17 September 2013
Abortion Supervisory Committee,
Dear Ms Anne Melkiau,
Dr Snook (pictured), Certifying Consultant – Abortion is about Choice
I wish to bring to your attention statements made by Dr Simon Snook in the October issue of the magazine North & South. Dr Simon Snook is a certifying consultant and an abortionist.
He is quoted as saying:
‘I have never met anyone who is flippant about doing a termination. But I don’t view an embryo or fetus as having the same rights as the person potentially having to raise it in the world. For me to have to say she is mentally unwell –or will be if the pregnancy continues-is a misnomer. This is about choice.”
The statement of Dr Snook is an affirmation of his belief that abortion is a matter for a woman to choose. The Crimes Act 1961 sets out in section 183, Procuring abortion by any means states that, everyone is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years, who with intent to procure the miscarriage of any woman or girl, whether she is pregnant or not, unlawfully administers to her any poison or drug or uses an instrument to procure a miscarriage. The killing of a child by abortion is thus a very serious crime. Abortions are however excused for serious and rare grounds set out under section 187A.
Section 187A does not permit abortions to be authorised on the grounds that it is a woman’s choice. Abortions authorised on that ground are unlawful. The test for section 187A, is the grounds for which the abortion has been authorised. It is noted that 98 per cent of abortions authorised in New Zealand are on the grounds of mental health. It is known that Dr Snook is one of the busiest and committed abortionists in New Zealand. In view of Dr Snook’s above statements, it may be concluded that he is authorising abortions because it is the women’s choice, masquerading as mental health. It is thus contended that there should be serious concerns about the lawfulness of the abortions that he authorises and performs. His actions could be considered not only unlawful but unprofessional and of a nature to bring the medical profession in to disrepute.
It is contended that your Committee has a serious obligation to ensure that certifying consultants appointed by your Committee comply with the law and to ensure that unborn children are not being deprived of their lives unlawfully.
The Contraception Sterilisation And Abortion Act 1977, Section 30 outlines the views of applicants for appointment as certifying consultants that are incompatible with appointment. Section 30  [b] explains that, if an applicant for appointment as a Certifying Consultant, holds the view that whether an abortion should or should not be performed in any case, is entirely a matter for the woman and a doctor to decide, this would then preclude their appointment.
Dr Snook’s public statements therefore preclude him from appointment as a certifying consultant.
His statements about the status of the unborn child are false and outrageous. It is contended that a doctor who does not recognise the humanity and the human rights of a child in its first nine months of its life and that he has the privilege of caring for a child who is a unique and unrepeatable miracle of God’s creation, is not worthy of membership in the medical profession.
This important issue raises serious questions:
- Does the Committee believe that it has a responsibility to question Dr Snook on the manner that he is authorising abortions ?
- Will your Committee consider reporting Dr Snook to the Medical Council to enable the Council to conduct an investigation into the performance of Dr Snook?
- Will your Committee consider revoking the appointment of Dr Snook as a certifying consultant?
- What action will your Committee take to ensure that the certifying consultants appointed by your Committee do not authorise abortions unlawfully in the belief that the killing of the child is a mother’s right to choose?
- I would be grateful if you would kindly advise me of what action your Committee takes in this very serious matter?