I cannot agree with Dr Tony Calland, chairman of the BMA's ethics committee (Burning Issue, 9 May), when he argues against a reduction of the 24-week limit on abortion on the grounds that there has been little improvement in the survival rates of pre-24 week gestation babies. Survival statistics are surely less significant than the ethics, which, by definition, should have had priority over the science in his committee's discussion of this very important issue.
It cannot be denied that the small number of women for whom a late realisation that they are pregnant comes as a shock face "a very difficult situation". But I would argue that their anguish and that of their families is made infinitely worse by th
eir awareness of the present availability of these hideously late terminations. If such an option did not exist they might be encouraged to proceed with their pregnancies safe in the knowledge that they still had the choice of adoption if they felt they were truly unable to provide adequate parental care for the child.
(DR) ALEXANDER FRAME
Manse Street,
Galashiels, SelkirkshireIt is thought-provoking to read how conclusive the views of the experts are regarding the limit on the viability of the foetus before 24 weeks, while they offer cogent arguments on the possibility of successes that may come about through research on "inter-species" embryos created from a combination of human and animal genetic material.
Of babies born at 23 weeks, we are told the survival rate remains at "just 18 per cent". It beggars belief that the word "just" is used, signifying how desensitised we have become to the gravity of the nature of this choice before us.
It is ironic that, in education, the mission statement is "fulfilment of potential for each child" while, as a society, we are committed in the abortion law to the denial of this very potential at its inception.
NANCY CLUSKER
Edinburgh Road
Bathgate, West LothianThe full article contains 331 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
