Monday, 14 February 2011

Pro-life doctor exposes bias of RCOG's latest abortion consultation

“The faster they come, the less they are publicised and the shorter the deadlines – meaning that it is less and less possible to make an intelligent response within the specified time frame. Is this some kind of plot to wave through controversial policy quietly whilst appearing take notice of stakeholders’ opinions? That is certainly the impression created.”
This is how Dr. Peter Saunders (pictured) of the Christian Medical Fellowship has described the latest consultation of the RCOG (Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists) which is revising its controversial document ‘The Care of Women Requesting Induced Abortion’, first published in 2000, revised in 2004, and now undergoing its current revision.

The consultation is open to every person and organisation with an interest in this topic. The closing date for submissions is 18 February. Details here. There is more information about the consultation document(s) on the RCOG website.

Dr. Saunders notes the ubiquitous presence of BPAS and Marie Stopes International, in collaboration with their pro-abortion colleagues within the RCOG and its faculty of sexual and reproductive health.

Dr. Saunders also notes the further inadequacy of the review panel by its failure to include any psychiatrist in its composition. Perhaps the recent change of position by The Royal College of Psychiatrists over the issue of abortion and mental illness, which it now recognises, has something to do with it?

Among the draft document’s recommendations, or rather ideological tenets, are the following:
"Women should be informed that induced abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer; Women should be informed that there are no proven associations between induced abortion and subsequent ectopic pregnancy, placenta praevia or infertility; Women should be informed that induced abortion is associated with a small increase in risk of subsequent preterm birth, which increases with the number of abortions; Women should be informed that most women who have abortions do not experience adverse psychological sequelae."
These claims are an egregious attempt to dismiss or ignore the significant body of evidence that contradicts each of the points made by the RCOG. Dr. Saunders provides one pertinent example offered by the American Association of Pro Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists on the link between abortion and pre-term birth.

The last word on the RCOG goes to Dr. Saunders:
“Asking this group to comment objectively and honestly about the physical and psychological consequences of abortion for women is like asking Philip Morris or BAT to review the health consequences of smoking or Macdonald’s to outline the adverse effects of fast food consumption. There are simply too many financial and ideological vested interests at stake that threaten a fair assessment.”
Comments on this blog? Email them to
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Join SPUC's Facebook group
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy