Life Issues

Current Right to Life NZ Work Initiatives

On the 9thDecember 2002 Right to Life New Zealand sent a letter to all 214 Certifying Consultants in New Zealand asking then to examine their consciences reminding them of their obligation to protect life and to uphold the ethics of the New Zealand Medical Association and to uphold the law of the land. A copy of the letter was also sent as a courtesy to the New Zealand Medical Association, the Medical Council of New Zealand, the Royal Australasian College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and to the Abortion Supervisory Committee.

Disappointingly, RTLNZ has had no response to this letter from any of the consultants or organisations

Directly below we have reproduced a copy of this letter

Dear Doctor,

We are writing to you and other certifying consultants to express our concern at the plight of our unborn children and vulnerable and distressed women faced with an unplanned pregnancy, they are so often abandoned and exploited and are the second victims of abortion.

The medical profession is in a specially privileged position to defend life and has a long and noble history of service to the community in upholding the Hippocratic tradition, a tradition now expressed in the Declaration of Geneva, 1948. It reads: “I will maintain the utmost respect for human life, from the time of conception until death." The New Zealand Medical Association Handbook 1977 states, "a doctor must observe the principals of the Declaration of Geneva." In 1985, the NZMA Council adopted a policy remit, which read:

The NZMA reaffirm:

1 Its commitment to its ethical code (NZMA Handbook); and

2 Its decision of April 1985 which states;

a) An abortion certified or performed solely on any one or more of the following grounds,

namely:

i) unwanted pregnancy, and/or

ii) social inconvenience

iii) economic difficulty and/or and /or

iv) failed contraception

does not constitute an abortion performed "only as a therapeutic measure" within the

meaning of the Declaration of Oslo.

(b) Doctors who certify or perform abortions solely on the grounds of unwanted pregnancy, social inconvenience, economic difficulty or failed contraception are contravening the Associations Ethical Code.

Not only are abortions authorized on socio‑economic grounds against the ethics of the media] profession they are also unlawful.

The previous chairperson of the Abortion Supervisory Committee, Dr Christine Forster, was quoted in the Sunday Star Times, 5th November 2000 as stating, "Certainly in the main centers, in Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch if a woman wants an abortion I think she will get one." She went on to say that 98% of abortions are approved on grounds that proceeding with the pregnancy would result in serious danger to the mental health of the woman. ‑ Dr Forster said she did not believe all those women were in serious danger, " I think people are fitting the grounds to the woman."

The Crimes, Act 1961 section 187A requires that certifying consultants have honest belief in the grounds on which they authorize an abortion. An absence of honest belief renders the abortion unlawful.

In the Christchurch District Court on March 15th 1993 before Judge Holderness the late Dr Robin Marchant gave sworn evidence. Dr Marchant was general practitioner at the Halswell Medical Centre and employed by the Board to perform abortions at Lyndhurst. He had previously been employed by the Board as a registrar, in Psychiatry.

The transcript of the proceedings record, that Dr Marchant was asked what was the corect treatment for acute reactive depression. His response was "a severe depressive illness case requires counseling as well as perhaps some medication if that is indicated, and sometimes hospitalization."

He was then asked to point to any source or authority where abortion is used as a treatment for depression. His answer, "Not that I am aware of " We understand that international literature on the practice of psychiatry indicates that milder and acute reactive depression is a contra‑indication for abortion.

The long title of the CS&A Act 1977 states . to provide for the circumstances and procedures under which abortions may be authorized after having full regard to the rights of the unborn child."

Every child created by God is endowed with an inalienable right to life, it is the foundation stone of our human rights. The Royal Commission on Abortion and Sterilization, in its report to Parliament in 1977 made the following important conclusions:

• It accepted the biological evidence establishing that human life begins at conception,

• That from implantation to birth changes in the unborn child are of a developmental nature only,

• That the right to life is a sacred principal of civilization.

• That the unborn child as one of the weakest, the most vulnerable, and most defenseless forms of humanity, should receive protection.

It was the intention of Parliament in passing the CS&A Act in 1977 to stop abortion on demand and provide effective legal protection for unborn children. Tragically these noble objectives have not been attained.

We know that each child is a unique and unrepeatable act of God's loving creation. We all have a duty and the privilege of defending and protecting human life. For God, the Lord of life, has conferred on men the surpassing ministry of safeguarding life ‑ a ministry which must be fulfilled in a manner which is worthy of man. Therefore from the moment of its conception life must be guarded with the greatest care, while abortion is an unspeakable crime.

The first principal of medicine is to do no harm. We therefore earnestly request that in accordance with the highest traditions of your profession, you use your privileged position to protect the lives of unborn children and the health of their mothers.

In conclusion our society extends to you and your family our wishes for God's blessings of peace and joy as we celebrate the birth of Christ.

Yours sincerelv

Philip Creed

President Right to Life NZ Inc

On 29th November 2002 Right to Life New Zealand wrote to the Minister for Courts, the Hon M Robson expressing our societies concerns at the fees paid to abortion Certifying Consultants. A copy of this letter is reproduced below.

The Hon M Robson

Minister for Courts

Parliament Buildings

Wellington

Abortion - Certifying Consultants - Fees

We understand that the Abortion Supervisory Committee wrote to you on the 19 April requesting that you review the fees paid to certifying consultants.

Our society wishes to take this opportunity to express its opposition to any increase being granted through amendment of the regulations. The Abortion Supervisory Committee in its annual report to Parliament in 2001 disclosed that fees totalling $3,271,766 had been paid to certifying consultants for the year 2000. It is noted that there were 220 certifying consultants on the committees list for that year.

Following the 1999 general election the Minister of Justice the Hon Phil Goff was reported in the media as stating that he considered it highly questionable whether the annual spending of $2.7 million on consultants to approve abortions served any positive effect and that the money would be better spent on action to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies.

Our society has been closely monitoring the abortion industry since the passing of the CS&A Act in 1977. We fully concur with the Ministers conclusions and would support the revocation of the fees.

The Abortion Supervisory Committee provided our society in July this year the aggregate for all certifying consultants in the Christchurch region in respect to the number of authorisations and the number of refusals for the 2001 year.

Total 4429, Justified 442 1, Not Justified ‑ 8 which also included those women who change their minds and don't wish to proceed. We believe that these figures are indicative of the abortion on offer situation prevailing in New Zealand and the authorisation of pseudo legal abortions for socioeconomic reasons in contravention of section 187A of the Crimes Act 196 1. Why should consultants be given a fee of $87.50 for each certification which is probably in violation of the law?

The Abortion Supervisory Committee in July this year provided our Society with details of the fees paid to the highest paid certifying consultants for the financial year ending 30 June 2002. A copy of the committees letter is enclosed for your information. It reveals that the signing of certificates is a lucrative source of income for many certifying consultants.

It is believed that operating surgeons organise the certification process to ensure that they are the second certifying consultant in order to claim the fee of $87.50. It is noted that the Contraception Sterilisation and Abortion Act does not require that the operating surgeon be a certifying consultant. In the event that the operating surgeon is a certifying consultant there is no legal requirement that they authorise the certificate which may be authorised by any two certifying consultants. The operating surgeon may then endorse on the certificate a statement that he is willing to perform an abortion on the patient to whom the certificate relates but a failure to comply with this requirement shall not invalidate the certificate.

Our society recently wrote to ten District Health Boards seeking under the Official Information Act, copies of documentation given to women seeking an abortion. This information revealed that at the abortion facilities operated by the Canterbury, Waikato, Northland and Hawkes Bay DHB's women seeking an abortion were, after seeing the first consultant, given an appointment for an abortion. On the day of the abortion, after changing into hospital gown, they were interviewed by the operating surgeon ‑ the second consultant for the completion of the certificate.

At the Thames Hospital under the control of the Waikato DHB women are given an appointment for an abortion and only see two certifying consultants on the appointment day and just prior to the abortion. At the Northland Hospital women having an abortion see the second certifying consultant in the theatre complex and sometimes in the operating room just prior to their abortion.

These circumstances raise many important questions. The first is the legality of the Boards in making an appointment for an abortion that has not been authorised by a certificate signed by two consultants. The second which is at issue here is the credibility of the operating surgeon in making a decision whether or not the woman seeking an abortion meets the requirements of the legislation

It is the view of this society it is highly unlikely that the operating surgeon is going to inform a woman dressed in a hospital gown on the day of her appointed abortion that he not going to perform the abortion. In our view these certificates are a charade and the fees an exorbitant waste of taxpayers money.

As operating surgeons are employed by a DHB and in receipt of a salary why should these consultants also receive a fee of $87.50 for signing a certificate after a cursory interview lasting a few minutes to see if she still wants an abortion.

In the view of this society the fees paid to certifying consultants serve no purpose, they are not assisting in reducing our country's unacceptable abortion rate and should not be increased but withdrawn. We believe that should you take this action you would have the support of many citizens. Copies of the supporting documents are enclosed.

Yours sincerely

Ken Orr

for executive RTLNZ

On 8th November 2002 Right to Life New Zealand wrote to the Health Commissioner to lodge a complaint against a number of District Health Boards on the grounds that the Boards had contravened the Contraception Steralisation adn Abortion Act 1977. Our letter is shown below.

The Health Commissioner

PO Box 1971

Auckland

Dear Sir

Various District Health Boards Complaints

Right to Life New Zealand wishes to lodge a complaint against the Auckland, Northland Waikato Hawkes Bay, and Canterbury District Health Boards (DHB's). The first complaint is that the DHB's contravened the Contraception, Sterilization and Abortion Act 1977, section 33.

Determination of case (copy enclosed).

This section requires that a lawful abortion requires a certificate to be signed by two certifying consultants appointed by the Abortion Supervisory Committee in terms of section 30 of the CS & A Act. Section 33 (5) states; "where two certifying consultants determine that they should authorize an abortion, they shall... forward the said certificate to the holder of the license in respect of the licensed institution in which the abortion is to be performed."

It is contended that the requirement that a completed certificate be sent to the holder of the license of the facility where it is proposed to perform the abortion is to enable the holder to decide whether or not the certificate is lawful and whether or not permission for an appointment is to be granted for an abortion.

Right to Life in October wrote to nine DHB's where the majority of abortions in New Zealand are performed. We requested under the Official Information Act copies of documents contain rig information on abortion and on the abortion procedure, given to women seeking an abortion at their facilities. The documents received from the four. DI-IB's named in this complaint clearly indicated that appointments were being make for abortions when a completed certificate authorizing an abortion signed by two certifying consultants had not been received by the holder of the license of that facility. A certificate signed by one certifying consultant is not an authority for a lawful abortion.

It is further noted that at the Waikato Hospital appointments are being made for abortions before the women concerned have seen even the first consultant. Who then is offering the abortion, a social worker or perhaps the receptionist? It is contended that the making of an appointment for an abortion without a completed certificate signed by two certifying consultants is unlawful.

The documents indicate that the DH13's have made a Finn commitment to provide abortions. There is nothing to indicate that the abortion is dependent on the decision of the operating surgeon, the second certifying consultant that the women meets the legal grounds laid out in the Crimes Act 1961 section 1 87A and that he is prepared to authorize the abortion complete the certificate and perform the abortion. The documents detail what happens before the procedure, and explains the operating procedure. It is noted that at the Northland Hospital the pamphlet indicates that after a woman has seen the first certifying consultant the woman is given medication one hour before the abortion to start softening the cervix. The drug is probably Misoprostol and is generally used for first trimester abortions in New Zealand hospitals. Once the medication has been taken the abortion procedure has commenced.

It is mentioned that under the Crimes Act 1961 section 182: Killing Unborn Children, which reads

1 Everyone is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years who causes

the death of any child that has not become a human being in such a manner that

he would have been guilty of murder if the child had become a human being.

It is the opinion of this society that this action is unlawful and constitutes grounds for a further complaint against the Northland DHB It is not known, however it is considered likely, that this unlawful administration of Misoprostol is followed at the other three named DHB's. The object of the Contraception, Sterilization and Abortion Act 1977 is found in the long title of the Act, which reads "... to provide for. the circumstances and procedures under which abortions may be authorized after having full regard to the rights of the unborn child."

Right to Life seeks to have the full protection of the law to protect the right to life of unborn children, the weakest and most defenseless members of our human family. We 'also seek legal protection for distressed and vulnerable women faced with an unplanned pregnancy. The Abortion Supervisory Committee has reported that there were 16,400 abortions reported to the Committee in 2001. They have also previously reported that we have abortion on demand in New Zealand.

The procedures authorized in this complaint contribute to the current unlawful abortion situation prevailing in this country. We would consider that it is highly improbable that an operating surgeon, acting as the second certifying consultant, when having a cursory meeting with a woman awaiting her abortion and dressed in a surgical gown, is going to refuse the abortion and ask the woman to get dressed and return home'.

It is mentioned that there is no legal requirement for the operating surgeon to be a certifying consultant. Certifying consultants receive a fee of $87.50 from the Justice Department for seeing a woman seeking an abortion and signing the certificate. The Abortion Supervisory Committee has previously publicly acknowledged that the fee provides another incentive for doctors to perform abortions. Information was received from the Abortion Supervisory in July that the twenty busiest certifying consultants received fees for the financial year 2001 between $56,000 and $129,000. The top five all believed to be operating surgeons received more than $100,000.

This is a very serious and important complaint concerning the deliberate and concerted attempt by some DHB's to circumvent legislation enacted by Parliament for the protection of our unborn and their mothers. To substantiate our society's complaint 1 have enclosed for your information, copies of the relevant documents. We pray that for the good of our community and upholding the rule of law that you will give this complaint the consideration it deserves.

Yours Sincerely

Ken Orr for Executive