“GRAVE CONCERN FELT»

Press, Volume LXXII, Issue 21805, 10 June 1936, Page 8

“GRAVE CONCERN FELT»

Minister on Coroner’s Remarks

DEATHS AFTER ILLEGAL

OPERATIONS

[From Our Parliamentary Reporter.]

WELLINGTON, June 9

The remarks made recently by Mr J. E. Bartholomew, S.M., coroner, at an inquest in Dunedin, about the duties of doctors in attending cases where death occurs from criminal abortion, were referred to in a statement issued to-night by the Minister for Health (the Hon. P. Fraser). The Minister took the view that it was a duty of a medical practitioner in such cases to inform the police of the cause of death, but he added that the matter could very safely be left in the hands of the medical profession. Mr Fraser also said that the setting-up of a committee or commission of enquiry, with full powers to investigate every aspect of the problem, presented by the prevalence of abortion offences, was receiving the considerc’ion of the Government.

The Minister referred to the remarks made by Mr Bartholomew about the ruling of the Director-General of Health for the guidance of the medical profession, issued on October 29, 1933. The coroner had stated that the ruling was most unfortunate and mischievous in its effect, and invited a cloak to be cast over a serious criminal offence, out of which a charge of murder might lie. A Doctor’s Obligation

“Towards the end of 1932, the Direc-tor-General of Health was requested by the New Zealand Obstetrical Society to obtain a legal opinion as to the obligation on a doctor, when he knows that a criminal abortion has been performed, to inform the police, if the patieiit recovers or dies,” Mr Fraser said. ' “The question was submitted by the Director-General of Health to a law officer of the Crown, who advised that a doctor was under no legal obligation to inform the police. The law officer referred, however, to the moral obligation resting on every good citizen to assist in detection and suppression of crime, but he mentioned that only in passing.” The Minister said the ruling had been forwarded to the society, and had been published in the New Zealand Medical Journal. The DirectorGeneral of Health had not given the ruling for the guidance of the medical profession—he had merely handed on a legal opinion on a specific question of law, the accuracy of which, as a question of law, had not been challenged.

“However, the coroner has raised very properly an issue of the greatest public importance,” Mr Fraser said. “It is essential that it Jiould be faced and settled in a way that permits of no subsequent misunderstanding. When a patient dies as a result of an induced abortion, should a doctor who has attended her in her last illness withhold a certificate of death and inform the or the coroner? The coroner says ‘Yes.’ I venture respectfully to agree with him. Indeed, I would go further, and say that such an action should be taken in every case where a doctor has evidence to lead him to conclude that death resulted from a criminal act. To render such action legally obligatory would, I am advised, require an amendment to the law. If this were necessary, I should not hesitate to recommend it. However, I am not convinced of the present necessity for such an amendment. I am disposed to believe that the matter can ne safely left in the hands of the medical profession, which, I feel certain, is anxious not only to obey the law, but also to discharge the moral obligation resting on every good citizen to assist in the de-

tection and suppression of crime, while at the same time keeping faith with those who, often in great mental as w’ell as physical distress, repose confidence in its members. “High Ethical Standard”

“I am sure the public shares my conviction that the ethical standard of the medical profession in New Zealand is in every respect as high as it is in Great Britain. If the New Zealand branch of the British Medical Association should decide to follow the rules of conduct approved by the Royal College of Physicians, I feel sure the pernlexity now felt by some members of the profession would at once disappear. In such case, I imagine, there would be no need of any amendment to the law. The prevalence of the practice of abortion has been prominently before the Department of Health for some considerable time, and has been discussed with the Obstetrical Society. Grave concern has been felt and much thought has been given to the best means of combating the evil. The setting up of a committee or commission of enquiry with full nowers to investigate every aspect of the problem is at present receiving consideration, and it is hoped that an early announcement on this point will be made.”