Abortion Law Reform Association of NZ

High Court Rejects Broadening Scope of Conscientious Objection Over Abortion

The recent High Court ruling on the draft Medical Council guidelines on conscientious objection over abortion exposes yet again problems with our outdated abortion laws the president of the Abortion Law Reform Association of New Zealand, Dame Margaret Sparrow, said today.

“Groups opposed to abortion have stated that the 2 December ruling by Justice MacKenzie in the challenge to the Medical Council guidelines brought by a group of anti-abortion doctors upheld the rights of conscience of medical practitioners” Dame Margaret said.

“And so it did – but that right was never in question.”

“Health practitioners are currently not obligated to perform or assist in the performance of an abortion, but the judge made it clear that they are obligated to advise the woman that she can obtain help from another health practitioner or from a family planning clinic.”

“What this group of doctors objected to was an expansion of professional guidelines to require doctors with a conscientious objection to abortion not just to advise the patient to go elsewhere but to actually arrange for the case to be considered by another medical practitioner” she said. “For doctors strongly opposed to abortion this was a step too far.”

Dame Margaret said “This actually clarifies the law for women seeking abortion services. Whatever their beliefs, doctors must at the very least inform a woman requesting an abortion that she can obtain that service elsewhere.”

In the past anti-abortion doctors have claimed the right not to refer on the grounds that they did not consider the woman had grounds under the Crimes Act but the judge ruled this out. Also in the past some anti-abortion doctors have claimed the right not to refer because abortion is not specifically mentioned in the Health Practitioner Competence Assurance Act but the judge ruled this out too.

Dame Margaret said that because the full proposed Medical Council guidelines were not provided to third parties, it was difficult for ALRANZ to comment on other aspects of the judgment.

ENDS

© Scoop Media