Pro-LIFE NEWS

Vol. 9 No.3 - Spring Edition 1992                                  Print Post Approved - 33L385/00042

Contents:

- Uniting Church & Abortion
- Editorial
- RU486 & The Unborn
- State Abortion Rates
- Outstanding Australian Pro-Lifer Dies
- Webster Update
- Pro-Lifer Elected to Parliament
- Carolyn Hewson on Abortion
- The "Baby M" Inquest
- My Life Enriched Beyond Measure
- World View

My first reaction to the Melbourne Age newspaper’s headline on the 28th August 1992, "Church backs abortion right" was "Father forgive them, for they no not what they do". My second reaction was to resolve to make sure Victoria’s Uniting Church Synod does know what it is doing when it votes in the next year or two on abortion and euthanasia.

In the publicity which followed the NSW synod’s decision to officially support a woman s right to choose a legal abortion, Victorian Uniting Church Moderator, Ms Nancy Bomford was viewed on television stating the intention of the Uniting Church to "consult with interested groups and other Churches" before voting in this state.

Pro-Life Victoria must ensure the cause of the unborn child is put articulately and strongly to the synod voters. We have already sought this opportunity in a letter to Ms Bomford.

In a letter published in the Australian, 2nd October 1992, I challenged the NSW Moderator to assure me that the NSW synod had voted in ignorance. I asked what evidence in defence of the unborn’s life had been viewed. Evidence such as 1) Lennart Nilsson’s Time-Life photographic series, which reveals the humanity of the unborn child, 2) documentary evidence such as "The Silent Scream" or "Eclipse of Reason", produced by former abortionist Dr Bernard Nathanson, 3) modern ultra-sound photographs or 4) the sound recording of an unborn baby’s heart-beat. (The late respected Prime Minister of New Zealand, Norman Kirk, voted against abortion after hearing the latter.)

I also suggested what folly it was to "place the law of Almighty God ‘on trial’ in a human court. Especially when God has warned He is the Judge and Avenger of innocent blood which cries from earth to heaven

Two contributions to The Age’s Access column demonstrated our society’s slide into insanity. It was hard to believe the editor couldn’t have recognised the absurd irony. Under the heading "Plea for the possums" a child wrote ‘The possum lady came to Blackburn library, she had sad pictures. Please keep your dogs and cats in at night." Immediately following, underneath the heading "A Christian Approach" was written:

"Congratulations to the Uniting Church in NSW for addressing the abortion issue with truth, justice and compassion - a Christian Approach." What madness! The latter contribution was clearly refuted in the Access column several days later by Robert Young of Glen Waverley, who wrote "What justice is there in denying their choice to live? What compassion is there in murdering the innocent?"

Reprinted in this newsletter is a beautiful letter from Elena Down of North Balwyn. I know all prolifers will identify with her letter.

Pro-Lifers can encourage the Victorian synod of the Uniting Church not to make the same mistake by writing to:

The Moderator,
Ms Nancy Bomford,
Uniting Church of Victoria,
130 Little Collins Street,
Melbourne, 3000. 

Top of Page

As the end of the year approaches the pro-life movement has been doing some household chores. Pro-Life Victoria held its Annual General Meeting in late August and PLV representatives attended the Right to Life Federation Bi-annual General Meeting in September in Canberra.

Pro-Life Victoria’s AGM reviewed the work of the last year, but also established its goals for the coming year. This is an important part of the growing effectiveness of our organisation.

We are aiming to set the agenda for life issues more and more in this State. And you can help. Every letter, every visitation, every spoken pro-life comment has a marked effect in Victoria. Just reading the Pro-Life News and being informed of the issues will help make a difference.

As Pro-Life Victoria grows and becomes more effective, it will change. The activities that you may be called upon to participate in may also change.

I encourage you to become more involved in the organisation. A prolife legacy is one of the greatest things you could leave for future Australians.

Top of Page

An English medical journal has described the effects of the abortion pill RU-486 on the children of two women who took the pill but did not proceed to abort. In one case the woman delivered an apparently normal child.

In the other case the mother took RU-486 when she was five weeks past the onset of the last menstrual period. An ultrasound done after a further 12 weeks showed severe internal malformations of her child. She then had an abortion. An examination of the baby’s body revealed the full extent of its malformations.

They included:

• fusion of the lower limbs

• no external genitalia, anal or urethral openings

• no internal reproductive organs

• no lower urinary tract or kidneys

• a blind ending of the colon on the left side

• no stomach or gall bladder

• under-development of the lungs.

Top of Page

*excludes sa & nt FROM aUSTRALIAN WIDE FIGURES BECAUSE IN sa THEY ARE MOSTLY PERFORMED IN HOSPITALS (NOT 6469) AND IN NT THEY ARE ALL IN HOSPITALS

N/A: Not all abortions performed are 6469 claims.

Source - Based on Medicare statistics supplied to Mr Alsadair Webster MHR and Senator Brian Harradine and the tables of Life
Births Registered, State and Territory of Registration, and Estimated resident Population, appearing on pages 5 & 10 of Australian Demographic Statistics, June Quarter 1991, ABS Cat. No. 3101.0

Top of Page

by Denise Cameron

Victorian prolifers will be saddened to learn of the sudden death in Adelaide, on the 29 July 1992, of Lutheran Pastor Dr Daniel Overduin.

He is sorely missed in our Australian pro-life movement.

I first met Daniel Overduin on the 10 May 1973, outside Parliament House in Canberra, to which he had lead a huge march from St Christophers Pro Cathedral. In the ensuing years I have always valued deeply his wisdom on every aspect of pro-life philosophy, his steadfast enduring commitment to the pro-life cause, the warmth and sincerity of his friendship and in particular, his enthusiastic encouragement of any effort made on behalf of our shared cause.

Daniel Overduin started debating the abortion issue in the 1960’s in the leadup to South Australia’s Abortion Act of 1969.

He launched the South Australian Right To Life Association and Birth-line, and will always be remembered for their magnificent Life Mobile. Along the way he fought the Family Law Act and was a co-author of such books on Bioethics as "Life in a Test Tube", and "Wake Up Lucky Country". He lectured widely in Australia and overseas on a variety of bioethical issues.

His most recent initiative was the launching of Lutherans for Life and Abortion Alternatives Network.

Memories of Daniel will remain long in our hearts. His many "legacies" to the Australian Pro-Life movement, will outlast us all.

Top of Page

Alasdair Webster I reintroduced his Abortion Funding Abolition Bill into the House of Representatives on Thursday 20 August 1992.

With a Federal election due to be held sometime between now and May next year, pro-lifers now have a concrete piece of legislation to present to incumbent members or potential Federal candidates in order to assess their pro-life credentials. If elected! re-elected, would they vote in favour of the Abortion Funding Abolition Bill? Would they lobby the House of Representatives’ Selection Committee and the new (Labor or Coalition) Government to ensure that adequate time is made available to debate the Bill, and that time be set aside to bring the Bill to a vote.

Alasdair Webster is to be commended for giving us this opportunity, and for his persistent defence of the unborn in the face of "subtle" obstruction over three years.

Re-introducing his Bill, Mr Webster said:

"The Abortion Funding Abolition Bill 1992 addresses the Medicare subsidisation of abortion and seeks to allow Medicare funding only for abortions performed to avert the death of the mother, or in cases where the procedure is for a different purpose and the doctor is unaware that an abortion would occur...

"Honourable members will be aware that this is not the first time this Bill has been introduced into the House. I first introduced this Bill into the House of Representatives as the Abortion Funding Abolition Bill 1989 on 17 August 1989 and again, as the Abortion Funding Abolition Bill 1990, on 6 December 1990. On the first occasion it received 57 minutes of debating time and on the second occasion 83 minutes, the last day of debating being 28 November last year. This totals less than 2.5 hours in three years.

"This Parliament stands condemned for the fact that it has refused to bring this Bill on for full debate and resolution. Worst of all, it is now accountable in part for the fact that in excess of 200,000 perfectly healthy unborn children have been destroyed since the Bill was first introduced...

"Many hundreds of petitions supporting the amendments contained in this Bill and carrying hundreds of thousands of signatures have been presented to Parliament. This Australia-wide support clearly demonstrates that the subject of this Bill is of great interest and concern to many Australian citizens. The debate so far allowed is clearly insufficient...

"It is interesting to note that some members who do not support the Bill believe it is time the Bill was brought to resolution through a vote. The honourable member for Petrie (Mr Johns) said in his speech on the last day the Bill was debated:

"I cannot support the Bill, but I do support this: Parliament should have a vote on the matter and dispose of it because it has gone on for a number of years."

"For each day that the Bill fails to be resolved in the way suggested by the honourable member for Petrie, hundreds of innocent unborn children are destroyed. We must therefore stand up and be counted. We cannot run away and hide.

"I commend the Bill to the House. In doing so, I challenge honourable members to come to grips with this important, ethical and urgent political issue."

Top of Page 

Victorian prolifers will be delighted at the recent election to State Parliament of Bernard Finn, the new member for Tullamarine.

Bernard’s election success was achieved in the face of a vitriolic campaign conducted against him by Jo Wainer and W.E.L. with the help of the A.B.C’s. Jill Singer, who featured in the "7.30 Report" on the Baby M case.

He was magnificently defended by his leader, Jeff Kennett, who declared his wish that he had a Bernard Finn running in every electorate!

‘When asked at a pre-election meeting what he intended doing about the deaths of the 250,000 unborn children killed in this State since his Government came to power, Bernard’s political opponent, Labor M.P., Peter Gavin, replied that his party stood by the Menhennitt Ruling, along with 80% of the population, and not with the narrow minority groups Bernard was aligned with!

We headily congratulate Bernard, along with those prolife candidates who retained their seats and other new prolife parliamentarians. Bernard has been a keen prolife activist since his school days at the Salesian College in Sunbury, taking seriously virtually everything that was ever asked of him as a prolifer, right down to getting himself elected to Parliament!

Well done Bernard. We are all very proud of you.

Top of Page

"I think it’s the right of the person carrying the child to decide." said Ms Hewson recently on Channel Seven’s Real Life. She also stated "Obviously the last thing I want is political controversy on this issue."

Our political leaders continually let us down on abortion. They want it both ways. Wanting to appear "reasonable and respectable", offended if accused of lacking compassion, they nevertheless think it "reasonable" to advocate the destruction of unborn babies.
Let

 Mr & Mrs Hewson,C/o
 Parliament House, Canberra, 2600

... know what you think of the aspiring Prime Minister’s wife comments -and his own similar attitude to the evil practice of abortion in this country. 

Top of Page

Some legal aspects of treating disabled Infants - by Karin S. M. Clark
Condensed & Reprinted from the Law Institute Journal

The coronial finding in the "Baby M" inquest was handed down in Melbourne in October1991. While media reports of the case generated considerable interest and controversy, the legal aspects of the Coroner s findings received little attention.

FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE

Some facts were not disputed during the inquest.

Baby M was born with a severe form of spin a bifida. She was paralysed in the lower legs and would almost certainly not have been able to walk. She would have been doubly incontinent and would not have been able to have normal sexual function. It was possible she

would be mentally retarded. It was decided not to treat her surgically. A management plan was devised for her care as a result of which she was fed on demand (but not naso-gastrically or intravenously) and was administered with paracetamol and phenobarbitone. About five days later, her physicians were visited by the police, who had received a complaint from a member of the Right To Life Association (RTL). Subsequently, a number of specialists were consulted, each of whom concurred with her treatment.

She developed respiratory difficulties ten days after birth and was then thought likely to die. Morphine infusions were commenced and she died twelve days after birth.

The forensic pathologist who performed the autopsy found the cause of death to be "Drug toxicity (phenobarbitual and morphine) and bronchopneumonia in a baby with spina bifida operta".

The Deputy State Coroner found that the death occurred from "natural causes broncho-pneumonia, hypoxia secondary to vocal cord paralysis in a baby with spin a Bifida and associated with upper airway obstruction in the presence of phenobarbitone and morphine at toxic levels ...

She also found that no person contributed to the cause of death.

CONTESTED ISSUES

The Coroner’s findings in the recent controversial "Baby M" case raised a number of broader legal issues in the treatment of disabled infants.

Surgery

One of the most common operations performed on spina bifida infants is the closure of the back lesion to prevent infection. This operation was not performed on Baby M. It was put by counsel for a member of RTL to the consulting neurosurgeon, but denied by him, that the fact that Baby M was thought likely to have a poor quality of life influenced the decision not to operate. The Deputy Coroner decided that the back operation (as well as two others which could have been performed) was not indicated.

She found that the decision not to operate on the back lesion was consistent with accepted medical practice in Australia, noting that the evidence given by Baby M’s doctors was that:

(a) there was, in their judgement, little chance of infection in her case; and

(b) taking into account all her disabilities, even this initial surgery was not warranted.

In bringing in the second point, the Deputy Coroner raises "quality of life" issues which are discussed below.

Dispute also centred on the nature and appropriateness of the use of phenobarbitone, its dosage and whether the child had been in sufficient pain to warrant its use.

The Deputy Coroner did not discuss the actual nature of phenobarbitone (although she referred to it as an analgesic) but found that its use was appropriate in this case and had been "long accepted in Australia".

Counsel for a member of RTL submitted that phenobarbitone had been given to sedate the child and to depress her urge to feed.

One of the medical witnesses called by RTL testified that those spina bifida babies whom he treated (at a Californian hospital) and who did not suckle well were fed by nasogastric tube. He observed that in this case the nursing notes appeared to show that the child had received about 20 - 30 ccs of food per day compared with the 400 - 450 ccs that she needed.

THE SELECTION DEBATE

One reason why the inquest generated controversy was that it touched on the contentious debate over the selective non-treatment (at least surgically) of disabled infants such as those with spina bifida.

The debate has been over the medical criteria used for such selection the extent to which quality of life factors (as opposed to factors determining whether treatment would be effective) have entered into decisions not to treat and whether infants selected for surgical non-treatment have been properly cared for.

The debate over selection also raises the question of the extent to which a doctor may be criminally liable for the non-treatment of an infant, whether or not disabled.

It is trite law that a crime may be committed by omission if there is a legal duty to act. In relation to an incompetent patient such as an infant, a doctor’s duty may arise from contact (whether with a hospital or with the infant’s parents) or merely from the voluntary assumption of a duty.

It must also be kept in mind that the withholding of parental consent to treatment which is medically indicated would not necessarily relieve from liability a doctor who, on that basis, did not carry out the treatment.

The Deputy Coroner in the Baby M inquest noted that:

"the accepted Australian standard is to leave decisions relating to the management of children with gross congenital malformations to be taken by parents and physicians together".

However, this should not be taken as a complete statement of the law. While in the majority of cases doctors are obliged to comply with parental decisions about medical treatment, parental discretion not unfettered.

Lord Scarman noted:

"parental rights are derived from parental duty and exist only so long as they are needed for the protection of the person and property of the child."

LEGAL DUTY?

· The key question in the selection debate remains - is the scope of a doctor’s legal duty towards a disabled infant any different to that owed in a normal infant? Should it be any different?

Certainly the fact that a patient might have a so called poor quality of life is no defence if an act (as opposed to an omission) is done with the intention of hastening the death of the patient.

In Victoria the only recent judicial pronouncement on whether the disability of a child affects the scope of a doctor’s (and indeed, a parent’s) duty towards it was made by Mr Justice Vincent. An urgent application was made to His Honour based on an allegation or an inference that a decision had been made to sedate a child’s suffering spin a bifida and to withdraw sustenance from the child. His Honour made an interim order that the child be given sustenance and explained his understanding of the law thus:

... no parent, no doctor, no court, has any power to determine that the life of any child, however disabled that child may be, will be deliberately taken from it

"[The law] does not permit decisions to be made concerning the quality of life, nor does it enable any assessment to be made as to the value of any human being."

In another case the court determined that it was in the interests of a child with Down’s Syndrome to have an operation to relieve an intestinal blockage even though parental consent had been refused.

Given the findings of fact in the Baby M inquest, whether quality of life factors could be legitimately considered under Victorian law should not have been relevant. However, the Deputy Coroner sought to distinguish Justice Vincent’s comments on the basis that he was dealing only with the limited circumstances of feeding a spina bifida child.

While she noted that the law generally excludes quality of life considerations as being invalid, she also stated that:

"[Baby M’s] very serious disabilities, the prognoses for which were able to be determined with substantial certainty, placed her in that notional group of babies who would not be selected for surgery".

One practical reason why Justice Vincent’s approach is more preferable, is that it can be difficult to distinguish between "acts" and "omissions" in the context of the selection debate.

Further, the amorphous nature of a quality of life approach is itself likely to generate rather than reduce, uncertainty in the medical community, as well as the community at large, about standards of the law in this area. As well, it is an approach which could prove dangerously open-ended in its application.

Most importantly, however, there seems no principled reason why, once a duty of care to treat a patient is established, the law should posit a class of individuals entitled to a lower standard of protection. To do so would offend against the principle, well recognised by various international covenants and entrenched in Victorian statutes, that no person should be discriminated against on the basis of disability.

Top of Page

Source: Letters to the Editor, The Age, Friday 2 October, 1992

 

I was saddened to read that 70 per cent of people interviewed in a poll would approve of terminating a pregnancy if the child would be born physically handicapped (The Age , 28/9). As a profoundly deaf student studying second-year arts/law at Melbourne University, having been an overseas exchange student, and having been actively involved in Christian ministry over the years, it was of concern to me that so many people would have considered that my life was worthless when I lay unborn in my mother’s womb.

Such an attitude is a sad reflection on a society that appears to be increasingly intolerant of anything less than perfect or that is an inconvenience in our fast-paced lives. The apparently noble motive of saving a child from unnecessary pain and suffering is often only a facade for the unwillingness of some people to have their own lives "burdened".

Would people who hold this view consider disabled persons such as Beethoven, Steven Hawking, Helen Keller and Stevie Wonder to have been nothing but a burden to our society? I have met many people who have battled, despite their handicap, to make a valuable contribution to this world, be it great or small, and as a result my life has been enriched beyond measure.

I quote from Andrew Symons’ s winning medical ethics essay: "The extent to which we have lost this idea of the intrinsic value of each individual on earth is the extent to which our society has lost its humanity."

Elena Down, North Balwyn

Top of Page

CANADA: Canada’s National Pro-Life Conference brought over 1,200 people together in Toronto last June, in what several commentaries have acclaimed as the finest pro-life event in the nation’s history.

The conference theme, "Save the Planet’s People", struck a welcome note in the aftermath of the highly publicized United Nations’ "Earth Summit". During the conference the participants took part in a Life Chain along a major street of Toronto. Commenting on the event afterwards, Canadian pro-life leader Father Ted Colleton said he had never experienced such unity of purpose, such complete dedication to a cause, and such true Christian charity as were evident from the beginning to the end of this memorable event.

C.I.S. : Russia’s first pro-life conference will take place in Moscow on October 8 - 10, 1992. It is sponsored by the International Right to Life Federation, in conjunction with the Moscow based International Centre for Human Values and the Couple to Couple League International.

GERMANY: The German Constitutional Court on August 4 issued a temporary injunction against a recently approved abortion law that allows abortions on demand in the first twelve weeks of pregnancy. The Court acted on the basis of Article 2 of the German Constitution which refers to the right to life and physical integrity.

JAPAN: The Japan Association of the Right to Life Movement has launched a national petition to promote awareness of the Declaration of the Rights of the Unborn Child. The Association hopes the petition will lead to a better appreciation of the respect due to the unborn baby.

POLAND: The Polish Sejm (Lower House) on July 24 approved a bill that would ban all abortions except those considered necessary to protect the life of an expectant mother.

NEW ZEALAND: There were 11,590 registered abortions in New Zealand in 1991, of which 11,320 were done on grounds of "serious danger" to the mental health of the expectant mother. The total number is an increase of over 400 on the previous year.

SOUTH KOREA: The government of South Korea is reported to be on the verge of legalising abortions in a number of circumstances. They include: whenever a child is conceived after rape or is handicapped, and whenever a pregnancy is said to threaten the life of an expectant mother.

SWITZERLAND: Over 1,000 Swiss doctors are reported to have signed a petition calling for the abortion pill "RU 486" to be made available in Switzerland. Their call has been opposed by pro-life and religious leaders.

UNITED KINGDOM: A Minister of the Church of Scotland who was dismissed from his parish because of his pro-life apostolate, has since been stripped of has Minister’s licence and deprived of an opportunity to appeal against its loss. The Reverend David Prentis had been dismissed after complaints were made about his high-profile pro-life work.

USA: founder of a food company "Wendy’s International" is offering financial support to members of his staff who adopt children. Mr Dave Thomas pays them up to $4,000 to cover legal fees, and $6,000 to help with the adoption of special needs children.

USA: Pro-Life groups in Florida are circulating "Wanted" posters that feature the photos of known abortionists and offer rewards of $1,000 for information leading to their arrest or loss of their medical licences! The posters have appeared on telegraph poles and are also being used by pro-life protesters outside abortion "clinics".

Top of Page

Back to newsletter archive