Abortion: time to clarify Australia's confusing laws

Abstract

Australian criminal law is a matter for states and territories. In relation to abortion, many laws are unclear and outdated, and are inconsistent between states and territories. Doctors practise under time constraints and on a case‐by‐case basis. Most current laws have grey areas that leave doctors vulnerable to accusations, negative publicity and career damage, especially in the case of late abortions. All jurisdictions should follow the Australian Capital Territory's lead in allowing women to access abortion without fear of criminal prosecution. Federal, state and territory governments should introduce a single clear national law on abortion, both in early and late pregnancy.

Late‐term abortion: what can be learned from Royal Womenˈs Hospital v Medical Practitioners Board of Victoria?

“…The abortion was carried out in early February 2000 and Ms X delivered a stillborn baby girl. Although she refused an autopsy, a photograph of the baby showed features of achondroplasia 1 …”

“…The case came to the attention of Dr John De Campo, the Chief Executive Officer of RWH, in late June 2000 when the ethical issues involved in the case were discussed at a hospital meeting 1 . This led to Dr De Campo dismissing the ultrasonologist and suspending several other specialists on the staff without discussing the facts of the case (the suspended specialists were subsequently reinstated) 1 .…”

“…The case came to the attention of Dr John De Campo, the Chief Executive Officer of RWH, in late June 2000 when the ethical issues involved in the case were discussed at a hospital meeting 1 . This led to Dr De Campo dismissing the ultrasonologist and suspending several other specialists on the staff without discussing the facts of the case (the suspended specialists were subsequently reinstated) 1 . In my opinion, the purported dismissal and suspensions would appear to be unlawful, being contrary to Section 41(2) of the Health Services Act 1988 (Vic), which provides that: 3

The board of a public hospital … must not dismiss or suspend any registered medical practitioner employed or engaged by the hospital unless the board(a) where there has been an allegation against the registered medical practitioner, inquires into any matter alleged; and(b) gives the registered medical practitioner an opportunity to be heard.

…”

“…In 2004, the MJA published an important article by de Crespigny and Savulescu that gave a comprehensive summary of Australia's current abortion laws 1 . Their contribution was timely; it followed a controversial public debate about a late‐term abortion carried out in February 2000 at the Royal Women's Hospital (RWH) in Melbourne.…”

Practicing prenatal diagnosis within the law

“…A series of cases and controversies have resulted in recent changes in law in three of Australia's states and territories. The late abortion case illustrates that politicians must introduce clear and consistent laws across the country to replace Australia's current antiquated, inconsistent and often unclear laws6. Those of us in prenatal diagnosis need to be more vocal so that the community can better understand the awful dilemmas facing some of our patients.…”