Doctor appeals on abortion

Press, 26 November 1982, Page 4

Doctor appeals on abortion

PA Wellington The Contraception, Sterilisation, and Abortion Act was deliberately designed to restrict “outsiders” interfering in decisions by. abortion certifying consultants,, the Court of Appeal has been told in Wellington. Under the act, the decisions of consultants could only be challenged if they had been made in bad faith, counsel for two consultants, Dr D. H. Livingston and Dr L. J. Rbborgh, told the Court. Dr Livingston and Dr Roborgh are respondents in an appeal brought by a New Plymouth - pediatrician, Dr Melvyn Wall. He challenges a decision by the High Court that it could not interfere in. the consultants’ decision to issue a certificate for abortion to one of his patients. Dr Livingston, who coauthorised an abortion for a New Plymouth girl, denied allegations that the decision was not properly made. His counsel, Mr L A. Bor-’ rin, said that Dr Livingston had been concerned about some of the allegations made by Dr Wall.

Dr Wall alleged that the length of the interview between the certifying consultants and the girl was inadequate to determine that there was a danger to mental health. He also said that their decision was not made in good faith. The Court, comprising Mr Justice Woodhouse, Mr Justice Richardson, and Mr Justice Ongley, reserved decision, after a two-day hearing. Mr Borrin said that the act aimed to rule out situations where anyone could chal- . lenge the decisions of certifying consultants because court intervention could seriously . impede matters where speed was vital. Also, the woman’s right to confidentiality would be seriously • undermined if anyone was entitled to subject the decisions to public scrutiny. Dr Roborgh’s lawyer, >Mr J. O. Upton, said the mother was the only person with the absolute right to challenge in court decisions by certifying consultants. The operating surgeon or the woman’s doctor could only do so with her consent. Both counsel suggested that the Attorney-General

would be an appropriate person to take action, if necessary, on behalf of the unborn child.

Mr P. Bartlett, assisting Mr Borrin, said that Dr Wall had no legally recognised interest in his patient’s abortion, and was not entitled to seek a review of the certifying consultants’ decision.