Os problemas do aborto na Inglaterra desde 1967

1. The effect of the loss of 6 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 2 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
£1000 and given a 2 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 2 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 6 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.

August 2007

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.

Fonte:
SCIENTIFIC DEVELOPMENTS RELATING TO THE
ABORTION ACT 1967