It would be interesting to know if the BBC has anything that covers this in the contract with Southern Star Entertainment . As I suspect the they are relying on the Australian company to know far more about the law than themselves.
One of my personal bugbears is people who misrepresent the law although this is usually in a context when they think you will be more impressed with “it is illegal” than “it is against company policy” rather than entertainment.

The BBC makes this programme themselves- they just set it in Australia but didn’t buy it from Australian TV as they did with Neighbours. So I think they should have researched this more before covering it.

Without getting bogged down in the semantics of the word ‘make’ the BBC hardly makes anything these days. Aunty was encouraged in various ways to have competition in their production market and pass lots of work over to independents. A lot of people think this was about as sensible and successful as bringing an internal market to the NHS and undertaking contracts with independent sector treatment centres in terms of value for money and degradation of in-house skills.

Out of The Blue is commissioned from Southern Star Entertainment, a large Australian TV company and it is very easy to imagine that a lot of the day to day governance of whether the content is accurate and appropriate is covered by contractual clauses rather than direct oversight by someone who is employed by the Beeb themselves.

Sarah:

First and foremost, its a soap opera and not real life.

Second, if there’s an issue to raise in terms of the way the scenario was handled its not about the legal position in NSW its about the ethical conduct of the ‘doctor’ as depicted in the scene – even where abortion is legal on grounds of serious foetal abnormality it would be unethical for a doctor to inform anyone that they had ‘no choice’ about having an abortion unless there was an indication that continuing the pregnancy would put the mother’s health at serious risk.

If the unspecified abnormality was such that the doctor fully expected that the foetus would die in the womb before delivery then there might conceivably be grounds for suggesting that the mother would have ‘no choice’ given the complications that might ensue from trying to carry a dead foetus to term.

As for being ‘particularly against the abortion of any pregnancy that, if continued, would lead to the birth of a disabled child’ that’s your prerogative, of course but personally I find it difficult to apply hard and fast judgement to anyone faced with such a decision.

There are certain conditions and types of developmental abnormality where I would never presume to judge the decision taken by parents – part of my education in psychology took in the foetal development and foetal neurobiology, so I’ve got a very clear idea of the kinds of things that can and do go wrong and the impact that has the prognosis for the foetus and there are situations in which an abortion is a kindness to all concerned given what would have ensued had the foetus been born.

So far as the programme providing incorrect information, if there’s anything to be concerned about here – and from what I gather it hasn’t been shown in Oz yet (due to air at the end of 2008 on Network 10) its that it may give those who might want an abortion a false impression of the legal position in the state and raise false expectations. People who are opposed to abortion would pay little attention to a doctor who told them they had ‘no choice’ anyway and would be unlikely to be swayed by such an opinion, even if it were given in real life.

There is much more cause for concern in regards to such errors when it comes to people who might get the impression that they have a choice, when the law states otherwise.

“Personally, I am strongly against any abortion. However, being disabled, I am particularly against the abortion of any pregnancy that, if continued, would lead to the birth of a disabled child.”
So you’re MORE in favour of abortions that would lead to the birth of a non-disabled baby?
Isn’t this some kind of reverse eugenics?

“you’re MORE in favour of abortions that would lead to the birth of a non-disabled baby?”

Of course not.

“I am particularly against the abortion of any pregnancy that, if continued, would lead to the birth of a disabled child.”

Is a line which also stuck in my craw. I had to read it three times before I could believe anyone here would write it with serious intent.

I suggest it would be appropriate to clarify the author’s view.

Okay. I am against all abortions. But abortions of disabled babies only for the reason that they would be born disabled particularly upset me.