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

The issues of abortion need to be discussed more freely and openly

By Melinda Tankard Reist - posted Thursday, 15 April 2004


Until Senator McGauran's intervention, no one else wanted to touch the case. The Coroner said she had no jurisdiction to act because the baby was “stillborn” and not a reportable death. But the baby was “still” because she had potassium chloride injected into her heart before labour was induced.

McGauran has every right to question the diagnosis of dwarfism – the ultrasound diagnosis was not definitive. "The baby doesn't look small" was a nurse’s note in the records.

The mother did not want to continue her pregnancy. She didn't have to. Labour could have been induced - either way she had to deliver the baby. A live baby could have been delivered rather than a dead one. No one was forcing her to keep the child.

Advertisement

Even the Royal Women’s Hospital’s own legal representative, Mr John Snowdon, told the State Coroner’s Assistant “in theory, at least, the option of vaginal delivery of a living baby was available, with a baby to then be separated from the parents if that was their wish".

Why shouldn't someone - even a politician - ask where we should draw the line? Why shouldn’t we ask difficult questions such as what if the baby had been a week or even a day from birth? Or is an abortion at this stage closer to infanticide? What does it say about the status of people with disabilities if the medical profession thinks it's ok to abort children who are considered too short?

And what kind of a society can do no better than offer women only one alternative: a dead baby?

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

Article edited by Ian Miller.
If you'd like to be a volunteer editor too, click here.



Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

1 post 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

Melinda Tankard Reist is a Canberra author, speaker, commentator and advocate with a special interest in issues affecting women and girls. Melinda is author of Giving Sorrow Words: Women's Stories of Grief after Abortion (Duffy & Snellgrove, 2000), Defiant Birth: Women Who Resist Medical Eugenics (Spinifex Press, 2006) and editor of Getting Real: Challenging the Sexualisation of Girls (Spinifex Press, 2009). Melinda is a founder of Collective Shout: for a world free of sexploitation (www.collectiveshout.org). Melinda blogs at www.melindatankardreist.com.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Melinda Tankard Reist
Photo of Melinda Tankard Reist
Article Tools
Comment 1 comment
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy