Bullying, says doctor in reply to Minister

Press, 24 February 1978, Page 3

Bullying, says doctor in reply to Minister

PA Wellington “Bullying” by the Minister of Justice (Mr Thomson) is unlikely to make the Abortion Supervisory Committee’s task easier or to persuade doctors to ignore their consciences, according to the chairman of the council of the New Zealand Medical Association (Dr Graham Gordon). Referring to reports that Mr Thomson was angry with doctors for not applying to be certifying consultants under the new abortion legislation, he said it was “extraordinary” that the Minister should blame the medical profession for inadequacies in the new abortion law. “Neither the Minister nor the members of Parliament can avoid their responsibilities, and blame the medical profession if the legislation is not workable,” said Dr Gordon. It did not seem that the new abortion law would be satisfactorily implemented throughout New Zealand by April 1, the chairman of the Abortion Supervisory Committee, Mrs G. C. P. A. Wallace, S.M., said this week. Her comment followed an announcement that so far only 90 to 100 doctors’ names had been collected for a list of possible appointees as certifying abortion consultants. The committee sent out

5500 invitations to doctors throughout New Zealand several weeks ago, but by Wednesday had only 200 replies, 50 of which were refusals. The list of 90 to 100 had been considered in relation to territorial areas, and in two areas only, Christchurch and Wellington, were there sufficient suitable applicants to meet in the best manner the needs of those cities.

There had been no response at all from some areas, and there were some areas where there was an adequate but minimal num-: ber of consultants available. The committee would try to get more doctors to apply for appointments but, if the response did not improve much, it would simply mean that New Zealand would not have the cover required by the act. If there was not adequate cover in certain areas by April 1 the committee could not postpone the com- : mencement date. This could onlv be done by Parliament. The committee would like to see uncertainties in the interpretation Of the law removed, and some simplification of the process which women had to follow to obtain abortions, said Mrs Wallace. Mr Thomson had been told of the committee’s

difficulties and the problems involved in the satisfactory implementation of the law. However, “the committee thinks it should point out, in fairness to the Minister, that this is not a matter on I which he has any power to assist for . . . it has been made plain to the committee that any amendment to this legislation would only be dealt with by Parliament on the free vote basis.” “There can, therefore, be no assurance that any such amendments, if brought before Parliament, would become law,” said Mrs Wallace.

The committee said it was very mindful of the fact that the new legislation is to be fully implemented by April 1, and is concerned that as a result of the present response there might be women in distress who might not have the service intended by the legislation readily available to them in their -rcas. The committee is taking steps to enlist further support from the medical profession, including writi a to the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. The Abortion Law Reform Association has called on the committee to resign in the face of the opposition of doctors to the role of certifying consultants. The national secretary of A.L.R.A.N.Z. (Mrs Jan Clark)

said it was clear at the time iof the debate in Parliament that there was no basis for expecting the co-operation of the medical profession in a law and procedure which infringed on medical ethics and professional judgment. “The supervisory committee is in danger of becoming the scapegoat for an objectionable law,” she said.

Dr Gordon said Mr Thomson appeared to have ignored the fact that the Abortion Supervisory Committee had recommended that there be changes to the act.

“The minister’s comments, which I construe as a veiled threat, are clearly an inducement to doctors to break the law when the Contraception. Sterilisation and Abortion Act specifically provides that those doctors appointed to be certifying consultants shall not hold views on abortion that are incompatible with the tenor of the act.”

The act also provided that a doctor should be under no obligation to perform or assist in an abortion if he objected to it on the grounds of conscience, said Dr Gordon.

“It appears to me that most doctors in New Zealand have excluded themselves on one of these grounds.”