ABORTION BREAST CANCER

THE CURIOUS CASE OF FRANK O’LEARY & THE MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS BOARD

In November 2000, one of our readers, Mr. Frank O'Leary of Mildura, sent Dr. "X" who practises in a Melbourne suburban Community Health Centre (for legal reasons we are not publishing his name) a copy of our paper "What Every Woman in the World Should Know" on the Abortion-Breast Cancer link. Frank had previously sent copies of this paper to many doctors but the response from Dr. X was quite extraordinary - obviously Frank struck a raw nerve. In an anonymous typed note Dr. X wrote: "Dear Frank, I thought you might like to know that every time we receive a piece of propaganda from your group, we arrange another abortion. You and your group have personally been responsible for about five now". Frank knew the letter was from Dr. X because the envelope was not typed but Frank’s return address was cut from his original letter and pasted on the envelope.

Frank was quite distressed by this response from Dr. X and phoned me to ask what he should do. I suggested he contact the police. Under the 1969 Menhennitt decision abortion is illegal in Victoria except to protect a woman's life or serious danger to her health, although, sadly, the law is not enforced.

A doctor performing extra abortions because he is annoyed about something he receives in the mail would hardly come within the ambit of Menhennitt. The police told Frank they could not do anything because he could not prove Dr. X had sent the letter. I then suggested to Frank that he could make a complaint to the Medical Practitioners Board, a statutory body which is authorised by the state government to register (or de-register) medical practitioners and deal with their conduct or misconduct. According to the Board's 'Vision Statement', "The role of the Medical Practitioners Board of Victoria is to ensure that the medical profession provides the best possible medical care for the community of Victoria......"

Frank wrote to the Board, who contacted Dr. X. He did not deny he had sent the anonymous letter, but wrote in his defence that he had researched the issue of abortion-breast cancer on the internet, and among the organisations who published scientific material on the ABC link, besides Endeavour Forum, were the "Festival of Light, Human Life International, Eagle Forum, Mindszenty Foundation, Pro-LifeVictoria, Christian Democrats Party, The Liberator, Population Research Institute, Pro-Life Resources, United Kingdom Men’s Movement, Professor Brind's Site, Coalition on Abortion Breast Cancer, John Kindley's Web Site, The Howard Centre and the World Congress of the Family".

Why Dr. X imagined listing these worthy organisations and web sites invalidated the Abortion-Breast Cancer link or excused his extraordinary letter to Frank is not clear.

The Medical Practitioner's Board, not being satisfied with Dr. X's explanation and after further correspondence from Frank who explained he had sent the Abortion-Breast Cancer information on his own initiative and not at the behest of anyone else, called Dr. X in for what is known as an "Informal Hearing". Such hearings, as distinct from Formal Hearings, are held in private, may deal with lesser offences and do not involve the presence of lawyers. Indeed, not even Frank, the Complainant, was allowed to be present, nor was I, although I requested to be allowed to attend as I felt Dr. X had quite unfairly criticised our organistion. He had sent several pages downloaded from our web site to the Medical Practitioners Board as if this justified his anonymous letter to Frank.

I never knew the result of the Informal Hearing of the complaint against Dr.X - sadly Frank who was frail in health, died shortly after the Informal Hearing. Last year I wrote to the Medical Practitioners Board asking for the finding of the Informal Hearing and how they had dealt with Dr. X, as our organisation, among others who published scientific material on the Abortion Breast Cancer link had been named by Dr. X as an excuse for his anonymous letter. To my astonishment, the Board refused to let me know the result but said I could appeal to the Board's President on payment of a $20 fee and photocopying costs. I duly paid the fee, and the Board then wrote and informed me that the President's decision was that the only document they could release was my own letter to the Board with which I had enclosed the scientific information on the abortion-breast cancer link. So I had paid $20 to get back a copy of my own letter!

However, the Board did inform me that I could file a Freedom of Information appeal to the Victorian Civil & Administrative Tribunal (VCAT). This time, for the FOI appeal, we had to pay $280, but I was determined to find out what the result of the Informal Hearing was. I felt it was the least I could do in memory of Frank, who had courageously persisted in pursuing the matter. VCAT ordered a mediation conference between me and the Medical Practitioners Board. At this mediation, I pointed out to the Tribunal and the Board's lawyer that Dr. X's letter was evidence of criminal assault on women. As Frank had queried in his correspondence with the Board, from where did Dr. X find these women on which he performed the five extra abortions?

Did he perform these abortions on his pregnant patients who did not want such surgery or did he snatch pregnant women passing by on the street?

I told VCAT and the Board's lawyer, that Dr. X's letter was typical of the profound contempt in which abortionists hold women - it is a money-making industry and Dr. X apparently thinks women can be used to vent his annoyance at what he regards as "junk mail". I also provided the Tribunal and the Medical Practitioner's Board with a legal opinion from Dr. I.C.F. Spry, QC, stating that while the Medical Practitioners Act provided that Informal Hearings were not open to the public, there was no similar requirement that the findings of the Board and the reasons for such findings should not be made public.

The Board's lawyer then made an offer to tell me verbally what the finding was. I rejected this, and said I wanted the finding and the reasons for it in writing on the Board's letter- head so that I could quote it for the information of Endeavour Forum readers and all the other organisations who had been named by Dr. X.

A date for the court case was set for February 2004, but late in January, the Medical Practitioners Board lawyer wrote to me saying that they had decided to release to me the information I had requested, i.e. the "Reasons for the Finding document of the Informal Hearing in relation to the professional conduct of Dr. X" So Frank and I had won, at least to the extent of persuading the Medical Practitioner's Board to hold an Informal Hearing, and to reveal their findings to me.

In its finding the Board said it accepted Dr. X's belief that he had tried to determine the scientific validity of the Abortion-Breast Cancer link, but felt he was receiving unsolicited letters, some of which he returned to the senders. He did admit that he "wrote an exasperated and ill-considered letter which he acknowledges was inappropriate and now regrets." The Board accepted his assertion that the implications in his letter were untrue. but nevertheless determined that he had not engaged in unprofessional conduct.

I don't know whether the Medical Practitioners Board required Dr. X to apologise to Frank, but he certainly did not apologise to Endeavour Forum. This episode illustrates how sensitive pro-abortionists are to any mention of the Abortion-Breast Cancer link. This saga lasting a few years with the possibility of de-registration and unfavourable publicity, would not have been a pleasant experience for Dr. X, and I would expect he will be more careful about his anonymous letters in the future. Rest in peace, Frank O'Leary. You have fought the good fight.

Three Labour MPs have sent their own survey to doctors around the UK in a bid to examine links between abortion and breast cancer. One of them, Crosby MP Claire Curtis-Thomas, cited studies suggesting a link and said women deserve the facts before undergoing abortions. More than 175,000 abortions were carried out in the UK in 2002. The highest rates were in the 20 to 24-year-old age group, with 30 abortions per 1,000 women. A link between abortion and a slightly higher risk of breast cancer has been suggested by a number of studies. The three MPs plan to write to cancer specialists asking them for data on the medical history of women diagnosed with breast cancer. Ms Curtis-Thomas told the BBC that, in 37 studies carried out since the 1950s, 28 had returned a result which suggested an increase of breast cancer following abortion. She said: “We want to see whether or not the UK experience either supports or refutes this evidence. The risk as far as we are able to see is approximately double, and there are a huge number of young women choosing abortion in this country. The number of breast cancer cases is rising steadily - and doctors do not fully understand the reasons why.”

The Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer denounced the Minnesota Medical Association (MMA), a chapter of the American Medical Association (AMA), for opposing efforts by the Minnesota Public Health Department (MPHD) to educate women about the abortion-breast cancer (ABC) research. The MPHD published a handbook discussing the risks of abortion. The MMA is distressed about a factual statement, ``Findings from some studies suggest there is an increased risk of breast cancer among women who had an abortion, while findings from other studies suggest there is no increased risk.'' The MMA wrote to Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty and falsely claimed there is agreement in the medical community that abortion doesn’t increase breast cancer risk.

Coalition president Karen Malec remarked, "The MMA lied to Governor Pawlenty. Truth is, five medical groups say abortion is a cause of breast cancer. A sixth group has called for ‘full disclosure’ of a ‘highly plausible’ relationship, an act which is an anathema to the AMA."

Late last year the first American ABC lawsuit was settled. A physician was sued for having failed to warn his patient about the risks of breast cancer and emotional harm. "Stop worrying about medical malpractice insurance premiums and the loss of abortion income. Try putting people’s lives ahead of your own financial interests," said Mrs. Malec to the AMA.