Abortion Legislation - is it truly pro-choice?

[Glockmeister]

Whoa this thing has blown up hasn't it.

There are legislative requirements for vaccination and the medical practioners board was built upon by an act of parliament. http://medicalboardvic.org.au/content.php?sec=140

There is a need for doctor to be accountable and that isn't discrimination. The governement should not need to make one set of rules for each religion.

The legislation will not force any doctor to perform an abortion, it simply requires doctors to be accountable and if they have a problem with abortion ie because of religious belief, they must refer to patient to another doctor.

There is no legislative (as in an Act of Parliament) requirement for a doctor to perform a vaccination (for whatever reason). There is an incentive scheme for GPs to vaccinate their patients but I'm sure everyone here knows the differences between an incentive and a requirement.

Look, as I've mentioned before I'd argue against the current legislation (although not necessarily the legalisation of abortion itself) on the basis of redundancy. As I mentioned earlier we do have a Medical Practitioner's Board. If there is an adverse result as a result of advice given by a doctor, it can be referred to there. It could, I'd imagine, be even taken to court (although ask ninwa about that one). There's no need for an additional, inflexible, Act of Parliament about this.

[ninwa]

If there is an adverse result as a result of advice given by a doctor, it can be referred to there. It could, I'd imagine, be even taken to court

Yes, I believe it would prima facie form an action in negligence. However, the tort of negligence is incredibly complex and difficult to prove. Most lawyers would prefer another cause of action if possible. In this sense, then, legislation in this area MAY be useful, as it is a lot easier to sue on for breach of statutory duty rather than negligence.

Also, I'm pretty sure there's a statue of limitations on suing in negligence - so after the 6 years (or whatever the time limit is), the patient would have no recourse (in law anyway - not sure about time limits on the Medical Practitioners Board thing).

I do still believe this legislation is a rather ineffective one, but can't really think of any better options.

[Glockmeister]

If there is an adverse result as a result of advice given by a doctor, it can be referred to there. It could, I'd imagine, be even taken to court

Yes, I believe it would prima facie form an action in negligence. However, the tort of negligence is incredibly complex and difficult to prove. Most lawyers would prefer another cause of action if possible. In this sense, then, legislation in this area MAY be useful, as it is a lot easier to sue on for breach of statutory duty rather than negligence.

Also, I'm pretty sure there's a statue of limitations on suing in negligence - so after the 6 years (or whatever the time limit is), the patient would have no recourse (in law anyway - not sure about time limits on the Medical Practitioners Board thing).

I do still believe this legislation is a rather ineffective one, but can't really think of any better options.

The MPB doesn't have a time limit (although it acknowledges that "memory and recall fade over time" and that "doctors are only required to hold their patient records for seven years after the last consultation").

It could be the case though, that doctors (or their insurers) would choose to settle, rather than being dragged into court.