IN THEIR no-holds-barred fight to end legal abortion, Life has always been ready to plumb the murkiest depths. So it was no surprise to find them, in the run up to this year's Private Members ballot, another contrived medical horror story.
Because this is really the whole Dr Leonard Arthur case was about. Life hoped that, in the aftermath of a sucArthur they would be able to our over tie dererce between the foetus and the newborn child push through Parliament a new piece anti-abortion legislation.
During the weeks preceeding the Private Members ballot November, Life was busy circulating model Bill through the House of Commons, hoping to find an MP to sponsor it.
The Bill has two clauses. The first part proposes to make it an offence to give a drug or to withold treatment from a newborn Baby. 41 V because of abnormality. sociallet Ch hitting the headlines with The second clause proposes to amend the 1967 way that it would be illegal to give an abortion on the grounds of foetal mality - even if the menLal or physical health of the mother would be damaged by having a handicapped child. Abortion on the grounds of foeta abnormality would only be allowed to save the mother's life.
Thus, who contract rubella in early through serening, would through be unable have legal abortions The clause also prohaves to moore it illegal to LECT grounds of the foetus' sex, which tained. through pre-natal Pago 14 screening.
Fortunately for US.
Life heavily miscalculated. The last thing they wanted was initiate public discussion about an issue which until now had been kept hospital doors. They were not interested in debating the dilemma which confronts 21l paediatricians and many parents who face this sort of decision.
They wanted public condemnation they found was public sympathy and a great willingness among people to think about and discuss the ssues involved At first, Life must have been heartily pleased with themselves when the Director of Public Prosecutions agreed to prosecute Dr Arthur. Just previously, they had failed convince the DPP to bring a case against Professor Hugh Jolly leading paediatrician for allowing a Spina Bifida baby to die.
No doubt the DPP felt that with the severity or the baby's handicap, would present very strong case in court.
Dr Arthur was not so fortunate. He had no national , standing the medical profession and the baby he had allowed to die appeared, on the initial evidence, be suffering from a lesser disability.
This makes it all the more surprising that he nad such and sympathy -- in much of the press, on the many television programmes which were shown on the ISsuC people generally.
Both BBC's Panorama programme and the Sunday Telegraph November) conducted their own opinion polls which indicated that most people supportcu made by the Dr Arthur to lanc into the wishes of the parents deciding whether to allow severely hendicapped baby to die The draw for the Private Members ballot has produced at least two anti-abortionists.
who