10
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 1981
HE NOTED THAT ABORTION IS THE CONCERN OF THE WHOLE COMMUNITY WHEN BEING CONSIDERED FROM A THEORETICAL POINT OF VIEW. BUT WHEN IT COMES DOWN TO PRACTICALITIES IT IS THE WOMAN WHO REQUIRES AN ABORTION AND WHO HAS THE MOST IMMEDIATE CONCERN WITH THIS SUBJECT.
+AND WE MUST PROTECT HER RIGHTS TO HAVE HER WISHES RESPECTED BY PROPER MEDICAL ATTENTION RATHER THAN A BACK STREET ABORTIONIST, SAID MR BROWN.
+ THE INTENTION OF THIS BILL TO BRING JUSTIFICATION FOR ABORTIONS INTO THE AREA OF MEDICAL JUDGEMENT, WITH ALL CONSIDERATIONS BEING WITHIN MEDICAL CRITERIA, IS A COMPROMISE WHICH STOPS SHORT OF ABORTION ON DEMAND.
+PERHAPS IT IS BEST TO LIMIT ANY CHANGE IN OUR LAW IN THIS WAY AT THIS TIME, AND IT DOES PROVIDE A PRACTICAL CONTRIBUTION TOWARDS A SOLUTION OF AN EXTREMELY DIFFICULT SOCIAL PROBLEM.+
MR BROWN CONSIDERED THE BILL PRIMARILY A MORAL ONE AND THE NEED FOR IT MUST BE SEEN AS A CONFESSION OF FAILURE TO DEAL WITH MANY OF THE MALADIES AFFLICTING OUR MODERN SOCIETY.
HE ARGUED THAT THE BILL DOES NOT FORCE DOCTORS TO ABORT NOR WOMEN TO HAVE ABORTIONS. HE BELIEVED ITS PROVISIONS ARE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ATTITUDES TOWARDS ABORTION HELD BY THE MAJORITY OF OUR POPULATION.
MR BROWN ALSO STATED THAT THE ABORTION LAW IN EUROPE HAS BECOME MORE LIBERAL WITH MANY COUNTRIES NOW PERMITTING ABORTION AT THE REQUEST OF THE MOTHER.
AND IN ASIA, HE BELIEVED, ABORTION IS NOT GENERALLY COVERED BY LEGISLATION, OTHER THAN IN CHINA AND JAPAN WHERE IT IS AVAILABLE MORE OR LESS ON DEMAND.
THE HON JOHN SWAINE, WHO ALSO SPOKE IN SUPPORT OF THE BILL, COMMENTED ON THE GOVERNMENT'S COMMITTEE STAGE AMENDMENTS TO THE PROVISIONS CONCERNING THE AGE OF THE PREGNANT GIRL AND VICTIMS OF INCEST, RAPE AND RELATED SEXUAL OFFENCES.
+
HE EXPLAINED THAT THE CASE FOR ABORTION IS NOW TO BE RE-VESTED IN THE DOCTORS FOR THEM TO DECIDE WHETHER TERMINATION OF PREGNANCY IS JUSTIFIED WHERE THE WOMAN IS UNDER-AGE OR IS THE VICTIM OF A SEXUAL OFFENCE.
+THE REVISED CLAUSE PROVIDES THAT, WHERE THE DOCTOR IS IN DOUBT, HE MAY PRESUME THAT THE CONTINUANCE OF THE PREGNANCY IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES WOULD INVOLVE RISK OF INJURY TO HER PHYSICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH GREATER THAN IF THE PREGNANCY WERE TERMINATED, + MR SWAINE SAID.
→THE NEW PROVISION MAY BE ANALYSED THUS IF THE DOCTOR IS IN NO DOUBT THE TERMINATION IS MEDICALLY JUSTIFIED, HE MAY LAWFULLY PROCEED AND HAS NO NEED FOR THE STATUTORY PRESUMPTION= IF HE IS IN NO DOUBT THE TERMINATION IS MEDICALLY UNJUSTIFIED. HE MAY NOT LAWFULLY PROCEED AND THE STATUTORY PRESUMPTION DOES NOT AVAIL HIM IT IS ONLY IF HE IS IN DOUBT THAT HE MAY HAVE RECOURSE TO THE STATUTORY PRESUMPTION.+
/THE AGE