Why does one abortion doctor face charges and five do not? Because these stories are about the professional behaviour of six doctors and not about abortion.

Dr Leslie Cannold says the criminal law isn’t the best way of dealing with rogue medical practitioners like Dr Sood.

“[…] she clearly was not a good practitioner and something needed to be done to stop her from hurting patients. But on the other hand, the case really seems to point out that the procedures that are available, like the Medical Board, which has been aware of her activities and aware of the problems with her for over a decade, as I’ve understood it, is really not properly empowered to do something about it. So on the one hand you think, well at least something’s been done, but yet on the other hand, this was such a problematic way to do it. With any other procedure of course you wouldn’t have been able to use the criminal law to try and stop a rogue practitioner, and in this instance what’s happened is, we’ve had a confirmation of a very antiquated law which essentially states that abortion is a crime, and it only can be lawfully provided if the doctor agrees that the woman has basically good reasons that satisfy the criteria and the law. And that’s very unfortunate in this day and age, when all other medical procedures are legitimate and lawful, if the patient gives informed consent.”

“It’s reinforcing what is a very unfortunate law around abortion in New South Wales, there’s a similar law in Queensland, and a similar law in Victoria, our most popular states. So most of the women in this country are governed by law, and many of them are unaware of it, that still say abortion is a crime, the criminal is the doctor, the criminal is the woman, and the only way in which you can escape criminal prosecution is if the doctor forms a reasonable belief that the abortion was necessary for the physical and mental health of the woman. And again, I just think in this day and age, that’s just a really inappropriate way to be monitoring any health practice, including abortion. Whereas if it was taken out of the Crimes Act, it could be regulated by the Health Act.” -Leslie Cannold

The confirmation of a foetus having dwarfism, the news of which lead to the woman becoming acutely suicidal, needed to be medically managed by five specialists. The woman with support from her specialist team chose to abort the foetus. This story became public because of Senator Julian McGauran’s desire to shock the public into a pro-life stance.

These disparate stories are about assessing a Doctor’s professionalism. They are not about abortion. It was Julian McGauran who made it about abortion. He did this because his belief system transcends his reach and this was the only way that he could get his agenda noticed. Well, we’ve noticed and we still say it’s a woman’s right to chose. Moreover, we are incensed that a woman’s privacy and her right to reproductive choice was not respected. That right includes the best possible care if the choice is to terminate a pregnancy.
Dr. Sood was charged with unprofessional conduct. Five doctors were not. They were found to have exhibited professional conduct. Some pro-life politicians will do anything to progress their agenda, and that includes attacking a psychologically vulnerable woman.

These antiquated laws need to come off the books and politicians need to stop looking to the prosecutors to rescue them by simply not prosecuting, but rather to say,

“We no longer think in 2006, abortion, those who provide it and those who obtain it, are criminals, and that’s why we no longer have abortion in the Crimes Act.” – Leslie Cannold.

Image from here

How would you feel if you were unsure, frightened and vulnerable about your unwanted pregnancy and called a pregnancy counseling service for what you would expect would be clear, factual, information about your options. No religious spin, no agendas and no guilt-trips. This is the current range of options:

• continuing with the pregnancy and keeping the child;
• continuing with the pregnancy and giving the child up for adoption;
• ending the pregnancy by having an abortion.

I have a good friend who is a therapist and he is currently treating a woman who amoungst other things was told by a pregnancy counselor that she should give birth to the baby as it’s early July birth date would entitle her to $4000 and

“Couldn’t you use $4000?”

Whilst my friend’s anecdote describing the unethical and unregulated nature of the pregnancy counseling sector, such behavior is not an isolated case if we consider a report coming out of data from SA.

I’m supporting Senator Stott Despoja when she says:

“It is disturbing that many women have been given misleading and deceptive information on pregnancy options at what can be an emotional time.”

E-mail me an address and I’ll happily send you a postcard.

Six years ago, in the Royal Women’s Hospital in Melbourne, a woman (known as “Ms X”) became hysterical when she was informed that the foetus she was carrying had skeletal dyspraxia (commonly known as dwarfism). She demanded an abortion.

At 32 weeks pregnant, aged 40, Ms X was acutely suicidal and, after careful examination by an ultrasonologist, obstetrician, geneticist and psychiatrist, a decision was taken to terminate the pregnancy in February 2000. Six years later the Court of Appeal rejected Ms X’s case.

“Subject to any appeal by the Hospital to the High Court, this decision categorically determines that sensitive medical records of a hospital are not exempt from production to a Court or statutory body (acting within its powers) on the grounds of public interest immunity.”

Ms X, as best she could, got on with her life. That was until Senator Julian McGauran, an anti-abortion Liberal Party Senator made a complaint to the Medical Practitioners Board. In November 2000, in parliament, he urged prosecution under an untested section of the Victorian Crimes Act, which creates an offence of child destruction after 28 weeks. Senator McGauran made the complaint after the State Coroner handed him a copy of the police brief that included the woman’s private medical files.

I have been concerned about the push to set aside a woman’s right to privacy with regard to medical records with the express goal of reducing reproductive rights for some time, and now, I am terrified.

“None of the people around that case, either that be the nursing staff or social workers or psychologists or the hospital ethics committee, the patient, the patient’s family or any doctors, had a concern about that case and did not feel it was appropriate to notify. When it was notified, the patient did not want the records released.Irrespective of that, then an individual, who has no real connection to the case, but has an ideological interest in the case has then been able to drag an individual through a process, over six years, where her records are investigated by people she didn’t want them to have investigated by.” – President of the Victorian AMA, Dr Mark Yates

I am very proud of the Victorian AMA and their push to change legislation so that a case like this can never be heard again. Ms X, and all women, have a right to expect privacy, dignity and support when they find themselves acutely suicidal at the thought of continuing a pregnancy.

Just so we are clear- after ‘acutely suicidal’ comes ‘completed suicide.’

Image from here

Weez over at mgk has done a great post on unethical counselling practices when it comes to government funded pregnancy couselling as highlighted by the GetUp! action for Australia group.
On 1 June 2006, Senator Natasha Stott-Despoja, an Australian Democrat, posted this media release:

“Govt defends funding for anti-choice counselling.

The Government today continued to defend its anti-choice pregnancy counselling service, Pregnancy Help Australia, in the face of evidence that the organisation does not “advise, provide or refer, directly or indirectly, for abortion or abortifacients”. Pregnancy Help Australia is the only dedicated pregnancy counselling service which receives Federal Government funding.

“This quote, from Pregnancy Help Australia’s constitution, is clear evidence that the organisation is anti-choice,” Democrats’ Spokesperson for the Status of Women Senator Natasha Stott Despoja said.

Senator Stott Despoja also questioned the Government about Pregnancy Help Australia’s recent submission to a Senate inquiry where it outlined its opposition to RU486, and its links to Heartbeat International – an anti-choice umbrella group for ‘crisis pregnancy services’, whose affiliates must not “advise, provide or refer for abortion of abortifacients”.

“Despite all of this documented evidence about Pregnancy Help Australia’s anti-abortion stance, officials today said they were confident the organisation was meeting the terms of its funding agreement with the Department, that its affiliates provide non-directive counselling, and that it is satisfied with the organisation’s performance,” Senator Stott Despoja said.

A compilation of biased and misleading information given out to women and their families by organisations affiliated with Pregnancy Help Australia is available on request.

Senator Stott Despoja has introduced legislation to regulate pregnancy counselling in Australia, which is currently being examined by a Senate committee. The committee is accepting submissions until June 16 and will hold public hearings in the week beginning July 17. It is due to report on August 17.”

Formal, professional qualifications, ethical practice, worker neutrality, trust, honesty and the right of a client to self-determine are the cornerstones of a reputable counselling service. Moreover, no peak body, not the AASW nor the APS would describe Pregnancy Help Australia or Pregnancy Counselling Australia, as outlined in their mission statements as coming close to best practice, let alone reputable.

The exploitation of vulnerable people by a right-to-life agenda masquerading as legitimate counselling is unethical. Any organisation not declaring or clearly articulating its agenda to its clients is unconscionable and should not be funded by Australian taxpayers, who in every survey conducted support choice for women facing an unwanted pregnancy.

Image from here

I hadn’t ever been to Queensland when my more adventurous friends returned from their “up north treks” to tell of sun, surf, four X and reproductive rights suppression.

Back then the only clinic in the whole state was in Brisbane. Even this one surgical termination service in Brisbane was barely tolerated by the government. If you lived in a remote part of the state or you were poor- too bad.

I remember as an urban, Melbourne girl being so outraged by this. We took it for granted that a woman had a right to choose. My mother and her generation fought for those rights and I thank them. When my tanned friends told of news they had heard around feminist circles up there in the sunshine state that the Queensland government was planning to force all females of child-bearing age to have a pregnancy test before they were allowed to hop on the bus to travel south to NSW, I was incredulous. That story (true or not) was a radicalising point for me. I had supported enough of my friends through an unwanted pregnancy to know how real their fear and terror was of having to make a choice either way. I was not going to be quiet.

Now, some 25 years later, tucked away in an office in Cairns, as the result of a conscience vote, we have Professor Caroline De Costa leading the way in reproductive choice for women. Next month 40 RU486 pills we be landing in Australia. 40 women, supported by their medical practitioner, will have a greater choice when accessing a termination of pregnancy.

For those that don’t know- Cairns is in Far North Queensland.

“This [the use of RU486] is something that women want and it is a matter between us and our patients and nobody else.” -Professor de Costa.

Image from here