Society for the Protection of Unborn Children
3 Whitacre Mews, Stannary Street
London, SE11 4AB, United Kingdom
Telephone: (020) 7091 7091
Fax: (020) 7820 3131
Email: information@spuc.org.uk

Correspondence between the RCOG and SPUC

Gerald Chan, RCOG, to SPUC, Monday, November 13, 2006 10:08 AM

Dear Ms Davies [sic]

I came across information about No Less Human's intention to picket the RCOG on the Society of the Protection of Unborn Children's website. You may have emailed us voicing your protest over the last week. Apologies if we have not responded. So great has been the public outcry generated by the Sunday Times report that we have been flooded by emails and we are gradually replying to each.

Before we begin, please allow me to explain a few points. The RCOG and its members do not advocate or promote the active euthanasia of the disabled despite the claims in the media. We were asked by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics to look into the ethics of prolonging the life of fetuses and the newborn. Our role was to raise some very difficult questions based on the terms of reference. There were gaps in the consultation document and it was based on these inconsistencies that issues were raised for Nuffield to examine and debate. It was never our intention to provide the solutions, that would be up to the Nuffield Council to decide.

The RCOG is sympathetic to the disabled, their families and the good people who care for them, and will never willingly upset or cause distress to the public, especially the vulnerable.

Our submission to the consultation was published online in July 2005 and has since been in the public domain. The article in the Sunday Times is a purely speculative piece that is inaccurate and gave a false account of the RCOG's views. Although the RCOG was heavily quoted in the article, these have been taken out of context and we have been misrepresented.

We have never supported euthanasia for severely preterm babies, or any form of mercy killing on disabled newborns.

Ultimately, the safety and wellbeing of mother and child, whether born or unborn, is of the utmost importance to all in the specialty. We are alarmed by the outrage that these media reports have caused, both nationally and internationally. Suffice to say, we have noted each and every one and take your concerns seriously.

Best wishes

Gerald Chan
Head of Communications & External Affairs

Alison Davis, SPUC, to Gerald Chan, RCOG, Tuesday, November 14, 2006 9:48 AM

Dear Mr. Chan,

Thank you for your message. I have received a reply from Mrs. Dhillon of the RCOG. I accept that the RCOG was calling only for Nuffield to consider the issues of "non-resuscitation, withdrawal of treatment decisions, the best interests test and active euthanasia." However your submission did call for Nuffield to "think more radically" about these issues. I note that the RCOG submission speaks of a "counter-QALY" for disabled newborns. It seems disabled babies have to "qualify" for treatment, and that the RCOG suggests this should depend on the doctor's assessment of whether or not they will have a life that is "worth living or valued."

Even accepting for a moment that the RCOG does not advocate killing disabled newborns, it is clear that it does support deliberate active killing of unborn babies who are scheduled for abortion. The submission clearly states that "The RCOG guidelines on late termination presently recommend feticide or an ensuring of fetal death for terminations over 21 weeks." If you think this does not cause "upset or distress" to disabled people you are sorely mistaken. This last quote from the submission gives the lie to your final paragraph. Mrs. Dhillon stated in her email to a colleague of mine that RCOG members "have to" perform abortions. This would seem to ignore the conscience clause in the Abortion Act, as well as making it clear that members can and do kill disabled babies.

Yours,
Alison Davis

Alison Davis, SPUC, to Gerald Chan, RCOG, 06 December 2006 12:40

Dear Mr. Chan,

I realise that you must be busy, but I would appreciate a reply to my message of 14th November, reproduced below, when you have time.

All best wishes,
Alison Davis

Gerald Chan, RCOG, to Alison Davis, SPUC, Thursday, December 07, 2006 7:53 AM

Dear Ms Davis

Thank you for your email. Apologies for not responding sooner. The questions you raise are pertinent and I have forwarded your email to my clinical colleagues for advice. We will respond in time. We understand that this episode has revealed many issues - ethical and otherwise - and are aware of the need to deal with each separately. Let me assure you we are taking SPUC's concerns seriously.

I will be in touch.

Best wishes
Gerald

Gerald Chan, RCOG, to Paul Tully, SPUC, 29^th May 2007

Dear Mr Tully

We have been informed of the SPUC demonstration at the RCOG on the morning of 13 June. Thank you for making us aware of this. I have informed [SPUC's organizer] that we will not accept the petition on the day but SPUC is welcome to leave the petition at our reception desk.

I have gone through the petition against infanticide on your website, on which this demonstration is based, and would like to make several comments.

It appears that the SPUC is still stuck on the notion that the RCOG is calling for infanticide. This is not the case. The fact that the Nuffield Council have reported and have declared that some of the issues on infanticide during the time of the consultation should not be considered in practice means that the original suggestions have been rejected and we now have good guidance for doctors to follow. The RCOG does not therefore advocate or promote infanticide. This issue has been debated by the panel at the Nuffield Council and now that they have reported, please let me state that the RCOG is not calling for further or more debate on the subject. This was confirmed in the House of Commons at the end of last year - please see the link http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200607/ldhansrd/text/61211w0001.htm under 'Assisted Dying'.

On your website, you have a list of four points on what you deem to be the correct course of action, namely: more research into the causes of premature birth, better neonatal care, offering palliative care to very sick babies, and the need to offer the best available medical treatment to all babies. Let me state that we agree with each of these points and we have been involved in improving the care of premature and disabled babies, via research through our members and the encouragement and publication of such research, through to guideline development and the production of information for patients, and working in close collaboration with neonatal colleagues and partners on new methods to care for newborns.

The briefing mentions that the RCOG withdrew the submission document from the website after the SPUC launched its petition. This is not true. The submission document was removed when the Nuffield Council reported its findings.

On the issue that our members are involved in the killing of babies, let me state that this is a matter of legislation and many doctors, if they do carry out abortions, do so reluctantly, often on compassionate grounds, and in consultation with the mother. The rise in social abortions is indicative of wider developments in our society. If the SPUC wants this to change, then it should pursue the government for a change in the law.

Yours sincerely

Gerald Chan

Paul Tully, SPUC, to Gerald Chan, RCOG, 10:37, 13 June 2007

Dear Mr. Chan,

Thank you for your email of 29^th May. I note the arrangement for delivering our petition to the reception desk at the RCOG offices.

Regarding your points, we have not claimed that the RCOG is "calling for infanticide" but rather that the RCOG has called for it to be "considered" as a possibility. The RCOG submission to the Nuffield Council clearly states that the RCOG would "particularly (my emphasis) like the Working Party to consider [infanticide]". The fact that the Nuffield Council report declined to discuss the issue does not excuse the RCOG from the fact that the RCOG asked for its consideration.

Unless or until the RCOG makes it clear that it has changed its opinion and no longer wishes infanticide to be "considered" we have to assume that this would still be the College's preference, regardless of the fact that the Nuffield Council has quite properly refused to accede to the RCOG's proposal. Indeed the RCOG submission points out that

"The RCOG Ethics Committee does not have a view that we would like euthanasia to be discussed, but do feel that it has to be covered and debated for completion and consistency's sake ... If life shortening and deliberate interventions to kill infants were available, they might have an impact on obstetric decision making, even preventing some late abortions, as some parents would be more confident about continuing a pregnancy and taking a risk on outcome."

I am glad to learn that the RCOG agrees with SPUC's view on the treatment of disabled and premature babies. However, if this is a long standing policy, it would not appear to be compatible with the RCOG's call in its submission for the consideration of infanticide.

The fact that RCOG members carry out abortions "reluctantly, often on compassionate grounds" does not alter the fact, mentioned in the submission, that "The RCOG guidelines on late termination presently recommend feticide or an ensuring of fetal death for terminations over 21 weeks..." In other words RCOG members are already deliberately killing unborn children precisely because they might otherwise be born alive. Whether or not these killings are done "reluctantly" or "on compassionate grounds" does not alter the outcome for the victim.

You speak of a rise in "social" abortions, yet it is not these that we are currently discussing. We are discussing the direct killing of babies because they have, or may develop, a disability. The RCOG admits it already directly kills such babies before birth, and its submission calls for "consideration" of such killing to continue into the neonatal period. This Society's concerns are fully justified and our disabled members and disabled members of the population as a whole are justified in their genuine fears arising out of the RCOG's proposals..

Yours sincerely,

Paul Tully