Premium
Late‐term abortion: what can be learned from Royal Womenˈs Hospital v Medical Practitioners Board of Victoria?
Author(s) -
Gerber Paul
Publication year - 2007
Publication title -
medical journal of australia
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.904
H-Index - 131
eISSN - 1326-5377
pISSN - 0025-729X
DOI - 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2007.tb00938.x
Subject(s) - complaint , medicine , abortion , misconduct , government (linguistics) , malpractice , family medicine , legal action , law , political science , pregnancy , biology , genetics , linguistics , philosophy
In 2001, the Medical Practitioners Board of Victoria received a complaint from an Australian Government Senator regarding a late‐term abortion carried out in February 2000 at the Royal Women's Hospital, Melbourne. Five years later, the complaint of professional misconduct was finally dismissed by the Board as being frivolous and vexatious. The action highlights a number of deficiencies in the way medical practitioner boards deal with complaints against medical practitioners; in particular, the Board's lack of discretion to deal with complaints lacking substance. Early mediation of the dispute between the Royal Women's Hospital and the Medical Practitioners Board could have avoided a great deal of suffering and expense. As a result of this case, it is likely that the Victorian Medical Practitioners Board will be given additional powers in the future to deal with complaints without merit.