Medical men 'spineless’

Press, 7 June 1982, Page 4

Medical men 'spineless’

PA Auckland A New Plymouth doctor was upholding his Hippocratic oath when he tried to prevent an abortion, said the president of the Society for the Protection of the Unborn Child. Mr Peter BarryMartin. He accused the ’ medical profession of sitting “spinelessly neutral" while abortion on demand was established in New Zealand. Mr Barry-Martin was commenting on the judgment of the New Zealand Medical Association’s disciplinary committee which found Dr Melvyn Wall guilty of professional misconduct after trying to prevent an abortion. "What has happened when a respected doctor is censured by his own profession for upholding the Hippocratic oath to protect human life?" said Mr Barry-Martin "Dr Wall was acting as any responsible citizen is entitled to, when he challenged the legality of the decision of two abortion certifying consultants. He supplied to the court only the information necessary to make his case." he said. "The names of the patient and her family have not been published. No harm has been done to them and they have not complained to the Medical Association.

“Dr Wall obviously had to choose between medical rules and justice." he said. “He is to be congratulated on seeking justice. "The medical profession as a body has sat spinelessly neutral while a small majority of extreme pro-abortion doctors has created an abor-tion-on-demand situation in New Zealand. "There is a conspiracy of silence to ignore medical ethics in this area,” Mr Barry-Martin said. Dr Wall said the committee's findings were "amazing" in parts. It was possible that he could appeal to the Medical Council or to the Court of Appeal. He would not back down, he said. The committee's findings were predictable. Dr Wall said. His dissatisfaction was not related to the censure, the costs, or to the "title of guilty of professional misconduct." His dissatisfaction stemmed from the principle "that a doctor who was a citizen cannot act within the desirable confines of due legal process without even being subjected to an extra judicial body whose authority over several of the matters alluded to in and their decision would be highly questionable."

Earlier report, page 2