We were somewhat surprised to see that the article was not in this week's paper edition of the BMJ which many doctors did not receive until Saturday. Why then rush to get it onto the web and into the public domain?

The BMJ editorial said that upper time limits were to be debated in the House of Commons 'this year'. What it didn't say is that they are actually to be debated and voted on in just ten days, on 20 May.

So the rush to get this into the public domain was to influence that debate. This was the same motivation which led to the massive media coverage around the EPICURE 2 study just a few weeks ago despite the fact that that research has not yet appeared in any peer-reviewed journal.

What then of the science? The one thing everybody agrees on, and confirmed by this study, is that survival rates at 24 and 25 weeks have improved enormously as a result of advances in neonatal care. The dispute is about survival rates for babies below 24 weeks.

The Trent study looks at results from 16 hospitals and has been running for years. It is not new and other studies have been published based on more recent data. The results from Trent have always been poor and well below those seen in top neonatal centres worldwide – in this most recent article they are saying that no babies survived at 22 weeks and less than one in five (18%) at 23 weeks

The key issue here is whether public policy on abortion should be based on population studies like Trent and EPICURE 2 or on best-practice models.

A University College London study published earlier this year (1) showed no survivors at 22 or 23 weeks in 1981-85 but 71% (5/7) and 47% (8/17) respectively in 1996-2000. These numbers are highly suggestive of a trend in centres of excellence that rebuts the major conclusion of the BMJ editorial. Minneapolis figures in 2005 similarly showed 66% survival at 23 weeks (2).

Furthermore the national statistics for 2005 recently highlighted by a Parliamentary question and published in the Telegraph confirm that babies do survive at 22 weeks in parts of the country other than Trent (3).

Department of Health data show that 435 children were born after less than 24 weeks of pregnancy during 2005. Of those, 52 survived for at least a year.

The data, for births in England and Wales, showed that eight of the 152 children born after 22 weeks' gestation lived for a year or more. At 23 weeks, 44 of 283 children survived. Of the 201,173 abortions in England and Wales in 2006, 1,262 were at 22 weeks or more.

So it is clear that nationally in 2005 a significant number of babies were surviving below the current abortion limit. Even if viability is to be the sole criterion used for setting that 24 week limit (and not any other of almost 20 reasons given on this website) then surely that limit should come down on the basis that in one year 52 out of 435 babies survived below the limit and that in centres of excellence like UCL and Minneapolis survival rates at 23 weeks are around 50% or better.

Thinking people will not be fooled by the BMA's interpretation of this latest study.

Why is it that two thirds of people, three quarters of women and two thirds of GPs believe that the 24 week limit should come down?

It is not solely because of neonatal survival figures but because they are aware of:

• Millie McDonagh, born at 22 weeks in Manchester in 2006 surviving
• Pictures of children in the national newspapers who were born under 24 weeks
• 3D ultrasounds of babies smiling, yawning, stretching, walking in the womb and scratching their noses well below 20 weeks on television or seen their own babies on ultrasound in the prenatal clinic
• Babies felt by their mothers kicking in the womb at 16-18 weeks
• Professor Anand's work showing that fetuses have the capacity to feel pain down to 18 weeks
• Stories of babies being born alive after botched abortions as early as 16 to 18 weeks
• 16 of the 27 countries in the EU having abortion limits of 12 weeks or below