Abstract

PIP: I refer for termination anyone who requests it for--pace Mr V Tunkel, (28 July, p 253)--the law is generally regarded as being one of "abortion on demand." I have some misgivings as I do not believe that women in early pregnancy are always in a fit state to make a considered decision, and they cannot in the nature of things be given time. I have, however, become increasingly worried about the morbidity arising from the procedure, and it is interesting that letters on the subject (25 August, pp 495 and 496) should be followed by one reporting rupture of the uterus during prostaglandin-induced abortion--yet another complication to add to those of cervical incompetence, pelvic sepsis, and permanent neurological damage. In so far as these tragedies usually follow late terminations Mr John Corrie's Bill is to be welcomed. A few further points. I am not so cynical as to think that every impregnation is the result of a thoughtless act of male lust. Unlike Professor Peter Huntingford (25 August, p 496), I listen to men as well as women, and many of them are deeply involved emotionally in the pregnancy they have helped to produce. Certainly I think a man should have the right to be consulted if his wife is to undergo a procedure that might damage her health. It is unfair contemptuously to dismiss as "whims" opinions that differ from ones own. These may result from genuine conscientious doubts or inability to cope from overwork and understaffing. Abortion is quite the most expensive form of contraception, and perhaps in these days of financial stringency this should be taken into account. "Bigotry" is defined in my dictionary as "blind zeal." This could be said of those who enthusiastically promote a course of action without regard to circumstances, safety, or cost.