Reflection is protection in abortion care—an essay by Sandy Goldbeck-Wood
BMJ 2017; 359 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j5275 (Published 20 November 2017) Cite this as: BMJ 2017;359:j5275All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
I was shocked and deeply disturbed at the content of this article, and the description of how a vulnerable fetus was brutalised. I was surprised at the one-sided slant of your articles in this issue of the BMJ, where I usually would expect a more balanced view. The arguments presented were strongly pro-choice, inferring a moral superiority over the passionate perspective of those of us in the 'pro-life' camp. Surely there is space for the voice of doctors who do have strong convictions about protecting the life of the unborn? We are not a small group.
Competing interests: No competing interests
Dear Editor,
I was interested to read Sandy Goldbeck-Wood's thoughtful article on the importance of reflection in abortion care. (1).
She eloquently outlines the value of conscientious reflection for both woman and doctor. I share this belief, though arrive there from a position of conscientious objection to abortion, rather than that of the conscientious performer. Her piece in support of conscience is in marked contrast to others who believe that "... conscience has little place in the delivery of modern medical care" (2), a startling view that is effectively countered here . I have argued elsewhere (3) that far from being detrimental to choice the role of doctors who hold a conscientious objection is of value, and an important counter-balance to avoid the brutalisation that Goldbeck-Wood warns against. This will remain the case even if abortion is taken out of the criminal law. I hope organisations like the BMA and GMC will recognise this and continue to support those doctors who conscientiously object.
1. Goldbeck-Wood, Sandy: Reflection is protection in abortion care;
BMJ 2017;359:j5275
2.. Savulescu, Julian: Conscientious objection in medicine; BMJ 2006;332:294-297
3. Gerrard, J W: Is it ethical for a general practitioner to claim a conscientious objection when asked to refer for abortion? J Med Ethics 2009;35:599-602
Competing interests: No competing interests
Re: Reflection is protection in abortion care—an essay by Sandy Goldbeck-Wood
The editorial, ‘End criminal sanctions for abortion’[1] highlights the pressure for abortion on demand, which is what already exists in practice in the UK, apart from in Northern Ireland.
The article which follows, ‘Reflection is protection in abortion care—an essay by Sandy Goldbeck-Wood’[2] demonstrates the suffering involved in decisions regarding an attack on human offspring, however serious the reason. She underlines the importance of taking time for conscientious reflection about what is really happening and the violence of the procedure. She graphically describes how the reality is especially painful when a young life is ‘hanging on in there’.
The article also brings into focus what is being requested of health care professionals who choose to get involved. The responsibility of assessing whether an abortion is ‘essential’ when such a decision is coloured by the woman's perception of her present crisis must be impossible. Some choose to stand back from these procedures, by avoiding jobs which include it.
The burden weighs heavily on the author who, in the end has to follow her conscience and any change in abortion laws, must preserve the right to Conscientious Objection.
[1] BMJ 2017; 359 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j5409 (Published 23 November 2017)
[2] BMJ 2017; 359 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j5275 (Published 20 November 2017)
Competing interests: No competing interests