Tory MPs dissent from report calling for relaxed abortion laws

A report from the Commons' Science and Technology Committee has called for a relaxation of abortion laws including an end to the requirement for two doctors to approve an request for termination of pregnancy.  It's the main story in this morning's Telegraph.

Two Conservative MPs have produced a minority report, however, describing their colleagues' conclusions as "shameful".  The S&TC claims that "there is no scientific basis, on the grounds of viability, to reduce the upper time limit."  But Nadine Dorries and Bob Spink have pointed to ten recent international reports on neo-natal survival that question this conclusion and which were "overlooked" by the Committee.  Nadine Dorries writes:

"The evidence quoted in the Chairman’s report relied entirely on information provided by a ten year old study and the Committee ignored the latest evidence on neo-natal survival rates from the best neo-natal centres in the UK and around the world."

If the time limit for abortion was one area of controversy, the other issue of tension was over the pain that unborn children feel or don't feel in the womb.  Nadine Dorries again believes that the report was one-sided in the evidence it studied:

"There are two schools of thought on foetal pain, experts disagree and there are strong differences of opinion. The RCOG cherry picked their experts in order to agree with a pro-abortion argument. I felt it was important that MPs were aware of the two schools of thought and the nature of the conflicting evidence provided to the Committee.  One school of thought believes that a foetus cannot feel pain until after 26 weeks; and the other school of thought states a foetus can feel pain below 20 weeks; unfortunately only the first school of thought was represented in the Chairman’s report."

A report in the Daily Mail targets LibDem MP Evan Harris.  Nicknamed Dr Death for his zealous support for abortion and euthanasia he succeeded in ensuring that 126 of his amendments were successfully made to the report.  The Mail also reports claims that Michael Martin, the Commons Speaker, blocked certain requests to disclose information about how the Committee had made its conclusions.  Dr Bob Spink MP told The Mail that this meant the public had been "denied the facts".

In a short article for The Telegraph, Dr Spink offers his views on what MPs should vote for when the issue of abortion comes before the wider House of Commons:

"I will be arguing for an end to the late abortion of healthy babies; for a reduction from 24 weeks; for a tightening of abortion laws, including resisting home abortions; the retention of two doctors' signatures; clear guidance on what constitutes serious handicap; and much more support for women who must make these heart-wrenching decisions."

Comments

[Tony Makara]

Gut-wrenching hypocrisy from the Liberal Evan Harris. Dr death is quite happy to see unborn children murdered yet is squeamish about the idea of executing child murderers. Truly a man of inverted values. By their fruits ye shall know them.

[James Maskell]

Ill wait till I read the report on this one. Has it actually called for a relaxation or just said that the case for tightening it isnt good enough?

[Jaz]

We shouldn't slip down this ethical road to "abortion". It's a messy affair, I personally don't see the point of the conservative party playing with this issue.

It's also concerning that wealthy churches and Christians seem to rule this debate with expensive stunts or effective media campaigns.

[Deborah]

There will always be heated argument between the pro-choice and pro-life sides on this debate and if we're not careful the other side to this story will be swept under the carpet - lost in the emotion.
Nadine's blog and the minority report make clear the extent to which vested interests have been allowed to dominate the proceedings.
This is a shameful state of affairs and someone needs to be held to account.

[Matt Wright]

I can't see how any MP or any party can dodge the issue although it should be a free vote. We know that a significant number of babies at 24 weeks can survive and yet abortion is allowed at this time limit. As Nadine Dorrioes says the evidence has moved on from when David Steel got his bill. He admits that. He says that his bill was for women in real difficulties but now feels that it has almost become a form of contraception. No I think the time should be reduced to at least 18 weeks and there should be far more education about the matter.

Matt

[Erasmus]

Good for Nadine -- a courageous stand taken against the abortion lobby

[Mike A]

I am pro-Life, but have found Nadine Dorries' contribution a bit odd.

As I understand it (and I hope she can correct me if I am wrong because I have not followed this properly):
- she was calling for non-peer-reviewed papers to be stricken from the list of contributions but wanted to introduce other papers (such as those by this Dr Anand) to be introduced, most of which are not peer-reviewed

- she was criticising the committee for not 'calling' people when, in fact, they made an open call for contributions which was just not heeded by the people she wanted to come in (such as this Dr Anand).

Also, the 'abortion industry' stuff is silly. It just makes my skin crawl.

[Iain Lindley]

I don't think that Ms Dorries - whose views are well known - had any less of a vested interest than anyone else involved with the proceedings.

It seems a little pointless to have an "investigation" when - on both sides - most of the MPs had clearly already made up their mind.

[Jennifer Wells]

I disagree Iain. I wonder how much every abortion costs? Every time a GP refers a pregnant woman to a private abortion provider money changes hands. It would be wrong to say that there are no commercial interests here.

[Alan S]

Nadine Dorries was very good on Radio Five earlier.
Does anyone know what David Cameron thinks about abortion?

[David]

The only yardstick to use is whether the neurological pathways are sufficiently developed to indicate consciousness. Current research suggests the 24 week limit is about right.

The issue of survival outside the womb at 24 weeks is a bit of a red herring; it is conceivable that we are on the road to creating artificial wombs that would allow survival even after a few weeks. All that does is provide an environment for development to continue; it does not indicate anything more than that.

[Lucy]

If the anti-abortionists stopped making their dubious, blanket, scaremongering, pseudo-religious assertions against the women whom this issue actually affects, then maybe questionable late abortions would be avoided altogether.

[Jennifer Wells]

Can you provide some examples of these "dubious, blanket, scaremongering, pseudo-religious assertions", Lucy?

[Michael McGowan]

David, I find your last paragraph terrifying. Apply the same logic to the disabled or the chronically ill who require round-the-clock medical care and attention in order to survive and you have a cast-iron "case" for dehumanising them too. That will be the precursor to the right to kill them off without their consent because they are not "human" and are a burden on society/their relatives. We seem to be gliding by default to a world where eugenics masquerading as the freedom to choose is acceptable in polite society.

I saw Evan Harris on Newsnight the other night. He is almost literally a swivel-eyed fanatic. The idea that he is not the ambassador of vested interests is laughable.

[Deborah]

Mike A,
Your post seems unnecessarily disparaging about "this Dr Anand" and it might be wise to check your facts. At the end of the minority report, Nadine publishes a list of the recently published PEER REVIEWED scientific research and literature reviews which she thinks should be considered.

It makes my skin crawl to think about an "abortion industry" too. But far from being silly, where there is money to be made it is wise to keep an open mind on the possibility of vested interests.

[Lucy]

@ Jennifer Wells 11:10

Tony Makara "Dr death is quite happy to see unborn children murdered"

OK, you got me, this might not be "dubious, blanket, scaremongering and pseudo-religious". The 'dubious' part is only imo.

[David]

"David, I find your last paragraph terrifying. Apply the same logic to the disabled or the chronically ill who require round-the-clock medical care and attention in order to survive and you have a cast-iron "case" for dehumanising them too."

Er, no. They have conciousness. Applying the same logic, properly, would actually lead to the equivalent of someone who is classified as brain dead, whom we already allow to slip away without machine support.

[Deborah]

"The only yardstick to use is whether the neurological pathways are sufficiently developed to indicate consciousness."

Consciousness? Mmmmm. Our knowledge is increasing all the time - can we really be sure that our understanding of consciousness is complete?

[David]

"Our knowledge is increasing all the time "

Indeed, and we should be guided by that knowledge. Hence if further study indicates neurological development to a sufficient extent earleir than the current limit, then the limit should be tightened. Similarly, if it indicates the development is in fact later, then the limit can be relaxed (although the latter scenario is unlikely).

[Mike A]

I suspect Dorries thinks this is peer-reviewed.

"Anand KJS et al. Neurodevelopmental Changes of Fetal Pain. Seminars in Perinatology. 2007; 31:275-282"

It isn't.

[Mike A]

I should say, I agree with Dorries' pro-life position, but I just don't think she is making the right case in the right way.

I just think her accusations of bad faith at the pro-choice lobby is counter-productive and I'm not convinced.

[Michael McGowan]

David, how do you know that a foetus at 22 weeks lacks consciousness, whatever that means (it can certainly feel pain)? As for the chronically ill having consciousness, that very much depends and to the extent they do have consciousness, to what extent it counts for much. Does the elderly person with advanced Alzheimers have consciousness?

Consciousness isn't a black and white line. And what you euphemistically describe as allowing people to slip away is in reality allowing them to die of dehydration and starvation, which I suspect is far more distressing than we care to admit.

That is what I find so scary about people like you. Like the original Darwinians and Victorian advocates of eugenics, you are so so certain that you have all the answers....and you never give the benefit of the doubt to preserving life. The default setting is to extinguish it.

[david]

I do hope all of those Conservatives, who are opposed to abortion, will oppose Boris Johnson's candidature as Mayor if London.

[Tony Makara]

In cases where women are set on an abortion there ought to be a system by which the pregnant mother is allowed to enter into talks with childless couples who then could offer to pay the woman to carry the baby full term and then hand it over for adoption by the couple.

Obviously such an enterprise would have to be undertaken through official channels. This would save the life of the child. Would provide a child for loving parents who cannot normally have children. Plus it would give the mother time to 'Think again' over whether she wants the child.

[Scotty]

One genuine question, would a reduction in the abortion limit to any of the suggested early dates mean that a women who finds out that their baby is severely disabled in the period between 18-24 weeks would no longer be given a choice?

[Northernhousewife]

I think I agree with Matt but this is a highly personal issue; a non-party free vote is the only way.
Like most women [but by no means all] I feel, at best, queasy about abortion but have been forced to look at the issue closely and dispassionately as a mother of a teenagers. Selfless/sefish acts on your own behalf take on new dimensions when the unconditional love of your own grown child might come into play.
This is an issue that no modern day parent can afford to avoid. Educating ourselves and our offspring is vital.
Society has a natural desire not to make the lives of those who have made uncomfortable decisions worse but women who fail to understand the nature of abortion and feotal development can undergo a cruel realisation if they later choose to have a baby and have to absorb the knowledge that it brings.
Any hiding place can often be temporary.
As I hope a responsible parent, I chose to grasp the nettle and by that I mean investigate precisely what each procedure entailed.
My distaste for late abortions was all I had anticipated it would be. A grown up conversation of the reality is still being avoided. However, I confess I found myself surprising comfortable with early abortions.
The fact is we are all shaped by our experiences and the likely impact of any law on those we love. To that extent we all have a vested interest.
Even the religious can not agree. So much pioneering embryonic research has been conducted by Isreali doctors because of the Jewish religion's differing stance on when life begins. Indeed they see it as part of their duty to "help god" with the ceative process. Similarly, many Muslims follow religious teachings that suggest life begins much later than the moment of conception [I am no expert but I believe the latest is a philosophy based on 19 weeks].
In a secular/multi-faith/Christian based??? society we can only answer to our conscience. The only duty we have is to fully acquaint ourselves with the facts.
In the words of arguably our greatest monarch who had to reconcile her divergent people, "Ours is not to look into other mens souls". Each must answer to his own conscience. Look. Squirm if you have to. And a free vote.

[David]

"David, how do you know that a foetus at 22 weeks lacks consciousness, whatever that means (it can certainly feel pain)?"

I don't. I'm going by what is currently accepted science. And that is that neurological development is not advanced enough by that time to indicate conciousness.

"As for the chronically ill having consciousness, that very much depends and to the extent they do have consciousness, to what extent it counts for much. Does the elderly person with advanced Alzheimers have consciousness?"

Yes.

"Consciousness isn't a black and white line."

With regards to neurological development being advanced enough to engender consciousness, it's certainly something measurable. Whether we currently have the capability to measure it entirely accurately is perhaps unknown.

"And what you euphemistically describe as allowing people to slip away is in reality allowing them to die of dehydration and starvation, which I suspect is far more distressing than we care to admit. "

Not if they are brain dead, which is the equivalent situation. There is no brain function, and without that, you can't have distress, let alone anything else.

"Like the original Darwinians and Victorian advocates of eugenics,"

I'm not advocating eugenics.

"you are so so certain that you have all the answers"

I'm not at all. If you actually note what I am saying, rather than take what appears to be a default line against anyone not advocating a ban on abortion, it is simply to be guided by scientific knowledge. This currently suggests that 24 weeks is the limit; it may be future developments change that, even up to a complete ban. I'm not wedded to any specific limit.

"and you never give the benefit of the doubt to preserving life. The default setting is to extinguish it."

This has absolutely no relevance to what I am saying at all, and is hardly a dignified argument.

[Peter]

On a pure stat answer to abortion if all abortions last year were stopped after 12 weeks it would have involved only 21,000 out of 193,000. With this the debate should be what categories(ie reason) these abortions were done under. After this is told we can then have a debate when limits are but I would say the following. 1) in dangerment to the mother(no time limit) 2) Deformation of foetus (28 weeks max or lower) 3) Bringing in Reagan catergory from 40 years ago Rape/Incest (16-20 weeks) 4) Others (12 weeks).
What do other people think?

[Michael Davidson]

I support keeping the limit at 24 weeks.

And as has been expressed above, the Conservative party should not be wadeing into the abortion debate on the assumption that all of it's supporters are anti-choice.

[Iain Lindley]

Interesting that the survey results - which show that 94% of members support abortion in some circumstances and 72% of members support abortion in most circumstances - merit no mention in the article bar the graphic.

[Jennifer Wells]

Do you ever have anything positive to say Iain?

[Michael McGowan]

David, you have yet to define consciousness. We first have to spot it before we decide whether it is "measurable". There is plenty of evidence that a foetus at 22 weeks can feel pain. Isn't that "consciousness"? Or are you just reasoning backwards from the position that 24 weeks must be preserved so any signs of meaningful "life" pre-24 weeks cannot be "consciousness"?

"Brain dead" is a slogan not a definition: taken literally it just means dead pure and simple. If you have no brain function, you are clinically dead. So clearly you are using the term more loosely but again what do you mean? Most of the people who are "allowed to slip away" are not "brain dead" in the strict sense. So it seems that we have a second very subjective and ill-defined concept (like "consciousness") being used as the justification for extinguishing life without consent.

I accept that you did not advocate eugenics. What I reacted to was the willingness to draw hard and fast lines on the basis of concepts which you don't seem to find it easy to define. Hence my reference to the early Darwinians, etc.

[Michael McGowan]

Memo to Iain Lindley: most of the public support the limited restoration of the death penalty too. So shouldn't you be supporting that as well?

[Tony Makara]

Michael McGowan, yes, bizarre isn't it how our society can drop bombs on Iraqi civilians, murder babies in their wombs yet our politicians haven't even got the bottle to talk about executing killers. I for one am sick to death of opening my paper and finding that yet another person has been murdered. Its wrong that as a society we passively accept these attacks on our fellow citizens. I'm not a sadist by any means but whenever I hear that some killer in the states has had their appeal against execution refused, I love it!

[David]

"Or are you just reasoning backwards from the position that 24 weeks must be preserved so any signs of meaningful "life" pre-24 weeks cannot be "consciousness"?"

Tell you what, when you can actually be bothered to read what I've said, I'll get back to you.

[Deborah]

david,
So your wish is "simply to be guided by scientific knowledge. This currently suggests that 24 weeks is the limit; it may be future developments change that"

ie until we have sufficient knowledge to properly define and understand consciousness,we should carry on taking life and death decisions on the basis of current scientific knowledge which we know is inadequate, but which states with certainty that there is no consciousness at 24 weeks?

Whatever happened to the precautionary principle?

Fifty years ago, doctors did not give anaesthetic to babies because "the current scientific knowledge" told them babies didn't feel pain. I know a mother who has never forgiven the medical profession for it.

[Richard]

"Interesting that the survey results - which show that 94% of members support abortion in some circumstances and 72% of members support abortion in most circumstances - merit no mention in the article bar the graphic"

There were also polls relatively recently showing majority report for a reduction in the 24 week limit.

[David]

"So your wish is "simply to be guided by scientific knowledge. "

Indeed.

"until we have sufficient knowledge"

We will never have sufficient knowledge, or at least should never assume we will. That way lies scientific ossification.

"Whatever happened to the precautionary principle? "

Absolutely nothing. Which is why the scientific community in general insists on rigorous, peer reviewed tests, rather than basing a decision on gut instinct.

"Fifty years ago, doctors did not give anaesthetic to babies because "the current scientific knowledge" told them babies didn't feel pain. I know a mother who has never forgiven the medical profession for it."

I'm very sorry for the mother, but that doesn't change the idea we should be guided by what we know currently, rather than try to act on guesses about what might possibly could occur.

[outsider]

I don't see why given aborion doesn't end a disease and is moraly controversial it should be provided on the NHS at all? Why not only separately? . The same "leave people to make thier own decision" that's used to justify legal abortion also justifies taxpayers not having to pay for it. surely this is something , tradi9tionalist and non tradionist, pro life and pro choice can unite behind?

The notion that scinfic knowledges guides the 24 weeks notion david is absurd i'm sorry... they're just as human before as after. WHat's your principle? strength of intellignece? if so you should be arguing about infanticide not abortion. And as for consiouncess I) it is not a bright line II_) what about the stuned and those in a coma (accept we know this is temporary like we know wiht the unborn) should it be legal to bump them off?

If we are going to have a compromise on abortion Peter's notion seems a good one to run with though

[true outsider]

and scotty no it would not ( on aboring a foeuts) unless they changed hte one for hte disabled which is up to birht at the mometn presumably on the baiss of " life unworthy of life"

[Deborah]

David,

Clearly you don't understand the precautionary principle.

[Priyen]

I'm pro-life, but don't think this is a healthy debate to have.

a) First, this is well worth a read:

http://www.ministryoftruth.org.uk/2007/11/01/miss-nadine-regrets/

b) The "precautionary principle" is an odd concept. It means 'since I have cast doubt on this, I think we should regulate it heavily'. It is an odd idea for Tories to adopt.

[Deborah]

The precautionary principle put simply means take a conservative approach - think through the consequences and don't take unnecessarily large risks with irreversible consequences

[Michael McGowan]

David, apart from lapsing into the abuse which is the trademark of the pro-abortion lobby, perhaps you could take the trouble to read what I wrote. And one other thing: most other European countries permit some level of abortion but have much stricter time limits than we do. Is that just because they are ignorant foreigners who lack your superior insights?

You are making a rather feeble attempt to dress up contentious value judgments as following science.