Australian Survey Purporting to Show Widespread Support For Late-Term Abortion Vigorously Challenged

By Liz Townsend

A medical ethicist and the media have used a survey of 39 members of the Australian Association of Obstetrical and Gynaecological Ultrasonologists as proof that most doctors support late-term abortion. However, critics say the survey makes unwarranted extrapolations from a small number of respondents and demonstrates "reproductive discrimination."

The survey also comes amidst continuing controversy following reports that a 32-week-old unborn baby with dwarfism was aborted in Melbourne, in January 2000.

The headline in the Daily Telegraph describing the survey conducted by Professor Julian Savulescu, director of ethics at the Murdoch Children's Research Institute in Melbourne, was typical: "Almost two in three Australian doctors would be prepared to terminate a pregnancy after 24 weeks, a national survey has found."

But this "national survey" was in reality a very small sample of a small group of medical professionals.

Savulescu sent the survey to the 82 members of the Australian Association of Obstetrical and Gynaecological Ultrasonologists. Thirty-nine members replied.

According to The Age, the respondents said they had performed 34 late-term abortions over the last three years by injecting potassium chloride through the heart or umbilical cord of the unborn baby. They also reported that they knew of 50 more that had been performed.

Savulescu, who presented his findings at the World Congress of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology in Melbourne October 24, also said that two-thirds of the respondents would perform late- term abortions for fetal abnormalities, The Age reported. Of this two-thirds, 16% would perform them for any reason as long as the mother received counseling, and 20% would abort a late- term unborn baby with "moderate to severe intellectual disabilities such as Down syndrome," according to The Age.

In most Australian states, it is illegal to perform an abortion after 28 weeks. The crime is called "child destruction" and is punishable by five to 10 years in jail. Savulescu used his findings to suggest that the laws should be changed to allow late-term abortions on a case-by-case basis, "weighing severity of abnormality and the mother's welfare," The Australian reported.

According to the newspaper, Savulescu said that "terminations right up to before birth were acceptable in limited circumstances."

Late-term abortion has been debated in Australia since it was reported that a 32-week-old unborn baby with dwarfism was aborted in Melbourne. According to The Australian, an inquest into the case has not yet been held.

Savulescu insisted that the "legal uncertainties" surrounding late- term abortion in Australia require new guidelines developed by the medical profession, in which police and other authorities would be asked not to prosecute doctors and mothers if late-term babies are aborted in accordance with the guidelines, even if it violates current law, The Australian reported.

He added that changing the law or creating precedents through court cases would be too "slow and cumbersome," according to the newspaper.

There are many Australians who strongly oppose late-term abortion. Dr. Nicholas Tonti-Filippini, an independent ethics consultant, told The Age that the doctors who said they performed late-term abortions are practicing "reproductive discrimination." He said that "they had no right to decide who should live and who should die," according to The Age.

Others criticized Savulescu's survey itself and the willingness of the media to report as fact such a small sample of opinion. " Even if it had been based on the views of all 82 [members of the ultrasonology association] the survey would have been at best specious because of the nature of their specialty," wrote Angela Shanahan in The Australian. "Not only do they not represent all doctors, ... but also this survey didn't amount to anything more than a few individuals."

Shanahan also called into question Savulescu's conclusions about how to deal with the late-term abortion issue. "Savulescu says he doesn't want to see the laws go to parliament, which is too 'slow and cumbersome' a vehicle for this reformer," she wrote. "Perhaps he is afraid that if the people of Australia through the parliament are presented with the kind of barbarity that gets his ethical sanction, they might not approve.

"And why should he and the other advocates of late abortion do this when the press has proved such an easily manipulated mouthpiece for their cause?"