Wow Alice, that was such a brilliant comment. I agree with you. Thank you.

Ash, London, UK

Not all acts that are legal are necessarily ethical or moral. Western history is replete with laws that were eventually struck down as being unethical and therefore unlawful (slavery, segregation, to name a few). It will be a sad day for society when members of a profession are prohibited from freely exercising freedom of conscience. When freedom of conscience is abolished in a profession, then only those without conscience will join that profession. One can then imagine their collective response when future generations ask "Why did you do these things?" They'll answer “We were only following orders…”

John, Omaha, USA

It may be unseemly to comment twice, but since Sean has addressed his remarks to me, I feel a response is called for.

If an elective abortion is, indeed, a medical treatment, it should be unproblematic to say just what is the medical pathology that is being treated. A biologically normal pregnancy, however, hardly qualifies as a medical pathology. And far from being a "semantic" problem, this is directly relevant to questions concerning the scope of physicians' professional obligations. So it's not merely my problem -- it's a problem for the entire medical profession.

Bob Koepp, Minneapolis, USA

Among the most signficant statements in the GMC Guidance are that, "You should not normally discuss your personal beliefs with patients unless those beliefs are directly relevant to the patient’s care. You must not impose your beliefs on patients... you must not put pressure on patients to discuss or justify their beliefs (or the absence of them)." The serious abuse by some doctors of the doctor-patient power relationship in order to proselytise and convert patients is something with thousands of people of different faiths profoundly reject. The GMC is to be strongly congratulated for defending the religious freedom and human rights of vulnerable patients against a minority of Evangelical and other doctors who have abused the power asymmetry between doctors and patients in this way.

Muhammad Yusuf, London,

Bob Koepp
You may object to abortion being presented as a medical treatment, but it most certainly is and should be - unless you would like to see more of those dangerous illegal backstreet operations. I think your problem is a semantic one - and merely YOUR PROBLEM.

Sean, Coventry, UK

What about doctors who allow their views on suicide, for example, to colour their treatment of mentally ill people? There are far too many reports of hospital staff seeming to disregard self-harm injuries, in particular, as being the patient's 'own fault', showing a brusque and reproachful attitude and not being quite as careful as they should in their treatment. Mental illness is a difficult thing for some people to understand but such prejudice at what is clearly a bad time (or the patient wouldn't be there in the first place) isn't helpful or appropriate, particularly from medical professionals who should know better.

Eleanor, Derbyshire,

I would also like to be sure that my GP is prepared to act on my living will, and will not try to keep me alive after I myself feel that the quality of my life has diminished to a level I find unacceptable.

E Thomson, London, England

Although I have long been a supporter of the right of women to control their own reproduction, and although I do not find abortion morally objectionable, I do object quite strenuously to the sleight of hand whereby abortion is presented as a "medical treatment." While there surely are medically indicated abortions that do qualify as therapeutic measures, it is misleading, at best, to use the language of 'treatment' when discussing so-called elective abortions (at worst, it is dishonest).

Bob Koepp, Minneapolis, USA / Minnesota

The guidelines as quoted seem reasonable enough, but it all depends on how they are interpreted. There needs to be adequate respect and protection of legitimate diversity of view among professionals just as much as respect for diversity among patients. If employers are allowed to ask about conscientious objection before making apointments then clearly there is a danger of direct discrimination. Doctors should inform patients of the right to see another doctor, but they should not be forced to arrange treatment that they do not think medically indicated.

David Jones, Twickenham, UK

NHS doctors - and doctors in general - should re-claim their original priciple: healing - or at least treating - the sick. All these other 'treatments' - abortion, contraception and the like - should be made available at market rates by those practioners who wish to earn their living that way. They should not be paid for by taxpayers. It is quite wrong to lump together those whose primary wish is to treat the sick with those who see themselves as social workers getting a girl out of trouble etc. What about the beliefs of patients? What about those patients who, irrespective of what their illness might be, do not wish to be treated by a doctor who recommends, approves or even performs abortions? Has the BMA looked at these patients' needs?

Alice J McCabe, Doncaster , UK

The Jehovah's Witness blood transfusion issue is still a hot item, even though the Watchtower has practically allowed all 'parts' of the blood individually, just not together!

Their entire doctrine is senseless and deadly.

The Bible says nothing about blood transfusions. They didn't exist when the Old Testament and Acts were written. The Bible passages in question (kosher law) have to do with diet. Neither the Jews nor other groups oppose blood transfusions because they don't try to put a spin on something that isn't there. If the Watchtower had not issued this prohibition, no Jehovah's Witness would oppose them on Biblical grounds.

Charles Watson, London, UK

Big surprise. The powers that be are concerned to make sure that Christians' views don't have any effect on their patients, yet appear to be unwilling to issue an edict that muslim women doctors must wash themselves properly before surgery... or else. Ah - what it must be to be sick in Britain. It is not acceptable to have a negative view about aborting unborn children on the basis on moral conviction, but it is fine to spread infection.

Nick, Rotherham, UK