Letters: We must update abortion law to avoid US turmoil

I am a retired gynaecologist who provided abortion services in the early part of my career before focusing on cancer care. I subordinated my distaste for the practicalities of the time to my belief that my patients had the right to choose and I had no right to judge. I remember now the feeling of a foetus tapping on a needle I inserted into the womb to give a lethal injection in a now-redundant technique. Nurses and midwives today are distressed by seeing an aborted foetus of 18 to 20 weeks making involuntary movements. The general public either close their minds to or are horrified by these realities. The rights of pregnant women and the unborn foetus (none in law) have to be reconciled. Each of these groups have rights and responsibilities which should be exercised and respected.

First, we need to be legally explicit about the great divide in indications for abortion. On the one hand, there is abortion on demand deceitfully veiled in the cloak of respectability and two medical signatures affirming a risk to the mental health of the woman and on the other, real identifiable medical issues of maternal physical and mental health and foetal disability and ability to live separately from the mother.

For me, we need to reduce the real and imagined medical decision-making about whether abortion is appropriate to that of safety and support, and to explicitly and legally acknowledge abortion on demand with no attempt at social justification or judgement in the early part of pregnancy. I would choose a cut-off of 16 weeks; others may suggest different gestations. After 16 weeks I would go for abortion restricted to significant risk to mother and/or foetus. This largely happens by default now, as few late abortions occur "on demand" as a result of the excellent service available here. The point is to accept reality.

I suggest the formation of lay citizens assemblies and professional expert groups along with the now-powerful ability to get large opinion polls, to work out what our society and not pressure groups are comfortable with; then crucially, to fix that consensus in law and to hard-wire a review in say 10 years to adjust to any development in thought or technology.

John Murdoch, Innellan, Argyll and Bute.

WE MUST OPPOSE NHS PRIVATISATION

NEIL Mackay is spot on in highlighting what he calls a policy of NHS privatisation by stealth (“Destruction of the NHS by the SNP too high a price for indy”, The Herald, November 30). One of the most concerning provisions in the tendering documents revealed by last weekend's Herald on Sunday (November 28) is the sentence which reads: “Providers must have processes in place to communicate effectively with the health board where the requirement for additional treatment is identified in the course of treatment ordered by the health board”. There is no obligation, here, on the private hospital to carry out such additional treatment; so they are let off the hook and the patient is left in limbo and having to ask the NHS to take him back.

Private hospitals and clinics, and the insurance companies that promote them, are notorious for marketing straightforward stand-alone procedures and avoiding anything that could affect their profit profiles. Either the Health Performance and Delivery Directorate is being incredibly naive, or it isn't bothered. Either way, the patient suffers and the NHS picks up the tab.

There should be an outcry about all this, but I fear that, as with any issue of health and social care, public apathy is too great. I shall look for any sign that I may be wrong.

Michael Otter, Kinlochbervie.

CRITICISM IS UNFAIR

I FEEL that Neil Mackay's criticism of the SNP Government for asking private hospitals to help reduce waiting lists in NHS hospitals is unfair. This action is to be applauded, as it shows appreciation that many people are suffering and dying because hospitals are overstretched at the moment. This has been done in the past and there was little criticism and, if private hospitals have free capacity, it makes sense to help to reduce waiting lists for NHS hospitals.

I appreciate that the present Scottish Government has made many poor decisions over a period (as has Westminster) but it has made an effort to help people at the lower-income level and the long-term sick. It realises that it is dealing with people and not just numbers and, of course, could always do better.

The real test of any government is how it looks after people on the lowest incomes and makes sure that every person on better incomes contributes to this effort.

Ian Turner, Bearsden.

THE POT AND THE KETTLE

THERE was something surreal about SNP MPs accusing the Prime Minister of dishonesty ("SNP’S Blackford accuses PM of ‘lying’ in heated Commons debate on sleaze", The Herald, December 1). I think we all know that Mr Johnson has a variable and individual notion of what truth is, but that his accusers should be Scottish nationalists beggars belief.

For Ian Blackford to accuse anyone of sleaze or dishonesty, given his own party’s record in these areas is mind-boggling. With several in his own party being investigated for various financial peccadilloes and sexual misdemeanours, he has not much of a leg to stand on. Never has the "pot calling the kettle black" saying been more apposite.

Jill Stephenson, Edinburgh.

MANY TOPICS AT SNP CONFERENCE

ANDREW McKie ("Does anyone in the SNP have a grasp on the realities?", The Herald, November 30) writes: “Yet the entirety of the SNP conference last weekend was devoted to insisting that a second referendum is just around the corner…”. This statement is at best plain misleading and is in fact the opposite of the reality. Resolutions take up most of conference time and of the 24 resolutions on the agenda submitted for debate, 21 related to a variety of matters completely unconnected to a referendum or independence in any way whatsoever and three which indirectly concerned matters on independence and none on a referendum.

What credence should I give to the rest of his article?

Alan M Morris, Blanefield.

* RUTH Marr (Letters, December 1) quotes Winnie Ewing as saying “Stop the world, Scotland wants to get on.” I feel the quote should now be “Stop the SNP, Scotland wants to catch up.”

John Dunlop, Ayr.

BRING IN TREES LEGISLATION

BECAUSE the UK is on the northern edge of the Atlantic Ocean, we will always have intermittent periods of exceedingly high wind speeds and so it must be expected that, due to lack of the necessary legislation, overhead power lines will be brought down at times by falling trees and cars will be crushed by massive trees that are allowed to grow so close to the roadside.

This will continue until legislation is brought in, to put upon landowners the responsibility to fell trees growing on their land if they fall into one of two categories: a) They are over 12ft tall (3m) and growing to be within striking distance of an overhead power line or b) They are over 12ft tall and growing within falling distance of a public highway.

I suggest that such legislation will both save lives and reduce the necessity of so many families having to spend days on end at home without any power.

Archibald A Lawrie, Kingskettle, Fife.

MOBILES WERE NO HELP

I WAS interested to read the letter (December 1) from Jane Wood, BT Scotland Director, in response to mine of November 30 on the difficulties of maintaining communications during a power cut. She recommends that customers have back-up mobile phones. My wife and I both do but both our networks, O2 and Vodafone, were down for the duration of our power cut. I don’t know if other networks were available.

Battery backup packs apparently are available for "customers flagged as vulnerable on our system". I wonder how these customers are identified? In an emergency, anyone could be vulnerable, say to a tree falling onto their property.

Lastly, and a point unrelated to power cuts, I can’t say I’ve noticed any difference to the quality of call that she suggests that Digital Voice provides. I wonder if other readers have?

Willie Towers, Alford.

Read more: Storm Arwen has shown the folly of the green agenda