2
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 1981
PEARING THIS IN MIND, DR FANG SAID THAT HE FAILED TO SEE HOW ANY TWO MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS, WHO WERE NOT EXPERTS IN THIS FIELD, WOULD BE ALLOWED TO FORM AN OPINION AS TO WHETHER THERE WAS A SUBSTANTIAL RISK THAT THE CHILD IF BORN WOULD BE 'SERIOUSLY HANDICAPPED'.
HE SUGGESTED THAT EITHER THIS DECISION BE LEFT IN THE HANDS OF PERINATALOGISTS WHO WERE SPECIALISTS IN THIS FIELD OR THE PROVISION BE AMENDED TO GIVE THE MEDICAL PROFESSION SOME GUIDELINES WITHIN WHICH TO OPERATE, BY DEFINING MORE CLEARLY WHAT WAS MEANT BY A SERIOUS HANDICAP.
DR FANG ALSO REVEALED THAT MEDICAL ADVANCES MADE IT POSSIBLE TO ADMINISTER DRUGS AND INJECTIONS, AS WELL AS CARRYING OUT INTERUTERINE TRANSFUSIONS AND EVEN SURGERY, ON A FOETUS,
+GIVEN THE PACE AT WHICH MEDICAL SCIENCE IS ADVANCING IT IS POSSIBLE THAT SOMETIME IN THE FUTURE, AND PERHAPS EVEN WITHIN OUR LIFE TIME, WE SHALL BE ABLE TO CORRECT SOME DEFORMITIES WHILST THE FOETUS IS STILL IN THE WOMB.
+ IN THE LIGHT OF SUCH DEVELOPMENTS, THE PROPOSAL NOW BEFORE US TO ALLOW ABORTION ON THE GROUNDS OF SUSPECTED FOETAL ABNORMALITY
IS BOTH UNTIMELY AND RETROGADE.+
REGARDING THE PROVISION WHICH ALLOWS VICTIMS OF RAPE, INCEST AND SEXUAL INTERCOURSE PROCURED BY THREATS, DRUGS OR FALSE PRETENCES AN ABORTION, DR FANG NOTED THAT ALTHOUGH THE CRIMES ORDINANCE RECOGNISED THE VARYING DEGREES OF SEVERITY OF THESE OFFENCES, THE BILL DID NOT SINCE IT ENTITLES A WOMAN WHO HAS BEEN THE VICTIM OF ANY OF THESE OFFENCES TO AN ABORTION+.
HE WAS PARTICULARLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE DANGERS OF ABUSE FOR THE PROVISION RELATING TO FALSE PRETENCES AND URGED THE GOVERNMENT TO CLARIFY WHAT CONSTITUTED A FALSE PRETENCE.
+BECAUSE OF MY RESERVATIONS AND HAVING REGARD TO THE DISTINCTION MADE IN THE CRIMES ORDINANCE BETWEEN THESE VARIOUS OFFENCES, I INTEND MOVING A COMMITTEE STAGE AMENDMENT TO DELETE THE PROVISION WHICH ALLOWS ALLEGED VICTIMS OF SEXUAL INTERCOURSE PROCURED BY DRUGS, THREATS OR FALSE PRETENCES AN ABORTION, HE SAID.
THE REV THE HON PATRICK MCGOVERN IN OPPOSING THE BILL SAID THE GOVERNMENT WAS DETERMINED, FOR SOME REASON BEYOND THE COMPREHENSION OF ANYBODY ELSE, TO EXTEND THE GROUNDS FOR LEGALISED ABORTION BEYOND THE MEDICAL GROUNDS ACCEPTED IN THE U.K.
+THOSE IN FAVOUR OF LIFE, AND RESPONSIBLE PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT AND THE PRESERVATION OF HUMAN VALUES DO NOT WANT THOSE GROUNDS EXTENDED, HE SAID.
HE ASKED FOR REASON AND NOT EMOTION IN THE DEBATE ON THE BILL AND STARTED BY PUTTING IT IN THE CONTEXT OF THE PRINCIPAL ORDINANCE.
THE OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON ORDINANCE, HE SAID, STARTS OFF WITH MURDER, GOES ON TO MANSLAUGHTER, ATTEMPTS TO MURDER, ASSAULTS, FORCEABLE DETENTION
UP TO SECTIONS 46 AND 47 AKICH ARE THE SUBJECT OF THE BILL, AND ENDS WITH KEEPING OR MANUFACTURING EXPLOSIVE SUBSTANCES.
+THE BROAD