Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 7 Hansard (5 June) . . Page.. 1898 ..

MRS DUNNE (continuing):

periods. They would presumably take the same view of coercion or arms-length counselling.

Let me be perfectly clear, Mr Speaker. Abortion is not just another medical procedure-it is not a medical procedure at all. Medicine is concerned with the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of disease. Pregnancy, as the mothers amongst us have often been told, is not a disease. Nor is there any disease for which abortion is a cure.

The reasons people have abortions, whatever we think of their validity, lie clearly outside the field of medicine. Medical technology is used, but as a technological solution to a social problem. The decision about whether that solution is the right answer to the patient's social, psychological and financial situation is not one that an abortion provider is qualified to make, and certainly not in the circumstances of a typical abortion clinic.

In a classic elective procedure, the patient is referred by a doctor or another specialist. Case notes are provided, the doctor familiarises himself with the background and condition, and a decision is made about treatment on the basis of the risks and benefits of various courses of action, including the possibility of no action if the risks exceed the benefits. None of this applies to abortion. No expert physicians have made the diagnosis and chosen the appropriate course of action from a range of possible treatments.

An abortion is not carried out by a surgeon with many years of training and additional qualifications. The abortion clinic offers a practical procedure. Its financial successes, which can be considerable, depend on providing that procedure to as many patients as possible. Because there is no disease, there is no requirement for the troublesome and time-consuming process of diagnosis or referral, to ensure the treatment is really necessary and helpful, given the patient's medical and psychological history, and family circumstances.

We are talking here about the opposite of holistic medicine and the antithesis of family medicine. The first time the abortionist sees the patient may be on the operating table. The patient is not even an individual in isolation-she is reduced to the status of an inconveniently occupied womb in isolation. None of the rest of her matters-not the head, and certainly not the heart. If the patient elects to keep the baby or give it up for adoption, the clinic does not receive a fee. It is totally geared-up for one thing. Seeking independent advice from an abortion clinic on whether it would be a good idea to have a baby is like asking a car dealer whether you would be better off with a bicycle.

Part 2 of the bill I present today seeks to ensure that a woman contemplating an abortion obtains truly independent advice about her options. This part amends the Health Regulations (Maternal Health Information) Act 1998 to ensure that the person providing advice to a woman contemplating abortion is not, or not associated with, an abortion provider. By this amendment, I want to ensure that a woman contemplating an abortion is not pressured to have an abortion by someone who stands to make money out of the process.

Since the Heath Regulations (Maternal Health) Information Act was passed in 1998, there have been other debates. In Tasmania, for instance, the strong view translated into legislation was that there should be separation between the abortion counsellor and the

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .