At the opening of the abortion era in Britain, the Daily Mail reported Professor Ian Morris as saying: “If I were just beginning my career knowing what I know now about abortions, I would never choose gynaecology.” He added: “I detest the operation. It is a complete reversal of all my medical training. The whole aim is to save life, not perform this particular form of homicide.” Strong words, indeed, and not every doctor will agree with them. But they do convey some idea of the revulsion to the practice some doctors instinctively feel.

[Box on page 9]

A Conflict of Loyalties?

The Declaration of Geneva was adopted by the General Assembly of the World Medical Association at Geneva, Switzerland, in September 1948. It is based on the ancient Hippocratic oath. The following is an extract from this Declaration:

“At the Time of Being Admitted as Member of the Medical Profession: I solemnly pledge myself to consecrate my life to the service of humanity. . . . I will practice my profession with conscience and dignity. . . . I will maintain the utmost respect for human life, from the time of conception; even under threat, I will not use my medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity.”

How do doctors interpret such an oath? Here are two conflicting views. Which do you share?

DOCTOR I. M.

“I can never look at the tissues I have removed during the termination of a pregnancy without revulsion. It may be a jelly, but it is, after all, human life that I am destroying.”

DOCTOR V. A.

“I don’t think abortion is ever wrong. As long as an individual is completely dependent upon the mother, it’s not a person.”