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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 10 Hansard (25 November) . . Page.. 2910 ..

MR HARGREAVES (continuing):

There is an assumption by the drafters of the Bill that the provision of positive information about carrying to term is really not that necessary because those overjoyed by the pregnancy have figured it out by themselves. It is further assumed that those seeking an abortion have worked out that they could be better off in the long run by not proceeding with the pregnancy and that life would be better if an abortion took place. You could be forgiven for thinking that these people do not need to be reminded how well off they would be if an abortion proceeds. The negative sides, physically and emotionally in addition to socially, are usually either apparent or advised by the GP when pregnancy is diagnosed. One would hope that the physical issue is something a doctor, seeking to avoid negligence suits, would address with his or her patient.

So what is left? What is left is the issue of society making absolutely sure that the decision to end another life is taken with all the information we can gather. Mr Speaker, if someone could compile a booklet addressing all four facets of information required to make an informed decision, I would be so pleased. However, in lieu of a complete set, I support the provision of that information which should assist in the decision.

I accept that most women have made up their minds already and that any other information may not alter that decision. But, if it does change one mind, then perhaps it is worth while. If a life is not taken, then perhaps it is worth while. It seems to me, Mr Speaker, that the difference between a termination and any other life-saving or threatening medical procedure is that in a termination we are talking about two lives, and this is a unique situation.

Mr Speaker, it is a common criticism of this Assembly that 15 men are taking decisions which affect women's lives and that we have no right to do so. I disagree with this fundamentally because I have equal responsibility to female and male constituents. Like it or not, I am faced with this duty, Mr Speaker. I reject this criticism from people who have not taken part in such a decision. I have, Mr Speaker, and I know exactly how hard it is.

However, it is absolutely imperative that those professionals who will provide information pamphlets do so not only from a professional perspective but also from a gender-based bias. It is my firm belief that any panel charged with approving information to be provided to decision-makers comprise a significant number of women.

I firmly believe also that the approval process for this information should not be in the protected domain of the medical specialist. It is a fact in this country that most medical specialists are men. It is also a fact that most practitioners in the nursing profession are women. The nursing profession is most often best placed to be able to assist in addressing fundamental issues facing women today. When Dr David Nott instituted the Women's Health Centre in the mid-1980s he recognised that it must be staffed by the very gender it sought to serve. It is therefore imperative, Mr Speaker, that the approval panel for information to be provided to women making the decision to terminate a pregnancy should have a significant proportion of female members to bring that woman's perspective to the issue.

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