Rapid Responses to:
|
|
Rapid Responses: Rapid Responses published:
-
![[Read Rapid Response]](/icons/misc/sectionDOWN.gif)
Viability is probably irrelevant
- David B Paintin (11 November 2007)
-
Unborn Child Is Recognised As A Person In Law
- Johanna Higgins Barrister at Law (12 November 2007)
-
Irrelevant Viability
- Stephen R Brennan (13 November 2007)
-
Objective interests
- David A Jones (13 November 2007)
-
Fetal viability is definitely irrelevant
- Joyce Arthur (14 November 2007)
-
Viability should not be linked to abortion law
- Wendy D Savage (15 November 2007)
-
Abortion Should Not Be Extended To The North of Ireland
- Geraldine Foley Barrister (16 November 2007)
|
|
|||
|
David B Paintin, emeritus reader in obstetrics & gynaecology Imperial College School of Medicine (St Mary's), London W2 IPG
Send response to journal:
|
I agree with Richard Lynus(1) that viability is irrelevant as a limit for legal abortion. The abortion decision is based on the balance between the need of the woman not to continue her pregnancy and the feeling of respect that she and those whose advice she seeks have towards the fetus. It is this balance, and not viability or the law, that results in almost 90 per cent of abortions being obtained before 13 weeks and less than 2 per cent after 20 weeks. The autonomy of the woman should be central to the morality of abortion. She alone has responsibility for the fetus while it is within her uterus and entirely integrated into her physiology. It is wrong that other people - politicians, religious leaders and the public as a whole - should feel entitled to regulate what a woman does with her body and her life. British law does not recognise the fetus as a person: case law has shown that the pregnant woman has the right not to accept treatment, such as a caesarean section that would reduce a risk of stillbirth. It is the woman herself who, by giving birth, confers person-hood on the fetus. Old justifications for law regulating abortion - the deterrence of dangerous illegal abortion and control over the sexual behaviour of women - no longer apply. Termination of pregnancy should be regarded as a management that women negotiate with appropriate health professionals, and should be subject only to the controls over standards that apply to all other medical and surgical treatments. Britain should decriminalise abortion. This was done in Canada in 1988 where,in 2004(the most recent data published),the rate was 14.1/1000 women(2). The rate in England and Wales that year was 17.8/1000 women aged 15-44(3). David Paintin emeritus reader in obstetrics & gynaecology, Imperial College School of Medicine (St Mary's). London W2 1PG 1 Lynus, R. Viability is probably irrelevant. BMJ 2007;335:953 (10Nov). 2 Induced Abortion Statistics 2004 (Statistics Canada) Table 3.1, http://www.statcan.ca/cgi-bin/downpub/listpub.cgi?catno=82-223-XIE2007000 (accessed 10 Nov 2007). 3 Abortion Statistics, England and Wales: 2006, Table 1, Statistical Bulletin 2007/01, Department of Health, London. Competing interests: David Paintin provided NHS abortions from 1968-90. He has been a trustee of the charities Pregnancy Advisory Service and British Pregnancy Advisory Service |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Johanna Higgins Barrister at Law, Senior Public Prosecutor Public Prosecution Service, BT1 3JR
Send response to journal:
|
I disagree with Davis Paintins' moral view on abortion. However it is regarding a point of law that I write. David Paintin erroneously states; "British law does not recognise the fetus as a person" Yet the criminal law of abortion rests within the following statutes: 1. The Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (s58 and s59) Within this act the unborn child (feotus) is the "person" to whom the above sections refer and offer protection. 2. The Infant Life Preservation Act 1929 (England) The Criminal Justice Act 1945 (N Ireland). Within these acts lie the criminal offence of Child Destruction. The "Child" is the unborn child(foetus) within its mothers womb and during birth. Both the above criminal offences carry maximum life sentances. In the case of R V Bourne (1938)(an important case in the field of Abortion Law)the judge stated: "The law of this land has always held human life to be sacred, and the protection that the law gives to human life it extends also to the unborn child in the womb." Both the above acts are still in place in England and Wales, tempered by the Abortion Act to some degree. In the North of Ireland the Abortion Act does not apply and therefore the above acts constitute the Statute Law with regard to the criminal offences. It is understandable that a doctor might not be au fait with the law, but on this matter it is important that the law is stated correctly, given its serious consequences. Competing interests: Co-Founder of the Association of Catholic Lawyers of Ireland |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Stephen R Brennan, Consultant Physician Claremont Hospital,Sheffield,S10 5UB
Send response to journal:
|
I am glad to see some legal weight to the foetus's right to life, in the last response to David Pantin's points. Viabilty should certainly not be a child's only ticket to being allowed to live. I accept that the Abortion Law can never be "improved", but I do wish the doctors who deal in this awful business would properly explain and discuss all the alternatives and the risks, before getting valid consent from the individual woman. We should not lose the two doctors' signature requirement. If the Act, as it is, were properly enforced and women were properly counselled, there would be far fewer abortions than the almost 200,000 per annum we have now. Yrs steve brennan, MB.FRCP. Competing interests: Master of Guild of Catholic Doctors |
|||
|
|
|||
|
David A Jones, Professor of Bioethics St Mary's University College, Twickenham, TW1 4SX
Send response to journal:
|
Dr Paintain asserts that the abortion decision is based on 'a balance between the need of the woman not to continue her pregnancy and the feeling of respect that she and those whose advice she seeks have towards the fetus'. Thus the interests of the woman are objective 'need's while the interests of the fetus are subjective 'feeling's. This is of course pure rhetoric. The interests of the fetus are quite as object as the interests of the mother. He or she has an objective interest in not being torn apart, for example. The 'balance' between these interests and those of the mother seems more a matter of who can exercise power over whom and little to do with claims of justice or morality. Richard Lyus is correct to point out that viability is a dubious basis for a limit for abortion. A legal comparison with other countries would comfirm this. If we are prepared to recognise the interests of a newborn baby then rationally we should recognise the interests of the fetus at any stage. The curious strength of appeal to viability is perhaps because of the practical contradiction of spending great energy to save a premature baby while at the same time in the same hospital deliberately destroying a child of the same gestational age. At this point it is no longer credible to most people to assert that abortion is morally distinct from infanticide. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Joyce Arthur, Coordinator Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada, www.arcc-cdac.ca
Send response to journal:
|
The viability of the fetus is a red herring in the abortion debate. If we can trust women and their doctors to make pregnancy decisions before viability, why should that change after viability? Is that when legislators suddenly become more knowledgeable and skilled in medicine than doctors? Or is it because women’s minds somehow become non-viable after six months of pregnancy? We can never assert, as does David A Jones, that fetuses have their own "interests." They are incapable of thought or motivation, which is why decisions must be made on their behalf by their sole guardians, pregnant women. The concern of others for fetuses simply reflects distrust and disrespect for women's own agency. There is no need to regulate abortion at any stage. The UK should repeal its abortion law in its entirety, as was done in Canada in 1988. Canada’s abortion rate is now moderate and stable, and abortions have become earlier and safer. 90% are done by 12 weeks gestation, and less than 0.3% occur after 20 weeks gestation. Late abortions are rare because they are only needed in extreme circumstances, such as severe fetal abnormalities, life-threatening maternal health problems, or very desperate social situations. This makes restrictions on late abortion counter-productive and wrong because they obstruct access to critical medical care for the most vulnerable women, and put an official stamp of moral disapproval on those women and the doctors who help them. The natural limiting factors for late abortions in Canada are the very low need, and the tiny number of providers trained, willing, and equipped to do such procedures. It won’t be any different in the UK. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Wendy D Savage, Retired Senior Lecturer in O&G Hon Professor Middlesex University N1 8HN
Send response to journal:
|
I agree with Richard Lyus that viability is irrelevant and and with David Paintin that the woman should make her own decision about whether or not to continue with a pregnancy. Women do not take these decisions lightly and the majority are well aware of the alternatives before they even approach their GP. In my experience, in practice women do not request abortion after 26 weeks unless a fetal anomaly has been diagnosed late. The Canadian experience shows that given easier access the proportion of late abortions is low and the rate is not excessive, so one does not need a law to restrict women's access to abortion. As Diane Munday pointed out at the recent Doctors for a Woman's Choice on Abortion (DWCA) conference to commemorate the 1967 Act, between 1968 and 1990 there was no limit on abortion in Scotland as the Infant Life Preservation Act did not apply yet abortions over 24 weeks were not performed. It is time for the pro-choice movement to set the agenda for the abortion debate rather than responding to anti-abortion tactics to restrict abortion by concentrating on issues that play upon the emotions of women and the public. Firstly the Act should be extended to Northern Ireland so that the over 1500 women a year that we know about do not have to travel to the mainland to have an abortion which is legally available in the rest of the UK. Secondly we should press for abortion to be treated like any other operation so that the woman makes the decision after being fully informed of the facts in an unbiased way by her doctor or a specially trained nurse or midwife. Competing interests: I started an abortion service in New Zealand in a public hospital in 1974 and then provided abortions on the NHS when I returned to UK in 1976 until I retired in 2000. I was a trustee of the Pregnancy Advisory Service until 1996 and Press Officer/Co-odinator of Doctors for a Woman's Choice on Abortion from 1976 to the present time. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Geraldine Foley Barrister, Barrister Republic of Ireland
Send response to journal:
|
Wendy Savage states; "Firstly the Act should be extended to Northern Ireland so that the over 1500 women a year that we know about do not have to travel to the mainland to have an abortion which is legally available in the rest of the UK." On the 22nd October 2007 the Norths Assembly voted by a large majority to reject proposed abortion guidelines and resist any attempt to liberalise the law in the North of Ireland. Every political party accepted that there was no public will to introduce abortion into the North of Ireland. On what grounds does Ms Savage propose to support her assertion that the democratic will of the people of the North of Ireland should be overruled? The words "mainland" and "rest of the UK" are also politically sensitive. There is something of a dispute ongoing in Ireland regarding this which I need not go into. Any attack on the legal protection we demmand for our Unborn Children will,I suspect, be met fiercely by Catholic and Protestant people both North and South of our country. Competing interests: Association of Catholic Lawyers of Ireland |
|||