing human beings or commit other acts of barbarity.

[Bonaparte]

"If banning abortion means that a fetus has such full access to the law, then government has the right to demand that pregnancies must be registered (like we register cars or guns), so it can extend full protection of the law to the fetus.

A law against abortion does not imply or require government mandated reporting of pregnancies. Back when abortion was illegal everywhere in America, nobody had to "register" pregnancy and no such requirement was contemplated. In a jurisdiction banning abortion, determining that an individual had performed an abortion would be sufficient for prosecution under the ban. Seizure of records and evidence, arrests and convictions would not depend on prior registration of any pregnancies.

"We could even make it a felony for a mother to fail to notify the State the instant she became aware of her pregnancy."

And how do you propose to establish the "instant" a woman has the thought, "I'm pregnant"? There have been women, usually obese, who have gone all the way to term not even knowing that they were pregant.

[Lurker]

What is it like in the U.S.?

In some jurisdictions the baby can be full term and the woman is perfectly within her 'rights' to hire a doctor to partially deliver the child, then suck out its brains, collapse its skull, and then toss it in the trash.

L

[Bonaparte]

"What is it like in the U.S.?"

Even worse. More than 10% of abortions are 2nd and 3rd trimester. In both absolute numbers and rate per live births, abortion peaked around 1990. Since then, both figures have been in decline although there are still close to a million abortions per year.

[Bonaparte]

Not any more.

[theBuckwheat]

I seem to have not gotten my point, which was to show exactly what it could mean to “ban abortions”, depending on how government wanted to approach it. At one extreme, it would mean total surveillance of the status of each fertile female. I hope you understand what tyranny that would be. At the other end, it would just mean returning to the time when doctors were forbidden to perform the procedure.

[Bonaparte]

Ok, I understand what you’re saying now. As I understood your previous post (7), you seemed to be saying that an unborn human being’s right to live implied a corresponding right of government to register pregnancies.