Little encouragement for abortion clinic

Press, 28 October 1982, Page 6

Little encouragement for abortion clinic

Parliamentary reporter

The chances of the North Canterbury Hospital Board's getting a separate abortion clinic do not look promising. This is the nub of a reply on the matter by the Minister of Health. Mr Malcolm, to questions asked in Parliament by Mrs Ann Hercus (Lab., Lyttelton).

She asked if it were correct that he had advised the board that he was unwilling to approve expenditure lor the conversion of existing board premises for an abortion .clinic in Christchurch. She also asked what was the estimated expenditure involved. if he was aware that the establishment of this clinic had been recommended by the Abortion Supervisory Committee, and what his reasons were if he had declined the expenditure.?

Mr Malcolm said that since the Contraception, Sterilisation. and Abortion Act had become law. the North Canterbury Hospital Board as a policy had had abortions

performed at Christchurch Women's Hospital as part of the normal function of the hospital. In 1981, the Abortion Supervisory Committee had met the Hospital Board and indicated that it was not happy with the procedures taking place as part of the gynaecological service of the hospital. . The committee considered a free-standing clinic such as in Wellington and Auckland was preferable, he said. The Hospital Board had subsequently agreed in principle with the committee, but it had not been until August. 1982. that the board had been able to resolve where it proposed to site the clinic. The board's proposal involved immediate conversion costs of $75,000 to $lOO,OOO. with on-going additional staffing costs of about $177,000 annually. Mr Malcolm said. Unlike the committee or the Hospital Board, the Minister had to be concerned about the under issues of allocating resources, and the

priorities for all categories of patients in all regions across New Zealand. In that sense, this claim for funds had to compete with claims for child health, cardiac surgery, renal dialysis. bone marrow transplants, and many other services, he said.

The Health Department had told the Hospital Board of his view that, at a time when only high priority expenditure was possible, he would need considerable persuasion before he would accept that development of a separate abortion facility fell into that category. The information supplied by the Hospital Board so far made it difficult for a property assessment of the building, equipment and staffing requirements of the proposed clinic, and the Hos» ; pital Board had been asked to provide further detailed supporting information, Mr Malcolm said.

When this was made available to him he would give the matter further consideration.