At the present time there is in many countries much criticism of the
existing laws regarding abortion, and various suggestions have been
made for the alteration of the law.
Such representations have, indeed, been made to this Committee.
A consideration of these matters, therefore, could not escape our
attention.
THE NEW ZEALAND LAW REGARDING ABORTION.
The law in regard to abortion as set down in sections 221, 222, and 223
of the Crimes Act, 1908, is as follows:--
_Procuring Abortion._
"221. (1). Every one is liable to imprisonment with hard labour for
life who, with intent to procure the miscarriage of any woman or
girl, whether with child or not, unlawfully administers to or
causes to be taken by her any poison or other noxious thing, or
unlawfully uses any instrument or other means whatsoever with the
like intent.
"(2) The woman or girl herself is not indictable under this
section."
This section re-enacts s. 201 of the Criminal Code Act, 1893. _Cf._ s.
223, _infra_.
"Other means" must be read _ejusdem generis_ with "instrument." (_R._
v. _Skellon_ [1913] 33 N.Z.L.R. 102.)
"_Procuring her own Miscarriage._
"222. Every woman or girl is liable to seven years' imprisonment
with hard labour who, whether with child or not, unlawfully
administers to herself, or permits to be administered to her, any
poison or other noxious thing, or unlawfully uses on herself, or
permits to be used on her, any instrument or other means whatsoever
with intent to procure miscarriage."
This section re-enacts s. 202 of the Criminal Code Act, 1893.
"_Supplying the Means of Procuring Abortion._
"223. (1) Every one is liable to three years' imprisonment with
hard labour who unlawfully supplies or procures any poison or other
noxious thing, or any instrument or thing whatsoever, knowing that
the same is intended to be unlawfully used or employed with intent
to procure the miscarriage of any woman or girl, whether with child
or not.
"(2) Every one who commits this offence after a previous conviction
for a like offence is liable to imprisonment with hard labour for
life."
This section re-enacts s. 203 of the Criminal Code Act, 1893. In _R._
v. _Thompson_ [1911] 30 N.Z.L.R. 690, a person was convicted of an
attempt (s. 93. p. 209, _ante_) to procure a noxious thing although the
thing actually procured was innoxious.
"Knowing" has the meaning of "believing," and a person supplying "a
noxious thing" is guilty even when the person supplied, who states that
he required it for procuring abortion, had no intention of using it and
did not use it for that purpose (_R._ v. _Nosworthy_ [1907] 36 N.Z.L.R.
536).
If the evidence shows that prisoner intended the instrument to be used
for the purpose stated, it is sufficient without evidence of intention
on the part of the woman to use it or allow it to be used (_R._ v.
_Scully_ [1903] 23 N.Z.L.R. 380).
The word "thing" where secondly used in this section includes only
things _ejusdem generis_ with instrument and capable of being used to
produce miscarriage (_R._ v. _Austin_ [1905] 24 N.Z.L.R. 893).
_Therapeutic Abortion._--In New Zealand, as in Great Britain and other
countries, the medical profession has always held that when the
mother's life is seriously endangered by a continuation of the
pregnancy the termination of the pregnancy is justifiable and right.
This the law allows, not specifically but by inference.
It is probably a correct statement of the position to say that, with
advances in medical knowledge and thought, even the most conservative
medical opinion, apart from that which is influenced by certain
religious views, holds that the indications for the termination of
pregnancy have been extended somewhat to include not only cases in
which the mother's life is immediately jeopardized, but also certain
cases in which her life is more remotely endangered.
This view is supported by the social thought of to-day.
This is not to say that the occasions for this operation are frequent;
they are, indeed, infrequent.
The general standards which guide the medical profession in this matter
are very strict, and are conscientiously conformed to by the majority
of its members.
It is also a well-recognized rule of the profession that such
operations should only be performed after consultation between two
medical practitioners.
With this change in medical outlook, however, there has been no
corresponding alteration in the law, which, as it stands, is as
uncompromising as ever, and allows of no interference except to save
the _life_ of the mother.
It is a fact that the law is _interpreted_ liberally, and no doctor who
has acted honestly in the belief that the mother's health was seriously
endangered has ever been challenged.
Nevertheless, it has been urged by a large body of the medical
profession, especially of those most intimately affected by the
question, that there are possible dangers in the situation, and that
the law should be altered to indicate more specifically the rightful
position of the doctor in this matter; in other words, it is advocated
that the present interpretation of the law should be incorporated in
the law itself.
Much is made of the fact that an honourable practitioner occasionally
finds himself in the unsatisfactory position of having actually to
break the letter of the law in doing what according to accepted medical
standards is in the best interests of the patient.
As safeguards against the possible dangers of a widening of the law, it
has been suggested that new regulations should be introduced governing
the practice of therapeutic abortion.
It has been recommended that operations should only be performed after
adequate consultation, and that written certificates should be given by
both parties to the consultation; that in certain cases the consultant
should be a specialist; that all operations should be performed in
public or licensed hospitals; that every therapeutic abortion should be
notified to the Medical Officer of Health, to whom also the two
certificates should be forwarded; and that every operation not
performed under these conditions should be subject to strict
investigation.
It has also been recommended by some that there should be a general
notification of all abortions.
Those who are opposed to any alteration of the present state argue that
any specific legalization of therapeutic abortion to save the serious
impairment of health as well as to save life might lead to abuses of
this sanction. They point out that even at the present time doctors
differ considerably in their views and in their practice, and they fear
that such divergences in thought and practice might be seriously
exaggerated.
As to the suggested safeguarding regulations, there is by no means
general agreement in the medical profession concerning their
advisability or their value.
The Committee, having investigated the matter very fully, is satisfied
that any disability under which the doctor rests in terminating a
pregnancy for genuine, accepted therapeutic reasons is only
theoretical.
No actual instance was brought before the Committee in which a doctor
had been penalized or even subject to question when acting in good
faith, nor was any evidence presented to show that any patient had
suffered by reason of a doctor refraining from operating through fear
of possible legal consequences.
Both medical and legal witnesses competent to speak on these
medico-legal aspects were definite in their assurance that, under the
existing law, no doctor acting in accordance with the accepted
standards of the profession was in any danger.
The only person who need have any fear was one who ignored guidance of
the existing standards of his profession, and to this extent the law
was, at least in part, a deterrent against laxity of practice.
The Committee considers that, as it stands, the law has shown itself
adaptable in practice to all reasonable changes in medical thought.
Further, the Committee was impressed by the possible dangers which
might be associated with any alteration in the existing law.
While it is undoubtedly true that the majority of doctors are
straightforward and honest in their interpretation of the indications
for therapeutic abortion, it was made clear that even at the present
time there are some who are inclined to terminate pregnancy for reasons
which would not be accepted by most.
It would be quite impossible to lay down a hard-and-fast list of
indications.
There are definite grounds for fearing that any alteration in the law
would lead, in certain quarters, to a widening of the interpretations
far beyond the intention of the alteration.
Under any alteration it would be exceedingly difficult to control the
merging of the therapeutic into the social and economic reasons.
For these reasons, then, the Committee is not prepared to suggest any
alteration in the law regarding therapeutic abortion; the Committee
believes, however, that some benefit might accrue from the compulsory
notification of all abortions to the Medical Officer of Health.
_Abortion for Social and Economic Reasons._--Having received certain
representations in favour of this practice, and having examined a large
mass of evidence on this subject, the Committee is utterly opposed to
any consideration of the legalization of abortion for social and
economic reasons.
The Committee does not hesitate to state its first objection on moral
grounds.
That the deliberate destruction of embryo human lives should be allowed
for all the varying and indeterminate reasons suggested by different
advocates would lead the way to intolerable license.
We would draw your attention and that of the public to the extreme
views which are held by some of the most active advocates of legalized
abortion.
In its most blatant form this advocacy is based on the argument of
woman's right to determine for herself whether a pregnancy shall
continue or not.
"The right to abortion should be taken quite away from legal
technicality and legal controversy. Up to the viability of her
child it is as much a woman's right as the removal of a dangerously
diseased appendix."
This is the view of Miss Stella Browne in her essay on "The Right to
Abortion"[2] and of others who hold similar opinions.
[2] "Abortion Spontaneous and Induced." Taussig.
Is any comment necessary?
The representative of one of the largest women's organizations in New
Zealand who gave evidence before the Committee advocated the
introduction of legislation permitting abortion under certain
circumstances after a woman had had two children, subsequently
qualifying the suggestion by the words "if contraceptives fail."
In the case of such ill-considered opinions, the Committee believes
that it would be impossible to limit the practice if the law were in
any way relaxed.
Of course there are others who confine their advocacy of legalized
abortion to cases in which there are elements of real tragedy and which
appeal to public sympathy, but, granting that there are many cases in
which social and economic conditions create situations of great
hardship, nevertheless the Committee is fairly convinced that abortion
is not justifiable; the remedies lie in the removal of the causes and
the alleviation of these difficult situations by social legislation and
other measures, and in the education of the public conscience.
The Committee is also opposed to the legalization of abortion for
social reasons on account of the very considerable risks to health
which are associated with the practice.
Medical witnesses were agreed that, while the immediate risk to life in
surgically performed termination of pregnancy was slight, there were
very definite possibilities of more remote disabilities, and that such
sequelae occurred in a considerable proportion of cases.
In the case of a genuine therapeutic abortion these risks are
outweighed by the dangers of the condition calling for the termination
of pregnancy, but were the operation to be performed freely for social
reasons the effect in the community might be very serious.
World-wide interest has been aroused in the matter through the
experience on Soviet Russia, where, for a number of years, abortion for
social and economic reasons was legalized and extensively practised.
The operations were performed in special hospitals and by skilled
operators.
At first it was claimed that when the operation was done openly and
carefully the risk to life was exceedingly small. It was stated, for
instance, that in 1926 artificial abortion was carried out on 29,306
women in Moscow with no mortality, and that in a total of 175,000
operations in Moscow there were only nine deaths.
But now come most significant reports of the after-effects to these
operations, which state that 43 per cent. of these women suffered from
some definite illness as a result of the operation, and that "the most
enthusiastic Russian advocates of legalized abortion are appalled at
the growing evidence of serious pelvic disturbances, endocrine
dysfunctions, sterility, ectopic pregnancy, and other complications
following in the wake of artificial abortions."[3]
[3] "Abortion Spontaneous and Induced." Taussig.
A recognition of these remoter dangers has undoubtedly been an
important factor in bringing about the complete reversal of the
previous policy in Russia, where abortion for social and economic
reasons is now illegal.
The opinion of A. M. Ludovici, admittedly an extreme exponent, may well
be considered when, in "The Case against Legalized Abortion"[4] he
writes:--
"If only the disingenuous propaganda in favour of legalized
abortion would cease, and if only those who carried it on refrained
from dinning into the ears of an uninformed gallery of women the
alleged safety and harmlessness of abortion carried out under the
best hospital conditions, there would be less eagerness to face the
ordeal of criminal abortion.
"So long as ignorant women are led to believe that abortion, when
skilfully performed, is as easy and harmless as having a corn
extracted, they will naturally infer that it can be done just as
harmlessly in secret as in public, especially if they are assured
that the surreptitious abortionist is skilled, as presumably they
always are, and are, moreover, kept in total darkness concerning
the kind of operation that is necessary for the interruption of
pregnancy.
"If, however, they knew the truth, which is that artificial
abortion, even under the best hospital conditions, is a precarious
undertaking, so frequently leading to invalidism as never to be
'safe'; if, moreover, we spread the truth about Russia's legalized
abortions, and put a stop to the false reports circulated by
ill-informed enthusiasts regarding the ease and safety of skilled
induced abortion, we should be going a long way towards reducing
criminal or surreptitious abortion to vanishing-point."
[4] "Abortion," by Stella Browne. Ludovici and Roberts.
_Sterilization._--Brief mention must be made of _sterilization_--an
operation whereby further pregnancy is prevented--which has been put
forward by certain witnesses as a method of preventing abortion.
Just as therapeutic abortion is, in certain cases, legitimately
performed by medical practitioners, so has the operation of
sterilization a recognized place in medical treatment of exceptional
cases in which a woman's life is likely to be endangered or her health
gravely impaired by further pregnancy.
It can, indeed, be reasonably argued that in such cases sterilization
is very definitely to be preferred to the very unsatisfactory
alternative of repeated therapeutic abortion.
Nevertheless, any general extension of this practice would, in the
opinion of the Committee, be open to serious abuse.
The Committee sees a tendency in some quarters to extend the
indications for this operation far beyond the bounds of generally
accepted medical opinion.
The attitude of the Committee towards this matter is therefore the same
as towards more specific legalization of therapeutic abortion.
_The Prosecution of the Criminal Abortionist._--A very disquieting
aspect of this problem is the relative immunity of the criminal
abortionist from punishment. Conviction for the crime is rare, even in
cases where guilt appears to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt.
The Committee has sought to discover the reasons for the failure to
obtain conviction.
It is apparent that the police authorities are faced with many
difficulties. In the first instance conviction is largely dependent on
the evidence of a woman who, in the eyes of the law, is an accomplice
to the offence, and corroboration of her evidence may be demanded.
It has been suggested by certain witnesses that, if the woman were
legally exempt from penalty, there would be less reticence about giving
evidence and a greater fear on the part of the abortionist.
On the other hand, it has been stated to the Committee that where such
an indemnity is actually given, this very fact operates against
conviction.
The Commissioner of Police gave information that--
"Juries are loth to convict in such cases and appear to be
impressed by the argument usually advanced by counsel for the
defence that, as it was at the solicitation of the woman that the
offence was convicted, she is the principal offender, and they
adopt the view that unless she also is charged it would be unfair
to convict the abortionist. The fact that if the woman was charged
she could not be called as a witness, and that, without her
evidence, there would be no case, does not appear to weigh with
them."
It would therefore appear that legalized exemption of the woman would
not be a remedy.
The very serious statement has been made that--
"In many cases professional abortionists have the assistance of one
particular doctor who attends their patients when medical skill
becomes necessary. The doctor either treats the patient
successfully or sends her to hospital on his own personal note, and
in neither case does the identity of the abortionist come to light.
There is reason to believe that in many such cases the assistance
of the doctor is given knowingly and in collaboration with the
abortionist contrary to the rule laid down in Sydney Smith's
'Forensic Medicine,' 3rd edition, page 362, that 'It is no part of
a doctor's duty to act as a detective, but it is equally certain
that it is no part of his duty to act as a screen for the
professional abortionist.'"
The Committee would earnestly draw the attention of the responsible
medical authorities to the suggestion that there are even a few members
of the profession who are prepared to "cover" the abortionist when
difficulties arise.
It is quite well realized that there are many occasions on which the
general practitioner quite innocently comes in contact with these
cases: that is an entirely different matter.
It is a further complaint of the police that they are hampered by the
fact that rarely are they notified of a case of criminal abortion until
the woman's condition is so critical that it is impossible to obtain a
statement from her, and if she dies the evidence she might have given
is lost. Without such evidence there is little chance of successfully
prosecuting the abortionist.
To overcome this difficulty it has been advocated that, where a patient
is admitted to hospital and is suspected to be suffering from the
effects of criminal abortion, it should be the duty of the responsible
medical officer of the hospital to notify the police forthwith and
supply all the information in his possession.
This suggestion, however, involving as it does the confidential
relationship between doctor and patient, is open to serious objections.
It is proposed to consider the position of the medical practitioner in
relation to criminal abortion more fully in a subsequent section.
Finally, it is evident that the general public as represented by some
members of juries do not regard this crime with the same seriousness as
does the law.
A heavy responsibility rests on the public in allowing the present
position to continue.
The Committee cannot but take a serious view of the repeatedly
demonstrated difficulties in securing convictions, even in the face of
apparently conclusive evidence, of persons charged with inducing
abortion, and consider that the time has arrived when careful
consideration should be given to the condition of the law relating to
such crimes and to what steps are necessary to discourage effectively
their practice. With that object in view the Committee respectfully and
earnestly directs the attention of the Government to the position that
has arisen, and the serious social, physical, and moral consequences
which are likely to follow if effective steps are not taken to enforce
the clear intention of the law.
_The Position of the Medical Practitioner in Relation to Criminal
Abortion._--The duties and responsibilities of medical practitioners
in connection with cases in which the performance of an illegal
operation is suspected or known to have occurred are of great public
importance.
Two main questions arise--(1) The duty of a doctor before the death of
a patient or in a case where a fatal result is not expected, and (2)
his duty in a case where the patient has died.
Concerning the first issue there are very conflicting opinions.
As already pointed out, it has been urged by the Police Department that
in every case where a patient is admitted to a hospital and is
suspected to be suffering from the effects of induced abortion or
attempted abortion it should be the duty of the Medical Superintendent
or Senior Medical Officer of the hospital to notify the police
forthwith, and supply all information in his possession which would
assist in establishing the identity of the offender and bringing him to
justice.
The widely accepted view of the medical profession, supported by high
legal authority, is that the bond of professional secrecy as between
doctor and patient is so important that it would be entirely wrong for
a doctor, without the patient's consent, to give information to the
police before her death.
It has been insisted that, were it to be compulsory for the doctor to
notify the police on the strength of information obtained in his
professional capacity, patients would refrain from obtaining the
necessary medical help under these circumstances, thus accentuating the
problem of deaths from abortion rather than limiting it.
It has been stated that already in one centre a disinclination to enter
hospital has been expressed by patients because they feared that the
police would be informed.
It is agreed, however, that the doctor should attempt to persuade the
patient, especially if her condition is serious, to make a statement to
the police.
The actual legal position in New Zealand was made quite clear by the
law officer of the Crown when asked by the New Zealand Obstetrical
Society in 1932 for an opinion.
This opinion, as published in the _New Zealand Medical Journal_
(Obstetrical Section), 29th October, 1932, was as follows:--
"A doctor is under no legal obligation to inform the police as to
the cause of the illness of a person which has been due to an
illegal operation, either in a case where the patient recovers or
in a case where the patient dies. He is, of course, under an
obligation to insert in the certificate of death which he furnishes
under the Births and Deaths Registration Act, 1924, the cause of
death, both primary and secondary. In that certificate, where the
death was the consequence of an illegal operation, he should insert
the nature of the operation as the primary cause of death. He need
not, of course, describe it as an illegal operation, but he would
describe the type of operation and the reason why such operation
was the primary cause of death--_e.g._, owing to incompetence or
ignorance, if that be the case.
"In giving this ruling I am, of course, referring merely to the
legal obligation--_i.e._, the duties imposed according to law.
Speaking generally, there is a moral duty on every person having
knowledge of a serious crime which is an offence against morality
as well as against law, to assist the police as far as possible in
its detection and suppression. The confidence of a patient may be a
legitimate ground for excluding that duty in some, or even in most,
of the cases of this kind. But no doubt there are certain cases
where the duty is clear. Instances are the case of a young and
inexperienced woman who has reluctantly submitted to the operation
at the hands of a person who is known as a practised abortionist,
or where the operation has been done by violence and against the
will of the subject. These, however, are questions of morality upon
which varying opinions may be held, and upon which I do not desire
to be taken as expressing a final opinion."
This legal opinion has not been challenged, though it has been
criticised.
Although the Committee appreciates the difficulties under which the
police are working, the evidence of other witnesses has led them to
agree that any extension in the direction of compulsory notification to
the police before death, and against the patient's wish, is open to
serious objections and is therefore not advisable.
Regarding the second issue, there is general agreement that there is a
duty on the doctor to assist the police, and that this should be done
by withholding a certificate of death and informing the Coroner.
The position has been more clearly defined as a result of a recent
amendment to section 41 of the Births and Deaths Registration Act, as
contained in section 12 of the Statutes Amendment Act, 1936:--
"12. (1) On the death of any person who has been attended during
his last illness by a registered medical practitioner, that
practitioner shall forthwith sign and deliver to the Registrar of
the district in which the death occurred a certificate, on the
printed form to be supplied for that purpose by the
Registrar-General, stating to the best of his knowledge and belief
the causes of death, both primary and secondary, the duration of
the last illness of the deceased, the date on which he last saw the
deceased alive, and such other particulars as may be required by
the Registrar-General, and the particulars stated therein shall be
entered in the register together with the name of the certifying
medical practitioner.
"(2) The medical practitioner shall at the same time sign and
deliver to the undertaker or other person having charge of the
burial a notice on the printed form to be supplied for that purpose
by the Registrar-General to the effect that he has furnished a
certificate under the last preceding subsection to the Registrar.
"(3) In any case where, in the opinion of the medical practitioner,
the death has occurred under any circumstances of suspicion, the
practitioner shall forthwith report the case to the Coroner.
"(4) Every medical practitioner required to give a certificate and
a notice as aforesaid, or to report to the Coroner as provided by
the last preceding subsection, who refuses or neglects to do so is
liable to a fine not exceeding five pounds."
Recently a consultation on this matter was held between the Minister of
Health and members of the Council of the New Zealand Branch of the
British Medical Association.
The Association expressed the opinion that the resolutions of the Royal
College of Physicians (England), which were laid down as a result of a
similar controversy in Great Britain, constituted the most satisfactory
guide in these difficult and responsible situations, and informed the
Minister that steps would be taken to make the position clear to all
its members. The resolutions are as follows:--
"The College is of opinion--
"1. That a moral obligation rests upon every medical practitioner
to respect the confidence of his patient; and that without her
consent he is not justified in disclosing information obtained in
the course of his professional attendance on her.
"2. That every medical practitioner who is convinced that criminal
abortion has been practised on his patient should urge her,
especially when she is likely to die, to make a statement which may
be taken as evidence against the person who has performed the
operation, provided always that her chances of recovery are not
thereby prejudiced.
"3. That in the event of her refusal to make such a statement he is
under no legal obligation (so the college is advised) to take
further action, but he should continue to attend the patient to the
best of his ability.
"4. That before taking any action which may lead to legal
proceedings, a medical practitioner will be wise to obtain the best
medical and legal advice available, both to ensure that the
patient's statement may have value as legal evidence and to
safeguard his own interest since in the present state of the law
there is no certainty that he will be protected against subsequent
litigation.
"5. That if the patient should die he should refuse to give a
certificate of the cause of death, and should communicate with the
Coroner.
"The college has been advised to the following effect:--
"1. That the medical practitioner is under no legal obligation
either to urge the patient to make a statement, or, if she refuses
to do so, to take any further action.
"2. That when a patient who is dangerously ill consents to give
evidence, her statement may be taken in any of the following ways."
[The procedure employed in taking this statement is then
specified.]
The Committee is also of the opinion that if the medical profession
closely follows this guidance and that of the amended section 41 of the
Births and Deaths Registration Act, the public interests will best be
served.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS.
I. The Committee is convinced that the induction of abortion is
exceedingly common in New Zealand, and that it has definitely increased
in recent years.
It has been estimated that at least one pregnancy in every five ends in
abortion; in other words that some 6,000 abortions occur in New Zealand
every year.
Of these, it is believed that 4,000, at a conservative estimate, are
criminally induced either through the agency of criminal abortionists
or by self-induction, either of which is equally dangerous.
It is clear that death from septic abortion occurs almost entirely in
such cases.
Such deaths have greatly increased in recent years, and now constitute
one-quarter of the total maternal mortality: in some urban districts it
amounts to nearly half of the total maternal mortality.
New Zealand has, according to comparative international statistics, one
of the highest death-rates from abortion in the world.
II. The Committee, after taking evidence from witnesses representing
all sections of the community, has formed the conclusion that the main
causes for this resort to abortion are:--(1)Economic and domestic
hardship; (2)changes in social and moral outlook; (3) pregnancy amongst
the unmarried; and (4) in a small proportion of cases, fears of
childbirth.
These matters are fully discussed.
III. Consideration has been given to the possible remedying of these
causes.
(_a_) In so far as economic hardship is the primary factor, certain
recommendations have been made regarding financial, domestic, and
obstetrical help by the State.
(_b_) To lessen any fear of childbirth where this exists, it has
been recommended that the public should be informed that New
Zealand now has a very low death-rate in actual childbirth and that
relief of pain in labour is largely used. At the same time the
Committee has advocated that further efforts in the direction of
pain relief should be explored.
(_c_) For dealing with the problem of the unmarried mother, the
Committee considers that the attack must be along the lines of more
careful education of the young in matters of sex, prohibition of
the advertisement and sale of contraceptives to the young, and a
more tolerant attitude on the part of society towards these girls
and their children.
(_d_) The Committee believes, however, that the most important
cause of all is a change in the outlook of women which expresses
itself in a demand of the right to limit--or avoid--the family,
coupled with a widespread half-knowledge and use of birth-control
methods--often ineffective. These failing, the temptation to
abortion follows.
The Committee can see only two directions in which abortion resulting
from these tendencies can be controlled:--
(1) By the direction of birth-control knowledge through more
responsible channels, where, while the methods would be more
reliable, the responsibilities and privileges of motherhood, the
advisability of self-discipline in certain directions, and other
aspects of the matter would be discussed.
The Committee believes that it is through the agency of well-informed
doctors, and, to a certain extent, through clinics associated with our
hospitals, that this advice should be given.
It is not, however, considered that this is a matter for the State
except to a limited degree.
(2) To appeal to the womanhood of New Zealand, in so far as selfish
and unworthy motives have entered into our family life, to consider
the grave physical and moral dangers, not to speak of the dangers
of race suicide which are involved.
This, it is considered, is a matter for all women's social
organizations to take up seriously.
IV. Certain further measures of a more general nature came under the
examination of the Committee.
The prohibition of the promiscuous advertisement of contraceptives, and
of their sale to the young; the licensing of the importation of certain
types of contraceptives; the restriction of the sale or distribution of
contraceptives to practising chemists, doctors, hospitals, and clinics;
the prohibition of the advertisement, or of the sale, except on medical
prescription, of certain drugs and appliances which might be used for
abortion purposes; these measures are recommended.
The specific legalization of therapeutic abortion (by doctors for
health reasons) as a safeguard to doctors was fully examined but is not
recommended.
The Committee is satisfied that the present interpretation of the law
is such that, where the reasons for the operation are valid, the doctor
runs no risk of prosecution.
The risks of an alteration in the law are great.
Legalization of abortion for social and economic reasons was also put
forward. The Committee has discussed the matter, and strongly condemns
any countenancing of this measure.
Though it may be conceded that legalized performance of the operation
by doctors in hospitals might reduce the incidence of surreptitious
abortion and deaths from septic abortion, we do not accept this as any
justification of a procedure which is associated with grave moral and
physical dangers.
With regard to sterilization, the Committee adopts the same view as
towards the specific legalization of therapeutic abortion.
It is believed that, where the reasons for the operation are in accord
with generally accepted medical opinion, there is no bar to its
performance.
We see, however, tendencies in the direction of extending this
operation far beyond the bounds of this accepted medical opinion.
For this reason we do not recommend any alteration in the present
position.
The failure to obtain the conviction of the criminal abortionist, even
in cases where the guilt seems beyond all doubt, has been discussed as
a matter of serious concern, and the Committee can only bring before
the public its responsibility, as represented by members of juries, for
the virtual encouragement of this evil practice.
Finally, the Committee, while fully conscious of its inability to place
before you a complete and certain solution of this grave problem, or
one which will satisfy all shades of opinion, believes that a definite
service will have been done through this investigation if full
publicity is given to the facts of the situation as here revealed, and
if the public conscience is awakened to the fact that, although State
aid and legal prohibitions may do something to remove causes and to
deter crime, the ultimate issue rests with the attitude and action of
the people themselves.
THANKS.
To Mr. C. Stubley, of the staff of the Department of Health, we extend
our thanks for the efficient manner in which he carried out his duties
as Secretary to the Committee, and also to Misses B. Frost and O. Clist
who, as stenographers to the Committee, had a very arduous task, and
whose excellent reports materially assisted the members of the
Committee in their final deliberations.
D. G. McMILLAN, CHAIRMAN.
JANET FRASER.
SYLVIA G. CHAPMAN.
T. F. CORKILL.
T. L. PAGET.
_Approximate Cost of Paper._--Preparation not given; printing (500
copies, including graph), L26 10s.
* * * * *
By Authority: E. V. PAUL, Government Printer. Wellington.--.1937.
_Price 9d._]