|
ACT Right to Life AssociationN E W S L E T T E R |
Third Quarter 2000 July - September
Back to Newsletters
Inside This Issue ..........
Total Recall?
Information from a freedom of information application made by the ACT Right to Life
Association indicates that the ACT Family Planning Association (FPA) is
refusing to return the original informed consent booklets, which were issued before the
Government's decision to include foetal pictures in the booklets. ACTRTLA made a freedom
of information application to the ACT Department of Health and Community Care in May for
documents on abortion held by the Department.
The papers released by the Department reveal that in November 1999, Independent MLA Paul
Osborne wrote to the Health Minister, Michael Moore MLA, to ask the Minister's assurance
that the informed consent booklet updated with foetal pictures had been distributed
widely, that agencies supplied with earlier versions of the booklet had been advised to
discontinue use of them, and that copies of the first version of the booklet had been
recalled.
When contacted by the ACT Department of Health and Community Care, the FPA declined to
return the old booklets and apparently intends to continue using them. You will recall
that Family Planning has been reported in the press as saying that they refuse to give the
revised informed consent booklets, which include foetal pictures, to women considering an
abortion (The Canberra Times, 13 April 2000). The ACT Division of General
Practice appears to have the same position.
The FPA apparently has a good supply of copies of the first version of the booklet as
records from the Health Department show that in August 1999 the FPA had all the copies of
the booklet and the Department had delegated responsibility for distribution of the
booklets to the FPA. If the Department received a request for a number of booklets, they
would then email the Education Manager at FPA to ask for some booklets to be posted to the
appropriate address.
In reply to Mr Osborne's letter, Mr Moore advised that all that could be done to recall
the old booklets and distribute the new ones had been done.
The Health Minister had obtained advice from the ACT Government Solicitor's office which
states that " the regulations impose no obligations upon the general practitioner who
is consulted by a woman considering an abortion. The regulations only impose an obligation
onto the Minister to ensure as far as practicable copies of the current pamphlet are made
available for use under section 8 to the Act If a doctor decides not to make the pamphlet
available to patients, no breach of the regulation or section 8 of the Act will thereby
occur ". The full legal advice has not been released.
Another 2000 copies of the new version of the informed consent booklet were printed
earlier this year after the initial 1000 copy print run was exhausted in the early
mailouts to surgeries and other organisations between October 1999 and January 2000. The
Department is now handling distribution of this publication. The booklet has also been
distributed to medical practitioners in the broader Canberra region through the NSW
Department of Health's Southern Area Health Service.
It has been a long process, but perhaps the control of information on abortion is now just
a little more separated from the groups with a vested interest in abortion, such as the
FPA and their abortion facility, Reproductive Healthcare Services.
Aborting Queanbeyan
In early April, president of the ACT Right to Life Association, Nicola Pantos, condemned
the opening of a new abortion facility in Queanbeyan and called on the Queanbeyan City
Council to revoke its approval for the facility.
Ms Pantos pointed out that the Capital Gynaecology Centre was ready to start
operating out of Morisset House in the centre of Queanbeyan.
Unfortunately, Queanbeyan Mayor Frank Pangallo has rejected calls for the Council to
revoke approval for the abortion facility (The Chronicle, 18 April 2000) and he
claimed the Council has " no control over where these clinics can operate" (The
Queanbeyan Age, 5 April 2000).
Ms Pantos pointed out that "there is no question the Centre is primarily an abortion
clinic, as the letter to doctors [from the new abortion facility] advertising their
services demonstrates.
"Over the past few years in Canberra we have struggled to ensure minimal standards of
independent information are provided to women considering an abortion to ensure that they
are aware of the possible repercussions on their physical and mental health.
"A number of doctors objected to losing control over what information they chose to
give to women. Some admitted they would advise women to 'bin' the informed consent
booklet. Others said they would just not provide women with the information.
"Now we find that some doctors are even willing to open a new abortion clinic across
the border in New South Wales in order to avoid giving women even basic information about
abortion. In [the Capital Gynaecology Centre's] letter, Doctors Hyland and Heckenberg
highlight their willingness to use the abortion facility to avoid ACT laws."
When The Canberra Times (13 April 2000) reported the story, executive director of
Family Planning ACT, Sandra MacKenzie, claimed the FPA were not threatened by the new
abortion facility and that they were not showing clients foetal pictures anyway.
In contrast, the Queanbeyan facility and Margaret Kirby from the Bessie Smythe Foundation
abortion clinic in Sydney said that their inquiries from the ACT had increased since the
Osborne legislation was passed in late 1998 (The Chronicle, 18 April 2000). u
In Brief
One of the documents recently obtained by ACTRTLA under freedom of information legislation
from the ACT
Department of Health shows that Australian Reproductive Health Alliance CEO Dianne Proctor
sent out a circular letter in December 1999 which stated: "unfortunately, as many
will be aware, this conference [the Abortion in Focus Conference held in Coolum in
November 1999] was marred by some of the most violent anti choice protests seen in this
country." Violent? The protests were entirely peaceful as was confirmed by the media
coverage of the event!
In July it was revealed that Melbourne's Royal Women's Hospital had aborted a 32 week old
unborn child because that child had the condition dwarfism. The abortion was
granted because the mother was said to be in a suicidal state. Spokesperson for disability
group Short-Statured People of Australia said that "We're short. So what? Ultimately
it comes down to a self-esteem issue It needs to be reinforced that dwarfism is not a
death sentence and life remains very much full of promise" (The Age, 5 July
2000).
Victorian Public Advocate Julian Gardiner commented "If we can contemplate taking
away family payments for not being vaccinated, what do we say about the mother who doesn't
have a compulsory prenatal test to determine whether there are any genetic defects? Or
who, having had the tests, chooses not to have an abortion when defects are present? Do we
cut off all who are due for family payments, the disability support pension, the
health-care payments? These are questions which I think are going to confront us as a
society and impact upon people with disabilities" (The Age, 6 July 2000).
