|
Footprints MagazineJuly 2003(Note this issue is posted unformatted) RIGHT
TO KILL BILL DEFEATED? The
defeat of the Death with Dignity Bill by Parliament 60 to 57 is an
historic victory for a culture of life and defeat for a culture of death.
The Bill was a private member's Bill sponsored by Peter Brown of NZ First
and was defeated at its first reading in a contentious conscience vote. We
must remain vigilant as another euthanasia Bill is expected back within 10
years. The
purpose of this Bill is to allow persons over the age of eighteen who are
terminally ill or incurably ill to request that a doctor kill them. Euthanasia
represents a culture of death. Here are nine of the reasons we were
opposed to this Bill: 1.Euthanasia
is opposed to the Judeo-Christian sanctity of life ethic. It seeks to
replace it with the secular utilitarian ethic of the quality of life which
holds that there are lives not worthy to be lived. 2.We
have a 2 400 year hippocratic tradition opposing euthanasia. 3.The
World Medical Association and the New Zealand Medical Association strongly
oppose euthanasia as unethical. 4.The
United Nations Declaration of Human Rights recognises that every person
has an inalienable right to life. 5.The
right to life is the foundation of our human rights and exists regardless
of state or political decision and it
is the duty of Parliament to protect the inalienable right to life of all
citizens from conception to natural death. 6.Society's
prohibitions of intentional killing is the cornerstone of law and all
social relationships. 7.Being killed by your doctor is not
death with dignity but the death of dignity. 8.The
passing of this Bill would be unwise and dangerous public policy. The
right to die would soon become a duty to die. 9.We
have excellent palliative care in New Zealand provided by 37hospices which
provide compassion, support and love for those in a terminal condition. Right
to Life conducted a vigorous national campaign to defeat this Bill from
hell by writing to every member of Parliament. Thirty MPs who were
undecided and 10 MPs who supported the Bill were sent an excellent 30
minute video from the USA presenting a formidable case against euthanasia. ACT
NOW
Firstly by giving thanks to God for protecting our nation from the
scourge of euthanasia. Secondly by writing to our local MPs who voted
against the Bill congratulating them. Where the MP voted for the Bill
politely ask them why. Address Parliament Building, Wellington. MEDICAL
ETHICS AND THE UNBORN CHILD Medical
ethis are critical in the defence of the unborn chlid. When
the law fails to protect the right to life of the unborn child the last
line of defence is medical ethics. Right to Life contends that the ethics
of the New Zealand Medical Association (NZMA) provide comprehensive
protection. The Association's Code of Ethics has as its first principle: “Consider
the health and well-being of the patient to be your first priority.” When
a woman with child seeks care from her medical practitioner the doctor is
called upon to treat and care for two patients, the mother and her child. On
3 March Right to Life wrote to Dr John Adams, the then chairman of the
NZMA, seeking clarification of the Association's Code of Ethics. We wrote: “It
is noted that the first ethic of the Code is to “consider the health and
well-being of the patient to be your first priority.” Our society fully
supports this ethic. The unborn child is a patient, one that is helpless
and defenceless. The upholding of this ethic would require that the health
and welfare of this little patient is the doctor's first priority. In the
event of a doctor being faced with a request from a woman seeking an
abortion to terminate the life of her child is the doctor acting illegally
and unethically if he seeks to protect the child from harm by refusing to
refer the woman to a certifying consultant?” Dr
John Adams replied on 7 April: “Doctors
have the right, except in an emergency, to refuse to care for a particular
patient. In any situation which is not an emergency, doctors may withdraw
from or decline to provide care as long as an alternative source of care
is available and that the appropriate avenue for securing this is known to
the patient. Where a doctor does withdraw care from a patient, reasonable
notice should be given. Doctors should accept the right of a patient to be
referred for further management in situations where there is a moral or
clinical disagreement about the most appropriate course to take. In my
view, this means that a doctor would be acting unethically by refusing to
refer the woman to another practitioner. Any legal issues would need to be
referred to the courts – this is not something we would pretend to
comment on.” With
the greatest respect Right to Life does not agree. On
18 June Right to Life wrote to Dr Tony Baird, former chairman of the
Association and now chairman of the Association's Ethics Committee. We
posed the following questions: 10.Is
the unborn child to be considered by medical practitioners as a patient? 11.If
so does this patient enjoy the protection of the Association's Code of
Ethics? 12.In
the event of a doctor being faced with a request from a woman seeking an
abortion to terminate the life of her child, would the doctor be acting
unethically if he or she seeks to protect the child from harm by refusing
to refer the woman to a certifying consultant? 13.In
the event of the doctor considering a request from a woman seeking an
abortion believing that it contravenes the
Association's ethics and does not meet the requirements of Section 187A of
the Crimes Act, would the doctor be acting unethically if he or she
refused to refer her to a certifying consultant? On
18 June Dr Baird replied: “Thank
you for your letter of 5 May about the application of the Code of Ethics
to Induced Abortions. As you know, the issues are the automony of the
patients, in this case pregnant women, the law of the land, meaning the
Contraception, Sterilisation and Abortion Act 1976, the professional
duties of medical practitioners, the right of any medical practitioner to
withdraw from care providing comparable care is arranged, and the lack of
legal rights for an embryo foetus prior to birth. You will know about
these issues, the Medical Association reminds members at regular intervals
about such metters, and you will have received a letter from Cameron
McIver, CEO of the NZMA last year.” It
is noted with disappointment that Dr Baird has not addressed the
questions. Dr Baird should be well aware that the CS&A Act Section 32
only requires doctors to refer a woman seeking an abortion to a certifying
consultant when he believes that her request complies with the Crimes Act
and the legal grounds for an abortion. It is astounding that Dr Baird
infers that unborn children have no legal protection. The
questions raised by Right to Life are important to the defence of unborn
children and we are determined to pursue this issue until the NZMA accepts
that it has a duty to uphold its own ethics and protect unborn children
who are its weakest and most defenceless patients. ABORTION
SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE (ASC) The
Justice and Electoral Select Committee conducted a financial review of the
ASC for 2001/2002 in May 2003. A
public hearing was held at Parliament on May 14 2003. Present at the
hearing were the ASC Chairperson Dr Lesley Rothwell, Dr Papaarangi Reid and Marlene Lamb. It is noted that Dr Rothwell
is a certifying consultant and derives a considerable portion of her
income from authorising abortions. Present
at the hearing were members of the pro-life movement including Right to
Life's Parliamentary lobbyist. The members of the ASC were subject to
vigorous questioning from Murray Smith of United Future and Dale Jones of
NZ First. Dr
Rothwell stated that she was hopeful that an increase in the $87.50 fee
paid to certifying consultants would be provided in this year's budget.
She was expecting the fee to be increased to about $200. An increase in
fees was needed to solve the consultant retention and recruitment problem
said Dr Rothwell. Dr
Rothwell in response to questioning said that doctors don't like doing
abortions. When asked about abortion on demand and statements made by the
previous chairperson Dr Christine Forster that we have abortion on demand
Dr Rothwell responded, “We don't have abortions on demand, we have no
evidence of that.” Murray
Smith, United Future, asked Dr Rothwell if she had approved an abortion in
1992 because there were not enough seatbelts in the car. This claim was
made, supported by a sworn affidavit from the woman concerned who was a
member of the pro-life movement and who went under cover to expose the
operation of the abortion industry in Wellington and Christchuch. Dr
Rothwell in spite of the documented evidence denied the accusation. Richard
Worth, National, asked what the Committee was doing to monitor
authorisations for abortions to ensure they were lawful. Dr Rothwell
responded they have no authority to do this. The
review also included a written response to questions given in writing by
the Select Committee to the ASC. Following
the review the Select Committee tabled a 17 page report with Parliament.
The Government is entitled to make a written response to this report. During
the review the ASC had claimed that they had sought an opinion from the
Crown Law Office as to whether they were complying with their statutory
duties. The ASC claims that the response was in the affirmative. The
Select Committee reported, “We are also concerned that that ASC did not
take advice from Crown Law in writing and was either unable or unwilling
to provide details of that advice. It appears that the ASC will continue
its practice of not collecting information that would enable us to form a
clear view on how – or how well – its functions are being
discharged.” This is a very important issue. A legal opinion to have
standing must be in writing. Right
to Life wrote to the ASC and under the Official Information Act requested
copies of the correspondence between the ASC and the Crown Law Office. In
a reply from the ASC dated 4 July the Committee wrote, “The Supervisory
Committee has now considered your request and decided to withhold that
information in terms of Section 9 of the Act – maintaining legal
professional privilege.” Right to Life has now laid a complaint with the
Ombudsman. Murray
Smith states in the report, “Nothing in the evidence of the ASC gave
assurance that effect is being given to the final words of the preamble to
the Act (“...the circumstances and procedures under which abortions may
be authorised after having full regard to the rights of the unborn
child.”) Murray
Smith and Dale Jones wanted attention drawn to statistics provided to the
Select Committee on request by the ASC on the number of abortions
authorised by the five certifying consultants who have authorised the
highest number of abortions in the past year.
Those
members also asked that the ASC try to collate information on what
proportion of counselling offered was supportive or neutral on abortion.
Feedback could also be sought on whether users of the counselling services
felt the counselling was pro- or anti-abortion. Legislative
Change The
Labour, Green and ACT MPs on the Committee invited the Government to amend
the law to reflect current practices. Richard Worth and Lyndsay Fisch of
National believe that the issues are wider than issues of structure and
second that simply to reflect “current practice” (whatever current
practice means) is no basis for sound law-making. Right to Life totally
agrees we currently have a regime of unlawful abortions with a massive
violation of the human rights of the unborn. Justice is not served by
changing the law to make injustice legal. Right
to Life commends Murray Smith and Dale Jones for their vigorous
questioning of the ASC. Prior to the financial review Right to Life sent a
six page letter to each of the eleven members of the Select Committee
providing an exposé of the abortion industry and providing evidence of
the unlawfulness of abortions in New Zealand. Right to Life is
disappointed that the Committee in its report to Parliament has not
recommended amendments to the law to stop abortion on demand, to make
doctors accountable and above all to provide effective legal protection
for unborn children. Right to Life is committed to continuing to monitor
the performance of the ASC and to continue to liaise with members of the
Select Committee in the interests of protecting the right to life of our
unborn children. “We
don't have abortion on demand, we have no evidence of that.”
Dr Lesley Rothwell
Chairperson, Abortion Supervisory Committee, 14/5/2003 SOCIETY NEWS A MESSAGE
FROM OUR PATRONS Bishop
John Cunneen DD Catholic Bishop of Christchurch, commends Right to
Life for its defence of life and encourages members to continue their
support for the society. Father
Pat Kennedy: “Thank you for nominating me again as one of the
patrons of Right to Life. I remain always grateful for this honour. “May
I both thank and congratulate the society for the sterling work it
continues to do in upholding respect for human life at all its stages from
its beginning to its natural end. We know and recognise human life to be
God's gift and as such, must at all its stages be respected and preserved
from any adverse human interference. Your society, principally through the
dedicated service of your committee and its members, continues to give
complete dedication to this noble cause.” Reverend
John Haverland: “I am confirming my willingness to continue as a
patron. It has been an honour and a privilege to occupy this
position...” Graham
Capill:
“I am convinced that those standing up for the dignity of human life are
on the winning side, not just of what is morally right but in terms of the
future. It is encouraging to read that the USA stands at the dawn of
banning partial birth abortions and could well end up challenging the
original Roe v Wade decision that has brought so much death and destruction.
In the end, people cannot live together in a civil society without holding
human life as sacred. New Zealand would do well to draw from history as to
where a culture of death will end up, especially as it again debates the
push to legalise euthanasia. The work of Right to Life is far from ended,
but with God all things are possible because He has created human beings
to be His image bearers. As such we are constrained to speak up for those
who cannot speak for themselves and pray that society will take care of
the weak and vulnerable – not destroy such people.” Honorable
Bert Walker: “I appreciate the valiant efforts of Right to
Life New Zealand Inc. during the past year and feel sure your efforts are
being noted by greater numbers in the community. In my view, the family is
the basic strength of the community. If the family breaks down, the
community suffers, along with all that is in it.” Doctor
Norman MacLean: “During January 2003 the Southland Times
newspaper reported on its front page statements from a Christchurch
General Practitioner Dr. Pippa Mackay which included “Demand for
abortion from Southland women was high enough to warrant Christchurch
doctors travelling south to provide the service.” Dr. Mackay was the
previous Chairwoman of the New Zealand Medical Association, and is also an
operating surgeon at the Lyndhurst Abortion Clinic. “Nothing
demonstrates more clearly the dramatic shift in the ethical position of
doctors than the views of Dr. Mackay. The Hippocratic tradition, going
back more than 2000 years, and reconfirmed after the Second War in the
Geneva Declaration, expressly forbade the taking of human life born or
unborn.” ANNUAL
GENERAL MEETING The
AGM of Right to Life was held on 20 April 2003. There was an attendance of
43 people. Election
of Officers The
following officers were elected: President:
Philip Creed Vice
Presidents: Ken Orr, Chris O'Brien Treasurer:
Paul Christenhusz There
being no nominations for secretary an appointment would be made by the
executive. The
committee elected were: Herman Jansen, Henry Allison, Morgan Williams. The
guest speaker was Larry Baldock MP United Future who spoke on his party's
objective to protect family values. The
President gave a report on the society's involvement in opposing the
French abortion pill RU486, and in promoting national campaigns to oppose
the Prostitution Reform Bill and the Death with Dignity Bill. The society
was also engaged in lobbying Parliament and Government promoting increased
legal protection for the unborn child. MEDIA Media
releases have been made to TV, radio and newspapers on the abortion
statistics for 2002 and the passing of the Prostitution Reform Bill. Newspaper
Advertising Two
quarter page adverts were
inserted in the Christchurch Press prior to the third reading of the
Prostitution Reform Bill and prior to the first reading of the Death with
Dignity Bill. Both adverts urged readers to contact their local electorate
and list MPs and ask them to vote against these socially destructive and
anti-life Bills. Letters from Right to Life were published in the: Christchurch
Press on prostitution (2 letters), surgical waiting lists and abortion
(2), RU486; Dominion
Post on the abortion pill RU486; New
Zealand Catholic on contraception and abortion, surgical waiting lists and
abortion, and the passing of the Prostitution Reform Bill; Investigate
Magazine on Dr Sparrow, the abortion industry and the breast cancer link. IMPORTANT
CORRESPONDENCE Letters
were sent to the Minister of Health on informed consent; on alleged
double dipping of certifying consultants receiving a fee of $87.50 for
authorising an abortion while being paid for employment with a District
Health Board (DHB); on the issue of the Auckland DHB being directed by the
Minister to provide second trimester abortions for women outside Auckland;
asking why surgical waiting lists have been reduced because of lack of
money yet abortion is a core health service with unlimited funding. Letters
were sent to Parliament prior to the third reading of the
Prostitution Reform Bill to the 62 MPs who had previously voted for it.
The letter was to present a further submission urging them to oppose the
Bill. A
letter was sent to the Minister of Courts in June, who is
responsible for paying the fees to certifying consultants. We asked that
he revoke the fee for consultants already being paid for employment with a
DHB. HUMAN
ASSISTED REPRODUCTIVE TECHNOLOGY BILL The
above Government Bill has passed its first reading and is now with the
Health Parliamentary Select Committee. T Right
to Life has made a submission to the Select Committee upholding the human
rights of the human embryo. CARE
OF CHILDREN BILL This
Bill has recently passed its first reading and has been sent to the
Parliamentary Health Select Committee. Right
to Life is committed to conducting a vigorous campaign to have this
Section amended to provide for parental consent. To pursue parental
notification is in fact a pro-abortion position; it accepts the false and
dangerous proposition that abortion is “a woman's right to choose”
even for girls under the age of sixteen. Right
to Life will be making a written and oral submission to the Select
Committee upholding parental rights and the responsibility to protect the
health of their daughters and their grandchildren from death by abortion. Report from the Treasurer: The following is an abridged summary of the financial statements
presented to the AGM in April 2003. Statement of Income and Expenditure for Year ended 31-01-2003 Income:
Expenditure: Subscriptions
6447
Depreciation
495 Donations
10378
Election advertising
6785 Interest
770
Newsletter
3398
Postage
2806
Publicity
1319
Secretarial services
767
Stationary
1490
Telephone
1015
Travel
1888
Other
989
17595
20952
Deficit for the year
( 3357) Statement of Financial Position as at 31-01-2003 Assets: Westpac accounts
17352 Stock
1269 Computers
2192 Other
140
20953 Liabilities
Nil Accumulated funds as at 31-01-2003
20953 Any
member wishing to have a full financial statement may obtain a copy by
writing to the Treasurer PO Box 668 with a self addressed envelope. Since the AGM your society has received two large
donations; one for $1000 from a solicitors trust fund, and the other for
$5000 from an anonymous source. The committee are truly grateful and
thankful to our benefactors Abortion
Supervisory Committee Report 2002 - Review
The
Committee presided over the killing of 16 410 unborn children during 2001. The
Committee’s annual report for 2002 was tabled in Parliament in December. In
1994 the Committee was severely criticised in Parliament for the contents
and quality of its annual reports: “The standard of the reporting of the
Supervisory Committee is absolutely abysmal. Its documents are pathetic.
They do not reflect the seriousness with which Parliament regards the law
on abortion.” That stinging appraisal would be appropriate for this
year’s report. Fees
payable to certifying consultants for consultations with women considering
an abortion were expected to total $3 366 734 for the year ended 30 June
2002. The
Committee stated they “would like to thank all certifying consultants
for continuing to provide abortion services to the women of New Zealand.” Access
to Services With
the introduction of District Health Boards (DHBs) the Committee had sought
assurances from the Minister of Health that abortion remained a core
health service i.e. an essential health service. Some
DHBs e.g. Southland make no provision for “abortion services.” They
may instead make arrangements for local women to travel to licensed
institutions elsewhere, for example West Coast to Christchurch, Wanganui
and Palmerston North to Wellington. Other DHBs e.g. Auckland and Waikato
provide good access to first trimester “services.” Only Wellington and
Christchurch provide full services both to women in their own district and
to women from other districts. This indicates that the provision of
services is becoming increasingly centralised and is one of the issues the
Committee will be discussing with the Ministry of Health. Medical
Workforce
The
Committee is concerned for future workforce levels as it has been advised
that some abortion providers are having difficulty in recruiting staff
especially for second trimester abortions. Some medical and nursing staff
refuse to look after women following an abortion. The Committee will be
discussing this issue with the Ministry of Health. Sterilisation
The
Committee is concerned that in many parts of the country there is a
waiting list for women wanting a tubal ligation. This issue will be taken
up with the Ministry of Health. RTL’s
Critique of Relevant Abortion Statistics
The
Committee reported 16 410 abortions notified to the Committee for 2001, an
increase of 307 over the 16 103 notified for 2000. It
is worthy of note that of the main centres in New Zealand, Christchurch
and Hamilton are the only centres to record a significant decrease in
abortions. The
Contraception, Sterilisation and Abortion (CS&A) Act 1977 Section 14 Functions
and Powers of Supervisory Committee states that: 1.
The Supervisory Committee shall have the following functions:
(a) To keep under review all the provisions of the abortion law,
and the operation and effect of these provisions in practice. The
Committee states that it “is satisfied that it is performing its
statutory functions.” Right to Life challenges that claim. The
Committee has stated publicly and to Parliamentary Select Committees that
certifying consultants are using mental health grounds to provide abortion
on demand. A total of
16 242 abortion i.e. 99% of abortions for 2002 were authorised on
the grounds that the continued life of the unborn child was a serious
threat to the mental health of the mother. The Committee does not believe
this nor does Parliament or the community. These statistics represent a
massive violation of the human rights of unborn children. There
is absolutely no mention in the report of what action the Committee has
taken to ensure that the rights of the unborn child are given full regard
as required by the long title of the CS&A Act. If
the Committee believes that it does not have the statutory powers to
protect the right to life of the unborn child and ensure that the laws on
abortion are upheld why then does the Committee not request in its report
that Parliament act to amend the legislation? The
focus of the Committee is on providing a “service” to kill babies in
the womb. This requires a sufficient number of doctors who are prepared to
violate the ethics of the medical profession “to maintain the utmost
respect for human life from conception until death.” It commends those
doctors who continue to provide this “service” and encourages all DHBs
to be abortion providers even against the wishes of the communities they
serve. The
Committee is concerned at the reluctance of doctors and nurses at some
hospitals in providing abortions. Currently there are 214 certifying
consultants. The Committee advised that the fees for certifying
consultants have not increased since 1988 and the Committee believes this
may be a reason for doctors not being attracted to or leaving the service.
However, Right to Life believes this reluctance is because their informed
conscience tells them that it is wrong to participate in the killing of
innocent and defenceless children. The Committee appears to refuse to
acknowledge this. Right
to Life commends DHBs that refuse to be a party to the killing of children
in their community. It also commends those doctors and nurses employed by
DHBs that courageously defend life and refuse to participate in a culture
of death. In
stark contrast to the Committee’s callous lack of concern for the rights
of the unborn child is the concern the Committee has for the financial
wellbeing of certifying consultants. The Committee believes that the fee
of $87.50 received by consultants is an insufficient incentive for
consultants to continue in the service or to attract doctors to become
consultants. The Committee had requested the Minister of Courts the Hon.
Matt Robson to review the fees with a view to increasing them. This
confirms that abortion is an industry and profit the overriding motive. We
should remember that many certifying consultants are employed by DHBs and
are also in receipt of a salary. This
issue raises many important questions: 14.Are
more doctors now becoming sickened by the killing of unborn children, and
don’t wish to be involved as medical assassins? 15.Is
the Committee hoping to anaesthetise the consciences of doctors by
offering them more money to continue as consultants or to seek appointment
as a consultant? ANNUAL
TABLE OF ABORTIONS
The
statistics reveal that 45.9% of women having an abortion have become
pregnant while using contraceptives. This is further evidence that
contraceptives are not totally successful in preventing pregnancy and that
the so-called “safe sex” message promoted to teenagers by the Ministry
of Health and Family Planning is false. The
lives of 16 410 unborn children is a price too high. Only chastity before
marriage and faithfulness within marriage will reduce our appalling
abortion statistics. Right to Life is committed to
the objective of recognition of the inalienable right to life of all
unborn children. As an incremental step towards that objective it seeks to
have the Abortion Supervisory Committee fulfil its statutory duties to
stop abortion on demand and to ensure that the rights of the unborn child
are given full regard. Right to Life has written to every member of
Parliament to express our concerns at the Committee’s performance and
inadequate report. WORLD NEWS US BANS
“PARTIAL BIRTH” ABORTIONS The
United States House of Represntatives has easily approved a ban on a
procedure critics call “partial birth” abortions. If
the bill, approved 282-139 recently, withstands legal challenges, it would
be the first time a specific form of abortion has been criminalised since
the Supreme Court Roe v Wade ruling in 1973 that upheld abortion rights. Amid
intense and graphic debate, complete with accusations of “infanticide”
and sketches of sharp instruments being plunged into the base of a foetal
skull, the ban has been considered in Congress repeatedly since 1995.
Under the bill, a doctor could face up to two years in prison as well as
civil lawsuits for performing a “partial birth” abortion. As
the emotional debate concluded recently, House majority leader Tom DeLay,
a Texas Republican, urged lawmakers to vote for the ban and “think of
the frantic wriggling of that little body in that gloved hand, think of
that moment of pure terror when those sanitised scissors puncture the
baby's neck.” Former
president Bill Clinton vetoed earlier versions because it contained no
exemption to protect a woman's health. Mr
Bush supports a ban on what the White House has called an “abhorrent
procedure”. The legislation will go to him for his signature after one
relatively minor difference with a senate-passed version is worked out. However, this measure is likely to fa |