Anti-abortion doctors challenge guidelines

Anti-abortion doctors have gone to court to challenge new Medical Council guidelines on how physicians with personal objections to abortion must deal with patients.

One of the doctors is believed to be Mary English, a Wellington GP and wife of Deputy Prime Minister Bill English.

Dr English is a Catholic whose anti-abortion beliefs are widely known.

The doctors filed an application in the High Court last week for a judicial review of the guidelines, titled "Beliefs and Medical Practice".

The Medical Council is withholding the guidelines until the case is decided.

The doctors' lawyer, Harry Waalkens, QC, said proceedings for a judicial review had been filed, but would not comment on the grounds for the challenge until he could speak to his clients. He would not name any of the doctors.

Their main objection is understood to involve a new section in the guidelines covering the way doctors who object to abortion must deal with patients.

It requires them to tell patients having doubts about a pregnancy that abortion is one of the options.

The final version of the document is not available, but a draft version was issued in March.

A Medical Council spokesman said changes had been made since then, but he could not provide the final text because of the court action.

The statement was intended to guide medical practitioners, and tried to balance doctors' and patients' rights - including the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion - and the entitlement to care and treatment.

The Medical Council is legally responsible for setting standards and guidelines for medical practitioners, as well as dealing with registration and claims of professional misconduct.

The law already allows doctors to refuse to provide contraception or abortion services on grounds of conscience, although they must tell patients they can consult another physician.

The draft guidelines say that regardless of their personal beliefs, doctors must ensure a pregnant woman having doubts about her pregnancy is told abortion is among the options available to her, and is given information on it and the other options.

It is the first time the issue of personal beliefs and abortion has been addressed in Medical Council guidelines, and follows a similar move in Britain.

The guidelines also cover other areas where spiritual, cultural or religious beliefs could conflict with patients' rights.

They say doctors should set aside their own beliefs where necessary and that they must make the care of the patient their first concern.

The Health and Disability Commissioner and the Resident Doctors Association approved the new section in their submissions on the draft, saying it was helpful to include specific advice.

Under New Zealand law, abortions can be performed only if two certifying consultants agree certain grounds apply.

These include cases of incest, or if the mental or physical well-being of the mother or unborn child is at risk.

WHAT IT SAYS

CURRENT

* The Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act allows doctors to refuse on grounds of conscience to provide a service or give advice on contraception, sterilisation, or other reproductive health services. Doctors must tell the patient they can get the service or advice from another doctor or a family planning clinic.
* Medical Council "Good Medical Practice" guidelines: "Your personal beliefs should not affect your advice or treatment. If you feel your beliefs might affect the advice or treatment you provide, you must explain this to patients and tell them about their right to see another doctor. You must be satisfied that the patient has sufficient information to enable them to exercise that right."

PROPOSED MEDICAL COUNCIL GUIDELINE

"While the council recognises that you are entitled to hold your own beliefs, it remains your responsibility to ensure that a pregnant woman who comes to you for medical care and expresses doubt about continuing with the pregnancy is provided with or is offered access to objective information or assistance to enable her to make informed decisions on all available options for her pregnancy, including termination."

The text above is the March draft version, which may have since been changed.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10627134&pnum=0

And about time too. Just imagine what would happen if doctors acted strictly in accordance to their spiritual (or other) beliefs. If you feel like your profession is interfering with your beliefs, go and find another job.

I believe this covers it, "The law already allows doctors to refuse to provide contraception or abortion services on grounds of conscience, although they must tell patients they can consult another physician."

I do not think Doctors should be required to put their conscience to one side in matters such as this. Although they should, as a matter of course, practice the bit about: First do no harm.

Although I agree with the view that currently, most abortions in NZ are illegal, in the context of the present Law. We effectively have abortion on demand. The Law should reflect reality.

if a doctor opposes abortion then then only opinion they should hold is a fair and balanced opinion. If they are against abortion as long as the p[rovide ALL information about abortion/anti abortion then there isnt a problem. Once an ounce of personal opinion comes into the consultation that is where it should end.

No one should be subjected to an anti abortion speech especailly those who are young and probably already shitting themselves.

Lynz wrote:... the view that currently, most abortions in NZ are illegal, in the context of the present Law. We effectively have abortion on demand.

The new guidelines, if they are like above, do not seem to fit with the actual law. Shouldn't they say something along the lines of telling patients that abortion is an option under some circumstances? To tell everyone with doubts about their pregnancy that it is an option implies that anyone can get one, which may well be how it actually is.

Lynz wrote:

Although I agree with the view that currently, most abortions in NZ are illegal, in the context of the present Law. We effectively have abortion on demand. The Law should reflect reality.

Wrong, because for instance,"if the mental or physical well-being of the mother or unborn child is at risk' as a reason for abortion can be interpreted widely. A 14 year old girl is not fit to be a mother, nor is some hard-drinking woman with many partners. How many child killings, abuse and neglect would have been avoided if the 'mothers' had decided to abort on the grounds that giving birth and keeping the baby would put that baby at risk.

canterella wrote:

Lynz wrote:

Although I agree with the view that currently, most abortions in NZ are illegal, in the context of the present Law. We effectively have abortion on demand. The Law should reflect reality.

Wrong, because for instance,"if the mental or physical well-being of the mother or unborn child is at risk' as a reason for abortion can be interpreted widely. A 14 year old girl is not fit to be a mother, nor is some hard-drinking woman with many partners. How many child killings, abuse and neglect would have been avoided if the 'mothers' had decided to abort on the grounds that giving birth and keeping the baby would put that baby at risk.

But fact is, most abortions are carried out on a perceived risk to the potential mother's mental health. As a species we are doomed - if NZ's stats are atypical - that getting on for 18000 women's mental health is threatened by carrying out the only reason for their existence. In 2008 there were 64540 live births registered. There were 17,940 abortions. Getting close to 1 in 3.

# Women aged 20–24 years had the highest abortion rate (37 abortions per 1,000 women aged 20–24 years) in 2008.
# The median age of women having an abortion was 24.3 years in 2008.
# In 2008, most abortions (63 percent) were a woman's first abortion.

I question the morality of arguing that killing babies is the 'best' way to save them from potential abusive lives.

The simple fact is abortion as practiced here is post-facto contraception. This is illegal under the current Law. Therefore the pro-lifer's view that Medical Professionals are demonstrably actively breaking the Law is indisputably true.

If society thinks that the current practice is acceptable, the Law should be changed. I am a male. My part in the reproductive process ends at ejactulation. I don't have any problems with women killing their babies if they don't want to 'bring them into the World.' But lets stop the nonsense about abortion not being killing. And let the Law reflect Societies mores. And lets not criminalise Doctors. Because as it is, that what they are: Criminals.

Also, lets get some intensive education about contraception out there. Better a fence at the top of the cliff. Although seeing the ages of most getting abortions, it doesn't bode well.

1. there may be a very small percentage of abortion being the post-facto contraception, in no way it is the common practice among women
2. how is abortion a murder?
2. having a child is NOT the only reason for a woman's existence
3. the age group with highest abortion rates is the most sexually active age group as well, and the group likely to be more promiscuous and to consume more alcohol than other age groups - do we want every one of them to give birth to a foetal alcohol-syndrome baby?
4. contrary to your beliefs, no contraception is 100% infallible, even sterilisation or vasectomy, hence there will always be unplanned pregnancies
5. should we go back to back-street abortions?
6. an unwanted child is potentially a huge burden on the society

Lynz wrote:If society thinks that the current practice is acceptable, the Law should be changed.

Marijuana should be legal?

I don't think society has enough brains to decide what is acceptable and therefore legal. I'd like to think that those who know the most about each law are the ones that create them.

Yes Chelsa, if Society thinks Marijuana should be legal, so it should be. I think all drugs should be legal. The problem is not the drugs; it the crime associated with it. The US has spent over $500 billion on the so-called War on Drugs. Not to be confused with the War on Terror. It has been an utter waste of money. But that is a different matter and I don't want to threadjack.

Canterella, I am not arguing the rights and wrongs of abortion. Simple the reality as it is practiced. And it most certainly is used as a form of contraception.

I never said I think abortion is murder. I said it is killing. There is difference. And it most certainly is killing.

Having children is a woman's only reason for existing. The biology of that is basic. The only reason the female of any specie exists is reproduction. Where males are involved, the only reason for theirs, is to arrange it.

'Stopping' an unplanned pregnancy is not post-facto contraception?

And I never said anything about the morality or otherwise. Only the legality. If Society believes the current practice is acceptable, then the Law should reflect it. At the moment it does not.

And to address your statement about 14 year-old girls not being 'fit to be mothers.' Wrong. That they can bear offspring means they are. There are virtually no virgins in nature after the the first oestrus. Certainly not if there is mature male around. the human habit of it is an aberration. And more to with do with male ownership of receptive females.

Blank

Diaz wrote:[i]Why would doctors be judged as criminals? I don't see it that way when the woman is judged that they fulfill the criteria under the law.

I disagree, I don't think they fit the law, the law is being used to fit them.

I personally don't imagine that the many abortions that are carried out all fit the bill. I know one chick, slut from naam, that has had 4 abortions that I know of... just another form of birth control.

Blank

Diaz, I can agree with all that you have said in this thread, except for:

As for illegal drugs, I don't think they should be legalised. They are taken to alter mental states and have impacts on other body systems besides so have measurable harm, and they should be treated the same as pharmaceuticals in that respect and if dangerous have any use restricted or be banned as appropriate. No drug is benign. Then on top of that even without considering crime that drug use can and does impact on others. People don't live in bubbles, their behaviours affect others and drug users (IMO) have an astounding lack of insight into how their drug use impacts on their family and other relationships. There were reasons they became illegal in the first place, and unless there is very compelling evidence otherwise it's unwise to change it.

You could be talking about Alcohol in this paragraph, as it is also taken to alter mental states, etc. etc. Attempts were made to have it made illegal, but this was not successful. But does that make Alcohol any better or worse than Marijuana?

Tikva wrote: But does that make Alcohol any better or worse than Marijuana?

I don't wish to answer that question, but one possible difference is that there is quick and simple testing in place for alcohol, but it would possibly be more difficult to measure an effect of marijuana on vehicle driving performance. Alcohol causes many problems in spite of its ease of testing, so I don't see the logic of using its legality to justify the unhindered use of other drugs.

Blank

Damn! This thread has evolved from the abortion topic to legalise/not drugs

you bloody stoners