The Abortion Act of 1967 - Essay Example

Medical Law Number Department Advise for Clare on the legal issues arising For Clare’s case, there are still chances that her pregnancy can be terminated. This is because under the Abortion Act of 1967, abortion may be carried out even as late as 24 weeks into pregnancy, provided the reasons for the application of an abortion include: the need to save a baby’s life; securing the mental and physical health of the mother (from permanent injury); and the presence of substantial risk of the child being born with mental or physical complications or handicap. From the case provided, the Upmarket NHS Trust established that Clare’s baby may be born with physical disability. The only exception to this case is when Clare comes from or resides in Northern Ireland or any other, state or region that is outside the United Kingdom mainland. Secondly, the reason Clare and Sarah’s advance to have the pregnancy terminated is valid, given that it is based on the baby’s susceptibility to incur disability and the mother’s ability to biologically handle the pregnancy. The Abortion Act of 1967 indeed qualifies a high probability of the baby developing medical conditions and the vulnerability of the mother to health risks as conditions that independently validate grounds for therapeutic abortion. It is important that Clare ensures that she procures the abortion in a specialist licensed clinic or in a licensed hospital. Secondly, Clare should ensure that at least two physicians analyse her situation and agree that the abortion procedure will cause less damage to Clare’s mental and physical health than a situation in which Clare carries the baby. At the moment, Clare has to be aware of the fact that the Abortion Act of 1967 respects the sanctity of her choice as an independent individual. This means that the final decision to terminate the pregnancy fully rests upon her decision and free will. The import of this is that the standpoint that others such as Ian, Sarah and Rose may have towards Clare’s choice may be immaterial, the degree of biological affiliation that any of these parties may have with the child, notwithstanding. Likewise, it is to be brought to Clare’s attention that Ian’s act of disclosing her medical details and history is a criminal offence which is punishable by law. The decision to grant Ian pardon or to launch a legal case against Ian will therefore remain a matter of personal discretion. Advise for Ian on the legal issues arising Ian, (note that) your commitments to ethics as the grounds on which you object Clare’s resolution to procure an abortion are commendable. However, I would like to bring your attention to the fact that within the ambit of the law, your girlfriend Clare possesses all the rights to either keep the pregnancy or terminate it. Clare’s rights are well enshrined in Abortion Act of 1967, meaning that opinions and/ or expression of the will of other parties contrary to the mother of the child and the presiding physician may be ancillary to the child’s mother. Another important aspect that may be brought to your attention is the fact that the conditions under which Clare seeks the procurement of abortion are strong and is not only backed by legal provisions, but also by ethical constraints. Particularly, the results obtained from a battery of tests that were carried out by the Upmarket NHS Trust indicated that the baby has a very high propensity to incur physical disability during childbirth. The gravity behind this state of affair is that with the complications that the child may have, Clare is also likely may not be able to cope with the pregnancy. This may involve you forfeiting both the child and its mother. The onus is upon you to exercise discretion to determine whether it is better to forfeit the baby and preserve the life of its mother, or to forfeit the lifer of the baby and that of its mother. Even then, the life of the mother remains sacrosanct in medical ethics and law. Since you are not the first father to be faced by this ethical dilemma, referring you to the legal precedence in the UK over similar matter may suffice. Similar position I dispensed to you were upheld by the European Court of Human Rights in 1978, in the case Paton v. Trustees of British Pregnancy Advisory Service Trustees. In this case, a judged ruled in favour of William Paton’s wife, to the effect that she could procure an abortion outside the provisions of Mr. Paton’s volition. The same situation was repeated in 1987 in the case C v. S, in 1989 in the case, Tremblay v. Daigle and in 2001, Stephan Hone v. Claire Hansell. According to Grubb1, the crux of the matter at hand is that when the baby is in the mother’s womb, it is the mother whose life is at stake, and as such, she is the one who should have the final say on the fate of the pregnancy. Secondly, I acknowledge your concern about Clare’s drunkenness while pregnant as a noble cause. Your concern is indeed a matter of grave concern since Clare’s drunken behaviour affects negatively, her health and the foetus. To this effect, it is advisable that the two of you visit the physician together to effect Clare’s counseling and therapy. As a side note, I would urge you to desist from extrajudicial practices since they may leave you on the wrong side of the law. Disclosing Clare or any other person’s details and medical history is a criminal offence and may subject you to a legal prosecution, if Clare decides to open a legal suit against you. Discretion may necessitate that you have an out-of-court settlement with her over your grievances, for your good and for the good of her health and pregnancy. Advise for Dr Fox on the legal issues arising Dr. Fox, please note that Rose is not an Opt-in case. Under the Human Tissue Act 2006, a person must be an Opt-in to be considered as an organ donor and not even his/ her relatives can overturn this status or preference, posthumously2. References Grubb, Andrew. Principles of Medical Law. [2011] 2 OUP, 56-66. Read More