Abortion and Reproductive Rights Flashcards
what was the ratio in - St Goerge Healthcare Trust [1998]
If P has mental capacity their autonomy must be respected regardless of the impact on the foetus
What was held in - St Goerge Healthcare Trust [1998]
as P had capacity forcing her to have a C section against her wishes regardless it may result in the foetus death was a violation
what was the ratio in - R (on the application of SPUC)
There is a legal distinction between plan B and an abortion
Can medical treatment be forced on someone with capacity under any circumstances?
NOOOOOOO
what was held in - Paton [1971]
As a foetus doesn’t yet have a ‘seperate existence from its mother’, abortion doesn’t violation ECHR art 2 (right to life)
when does a foetus develop rights at law
at the point of ‘seperate existence from its mother’ (Paton 1971)
what was the ratio in - A, B and C v Ireland (2011)
ECHR art 8 (right to privacy and family life) imposes no right to abortion just a right to seek an abortion
what was held in - A, B and C v Ireland (2011)
although all three applicants had the right to seek abortion it did not violate ECHR art 8 (right to privacy and family life) to refuse 2/3 applicants on the basis there condition was not severe enough as there is no right to receive an abortion
is there a right to receive an abortion in UK law?
no, only the right to seek an abortion (A, B and C v Ireland 2011)
what was held in - Paton 1980
although it is a violation of a mans ECHR art 8 (right to family) to force him to become a father against his wishes, it would be a more significant violation of the mother of the unborn Childs ECHR art 8 right to force her to have an abortion thus revoking her autonomy
what was held in - Evans v The UK
was a violation of the mans art 8, right to family and privacy, to use his sperm without his consent outweighed the violation of the woman’s ECHR art 8 right even though this was her last chance to have children
OAPA 1861
offence against the person act 1967
OAPA s58
unlawful to procure your own miscarriage
OAPA s59
Unlawful to assist anyone to procure their own miscarriage
AA 1967
Abortion ACT
AA s1(1)(a)
s58 and s59 defence if the abortion is performed by a ‘registered medical practitioner’ on a foetus of up to 24 weeks and the pregnancy is deemed to be a ‘greater risk’ to the mother than if it was to continue
OAPA s1(1)(b)
defence to OAPA s58 and s59 for an abortion of a foetus after 24 weeks if theres a ‘risk of grave permanent injury’ physical or mental to the pregnant woman
OAPA s1(1)(c)
Defence of s58 and s59 for an abortion of a foetus after 24 weeks if there is a ‘risk to the life’ of the pregnant woman
what was held in - Clair Pierson (2023)
was murder and an offence under OAPA s58 for a woman to use drugs to procure her own abortion
What was held in - Montgomery (2023)
The AA doesnt provide a right to an abortion , meerly it provides a right to seek an abortion
What was held in - Dr Bourne’s Case
OAPA s59 offence of helping a 14 year old rape victim have an abortion was defensible under the AA as the abortion was essential for ‘preserving the life of the mother’
AA s1(1)(d)
OAPA s58 and s59 defence to abort a foetus up to 28 weeks if there is a ‘substantial risk’ the child will be ‘severely` handicapped’
What was held in - Jepson v Chief Constable [2003]
AA s1(1)(d) defence to OAPA s59 was available to a doctor abortion a child with a clef pallet
what was held in - Crowter
it would violate a woman’s autonomy to prevent an AA s1(1)(d) abortion for sever handicap more than it would infringe on any ECHR or UNCRPD rights to equality
under what circumstances can you get an abortion up to 24 weeks
any circumstance in which the risk to the mother, mental or physical is greater than if she were to not have the child (AA s1(1)(a))
although there is no right to have an abortion, only to seek one, there has been no cases so far where it has been held the risk is not great enough for an abortion
under what circumstances can a mother have an abortion after 24 weeks (3 circumstances)
risk of physical or mental ‘grave permanent injury’ to the mother (AA s1(1)(b))
risk to the mothers life (AA s1(1)(c))
serious risk of the child being born with physical or mental handicaps (AA s1(1)(d))
AA s4
conscientious objection clause - healthcare professionals have no duty to preform an abortion if they have a conscientious objection to the practice
what was held in - Doogan [2014]
can conscientiously object to engaging in the procedure of an abortion but cannot refuse to engage with all the other elements of an abortion P’s care such as the admin work
what are the limits of conscientious objection?
can conscientiously object to performing or assisting in the performance of an abortion, but cannot refuse to engage with the P and other elements of their care completely.
The objection is limited to the procedure itself
HFEA 2008
Huamn Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008
HFEA 2008 s3
criminal offence to create or store a human embryo without a license
HFEA s4
prohibition on storing or using gamets without a license with the exception of fresh donor sperm
HFEA s13(5)
welfare clause - in deciding if IVF should be administered the future welfare of the child should be considered
what happened in - Mellor [2001]
due to the nature of prison and the fact that congeal visits are not UK standard it was held to be a permissable infringement on ECHR art 8, right to family,
What happened in - Dickson [2007]
held that it would violate ECHR art 8, right to family, to deny a prisoner the right to make a sperm donation as his wife wouldn’t be able to naturally conceive when he would be released
what happened in - Rose v Secretary of State
held ECHR art 8, right to family, supported the imposition of the policy that any child born after 2003 when they turn 18 has the right to acquire information about their birth parents, however art 8 doesn’t support the right to a relationship with such biological parents
is there a right to know who your biological parents are
every child born after 2003 has the right when they turn 18 to request information re their biological parents, however, there is no right to a relationship with these people
HFEA regulations 2024 r2(3)
HFEA will provide biological parent information upon request
HFEA schedule 3
clear consent in required for donor gamet use
Blood [1997]
was an offence to retrieve her husbands gamets whilst he was in a coma but not an offence to transport his gamets internationally to receive IVF services, to restrict her from doing such would be an infringements of her rights under the treaty of the articles of Rome
what happened in - Ted Jennings (2022)
surrogate was able to have a deceased woman’s eggs implanted without her express consent as there was sufficient evidence that before her death she intended to start a family
can donor gamets be used without consent
only if the gamets were collected prior to death and there is clear evidence that prior to death the deceased intended to use them
