'Right to choose must be respected'

10:39am Friday 2nd November 2007

Comments (6)   Have your say »

Brighton Kemptown MP Des Turner sits on the cross-party Commons science and technology select committee. This week it published a report calling for women to be given easier access to abortions and for the 24-week upper limit for abortions to remain.

The report, which featured input from more than 20 expert witnesses, has angered pro-life campaigners by stating there is no scientific justification for lowering the 24-week limit. Today, Dr Turner explains the reasoning behind the report and his feelings on the issue.

The 1967 Abortion Act has already been amended once, in 1990, reducing the maximum time limit on abortions from 28 weeks to 24 weeks.

This was in response to mounting medical and scientific evidence that premature babies of less than 28 weeks' gestation could survive.

Another opportunity to revisit the 1967 Act will arise with the forthcoming Human Tissues and Embryology Bill, to which amendments may be tabled to change the Abortion Act further.

The main points are whether the 24-week time limit is still right, whether two doctors' signatures are still needed for an early abortion, whether the final stage of medical abortions can take place in the home and whether appropriately trained nurses can carry out medical - not surgical - abortions.

Recent media attention has focused on the report by the House of Commons science and technology select committee on the state of current scientific evidence relating to abortion.

It was purely intended to provide a factual basis for the coming debate and not as a commentary on the ethical or moral issues involved.

That is a matter for Parliament as a whole to decide and clearly that debate will take place.

As a member of the committee, I fully endorse the report's conclusions and reject the conclusions of the minority report produced by two actively "pro-life" members.

We were satisfied there had been no significant advance in the survival prospects of babies born at less than 24 weeks of gestation.

It seems clear to me there is a finite limit to the survival prospects of pre-term babies dictated by the biological development of the foetus and that this time clearly seems to be at about a 24-week period. There is also a high incidence of disability among the children of that age who do survive.

There has been considerable impact on public perception of foetal development by "4D images", which show with breathtaking clarity the developing foetus in the womb.

However, it is our conclusion, based on medical evidence, that whatever the visual impact of these pictures, they tell us nothing of the ability of the foetus to feel pain and have sentient reactions and in no way illuminate our understanding of the development of consciousness in the foetus.

Medical opinion is very firmly of the view that, prior to 24 weeks, babies do not feel pain, are not conscious and their apparent reactions are purely reflex.

We therefore concluded that these images did not provide any evidence for any change in the law.

The Government is also of the view that there is no medical evidence to justify a change in the 24-week limit.

It must also be remembered that only a tiny fraction of abortions are carried out at 20 weeks or later - less than two per cent - and only 0.07 per cent in the 24th week.

Some foetal abnormalities can only be detected by scans in the 22nd or 23rd week of gestation so the ability to abort by 24 weeks has every justification.

The vast majority of abortions are carried out well before 16 weeks and most by 12 weeks - and the earlier they can be carried out the less the risk of physical or psychological complications.

No one wishes to increase the numbers of abortions but if they are to happen it is best they are carried out as early as possible.

If the requirement for two doctors' signatures is removed, that will help facilitate the early access to abortion.

We found no evidence that the twosignature requirement afforded any protection to women.

The ability of suitably trained nurses to administer medical abortions - a very simple procedure - would also help in securing early abortion.

The ability to administer the second part of a medical abortion in the woman's own home could prevent some of the unfortunate occurrences that have happened - such as foetuses being delivered on the bus home from the clinic, which is clearly extremely distressing.

There is still considerable opposition, on ethical and religious grounds, to the principle of abortion and I respect that view.

Equally, it would not be moral for the pro-life argument to be used to prevent women from exercising their right to abortion on the legitimate grounds set out in the Abortion Act.

The amendments have not yet been tabled but when they are there will be a free vote in Parliament and a very full debate on all of the issues involved - scientific, moral and ethical.

I will be exercising my vote in support of the retention of the 24-week limit, of making access to early abortion easier by removing the requirement for two doctors' signatures and of involving nurses and permitting medical abortions to be completed in the home.

Abortion will always be a highly emotive issue but unless we want a return to the grim days of back-street illegal abortions and some of the horrendous consequences that arose from them, we need to have carefully regulated, legal abortion available to women. I would ask everyone, whatever their views, to respect that right.

No one who is morally opposed to abortion is obliged to have one.

They should not seek to restrict that right for others.

What are your views on abortion? Tell us below