Whose Choice Anyway

political and social, for the medical professions to use criteria of utility and expediency in the way in which we deal with human life. By allowing decisions of life and death to be based on such criteria the medical professions have retreated from an ethical, principled view of their work and skills. If we as a society allow this to continue we can only have less and less confidence in doctors as people with the best interests of the individual patient at heart.

Much has been made of the 'slippery slope' but we can at least note that the MPs who voted for the Abortion Act never realised exactly what they had unleashed.

They were told that the Act would end back-street abortion and even child abuse.

The first report of the Select Committee on Violence in the Family paints a bleak picture of the ever rising number of cases of cruelty to children. Child abuse is no longer a question of isolated incidents but part of a pattern of gathering violence in the home. It is the fifth most frequent cause of death among children. The violence begun with abortion now extends beyond the womb on a scale commensurate with the inexorable increase in the number of abortions. In recent years we have also seen calls for experimentation on human embryos, for legalised euthanasia and the development of 'nursing care only' for newborn disabled babies.

From opposing the Abortion Act the medical profession has tacitly accepted and condoned it. If Parliament and the public are not able and not allowed to do so, it is time that the profession set its own house in order.