Vive La France!

This is the bit where, I believe, people are getting confused.

You have to go back and look at where the offence comes from. It is found in s58 of the Offences Against the Person Act. Then S1 of the Abortion Act goes on to say:



The important issue, from my reading of the Act, is that it is the reaching of that opinion which negates the offence under the Offences Against the Person Act. Not the writing it down on form HSA1. There may be another offence committed of going ahead with an abortion without an HSA1. I haven't seen this anywhere. There may be professional misconduct. But it is not an illegal abortion, as far as I can see. It's a pretty short piece of legislation and not that complicated. I am sure I am correct here.
OK, if I agree, , er, so what? The abortionist would't knowingly do the operation so the situation wouldn't arise.
If you want to argue what would be the status if the abortionist had met both doctors who'd agreed verbally but they hadn't yet signed - pretty pointless isn't it?

What shall we argue about next?
What would happen if your dick turned green but only in the dark? ?
 
Sponsored Links
OK, if I agree, , er, so what? The abortionist would't knowingly do the operation so the situation wouldn't arise.
If you want to argue what would be the status if the abortionist had met both doctors who'd agreed verbally but they hadn't yet signed - pretty pointless isn't it?

What shall we argue about next?
What would happen if your dick turned green but only in the dark? ?

It is often helpful to look at unlikely hypotheticals in order to elucidate a legal principle. I was simply trying to clarify one bit of the law where the discussion seemed to be going around in circles. But now I've gone and stuck my big foot in it, I should try to tidy things up to the best of my understanding before going to bed.

When people talk about an "illegal abortion", they mean the crime under s58 of the Offences Against the Person Act, which carries a maximum life sentence.

So, to expand on my earlier example. Say we have the situation where two doctors independently reach the opinion that the grounds for abortion are made out. They both make comprehensive notes, recording their opinions, and that they have made these opinions in good faith. A third doctor, who is due to carry out the abortion, reads these notes. But only one of the doctors has completed and signed the HSA1. For some reason, the third doctor doesn't notice and goes ahead with the abortion anyway.

Now that is extraordinarily careless. But has that doctor actually carried out an illegal abortion under s58 of the Offences Against the Person Act?

S1 of the Abortion Act says:

Subject to the provisions of this section, a person shall not be guilty of an offence under the law relating to abortion when a pregnancy is terminated by a registered medical practitioner if two registered medical practitioners are of the opinion, formed in good faith [etc.]

The third doctor is aware that the other two doctors have reached an opinion, made in good faith, that the grounds are made out, because he has read the comprehensive notes. Therefore, it seems clear to me that he has not carried out an illegal abortion under s58 of the Offences Against the Person Act.

S2 of the Abortion Act is the one that deals with the requirement to complete and sign forms. It does not state anywhere in S2 that failure to complete the forms makes the abortion illegal under s58 of the Offences Against the Person Act. It does, however, state that if the forms are wilfully not completed, then that is a separate, albeit more minor offence.

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 level 5 on the standard scale.

Level 5 is a high level fine, in fact I think it is unlimited. But it is obviously not as serious as facing life in prison.

So where does that leave the three doctors?

The doctor who carried out the abortion does not seem to have committed any criminal offence, but he might get struck off for negligence.

The doctor who completed and signed the HSA1 has done nothing wrong.

The doctor who didn't complete the HSA1 may be guilty of a crime under S2 of the Abortion Act, if he failed to complete it on purpose. If he has just been careless then there has been no crime. But he might be disciplined.

One final thing. An "illegal abortion" is a well understood term which covers an offence under s58 of the Offences Against the Person Act. It is different from an otherwise legal abortion where an additional requirement, such as completing a form, has not been met.

Anyway, that is my best attempt to explain this. I welcome any discussion!

 
So tell me what would happen in the situation where two doctors reach the opinion that the grounds for abortion are made out. They both write this down in their notes which are read by a third doctor who carries out the abortion.
The HSA1 form is also part of this process, which you are forgetting. It is a pre-abortion requisite, which will be forwarded to the relevant people and the people dealing with the abortion. The third doctor will have jumped the gun and will be acting unlawfully, in terms of the Act.
 
Sponsored Links
The important issue, from my reading of the Act, is that it is the reaching of that opinion which negates the offence under the Offences Against the Person Act. Not the writing it down on form HSA1. There may be another offence committed of going ahead with an abortion without an HSA1. I haven't seen this anywhere. There may be professional misconduct. But it is not an illegal abortion, as far as I can see. It's a pretty short piece of legislation and not that complicated. I am sure I am correct here.
Read 86

It is basically saying some unscrupulous doctors are possibly bypassing the 'opinion' stage and going on to sign the form in any case. Making a mockery of the 'in good faith' procedure. No HSA1 form, no abortion. It still needs the approval of the two doctors and the form to proceed and illustrates the importance of the form over everything else.

In filling the form it states...
  • 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]
 
Last edited:
It is often helpful to look at unlikely hypotheticals in order to elucidate a legal principle. I was simply trying to clarify one bit of the law where the discussion seemed to be going around in circles. But now I've gone and stuck my big foot in it, I should try to tidy things up to the best of my understanding before going to bed.

When people talk about an "illegal abortion", they mean the crime under s58 of the Offences Against the Person Act, which carries a maximum life sentence.

So, to expand on my earlier example. Say we have the situation where two doctors independently reach the opinion that the grounds for abortion are made out. They both make comprehensive notes, recording their opinions, and that they have made these opinions in good faith. A third doctor, who is due to carry out the abortion, reads these notes. But only one of the doctors has completed and signed the HSA1. For some reason, the third doctor doesn't notice and goes ahead with the abortion anyway.

Now that is extraordinarily careless. But has that doctor actually carried out an illegal abortion under s58 of the Offences Against the Person Act?

S1 of the Abortion Act says:



The third doctor is aware that the other two doctors have reached an opinion, made in good faith, that the grounds are made out, because he has read the comprehensive notes. Therefore, it seems clear to me that he has not carried out an illegal abortion under s58 of the Offences Against the Person Act.

S2 of the Abortion Act is the one that deals with the requirement to complete and sign forms. It does not state anywhere in S2 that failure to complete the forms makes the abortion illegal under s58 of the Offences Against the Person Act. It does, however, state that if the forms are wilfully not completed, then that is a separate, albeit more minor offence.



Level 5 is a high level fine, in fact I think it is unlimited. But it is obviously not as serious as facing life in prison.

So where does that leave the three doctors?

The doctor who carried out the abortion does not seem to have committed any criminal offence, but he might get struck off for negligence.

The doctor who completed and signed the HSA1 has done nothing wrong.

The doctor who didn't complete the HSA1 may be guilty of a crime under S2 of the Abortion Act, if he failed to complete it on purpose. If he has just been careless then there has been no crime. But he might be disciplined.

One final thing. An "illegal abortion" is a well understood term which covers an offence under s58 of the Offences Against the Person Act. It is different from an otherwise legal abortion where an additional requirement, such as completing a form, has not been met.

Anyway, that is my best attempt to explain this. I welcome any discussion!

What you are also forgetting and the crux of the argument is MBK repeatedly insisted that two doctors was not necessary nor the the forms (HSA1/2/3/4 etc) signing off. He was also attempting to insist it was not 'approval', which it clearly is and states it right there in paragraph 84.

Reading this contradicts every sing word he has written since page 30.

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.

The rest of the report is interesting too, and corroborates the importance of the form and the signatures over everything else.
 
Last edited:
You don't have much respect for women do you.
A heck of a lot more than you do boyo. You lot disgust me.

157. in countries where abortion is illegal, the health impact on women is well documented: for example, the WHO estimates that 68,000 women worldwide die each year due to complications of unsafe abortion; and Nepal recently liberalised its abortion laws, cutting maternal mortality rate from 539 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births in 2001 to 281 per 100,000 live births in 2006.[201] The fpa informed us that:

In Romania, policies restricting access to abortion led to a significant increase in maternal mortality from 20 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births in 1966 to over 100 per 100,000 in 1974 and to 150 per 100,000 in 1983. After the restrictive laws were revoked, the rate of maternal deaths fell rapidly to 40 per 100,000 live births in 1989. It is estimated that around 200,000 Romanian women died between 1966 and 1988 as a result of unsafe abortion.[202]

You still believe denying women access to abortion is a good thing?
 
F. me, that's all we need.
Another doctor.

:rolleyes:
The two doctors approval/sign-off thing is peculiar to abortion and is frowned upon by pro-abortionists for its penal restrictions.

9. According to the RCN, there is no other medical or surgical procedure that requires the signature of two doctors before it is carried out.[111] Further, Professor Sally Sheldon points out that the requirement for two doctors' signatures runs contrary to the concept of patient autonomy.[112]
 
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
1) MBK is wrong

2) strawman argument. Signing the form IS approval, what happens afterwards in terms of the kaw has no bearing on the first stage, which is the act of approval as a result of signing the form.
 
The two doctors approval/sign-off thing is peculiar to abortion and is frowned upon by pro-abortionists for its penal restrictions.

9. According to the RCN, there is no other medical or surgical procedure that requires the signature of two doctors before it is carried out.[111] Further, Professor Sally Sheldon points out that the requirement for two doctors' signatures runs contrary to the concept of patient autonomy.[112]
I'll never get the Thompson Twins tune outta my noodle at this rate...


...but y'all got hung up on this point of order while MBK has also pointed out the law is fine as it stands - whaddya wanna change?
 
I'll never get the Thompson Twins tune outta my noodle at this rate...


...but y'all got hung up on this point of order while MBK has also pointed out the law is fine as it stands - whaddya wanna change?
Nothing particularly. Whilst the two doctors approval thing is restrictive, I'm not sure just letting midwives and nurses make the decisions, would be force for good.
France made a stance against the right wing religious idiots of the world and I congratulate them for their gesture.
I'd like the UK to offer a similar gesture, thus reinforcing our acceptance of abortion.

MBK insisted on arguing with me over the two doctors thing. He got it wrong, not me....

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.

READ MORE
 
So tell me what would happen in the situation where two doctors reach the opinion that the grounds for abortion are made out. They both write this down in their notes which are read by a third doctor who carries out the abortion. But no forms are signed and the third doctor goes ahead with the abortion anyway? Is the abortion legal? What offences have been committed?

I never mind being wrong, so be as brutal as you want!
That’s a procedural breakdown, a side issue to the point being discussed.

In your scenario, abortion hasn’t been approved so the system shouldn’t have allowed a doctor to be booked for the abortion.


I’m not sure how you think there is any connection to the requirement for 2 doctors to sign and approve and what follows. Whatever follows doesn’t alter the act of approval by signing the form.
 
Nothing particularly. Whilst the two doctors approval thing is restrictive, I'm not sure just letting midwives and nurses make the decisions, would be force for good.
France made a stance against the right wing religious idiots of the world and I congratulate them for their gesture.
I'd like the UK to offer a similar gesture, thus reinforcing our acceptance of abortion.

Why?

It's already been pointed out the UK does not have a Constitution in the same vein as France and you're fine with the law as it stands - where's the beef?
 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top