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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 9 Hansard (21 August) . . Page.. 2520 ..

MRS DUNNE (continuing):

The other day, someone did an internet search on the medical database, Medline, looking for evidence over the past five years surrounding induced abortion. They found more than 150 citations. Not one of them suggested any positive health outcome for abortion.

Mr Deputy Speaker, there are other ways in which abortion is different. One of the ways is the approach taken to abortion by the providers. In the introductory speech to my bill, I talked about the reasons people have abortions. Whatever one thinks of their validity, they clearly lie outside the field of medicine-again, this is not a medical procedure. Medical technology is used, but as a technological solution to a social problem-perhaps a technological solution to a lifestyle problem. The decision about whether that solution is the right answer to a patient's social, psychological or financial situation is not one an abortion provider is qualified to make.

Abortion is not like any other elective procedure. In a typical elective procedure, the patient is referred by a GP to a specialist. Case notes are provided and the doctor talks to the patient. They make decisions and look at the options. They look at what modality of treatment is appropriate-or whether no treatment is appropriate. The doctor finds out something about the patient-they know something about the patient's background.

None of this is the case with abortion. Often, the first time the doctor sees the patient is when she is on the operating table. The abortion clinic offers a procedure, and that procedure is a financial end in itself. The financial gains from abortion can be considerable. The abortion clinic has no time for the troublesome and time-consuming processes of diagnosis-there is no disease.

Ms Dundas: Have you been there, Vicki?

MRS DUNNE: Yes, I have. There is no discussion about whether this treatment for this non-existent disease is really necessary, or helpful, and meets the medical, psychological and family circumstances of the person. We are talking about the antithesis of holistic medicine-the antithesis of family medicine.

As I have said before, often the first time the abortionist sees the patient is when that patient is on the operating table. The patient is not even an individual-she is reduced to the status of an inconveniently-occupied womb. None of the rest of her matters-not her head, and not her heart.

Mr Berry says, in his introductory speech, that we do not need to do any more than we do already. He says the case of Rogers v Whitaker in the High Court has raised this bar high enough, and that we have high expectations of our medical practitioners.

However, I would contend that, because we have such high expectations of our medical practitioners, they have failed in the case of women facing abortion. Rogers v Whitaker implies that a patient is entitled to make his or her own decision about a medical procedure and that the doctor must disclose all material risks to a patient. The judgment in Rogers v Whitaker says:

A risk is material if in the circumstances of the particular case, a reasonable or ordinary person in the patient's position if warned of the risk, would be likely to attach significance to it, or if the medical practitioner is or should be reasonably

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