15 FEBRUARY
THE NEW ZEALAND GAZETTE
311

to the knowledge of medical science relating to the safety of
suction abortion. Mr Armstrong considered the programme
was unbalanced because not enough accurate information was
made available for viewers to make an objective assessment
of the physical and medical implications of having an abortion.
Mr Armstrong also complained a few days after the
programme that the status of the unborn child was not
mentioned and that the programme gave the impression that
the only factor to be considered in an abortion was the
woman’s comfort and convenience. The complaint also said
that the detrimental effect on subsequent pregnancies was not
properly stated and that the programme was unbalanced
requiring a balanced programme to have been screened.

He also said that the programme was in breach of the
Corporation’s statutory requirement to have regard to the
observance of standards of good taste and decency.

The Corporation considered the complaints and made an
identical decision in respect of each complaint on 13 September
1978. The decision of the Corporation was to adopt the
following recommendation of its Standing Committee for
Television One:

(a) Given the fact that the item was clearly and explicitly
stated to be confined within the restricted parameters of
the medical procedure the Committee found itself
unable to agree that a charge of lack of balance
could be sustained. Nevertheless having regard to the
intense controversy surrounding the subject of
abortion the Committee was left with the feeling that
it would have been preferable for the presenter to
have emphasised at the conclusion of the programme
that there were a number of questions other than
merely medical and surgical ones which required
evaluation in any individual case. The Standing Committee
does not believe that it would have been
necessary to elaborate on these but rather that a
more explicit reminder of their existence would have
been desirable.

(b) The Committee could find no foundation for the
criticism that the programme was misleading or
scientifically incorrect.

(c) The Committee found no aspect or ingredient of the
programme which was contrary to accepted standards
of good taste.

However, the Committee was gravely disappointed
at the error made by transmitting this particular
programme on a day when some schools were closed
for the mid-term break. It accepts that this was a
genuine error and that when discovered, efforts were
made at the last moment to redress the situation,
but requires that the Service make a careful check in
future of school closure dates.

NOTE—The Committee notes that since the complaint
was considered TVI has adopted the policy
that when the subject of abortion is being
covered it is first referred to the Controller
of Programmes who will refer it to the
Director-General at his discretion.

The Tribunal has viewed a tape of the programme which
opened with the statement that the programme had a film
made by an Australian film director reconstructing an operation
to terminate pregnancy. An actress was said to play the
patient but the medical staff worked at a Sydney clinic visited
by many New Zealand women.

Final remarks before the showing of the film were these:
“This film, I should say, may not be suitable for children,
but we feel it is important. It is unemotive and
unbiased and we are screening it in the hope that
people will have a better idea of what they are talking
about.”

After the film an English obstetrician and gynaecologist
working at Hutt Hospital was briefly interviewed. He
explained that the main difference between New Zealand
and English procedure and that seen in the film was that
abortions in the former countries were usually carried out
under a general anaesthetic, making it a shorter procedure.
He pointed out that the operation became much more risky
if carried out after 10 weeks. He was then asked whether he
was happy with the operation procedure in New Zealand and
whether it should be changed at all.

He replied, “No—suction method of termination of pregnancy
is a very safe method and it does not harm the mother
at all and it doesn’t affect her chances for future pregnancies
and it’s a quick, fairly bloodless procedure. I cannot see it
being improved at all.”

The interviewer then said:
“The film that we have just seen does make the operation
to a layman like me seem terribly simple and straightforward.
Now I wonder is that really the whole story?”

Dr Morgan replied, “Well as long as it is done before
10 weeks it is a very safe procedure indeed and it is very
simple, simpler than it appeared on the programme. It is safe,
yes”.

The programme concluded with the interviewer pointing
out:
“We’ve deliberately steered clear of the rights and wrongs
of the whole abortion issue. I hope that you’ll feel that
we’ve presented a film that leaves people rather better
informed.”

The Tribunal has no doubt that the producer was entitled
to tackle this one aspect of the broad abortion topic although
it would have been wise to have said that there were a
number of questions other than merely medical or surgical
ones which required evaluation in any individual case, as the
Corporation has suggested.

It is, however, clear from the report of the Royal Commission
and from other material submitted to us that to put it
at its slightest the opinions expressed by Dr Morgan did not
adequately express the fact that any such procedure must have
some attendant risks.

The least the programme should have done was to point
out that Dr Morgan’s view is not the view held by all doctors.
Alternatively he could have been asked to state exactly what
the risks were.

As there is research material available on the risks attending
various types of abortion procedures at various stages of
pregnancy, it would not have been difficult to have qualified
the broad statements made by the doctor. One further question
from the interviewer based on the programme’s own research
could have dealt with the point. Where medical views vary it
is wise to consult more widely than was apparently done. In
our decision on another programme on abortion (No. 5/77)
the Tribunal said—at page 7:

“It is perhaps pertinent to suggest that in such matters it
might have been appropriate to have approached a
university or other authoritative medical sources rather
than consulting only one doctor who had, albeit
occasionally, worked at Aotea, and a partisan
handbook.”

In this instance a small consultative panel might have been
helpful in ensuring that the question of the degree of risk to
the patient was satisfactorily dealt with.

The Corporation has not suggested that the omission has
been corrected by any other programme since broadcast. The
point could be briefly covered in a subsequent programme.

The Tribunal does not find that there is any aspect or
ingredient of the programme contrary to the observance of
standards of good taste and decency.

The Tribunal agrees with the Corporation’s finding that the
programme should not have been broadcast during the mid-term break and that this was an error.

Membership—

In accordance with s. 61 (10) the Tribunal has co-opted
Mr G. R. Wear and Mr G. R. Black as two persons whose
qualifications or experience were likely, in the opinion of the
Tribunal, to be of assistance to the Tribunal in dealing with
the complaint. They have taken part in the deliberations of
the Tribunal but the decision, in accordance with the Act, is
that of the permanent members.

Dated this 21st day of December 1978.

For the Tribunal:

B. H. SLANE, Chairman.

Decision No. 9/78

Decision of the Broadcasting Tribunal

In the matter of the Broadcasting Act 1976, and in the matter
of a complaint by the Society for the Protection of the
Unborn Child Inc., pursuant to section 67 (1) (b).

WARRANT HOLDER: Broadcasting Corporation of New Zealand (Television One).