Auckland neo-natal problems

Press, 23 September 1980, Page 16

Auckland neo-natal problems

Sir, — I fail to see how setting up a day clinic for abortions (as suggested by your correspondents P. Syme, J. Waters and H. Chambers), will solve the problems of the Auckland neo-natal unit. As Judy W’aters is a candidate for the Hospital Board it amazes me that she can so easily overlook what the Contraception, Sterilisation and Abortion Act states, i.e., “to provide for the . circumstances and procedures under which abortion may be authorised after having full regard to the rights of the unborn child.” This clearly states that no unborn child can be . aborted unless and until its rights have received full consideration. May I therefore suggest to Judy Waters, that instead of spending money on abortion clinics, the money would be better spent in promoting public awareness of the true nature of the unborn child and in educating people about the veiy real hazards ' associated with having an abortion. — Yours, etc., BARBARA DOCHERTY, Vice-president, S.P.U.C. September 18, 1980. Sir, — The real problems of neo-natal care at Auckland have evaded Judy Waters and Helen Chambers in their letters outlining the economic and social arguments for killing the unborn; The Auckland situation has arisen because doctors, nurses and parents are demanding the best medical facilities for premature infants. Their struggle for the unborn is further highlighted by Mr Gair’s refusal to increase financial aid for neo-> natal care. However, Mr Gair has been able to approve finance for the establishment of Wellington’s new Parkview abortion clinic. Arguments about indignities for women undergoing abortions at Christchurch Women’s and unnecessary painful examinations by certifying consultants, all ignore the other person involved in this debate concerning neo-natal care — the unborn' child, Where do our priorities lie — saving or killing our unborn? — Yours, etc., C. M. BUTCHARD. September 19, 1980.