Abortion confidentiality essential - lawyer

24 May 2011 05:32p.m.

Craig wrote:

Kiwi:
You are referring to a completely hypothetical situation. In any case, mainstream comprehensive sex education also provides adolescent girls with information about how to say no to pressurisation from male peers (which is how it usually goes) for sex. I agree that someone that age shouldn't be having sex, but unfortunately, incest happens. It's best to delay one's first sexual experience until one has the psychological maturity to deal with it, I agree. With most teenagers, that's sixteen, which is why that's our age of consent and I am strongly opposed to any lowering of that limit.

I certainly wish it did not and I favour stronger criminal penalties against perpetrators of all and any child sexual abuse.

20 May 2011 07:32p.m.

Kiwi wrote:

Craig : Sorry but that doesn't wash with me. If a 12yr old can consent to an abortion, and can make the decision to go on the contraceptive pill then what prevents her from consenting to sex. You can't say shes not mentally capable to make such a life changing decision to accept a sexual partner and then turn round and argue that she is mentally capable to make decisions regarding the prevention and/or consequences of that same decision. That position is totally unethical. Either she is capable, or she isn't. Do you therefore agree that the age of consent should be lowered, and to what age? Because you sound like your making a back door argument to make child sex legal to me.

20 May 2011 05:39p.m.

Craig wrote:

Pete:
After the counselling in question has occurred to comfort the young woman after her ordeal and advise her of her options, it goes without saying that if the young woman decides to then go to the police and inform them that a crime has occurred, then I imagine that that will happen. Moreover, the counsellor or other supportive adult might well accompany her.

As I noted, sometimes, parents will usually be confided in, but sometimes they are not particularly responsible adults and other adults will be needed to comfort and support these young women.

Kiwi:
According to developmental psychology, young adults usually develop the strategic reasoning skills to analyse and forsee the consequences of their actions at about thirteen years of age*. That was recognised in Gillick v Wisbech Health Authority back in 1985, a UK case in which an anti-
pill, conservative Catholic mother found out that her daughter was being supplied with the pill and took the local health authority to court. Gillick lost, although the court case is still regarded as good precedent through the Commonwealth.
*They require some time to practice these skills, which is why our age of consent is sixteen. However, unfortunately, adolescence and physiological development outstrip this, which means that teenage pregnancies and abortions occur.

19 May 2011 09:43a.m.

Steve Taylor wrote:

Craig I’ll see your 5 studies, and raise you another 25: Thirty Studies in Five Years Show Abortion Hurts Women’s Mental Health by Priscilla Coleman, Ph.D. http://www.lifenews.com/2010/11/12/opi-1006/?pr=1

18 May 2011 08:55p.m.

Kiwi wrote:

What I don't understand is the legal age of consent for any medical procedure is 16. How can the law then consider a 13yr old to be mentally competent enough to consent to a life changing procedure such as an abortion? I can understand the need to protect a young girl from being forced to have an abortion against her wishes but it does rather appear the law is hypocritical on this issue. If a 13yr old can have an abortion at will because its her own body, why can't she consent to a tonsillectomy at 13? The law can't say she's mentally competent to make a decision to end the life of a baby and then turn round and say shes not mentally competent to make decisions over the rest of her body.

18 May 2011 08:44p.m.

Pete wrote:

Craig your everything thats wrong with society today. You would rather seek to protect your own agenda than protect the victims. Councilling for these poor girls is all very well and fine, but they have the right to be protected under the law, and by failing to report these crimes these girls are being denied that protection. Under age sex is rape and child abuse, that you prefer to ignore that out of preference that it might potentially damage your abortion rights agenda speaks volumes of the kind of man you are. Perhaps you should seek councilling yourself as to why you would rather throw these poor girls to the wolves out of your own selfish desires. Its no wonder this country has such a terrible child abuse rate when people like you value children so little.

18 May 2011 05:33p.m.

Steve Taylor wrote:

Craig, your premise regarding a Counsellor needing to disclose any and every personal philosophical context to a client is both a long bow and a strawman - your "imaginings" are just that - imaginings". Your questions indicate to me that you know almost nothing about the Counselling process, or the informed process that goes along with the process, but don't feel bad - a lot of qualified Counsellors are struggling with this issue as well, which is why I have raised the issue in the public arena. In answer to your question, I am not linked to any anti-abortion group. If you could define the term "Christian Conservative Pressure Group" for me, then I may be able to better answer the second part of your question as to whether I am "linked" to one or not. I am still puzzled as to why you are so upset that I may have an alternative opinion to you on the issues raised - why am I such a threat to you?

18 May 2011 01:55p.m.

Craig wrote:

Pete:
I imagine that the reproductive and sexual health, school or abortion clinic counsellors in question would try to insure that under such circumstances, young women would be able to access additional counselling from sexual abuse and rape crisis counsellors if neccessary. And what about the torment of an *unwanted pregnancy* under such circumstances?

bj:
For the Royal Commission's rhetoric to have effect, it would need to be incorporated into legislation. In 1982, the Court of Appeal heard Wall v Livingston, which argued that antiabortionists had no standing in this process, and that young women were entitled to medical confidentiality in this context. That central case law premise has never been overturned by either the Court of Appeal, the Privy Council (when appeals to it were available) or the Supreme Court. Currently, the Care of Children Act 2003 incorporates the same provisions as the amended Guardianship Act 1968 previously did when it comes to the medical confidentiality of competent minors.

Steve:
What about the Code of Health and Disability Consumers Rights and the requirement to disclose one's actual philosophical position on the abortion issue under the heading of 'informed consent?' It's just as binding on you as a counsellor as any other health professional. Please answer my question. Are you affiliated to an anti-abortion or conservative Christian pressure group of any sort? You have already acknowledged that you donate money to Family First's Forums.

17 May 2011 09:53p.m.

Pete wrote:

Craig are you unable to read and answer a question? I havent said anything at all about their parents being notified, nor whether or not they should be entitled to abortions. I made a statement wondering if the councillors are informing the police about the under age girls being made pregnant which under the law constitutes rape and child abuse. Health practitioners are required to report suspected child abuse, if they are failing to do so with under age girls who are pregnant then they are failing in their duty to protect the health of their patients. It is morally and ethically unacceptable that these children should be subjected to the horror of sexual abuse, go through the torment of an abortion, and then be thrust back into the very arms of their abusers. The first rule of medicine is do no harm, allowing sexual abuse and paedophelia to continue under the guise of 'abortion rights' is wrong. It is somewhat disturbing that you appear to disagree with this position.

17 May 2011 05:20p.m.

bj wrote:

Craig is wrong again. re '.Underaged young women are *entitled* to have access to abortion services without mandatory notification and consent from their parents- it is within the text of the Contraception, Sterilisation and Abortion Act 1977.

.The history of parental notification

The situation regarding parental notification of abortion has changed drastically over the years and does not reflect the intention of the early legislation.

Recommendations from the 1977 Royal Commission of Inquiry on Contraception, Sterilisation and Abortion made it clear that the Commission assumed that parents would always be informed and consulted about a girl’s intention to have an abortion. The concern of the Commission was not that a young girl should be able to keep her abortion secret from her parents, but that if a dispute arose between a girl and her parents over whether or not to have an abortion, the girl’s wishes should prevail.

The Commission said that "Although we recognise the place of parents as head of the family ... if after proper counselling she wishes to continue with her pregnancy, an abortion should not be forced on her against her will." Clearly the intention was not that a girl be given the right to keep her pregnancy private from her parents, but that if a dispute arose between a girl and her parents over whether or not to have an abortion, the girl’s wishes should prevail.
BJ