Psychologists make ‘strike’ threat

Press, 4 October 1977, Page 11

Psychologists make ‘strike’ threat

FA Auckland The Psychological Society has threatened to withdraw its professional services if certain measures contained in the Contraception, Sterilisation, and Abortion Bill are adopted. The society has advised its members to refuse to participate in involuntary sterilisations, compulsory counselling, and abortion panels. Dr G. M. Vaughan, president of the society, believes that it was the first professional group to “threaten members of Parliament with the spectre of withdrawal of services.” Since then, he said, the social workers and the general practitioners had followed suit. The society considers unethical the involuntary sterilisation of people with

non-inherited defects. The psychologists object to the section of the bill that allows involuntary sterilisation of the ' mentally retarded. The bill, they say, does not differentiate between environmental and genetic retardates. There is also considerable evidence to suggest that a person can be assessed at one age as retarded and at another as not retarded, “especially if environmental factors play a part in their retardation.” They further point out that involuntary sterilisation could be held to be contrary to the declaration of general and special rights of the mentally retarded (1969) drawn up by the International League of Societies of the Mentally Retarded, to which the New Zealand Intellectually Handicapped Children’s Society belongs. The psychologists completely reject the counselling provisions of the bill as being based on “totally erroneous conceptions.” They are opposed to the principle that a person can be compelled to undergo counselling: it must be voluntary. They also object to the

• principle that counselling simply means advising on alternatives to abortion: “Abortion counselling is a multi-dimensional task.”

Further they do not believe it is desirable to have independent counselling separate from the operating institution.

They emphasise in their submissions that abortion counselling is an integral part of a team approach, providing health care for women with unwanted pregnancies, “and must be provided in the institutions where termination of pregnancy takes place." The psychologists reject the abortion review panels and the concept of the supervisory committee “despite the recently announced intention of changing the basis of appointments to this commitee from nominees of the Minister of Justice, to nominees of Parliament."

In conclusion, they say: “The society approves of the woman and her doctor making the decision and the woman seeing the counsellor of her choice. It deplores any attempt to police the usual clinical relationship between the medical practitioner and the patient.”