Almost 80 per cent of obstetricians would support termination of pregnancy when the foetus had dwarfism, a survey has found.

Support for termination at 13 weeks was unanimous among those obstetricians who are expert in diagnosing dwarfism by ultrasound.

However, dwarfism is difficult to diagnose early and is only usually apparent much later in gestation, approaching 30 weeks, unless there is a family history of dwarfism.

Support for aborting foetuses with dwarfism at 24 weeks dropped considerably among Victorian obstetricians, from 78 per cent to 14 per cent.

But among clinical geneticists and obstetricians around Australia who specialise in ultrasound (the main method by which dwarfism is diagnosed), who were surveyed separately from the Victorian obstetricians, support for termination at 24 weeks remained high at more than 70 per cent.

The surveys were conducted late last year by the Murdoch Childrens Research Institute.

The findings, which have been submitted for publication, come as the Victorian Coroner investigates the case of a 40-year-old woman whose pregnancy was terminated at the Royal Women's Hospital at 32 weeks after she learnt it was likely to be a dwarf.

The hospital has suspended three senior medical staff involved and set up its own internal inquiry after referring the matter to the Coroner at the weekend.

The obstetricians and geneticists were surveyed by Associate Professor Julian Savulescu, a senior ethicist, on their attitudes to termination at 13 and 24 weeks' gestation for a range of medical and social conditions ranging from cleft palates to dwarfism, Down syndrome and spina bifida.

Professor Savulescu said the Royal Women's Hospital case was one of those "agonising and inescapable decisions", and there was no choice that would satisfy everybody.

Professor Savulescu said that Australian hospitals should set up clinical ethics committees that could respond at short notice to these issues as hospitals in the UK and US had done.

"It's time for Australian hospital management to support doctors when they are making these decisions," Professor Savulescu said.

As the ethical debate raged yesterday, it was revealed that senior hospital staff visited the 40-year-old woman at her home on Sunday to tell her that her case was going to be made public.

Professor Glenn Bowes, the hospital's medical director, said on Sunday the woman and her family were very concerned to learn that the matter was being made public but would not comment further to protect her privacy.

He said the woman had arrived at the hospital on January 31 in an "agitated and distressed state" accompanied by her husband. She told staff that her doctor had just told her that her foetus had an abnormality consistent with dwarfism and she wanted a termination.

She was seen by several senior staff including an obstetrician, a psychiatrist and a geneticist who, after conducting tests and counselling her, finally agreed to the termination. She left the hospital on February 3.

Professor Bowes said late termination was a grey area and the three suspended staff were valued members of the hospital who had made a "highly challenging, volatile decision" under "extreme circumstances". He said referring the case to the Coroner was not an attempt to prejudge or impugn their reputation but was prompted by widespread concern among staff about the ethical issues.

Professor Bowes also revealed that a letter of referral from the woman's private doctor did not mention any history of mental illness.

Since the woman's discharge, the issue has been going through the hospital's internal review processes. A staff member filled out a "clinician interest notification" form and sent this to the hospital's adverse events committee.

The matter was discussed in several clinical review committees before eventually being thrown open for debate at the hospital's monthly clinical education forum, which is open to all clinical staff.

The meeting on June 21 was attended by 200 to 250 staff and there was "robust discussion".

The matter went through another two committees further up the chain of command before the hospital executive was formally informed on Friday.

After discussions with the hospital's lawyers, the case was referred to the Coroner on Saturday and the press conference to make it public was held on the Sunday.

It is the first time that the hospital has referred a termination of pregnancy to the Coroner.

Dr John McKie, a lecturer at the Centre for Human Bioethics at Monash University, said yesterday a mother's rights had to put before those of a foetus.

Dr McKie said his only objection would be if proper procedures were not followed or that the procedures were inadequate. But he added: "I would not see anything ethically wrong. The woman counts for more than the foetus."