The Press SATURDAY, APRIL 1, 1972. Abortion

Press, Volume CXII, Issue 32880, 1 April 1972, Page 16

The Press SATURDAY, APRIL 1, 1972. Abortion

The facts on abortion in New Zealand are hard to establish. Nobody knows the number of pregnancies terminated—legally or otherwise—each year, or whether the number is rising or falling. Many people, even women who seek abortions, do not know what the law allows and what it prohibits; and there is a strong divergence of opinion in medical circles on how the law should be interpreted. Understanding of the subject is further bedevilled by prejudice and emotion; for most people the moral or religious issues are more important than the medical or legal problems. For every member of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children there is probably at least one person who believes there should be a society for the prevention of unwanted children. The “ preservation of the life of the mother of “ the child ” has been a lawful ground for the termination of a pregnancy in New Zealand since 1893. Recent case law has established two further grounds: when the physical health of the mother might be impaired, and when there is a significant risk that the mental or emotional health of the mother might be jeopardised. A survey of medical practitioners two years ago showed that nearly 30 per cent believed there were two further grounds: when there was a significant risk that the child would be born mentally or physically defective, and when pregnancy resulted from rape or incest of a girl under 16 years of age. Most medical men consider that the legal grounds for the termination of a pregnancy should include the last two categories —and the category of rape or incest of a girl over 16 years of age.

In view of the wide range of opinion among medical men, it is scarcely surprising that laymen are confused on the subject Apparently authoritative sources contribute to the confusion. The Society for the Protection of the Unborn Child said in its first newsletter two years ago that “it is always safer “for the mother to continue with the pregnancy “ than to have it interfered with ”, and has since then repeatedly emphasised the dangers of terminating a pregnancy. But in Japan, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia—countries where abortion has been

widely practised for many years—the death rate has been less than 0.05 a thousand abortions, according to the “ Lancet ”, an English medical journal. This is much lower than the death rate among women who allow their pregnancies to run their natural course. The relative “safeness” of an abortion is not, of course, a good argument for liberalising abortion law; but the opponents of liberalisation do their cause an ill service by attempting to show that abortion is a risky business.

A recent survey by the World Health Organisation noted a tendency in many countries to liberalise the laws or customs governing abortion. Although there has been no change in New Zealand statute law for 80 years and no change in case law for four years, the majority medical opinion in favour of liberalisation has, apparently, led to a more liberal interpretation of the law by many medical men. Likely impairment of the mother’s health—physical or mental—is a difficult condition to foresee, and there must be plenty of room for honest disagreement among practitioners: furthermore, the medical man who refuses to terminate the pregnancy of a woman on this ground may face a lawsuit if her health is impaired by the pregnancy or by childbirth. New Zealand public opinion is obviously not prepared for “ abortion on demand ”; but lay as well as medical opinion appears to favour widening the legal grounds for abortion. A sub-committee of the New Zealand council of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists considers it would be impracticable to admit rape or incest as a ground “ as legal decisions would have to be made and these “ would be slow ”, A pregnancy is most easily and safely terminated before the twelfth week; and obviously many charges of rape cannot be heard by the courts within 12 weeks of the alleged offence. This difficulty might be met by requiring a statutory declaration from a woman which would exculpate the doctor—and expose the woman to a charge of perjury—if subsequent court proceedings disproved her contention.

The Crimes Act could well be amended at least to admit impairment of the mother’s physical or mental health as a ground for abortion; that would merely bring statute law into line with case law. There Is evidently widespread public and medical opinion to support two further grounds: the probable birth of a mentally or physically defective baby, and pregnancy as a result of rape. That is as far as the law should be reformed in the present state of public opinion; it might result in an increase of a few hundred legal abortions in a year. Whether the law is reformed sooner or later, the number of unwanted pregnancies is evidence of the pressing need for sex education, and particularly for Instruction in methods of birth control.