Position Statement on women's mental health in relation to
induced abortion: how the College came to this view
The process followed by the College Policy Unit under the
direction of the Registrar, Professor Sue Bailey, in the
preparation of the Position Statement on Women's Mental Health in
Relation to Induced Abortion
In the Government Response to the Report from the House of
Commons Science and Technology Committee on the Scientific
Developments Relating to the Abortion Act 1967, the following
request was made:
"In view of the controversy on the risk to mental health of
induced abortion we recommend that the Royal College of
Psychiatrists update their 1994 report on this issue"
1. The trustees of the College at
a meeting of the Central Executive Committee (CEC) (senior
psychiatrists representing all specialities within psychiatry and
all Divisions in the UK and the Republic of Ireland) chaired by the
President, at their meeting in February agreed to a review of our
1994 position statement.
2. A College policy research staff
member undertook a literature review under the supervision of a
senior perinatal psychiatrist and the Registrar to inform
subsequent discussions.
A request was put in the February e-newsletter which is emailed
to all members with email addresses (12,500 members , 76% of total
UK/ROI) by the President:
Dear members
"The College has been asked by the Department of Health to
update its statement on women's mental health in relation to
abortion. The Registrar and I are keen to invite anyone with a
particular research or specialist interest in this topic to
contribute to either a small meeting in London or an e-mail
discussion.
The College statement will not address ethical dilemmas, but
will be restricted to what is known from psychiatric research and
practice.
Please e-mail my PA ecook@rcpsych.ac.uk-
to let me know if you would like to contribute and what your
expertise is. We will also put the draft statement on the website
for your comments."
A briefing paper based on the literature review was prepared by
the researcher with advice from the Registrar
4. An evening meeting was held at the
College on 6th March with those members who had responded to the
e-letter and offered to help with preparing a draft statement. The
meeting was co-chaired by the President and the Registrar.
5. A draft statement was prepared
at the end of the meeting.
6. On 7th March the draft
statement was sent to all those who had responded to the e-letter
including the attendees at the meeting and all those who had simply
expressed an interest, inviting comments.
7. The statement was also taken to
the meeting of the trustees (attended by 39 people) and some
changes were suggested.
8. The statement was revised by
staff in the policy unit in the light of these suggestions.
9. The statement was again sent to
all CEC members by email and all other respondents and also posted
on the members part of the College website with a request for
comments by the end of the week.
10. Most replies supported the statement
in full but some further suggestions were made.
11. The President with the Chair of the
Northern Ireland Division who was also preparing a response to the
Chief Medical Officer in NI on the same issue discussed the
statement on the phone. He confirmed that the draft position
statement was appropriate for his response and was fully supported
by all members of the NI Division.
12. The statement was finally revised
and checked by the Registrar and the President before being sent to
the Science and Technology Committee and the Department of
Health (now called
Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee) on
14th March. It was placed on the secure part of the members' area
of the website.
13. The statement was not accompanied by
a press release because it had been requested by and prepared for
the Science and Technology Committee (now called
Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee).
17th March 2008