doctor to
notify the police on the strength of information obtained in his
professional capacity, patients would refrain from obtaining the
necessary medical help under these circumstances, thus accentuating the
problem of deaths from abortion rather than limiting it.

It has been stated that already in one centre a disinclination to enter
hospital has been expressed by patients because they feared that the
police would be informed.

It is agreed, however, that the doctor should attempt to persuade the
patient, especially if her condition is serious, to make a statement to
the police.

The actual legal position in New Zealand was made quite clear by the
law officer of the Crown when asked by the New Zealand Obstetrical
Society in 1932 for an opinion.

This opinion, as published in the _New Zealand Medical Journal_
(Obstetrical Section), 29th October, 1932, was as follows:--

"A doctor is under no legal obligation to inform the police as to
the cause of the illness of a person which has been due to an
illegal operation, either in a case where the patient recovers or
in a case where the patient dies. He is, of course, under an
obligation to insert in the certificate of death which he furnishes
under the Births and Deaths Registration Act, 1924, the cause of
death, both primary and secondary. In that certificate, where the
death was the consequence of an illegal operation, he should insert
the nature of the operation as the primary cause of death. He need
not, of course, describe it as an illegal operation, but he would
describe the type of operation and the reason why such operation
was the primary cause of death--_e.g._, owing to incompetence or
ignorance, if that be the case.

"In giving this ruling I am, of course, referring merely to the
legal obligation--_i.e._, the duties imposed according to law.
Speaking generally, there is a moral duty on every person having
knowledge of a serious crime which is an offence against morality
as well as against law, to assist the police as far as possible in
its detection and suppression. The confidence of a patient may be a
legitimate ground for excluding that duty in some, or even in most,
of the cases of this kind. But no doubt there are certain cases
where the duty is clear. Instances are the case of a young and
inexperienced woman who has reluctantly submitted to the operation