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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 9 Hansard (21 August) . . Page.. 2566 ..

MR BERRY (continuing):

abortions within our system without reference to a professional and ethical group within the hospital structure. Therefore, this is merely chanting the mantra to try to create the impression that so-called abortionists are eagerly waiting to remove foetuses from women's bodies to make some sort of profit from them. This is an extraordinary thing to be saying or hinting at in the context of this debate.

Mr Stefaniak also referred to Archbishop Carroll's letter. In fact, I think he read it all. He also referred to the Tasmanian legislation. The good archbishop said that the Tasmanians had not decriminalised abortion. What the good archbishop overlooked is that there is a legal path to access to abortion described in the Criminal Code, in effect decriminalising access to the abortion procedure in Tasmania.

At 5.00 pm, in accordance with standing order 34, the debate was interrupted. The motion for the adjournment of the Assembly having been put and negatived, the debate was resumed.

MR BERRY: The good archbishop also drew attention to a document produced within the ACT health department by a Ms Meg Wallace. The archbishop tried to make the point that the document in some way undermined my moves to decriminalise abortion. Had you checked, Mr Stefaniak, you would know that it very clearly sets out a checklist arising from the High Court decision in Rogers v. Whitaker. The checklist reads:

All health carers owe a duty of care to clients to consider the need for "informed consent" when any proposed procedure involves:

a recognised risk of side-effects or adverse effects;

any side-effects or adverse effects that the proposed client would consider significant;

alternative procedures that are reasonably available that the health carer can offer; and

the effects on the client of not having the procedure.

A recognised risk can be established by considering:

text, articles and courses to which the health carer has or ought to have access;

required knowledge;

accepted and widespread practice; and

codes of health care practice.

Further on a checklist is provided under the heading "Guidelines for giving information for client decision-making":

There should be no coercion, patients should be encouraged to be frank, ask questions, and make up their own minds. Provide interpreters and repeat information if required, and look for responses that indicate that information has not been understood.

Where possible, give the patient adequate time to make a decision-

sounds like a waiting period to me-

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