-------------------------

Dr McAll (letters Isle of Man Examiner, January 24) has a right to express his views which are probably coloured by his religious faith but he does not have a right to express them as some kind of scientific fact. Neither the story of his father’s attribution nor his own anecdote should sway this serious discussion.

The study he quotes in the British Journal of Psychiatry was heavily criticised in subsequent issues of the same journal by other eminent psychiatrists.

The methods used were not up to the current scientific standards and were therefore biased to represent the views of the author. Every good scientific study (more than 20) both in the UK and abroad in the past twenty years have found no difference in new cases of mental illness of women after termination compared to after childbirth.

Mental illness is significantly higher in those seeking termination and may be a factor in an unplanned pregnancy as well as a reason for termination. On the other hand, some studies show that up to 60 per cent of new mothers experience depression with 2 per cent becoming psychotic leading to an estimated eight infant murders per 100,000 births.

After 40 years of general practice in the Isle of Man I have yet to meet a woman who chose termination lightly or used it as a method of contraception. Neither have I met one with a mental illness due to a termination. I put this down to the counselling provided by my colleagues and our general non-judgmental support for the woman’s right to choose

No doubt Dr McAall and those of his persuasion (penultimate paragraph of ‘Comment’ in Manx Independent January 26) would wish to see all terminations illegal and subject women, not men, to further inhumanity.

Must a mother be reminded of her rapist every time she looks at her child? Must a mother carry her child to full term knowing it has a fatal genetic disease which will mean that it is bound to die at or shortly after birth? Some women will want to, whilst others will decide not to. In a caring society we must be compassionate, be ready to listen, counsel, advise and then support the women in her decision.

Whatever law is passed in the Isle of Man will make very little difference to our rate of terminations. Women always have and will take charge of their lives. If we are restrictive here, as we always have been, we will drive women off the island for private health care affecting mainly those who can least afford it and preventing them from accessing good health care and counselling.

What could make a difference here is improved sex education, availability of contraception, and expert independent counselling.

For readers who wish to do their own research most of the medical journals are freely available and can be accessed by a Google search.

Dr Malcolm Hannan, Peel

------------------------

Dr Allinson MHK has been successful in obtaining leave to draft a bill to modernise the island’s abortion law.

Now the public, the media and the government should be warned that they are about to be bombarded with misinformation by anti-abortion lobbyists.

The anti-abortion lobby (confusingly called ‘Humanity and Equality in Abortion Reform’ or HEAR) are militants who email-bomb government officials and the media with misleading, scare-mongering, overly-emotive or downright false information dressed up as facts.

HEAR are backed by UK anti-abortion groups and therefore are able to put a lot of time, money and energy into conducting their campaign, allowing them to promote themselves as if their views are mainstream, which of course they’re not.

Just because HEAR is the group that shouts the loudest does not mean that they are the group whose views we should listen to.

There are currently no Isle of Man statistics that show what percentage of our population is actually anti-abortion (pro-life). A 2016 YouGov study shows that only 8 per cent of the population of the UK have anti-abortion views and it seems reasonable to assume that the figure on the island may be similar.

I believe that the majority of the population of the Isle of Man do not have strong opinions about abortion and therefore are content to allow the law to be changed so that women themselves are in charge of choosing whether to have an abortion, which is what Dr Allinson is proposing.

Dr Allinson stated in Tynwald that abortions after 14 weeks would only be available if there are serious maternal health concerns or severe foetal abnormalities and that anyway 92 per cent of abortions in the UK are carried out before 13 weeks. He also pointed out that most abortions would be carried out using abortion pills, so the cost to our health services would be minimal.

Dr Allinson MHK made modernising the island’s abortion law a key part of his manifesto during last year’s General Election. He was voted in with almost 50 per cent of the total votes for his area. This goes some way to show that local people agree that the law should be modernised.

I would urge everyone to either ignore or vigorously factcheck every piece of information that comes from HEAR. In particular, I hope that MHKs (particularly Minister Beecroft) realise that, no matter how many hundreds of emotive emails they receive from HEAR supporters (the majority of whom do not live on the Isle of Man), it should certainly not be assumed that HEAR represents the majority of people on the island.

Name and address supplied

---------------------------

It was good to read in the latest Examiner that the Isle of Man will be consulted when the UK leaves the EU.

Gibraltar is a member of the EU and voted in the UK referendum last year.

The Isle of Man is not a member but is part of a customs union. The Channel Islands are not members and not part of a customs union.

All European Crown Dependencies appear content with their existing relations with the EU. I am sure that all could have chosen any of the three options. This suggests that choices will also be possible after the UK leaves the EU.

It would be good to discover what Tynwald wants for future relations between the Isle of Man and the EU. Your readers who live – and vote –in the UK could contact our MPs if necessary. My MP was very helpful when the Imperial Government proposed doing away with the agreement which allows access to the UK health service for visitors from the island and vice versa. I believe that other MPs also helped to keep this agreement.

John Bowers, Portmadog, Gwynedd

----------------------------

A few years ago I split from my wife of 20 years.

As part of the splitting up process, I foolishly accepted the word of my ex-wife that, ‘I could trust her’! Despite going through the legal process of paying to have a separation agreement between both parties, I was still reliant on her keeping her word with regards to a financial agreement we had made.

When it came time for my ex-wife to honour our verbal agreement, according to her, ‘it never existed’.

I was forced to seek legal advice, at my own expense. This resulted in me initiating a claim through the small claims procedure, initially, through the Scottish courts (I have resided back in Scotland since 2014), then latterly through the Manx courts.

What I didn’t expect was my ex-wife to instruct her advocate to call me a liar in court. I find this the most upsetting that my integrity has been brought into question.

As with any legal argument, one requires proof in order to satisfy the courts that you have a case. I do not dispute this, however, that is where my problems began. I was not prepared to put my daughter, who was aware of the agreement, in the position where she would have to give evidence against her own mother. In the end I decided that it was unlikely that I could prove the existence of the agreement, therefore I agreed to have the case ‘stuck off’ and be done with the episode.

This is where the final insult was delivered to me the other day, a bill for £130, which I need to pay to my ex-wife’s advocate. I will pay this bill, as it has been ordered by the court. However, on reflection, I have now realised that I have to pay an advocate for the privilege of being made out to be dishonest with the courts.

So a word of warning to all, be very careful who you place your trust in! If in doubt, ask for agreements in writing, and probably have it witnessed, because justice is not always served in the way we expect it!

Name and address supplied

---------------------------------

l was on holiday in the Isle of Man recently when a rather urgent call of nature manifested itself.

Fortunately, as we were passing through Kirk Michael an archaic public convenience revealed itself.

Having freed ‘Percy’ of encumbrances, and pointed him in the right direction, l was relaxing and focusing my mind on the concrete wall directly in front of me when, to my amazement out of the dark recesses came a loud clear, ‘Hullo’.

Though caught unawares, instinct and common courtesy kicked in, and l replied, ‘G’day’, as we do back home in New Zealand.

‘How are you?’ came the response. Keeping in mind l was concentrating on the task in hand, l managed a wary , ‘I’m fine, thank you, and yourself?’

‘l’m good,’ said the stranger. ‘l’m in Kirk Michael, you can come and pick me up whenever you are ready.’

It was at this stage that l realised that the guy sitting on the throne next door was not addressing me, but was talking to someone on his cell phone.

I allowed a few moments to elapse after the stranger’s departure before, on seeing the funny side of the exchange, l laughed so much l almost wet myself.

I would like to add that this incident was indicative of the general friendliness l encountered on the Isle of Man, and l enjoyed my stay immensely.

Terry Corbet, New Zealand