Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Who’s confused?

By Helen Pringle - posted Thursday, 23 August 2007


Some doctors in Tasmania claimed to have developed nerves for a short period after a complaint was made by a medical student to police in 2001. But there is no evidence that abortion services were reduced after the prosecution of Dr Sood (see further links to this case at the end of the article) in New South Wales in 2006, for example. Indeed, apart from the case of Dr Sood, there seems to have been no successful prosecutions of doctors for unlawful procuring of miscarriage since the early 1970s, and in Victoria, not since 1969. (A possible exception is the 1981 case of Dr George Smart in NSW, where the facts resembled those in Sood’s case; Dr Smart died before his appeal was heard.)

What is more, in both criminal and civil cases in regard to abortion since the 1970s, no doubt has been expressed by any party as to whether the Davidson and Wald cases represent the law in this area.

So where is the confusion?

Advertisement

There is no legal provision or authoritative understanding specifying that abortion, of itself, is illegal in Victoria, or elsewhere in Australia. Moreover, there is no provision in the law specifying that all actions in procuring a miscarriage, terminating a pregnancy, are unlawful, criminal or illegal.

As to the approximately 80,000 medical abortions actually performed by doctors in Australia each year (Australian Parliamentary Library, How many abortions are there in Australia? Research brief, February 14, 2005), none is a crime by definition because nobody has been successfully prosecuted in relation to any of them, with the exception of the Sood case. Actions that are not presented to courts for prosecution, but which are nevertheless claimed or rumoured by some person to be illegal or criminal, fall outside the province of judicial deliberation.

The law on abortion is what the law is interpreted to be at present, it is in force, and it is not confused. The law on abortion might be complex, but no more so than any other area of the law where complexity is the price of precision.

There is indeed much confusion in the public, and its educators like Leslie Cannold, about the legality of abortion. But to claim, as Cannold does, that procuring an abortion is in itself a criminal offence in Victoria or elsewhere in Australia, simply adds to that confusion.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

22 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Helen Pringle is in the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences at the University of New South Wales. Her research has been widely recognised by awards from Princeton University, the Fulbright Foundation, the Australian Federation of University Women, and the Universities of Adelaide, Wollongong and NSW. Her main fields of expertise are human rights, ethics in public life, and political theory.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Helen Pringle
Related Links
R v Sood (Ruling No 2) [2006] NSWSC 732
R v Sood [2006] NSWSC 1141
R v Sood [2006] NSWSC 695
Sood v R [2006] NSWCCA 252

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Helen Pringle
Article Tools
Comment 22 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy