3.
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 10, 1976
LAW ON THERAPEUTIC ABORTION TO BE KEPT UNDER REVIEW
******
THE GOVERNMENT INTENDS TO REVIEW THE SECTION OF THE OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON ORDINANCE RELATING TO TERMINATION OF PREGNANCY FOR THERAPEUTIC REASONS AND WILL CONSIDER CAREFULLY ANY REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED.
THIS WAS STATED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, THE HON. JOHN HOBLEY, WHEN HE MOVED THE SECOND READING OF THE OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON (AMENDMENT) BILL 1976, WHICH IS AIMED AT MAKING THE SECTION A PERMANENT PART OF THE LAW.
THE SECTION IN QUESTION PRESCRIBES THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH DOCTORS MAY PERFORM A THERAPEUTIC ABORTION IN THE INTEREST OF A PATIENT.
+ IT HAS BEEN ON THE STATUTE BOOK IN TEMPORARY FORM FOR ALMOST FOUR YEARS,+ MR. HOBLEY SAID. +THIS HAS PROVIDED THE OPPORTUNITY FOR AN ASSESSMENT OF ITS EFFECT WHICH THE COUNCIL THOUGHT NECESSARY WHEN PASSING THE LEGISLATION IN 1972. THE POSSIBILITY OF ABUSE WAS THEN A CAUSE OF SOME CONCERN.+
L
HE SAID THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE LAW HAD BEEN ABUSED AND IT WAS NOW CONSIDERED APPROPRIATE TO MAKE IT PART OF THE PERMANENT LAW.
HOWEVER, HE SAID, THE GOVERNMENT INTENDED TO REVIEW THE PROVISIONS OF THE SECTION.
+SOME REPRESENTATIONS ADVOCATING MODIFICATIONS HAVE ALREADY BEEN RECEIVED AND THESE, AND ANY FURTHER REPRESENTATIONS, WILL NATURALLY BE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED. MR. HOBLEY SAID.
SPEAKING AGAINST THE BILL, DR. THE HON. HARRY FANG, SAID THAT THIS SECTION OF THE ORDINANCE SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN ENACTED IN THE FIRST PLACE BECAUSE IT IS LEGALLY AMBIGUOUS, MEDICALLY UNSOUND, ETHICALLY QUESTIONABLE AND SOCIALLY UNWISE.+
HE RECALLED THAT WHEN THE SECTION WAS FIRST ADDED TO THE PRINCIPAL ORDINANCE IN 1972, THE THEN ATTORNEY GENERAL ASSURED THE COUNCIL THAT ITS PURPOSE WAS SIMPLY TO PROTECT MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS FROM LEGAL ACTION WHERE ABORTION WAS PERFORMED TO SAVE THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER OR TO PREVENT HER FROM BEING REDUCED TO A PHYSICAL OR MENTAL WRECK.
HOWEVER, HE SAID, THE LEGISLATION AS ENACTED SEEMED TO HAVE GONE FURTHER THAN WAS INTENDED AND DID IN FACT LEGALISE ABORTION GENERALLY.
DR. FANG URGED THE COUNCIL TO CONSIDER MOST SERIOUSLY THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE BILL.
IF I CANNOT PERSUADE MEMBERS TO ABANDON THIS PIECE OF LEGISLATION ALTOGETHER, LET US AT THE VERY LEAST EXTEND THE PRESENT TRIAL PERIOD OF SECTION 47A SO THAT WE CAN REVIEW THE WHOLE QUESTION OF ABORTION MORE CAREFULLY, + HE SAID.
SHOULD THE COUNCIL DECIDE TO PROCEED WITH THE BILL, DR. FANG SAID HE WOULD VOTE AGAINST IT.
M