Abortion service

Press, 2 July 1985, Page 20

Abortion service

Sir,—Your correspondent, K. Orr, makes the arrogant claim that the “pro-life” vigil participants “support the truth that all human life is precious and should- be respected and protected.” In practice they show no respect whatever for adult, fully-mature human beings. It is bad enough to have doctors harassed; it will be intolerable if women already in distress are harassed likewise. Have they not a speck of Christian compassion? — Yours, etc., ELSIE LOCKE. June 30, 1985.

Sir,—The front page of today’s “Press” (June 27), highlights the peculiarities of our world. In a photo, Mrs Irene Martin is shown surrounded by toys made for auctioning at the “Give that they may grow” Telethon ’B5. Next to it an

article telling of the difficulties in obtaining medical staff for the Lyndhurst Hospital, accompanied by the comment from Dr Jocelyn Hay, “If we cannot find staff for the hospital, what is the fate of the patients with possibly unwanted children in the future?” No doubt some will say the two subjects are unrelated. I think the irony of it holds a lesson for us all.—Yours, pte M. WELLS June 27, 1985. . Sir,—Most abortions are done for non-medical socio-economic reasons and are strictly illegal according to the intentions of the Contraception, Sterilisation and Abortion Act of 1977. Abortion is abhorrent to most doctors, having been described by the late Sir William Liley as “contrary to the grand strategy of medicine.” Doctors who are convinced of the rightness of abortion should not be deterred by protesters standing at their door. The Canterbury Hospital Board cannot claim that it is merely responsible for “providing a service.” The decision to convert a maternity hospital into an abortion clinic was incongruous and insensitive. Little wonder that people gather nearby in protest, — Yours, etc J. F. GWYNNE. June 30, 1985.