Referendum on abortion urged

Press, 23 May 1977, Page 6

Referendum on abortion urged

A referendum which would give all New Zealanders a chance to vote on the abortion issue is strongly advocated by Dr 1 ony Johnston, a familyplanning specialist from Sydney.

.society held the view of the ; J commission that the foetus ■was inviolate from concep- - Iticn. Opinion polls among (New Zealanders recognised I the superior rights of the ; mother over the unborn Dr Johnston found it - /‘alarming” that the commisjsion discounted recently held I polls which showed “a ■marked and increasing trend [towards liberalisation of our ;outmoded law.” I He had been impressed by ■consistent findings that ; showed that 60 per cent of New' Zealanders were prepared to leave a decision on abortion to the woman and her doctor. Yet the commission had assumed that conicern about the unborn child must always out-weigh socioeconomic factors, stress and trauma unless it seriously damaged health, contraceptive failure, age — or a combination of these factors. “The moral viewpoint triumphs,. and in my belief 'is is a view of the minority lin this country,” he said. i“Yet it would dictate the quality of life of the majority of people who don't hold this view. So much for the distribution of justice in New Zealand,” he said. Dr Johnston feared that legislation on the commission’s recommendations, which could be done easily, would come quickly, while the educational changes would be delayed, ignored, or only partly implemented. He told journalists later he did not consider the Prime Minister (Mr Muldoon) could •be so naive as to believe a • referendum on abortion could I not be- properly and fairly ; worded. I He would not presume to | suggest suitable wording because he had been living away from the New Zealand community for some years. (Dr Johnston, a University of Canterbury graduate, has been living in Australia, and spent some time in Asia). New Zealand expertise in the surveying techniques of the , social sciences should be sought. Dr Johnston said he was ' surprised that no member of | the Commission had sub- ’ mitted a dissenting opinion to ' the report’s moral point of ’ view and conclusions. He re- * gretted this lack because he r believed the report’s moral ; view was held by only a min- ’ ority of New Zealanders. ; “There are other moral opin- ' ions than that taken, and ’ these are well represented in ’ the community,” he said. The commission’s rejection ’ of abortion on the ground of ' “social convenience,” yet its ; approval for court authorisa- ' tion of sterilisation of the ' handicapped — “which is ' socio-economic ground” — ‘ was an example of the re--1 port’s puzzling contradictions. “I can only conclude they Shave over-valued a minority viewpoint put to them,” Dr Johnston said. He was also surprised at the smallness of the commission, which he felt should ; have had more than one ' highly qualified doctor, and : one social scientist. About 10 ! members would have been ' ! more appropriate.

In a hard-hitting attack on attitudes to abortion in the Royal Commission’s report on sterilisation, contraception, and abortion, he toid the New Zealand Familv Planning Association conference on Sat-! urdav that they should not be afraid of the referendum result. He accused the commission, of failing to come to conclu-; sions based on its own evi-| dence, and of threatening the distribution of justice in New Zealand. Its recommendations were a clear infringement of! women’s rights to privacy in ■ medical consultations, and an. abrogation of the normal! doctor-patient relationship,, Dr Johnston said. The report | was a palpable insult to what-1 ever esteem the New Zealand medical profession had left. “It is time to stir our-i selves,” Dr Johnston told the F.P.A. He urged members to; initiate training for educators; which would transform New' Zealanders into a population, capable of making informed| decisions about the manage-! ment of their fertility. Prevention rather than i abortion was emphasised in! most family-planning efforts.; However, most family-plan-ning advocates. like himself.j considered the Question in the] context of family life. Dr Johnston predicted that] legislation based on the commission’s recommendations would result in increased! backstreet abortions, and a] return to the abortion traffic' across the Tasman, to Aust-| The difference between al legal abortion, and an abortion which was illegal in the New Zealand context, would! be $340, the cost of a return; air fare and a termination in, Sydney. “I see no reason why Air! New Zealand and Qantas, should benefit from the social j Injustice involved.” he said. The woman with means and! the girl from a higher socio-, economic familv would continue to have a choice not! available to those from the' lower socio-economic classes.; The latter would need much; courage, determination, and: social competence to surmount the indignities the commission’s recommendations would present. The Auckland Medical Aid Trust represented an acceptable and fair process which the majorty of New Zealanders would not object to. Dr Johnston was particularly critical of the commission’s finding on natural family planning in New Zealand, its rejection of rape as grounds for abortion, and its recommendations for a statutory committee and panel system. He described the latter as requiring the mind of a Heath Robinson to understand. Like most expatriates, he had nurtured an ideal of New Zealand as a social laboratory. where equality and social justice first saw the light of day. With the commission’s report, reality had impinged again. The report was one of the strangest, most inconsistent documents in the field of social science it had been his dubious pleasure to read. It

.onfused scientific method, s with minority values with!< considerable abandon. Manyp of its conclusions were based jt on unfounded assumptions. 1 “As a social document, this 1 report is a half-step forward.lt a gigantic step still, and aj i full step backward.” Dr! 'Johnston said. “If that particular docu-;l ;ment had been submitted top me as a senior academic within a university, p I would have returned it to I !its author and asked that;* passages be rewritten,” he]said. ! One of its strangest aspects I I was its espousal of natural < ! family planning- Natural fam- ] lily-planning clinics appeared 1 Jin the index, whereas otherj' j I clinics did not- • Dr Johnston has just com- ' pl eted an investigation of 1 , such clinics in Australia, “the | ! most comprehensive ever un- . ; !dertaken.” Of the 160 listed, 1130 per cent were only contact or were informal cen-| [ltres. He was perturbed that; . this might be the case in; [New Zealand. i ■ On the reports figures, each ' i New Zealand clinic would /treat about 14.9 patients a •(year. He hoped that if action ,! were taken on the commis>l sion’s discussion of funding, I it would be on the basis of a /Government survey. ■ Discussion of the effectiveilness of natural family planlining was even stranger. It. II discussed three methods, :] omitting the fourth, which ' • was the most widely practised overseas. The ovulation mel lthod was said in the report to be the most effective. ’ Properly observed, the re-' 1 1port said, it provided u safe;: /method of contraception.! 1 “You may search in vain for; J any substantiation of these; . contentions.” said Dr John-; iiston. “Where is the data? It ] doesn’t exist in the report. ' .land it doesn’t exist in the relality.” ’j His research in Australia, Jand reading of all the literaJture in the field, had not ; revealed these claims. Of the , ’l5OO couples he had recently j j surveyed, the ovulation meth.iod had been the least effective ; [method- Other findings indiJcated that it was 15 times less effective than the contracepiltive pill- “How can the com- - mission make the assertion •lithat this method is safe. They -Ican’t substantiate it.” he said. Rape had been rejected as - a ground for abortion without - discussion of its prevalence 1 in New Zealand society, nor - its notorious tendency to be s under-reported. The report s used an informal police sur- - vey as a “guestimate” for the 1 instances of pregnancy, ig- - noring the evidence of rape I crisis centres in Australia, - and findings in northern Europe. It assumed that rape - victims would appear 70 ’ hours after the attack to be' - treated with the morning-; - after pill or fitted with an| t I.U.D. “What of the women, for ■ good and valid reasons, who don’t report?” he asked. ? Constantly the report was t concerned with the rights of - the unborn child, and quite s, rightly, he said. However, he t doubted that the majority of !