RT Article
T1 Ethics briefing
JF Journal of medical ethics
VO 47
IS 12
SP 843
OP 844
A1 Norcliffe-Brown, Dominic
A1 Brannan, Sophie
A1 Davies, Martin
A1 English, Veronica
A1 Harrison, Caroline Ann
A1 Sheather, C.
A2 Brannan, Sophie
A2 Davies, Martin
A2 English, Veronica
A2 Harrison, Caroline Ann
A2 Sheather, C.
LA English
YR 2021
UL https://ixtheo.de/Record/1816166324
AB Challenge to the abortion act 1967 dismissedIn September, the High Court dismissed a judicial review of the Abortion Act 1967 that sought a judgement of incompatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).1 The case focused on a clause in the Act which permits abortion in England, Scotland and Wales after 24 weeks if there is a substantial risk that, if the child were born, it would suffer from ‘such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped’. The case was brought by three parties: Heidi Crowter, a 24 year old woman living independently with Downs Syndrome (DS) and a campaigner for disability rights; a 2 year old boy with DS; and his mother who, when pregnant with him, felt pressure to terminate the pregnancy.The claimants sought a declaration that the clause was incompatible with the right to life; freedom from torture, inhuman or degrading treatment; right to private and family life; and protection from discrimination. Further to this it was also argued that the Act does not permit abortion on the basis that an unborn child has been diagnosed with a non-fatal fetal disability such as DS and that such abortions should not be funded by the state.In dismissing the claim, the judges focused on the ‘margin of appreciation’ that the European law allows domestic states on this issue and the fact that a foetus has never been deemed to have personhood status under the ECHR. The judges noted the ability to provide for a disabled child would vary significantly and that some conditions would only be found late in a pregnancy, after 24 weeks. Stating that the case by its nature did not permit the Court to hear from other perspectives, including women who may be affected by any change to the law and further criminalisation of abortion, the judges emphasised …
DO 10.1136/medethics-2021-107951