Abortion quota?

Press, 18 April 1979, Page 20

Abortion quota?

Sir, — Is it a coincidence that the Abortion Supervisory Committee is considering not reappointing certain certifying consultants because they have approved a “high number” of abortions, when S.P.U.C. (“The Press," March 29) made submissions to the committee alleging this very thing? Pro-choice groups have also made submissions to the committee stating that some certifying consultants who are supporters of S.P.U.C. are also in breach of the tenor of the Act. However, these submissions have not received similar attention. Since the primary aim of S.P.U.C. is the “realisable goal of no abortions in . New Zealand,” — where do the S.P.U.C. affiliated certifying consultants’ loyalties lie? When a doctor uses discretion and compassion in granting an abortion, he is held accountable. An act of law that .is open to such wide interpretation should surely be repealed and replaced with a workable law. — Yours, etc., SANDRA M. LEGGE. April 16, 1979. Sir, — Mrs Wallace’s Abortion Supervisory Committee has consistently been deaf to women’s grievances. To my knowledge it has never responded t o either individuals or organisations who have written to it. The sooner

this committee is called to account by the people of New Zealand the better. For the two months ending February 28, 1979, 98 women from S.O.S. flew to Sydney from Christchurch, and 39 had abortions, here. Mrs Wallace seems to think abortions should be like school certificate — only half should pass. Well, already 70 per cent of women go straight to Australia without troubling her certifying consultants. A few consultants handle almost all the cases. Some are chosen because they are known for their humanity, others because there is no choice. Only Christchurch Women’s Hospital is licensed, and only six S.P.U.C. doctors have operating rights there. Most certifying consultants belong to S.P.U.C. and most of these see no abortion patients. — Yours, etc., ALAN L. WILKINSON. April 12, 1979.