Vive La France!

[denso13]

I love how the forum trolls try to find every scrap of information to prove their case except the actual statute.

What if, in the opinion of two registered medical practitioners, the criteria in the actual statute are not met?

I can answer it if you'd prefer? Like you said it's very clear and easy to understand?

 

[noseall]

A separate piece of law that has nothing to do with the exemption from the offences against the person act.

You are now referring to the abortion regulations act.

The Abortion Regulations 1991

These Regulations (which extend to England and Wales) are made under section 2 of the Abortion Act 1967, and replace the Abortion Regulations 1968 and the three sets of amending regulations. These Regulations make new provision to take account in particular of the amendments to the Abortion Act...

www.legislation.gov.uk

91.

I think we have to understand this in its historical context. Abortion is quite unique because under the Offences Against the Person Act abortion is still illegal in this country, which means that if you commit an illegal abortion you can go to prison for 14 years. The reason there are two doctors in the Act has nothing to do with medicine or safety but everything to do with legality.[115]

OOF!

 

[noseall]

Select committee report

Parliament - Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland[d] is the supreme legislative body

Legislative body - A legislature is a deliberative assembly with the legal authority to make laws for a political entity such as a country, nation or city.

A page from the institution that writes passes and amends UK law Go to 84

 

[denso13]

Nothing in the abortion act exemptions is dependent on the doctors completing their paperwork.

 

[noseall]

Select committee report

You should read 85 too.

 

[denso13]

What if none of the criteria apply? Also, certify? Like, approve? Surely not.

 

[noseall]

What if none of the criteria apply? Also, certify? Like, approve? Surely not.

View attachment 337025


View attachment 337026

Even the fellas that write the law are saying approve......

Seems it's only MBK that is in denial.

84. The Abortion Act 1967 requires that an abortion under ground A to E is certified by two doctors, who must each sign a Department of Health HSA 1 form to give notification that the abortion has been approved and on what grounds, and an HSA 4 form for information including patient details, the method of abortion and gestation time.

85. A range of explanations have been given for the introduction of the requirement for two doctors' signatures:

• to ensure that the provisions in the legislation were being observed ;[96]
• to protect women;[97]
• to protect doctors from breaking the law ;[98]
• to demonstrate the medico-legal concerns of Parliament, namely that the 1967 Act did not make abortion legal but conferred upon doctors a defence against illegality—the two doctors are expected to police each other; [99]
• to show the seriousness of the decision to terminate; [100] and
• to appease the pro-life lobby. [10

 

[JonathanM]

WRONG.

I actually believe MBK is correct on this technical point.

Say two doctors both consider a woman's case and conclude that the requirements for abortion are met. But one of the doctors forgets to complete the HSA1. And then the abortion goes ahead anyway. There has been no offence committed under the Offences Against the Person Act.

The penalty instead is under s2 of the Abortion Act and is much less harsh, and only if it willful.

Any person who wilfully contravenes or wilfully fails to comply with the requirements of regulations under subsection (1) of this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding [F5level 5 on the standard scale].

 

[denso13]

Say two doctors both consider a woman's case and conclude that the requirements for abortion are met

What if they decide the requirements aren't met? MBK refuses to answer this.

 

[Justin Passing]

INteresting about "most abortions" -
93. We received submissions arguing that the need for two doctors signatures was superfluous since one of the grounds(C) was always met, at least in the first trimester. Most abortions in the UK take place under ground C: that "the pregnancy has not exceeded its twenty-fourth week and the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman".

I think we can assume that in the vast majority of cases the 'continuance of the pregnancy' wouldn't involve physical injury, so the abortions take place on mental health grounds. If no professional psychiatric opinion is is involved then it seems the woman saying perhaps that
"it would do my head in"
becomes sufficient grounds.
Nothing about the future health of the child, which I find surprising.

 

[JonathanM]

What if they decide the requirements aren't met. MBK refuses to answer this.

I've noticed him being asked this a lot. I don't actually understand what it proves, though. Surely what happens is that those particular doctors don't sign the certificate. It feels like some sort of trap, but I can't see as to what end?

 

[noseall]

Nothing about the future health of the child, which I find surprising.

What child?

 

[Justin Passing]

What child?

The one which would be born if the pregnancy continued.
There is reference in the earlier document to "other chldren" but there's no requirement that I've seen that the two doctors would necessarily know anything about that.
Further, they aren't required to have any psychiatric expertise above the minumum for someone to be called a "Doctor", so they aren't ideally equipped to judge about future mental health, specifically the "doing in of the head" of the mother.
That suggests to me that whoever wrote "mental health" did it for a hand waving purpose, to allow mum's wishes to be sufficient.

So as I see it, if the doctor(s) find no medical reason not to have an abortion, off she goes and the foetus gets mashed. Dancing about trying to determine legality other than from their "ok"s seems unecessary.

 

[noseall]

I actually believe MBK is correct on this technical point.

But wrong on just about everything else, lol.

What technical point are you referring to? If the form is incorrectly filled in it gets sent back and requested to be filled in properly...?

currently, around 10% of paper HSA4 forms received are returned to registered medical practitioners because of missing, incomplete or invalid data. The main errors that occur are missing doctors’ names on page 1, and missing gestation and missing ground information, both on page 4. Incomplete forms will be returned to either the practitioner terminating the pregnancy or to the place of termination. If an amended form is not returned within 6 weeks, reminders will be sent until the information is received. Incomplete forms generate additional work for those completing the forms and for those who process them on behalf of the CMO. Therefore, you must ensure that all information is entered accurately.

 

[denso13]

I don't actually understand what it proves, though

The whole crux of the argument is whether approval is required. MBK says no, the word approval isn't mentioned in the act. Others say that without the criteria being met a doctor (registered medical practitioner) cannot sign it off, as they are required to do. They would argue that is de facto approval, or not, as the case may be.

If the criteria are met it is signed off (approved), if the criteria are not met it isn't signed off (not approved).