Volume 184 - Issue 11
Mifepristone (RU-486) and limits to abortion
Author: Suzanne Belton
Med J Aust 2006; 184 (11): 590. || doi: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2006.tb00395.x
Published online: 5 June 2006
Published online: 5 June 2006
To the Editor: We now know the outcome of the parliamentary vote on mifepristone (RU-486), which restored responsibility for its use to the Therapeutic Goods Association (TGA). Politicians from both houses used their conscience votes to support the scientific scrutiny of medical abortion. van Gend will now be worried about Australian women “demanding” abortions.1
However, abortion on demand in Australia does not exist. I refer van Gend to state laws which specify under what circumstances termination of pregnancy can take place. In no state can women “demand” an abortion whenever, wherever or however they wish. Regulations exist in all states and territories and, as a family doctor, van Gend must be aware of the multiple requirements. While there remains a lack of clarity about various state laws,2 the current position in Australia is that termination of pregnancy is available under certain conditions and in particular cases.
The attempt by the Minister for Health Tony Abbott to influence women’s decisions about abortion by providing Medicare-funded, church-affiliated counselling for pregnant women3 has only further entrenched the view that the Minister is not able to speak for the majority of Australians. The previous situation whereby any Minister for Health, rather than the TGA, had the power to decide on the safety and efficacy of new medications before their entry into the pharmaceutical market place was ludicrous.
Despite the endorsement of science over theology in health, and potential access to medical abortion, we still have the freedom of our own conscience. No one can force medical practitioners to prescribe mifepristone and no one can force women to accept medical (or surgical) abortions. Morals in Australia are a private matter and these decisions should be left to individuals and their families.
Who would decide the authenticity of the medical grounds for abortion, mentioned by van Gend — doctors or priests, or academic ethicists, or feminists? van Gend is clearly not in favour of women deciding.
I agree that more attention should be paid to the reasons for women stating they do not want to continue with a pregnancy, and, yes, we could do more to assist them. But I do not agree that excluding non-medical reasons is the answer — which, as van Gend points out, are financial hardship, relationship problems, single motherhood, and a completed family. To many, these appear convincing reasons to choose abortion. While this may not sit comfortably with van Gend’s medical paradigm, the “non-medical” reasons include the mental health of the woman (see the Menhennitt ruling which stipulates that an abortion is lawful if a doctor believes that the abortion is necessary to preserve her physical or mental health).4
References
- van Gend D. Mifepristone (RU-486) and limits to abortion [letter]. Med J Aust 2006; 184: 139.
- de Crespigny LJ, Savulescu J. Abortion: time to clarify Australia’s confusing laws. Med J Aust 2004; 181: 201-203. 0_i1091768
- Opposition questions church pregnancy counselling plan. ABC News Online 2006; 19 Feb. Available at: http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200602/s1573345.htm (accessed Feb 2006).
- Children by Choice Association. Australian abortion law and practice. Fact sheet. Available at: http://www.childrenbychoice.org.au/nwww/auslawprac.htm (accessed Feb 2006).