Bernard M Dickens
Extract
The recent incident in Nova Scotia concerning Mr. Hulme, who tried to prevent his estranged wife from having an abortion (see part 2 of this series), resulted in only secondary and indeterminate litigation. . . Mr. Hulme had taken legal action against the Victoria General Hospital in Halifax, whose therapeutic abortion committee had approved the abortion. . . . A therapeutic abortion committee’s alleged liability to judicial reversal suggests it is making a judicial or quasi-judicial decision; however, this is doubtful. . . . Indeed, the only third parties whose interests the committees may have to consider are guardians of the mentally incompetent and parents of minors. . . . hospitals that permit pressure from a third party to interfere with treatment of their competent, consenting adult patients for whom there is a danger to life or health may incur legal and ethical liabilities to such patients. . . Physicians may also face disciplinary charges of professional misconduct. . . .The best solution may be to remove the legal requirement of committee approval and to trust the judgement and good faith of physicians. . .
Dickens BM. Abortion: 3. Therapeutic abortion committees and third parties. Can Med Assoc J. 1981;124(4):362-363. 384.
Mr. Hulme’s estranged wife gave birth, so the litigation did not proceed. The outcome is discussed by the author in Dickens BM. “Artificial Reproduction and Child Custody” (1987) 66:1 Can Bar Rev 49 at 57.