Nevertheless, it has been urged by a large body of the medical profession, especially of those most intimately affected by the question, that there are possible dangers in the situation, and that the law should be altered to indicate more specifically the rightful position of the doctor in this matter; in other words, it is advocated that the present interpretation of the law should be incorporated in the law itself.
Much is made of the fact that an honourable practitioner occasionally finds himself in the unsatisfactory position of having actually to break the letter of the law in doing what according to accepted medical standards is in the best interests of the patient.
As safeguards against the possible dangers of a widening of the law, it has been suggested that new regulations should be introduced governing the practice of therapeutic abortion.
It has been recommended that operations should only be performed after adequate consultation, and that written certificates should be given by both parties to the consultation; that in certain cases the consultant should be a specialist; that all operations should be performed in public or licensed hospitals; that every therapeutic abortion should be notified to the Medical Officer of Health, to whom also the two certificates should be forwarded; and that every operation not performed under these conditions should be subject to strict investigation.
It has also been recommended by some that there should be a general notification of all abortions.
Those who are opposed to any alteration of the present state argue that any specific legalization of therapeutic abortion to save the serious impairment of health as well as to save life might lead to abuses of this sanction. They point out that even at the present time doctors differ considerably in their views and in their practice, and they fear that such divergences in thought and practice might be seriously exaggerated.
As to the suggested safeguarding regulations, there is by no means general agreement in the medical profession concerning their advisability or their value.
The Committee, having investigated the matter very fully, is satisfied that any disability under which the doctor rests in terminating a pregnancy for genuine, accepted therapeutic reasons is only theoretical.
No actual instance was brought before the Committee in which a doctor had been penalized or even subject to question when acting in good faith, nor was any evidence presented to show that any patient had suffered by reason of a doctor refraining from operating through fear of possible legal consequences.
Both medical and legal witnesses competent to speak on these medico-legal aspects were definite in their assurance that, under the existing law, no doctor acting in accordance with the accepted standards of the profession was in any danger.