G.P.’s critical of abortion service

Press, 24 April 1979, Page 9

G.P.’s critical of abortion service

PA Wanganui With the latest abortion legislation now a year old, the General Practitioners’ Society is concerned that facilities and services in many parts of New Zealand fall far short of that which Parliament established as desirable. The society' is also concerned that some doctors may not be reappointed as certifying consultants under the abortion legislation because they are said to have approved too many abortions. < Dr J. Kelly, of Wanganui, an executive member of the society, said that there had been a number of cases of women who had had the approval of two certifying consultants and yet had had to fly to Australia because hospitals had been unable to provide the service they needed. “The new legislation has put great strain on general practitioners wanting to help patients who are entitled under the legislation to have abortions performed,” he said. “Certifying consultants who have been prepared to give these patients the degree of priority they may need have had more referrals than consultants who are known rarely to approve of abortions or are too busy to be able to see patients promptly. “For this reason, general practitioners would view seriously any

attempt by the Abortion Supervisory' Committee to put limitations on the very doctors who have enabled cumbersome legislation to work at all.” Dr Kelly said doctors had been assured by several Cabinet ministers that the new legislation did not alter the situation yet many fewer abortions had been performed since the law had been enacted. Any action by the Supervisory Committee which appeared further to limit abortion services would be seen as an attempt to put a more restrictive interpretation on the law than was intended by the legislation. ‘‘The Supervisory Committee, far from withdrawing appointments from those doctors who are helping the law to work, should consider withdrawing appointments from any certifying consultant who has failed to approve a reasonable number of abortions in the last year,” said Dr Kelly. Since at least three and sometimes four doctors were required to approve abortions under the existing law, an attempt by the committee to decide that one doctor was being too liberal in his interpretation of the law would be seen as an attempt to arbitrate on the professional judgment of the doctor without any knowledge of the patient and would be strongly opposed by doctors.