O&G Flashcards
Is abortion legal?
Was illegal under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (England + Wales) and by common law in Scotland. Still by default illegal (don’t say ‘abortion is legal’) but it has been decriminalised in certain circumstances:
- Must be carried out within NHS or NHS approved facility
- Unless an emergency (in which case, no documentation), 2 registered medical practitioners (doctors), acting in good faith must sign off documents to indicate that an abortion is justified within the Abortion Act
Good faith: doctor not dishonest or negligent in forming opinion that there are lawful grounds for procedure
No legal rights for the fetus. HRA Article 2- Right to life does not extend to the fetus
No legal rights for the biological father (Biological fathers: if view fetus as separate entity may be seen differently, if viewed as part of mothers body father having rights about decision would be seen as control over her body)
What does the abortion act say?
(1967) : amended by Human Fertilisation + Embryology Act 1990 (28 > 24)
1. Pregnancy has not exceeded 24 weeks + continuing pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if pregnancy were terminated, of injury to physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or any existing children of her family (most abortions; ‘social’)
Up to term:
2. That the termination is necessary to prevent grave permanent injury that the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman
- That the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk to life of pregnant woman, greater than if pregnancy were terminated
- That 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
o Note: this criteria can be decided by any doctor doesn’t have to be O&G
Criticisms of the abortion act?
Potentially disadvantaged if poor health literacy – ability to explain reasons why abortion is wanted and push forward to seek second opinion
Legal to terminate a pregnancy because of a woman’s social or financial circumstances (e.g. income, housing situation, her support network). The law bestows upon doctors a gatekeeping role in terms of deciding who may have an abortion. ‘Social abortion’ – the current criteria are supposed to be medical criteria. Do doctors have right to determine social criteria?
Lots of guidelines are open to interpretation: no right to abortion on demand illustrated in 3 ways. First, law makes very clear that the decision rests with 2 doctors, according to their own judgement about the impact of abortion vs childbirth on the woman’s physical or mental health. Second, on the question of the woman’s social circumstances, the law does not state that doctors ‘must’ take account of a woman’s environment, but that they ‘may’ do so. This means that doctors are not compelled to take these broader factors into account.
Last act: disablist act? RCOG: not practicable to give definition of serious disability – difficult to predict and should be based on discuss with parents
- ?Legal vs social law
Termination on grounds of fetal sex?
‘Abortion on the grounds of fetal sex is illegal’
- DOH guidance 2014: abortion on the grounds of gender alone is illegal. Some people have campaigned for the law to be changed to include an explicit statement on this.
o Giving other reasons about how the sex of the baby will affect you makes it legal; X-linked recessive disease
o Doctors must know details of case in order to sign in good faith
- Telegraph sting > director of public prosecutions > GMC referral, 3 month suspension
- Directing to abortions abroad for fetal sex termination
Arguments for TOP?
Women should have the right to choose what happens to their bodies (right of bodily integrity)
Autonomy of the mother outweighs the rights of the fetus/ fetus has no automatic right of use of a women’s body
Most people would choose to save the right of a woman over a fetus. Therefore women’s rights trump the rights/interests of a fetus
Mother is the patient and has ‘contract’ with doctor / duty of care;
In the best interests of the mother
> socio-economic factors
> ability to care for the baby
Arguments against abortion?
Rights to the fetus & the sanctity of life
No moral difference between a fetus and a child
Morally significant point is conception: Wrong to kill a (innocent) human being, fetus is a (innocent) human being , therefore it is wrong to kill a fetus (abortion means murder)
- Religious/other reasons see life as from conception (pro-life arguments suggest that fetus have the right to life)
- If the pregnancy was due to sexual assault (not their choice)
- May not in the best interests of the baby (medical reasons)
What is the personhood argument?
Potentiality?
Only ‘persons’ can claim rights – therefore, what is a person?
- Someone who can make choices and is self-aware, conception of future and evaluate past experiences: foetus cannot claim right to life, but neither can patients in permanent vegetative states and neonates: but surely these patients are the ones requiring protection?
- Concept of potentiality: potential human being; wrong to kill potential human being. Foetus at later gestation has higher probability of becoming a person capable of independent life; however egg and sperm also have this potential – could be an argument against contraception – we don’t usually allocate rights + status according to potential
- When does moral status begin? Moral right at point of viability: however termination up to 24 weeks, some foetuses now surviving at 22 weeks?
o Viability depends on technology so not ethical principle-differs depending on geography. If viability is at 6 months somewhere in the world is it ok to go there and have an abortion?)
o If moral status starts at consciousness / pleasure / pain – how can we measure this? Social meanings? (Nadine Dorries – 21 weeks) - Conception > nervous system > viability? More consensus for the gradualist approach (the further on in the pregnancy the more uncomfortable people feel)
What is the notification system for abortions?
Issues with this
Abortion Notification to Chief Medical Officer (for statistics)
- HSA4: includes doctor + patient details; grounds for abortion type
- HSA1 kept on patient’s record for 3 years
Confidentiality GMC 2017: not absolute can be breached in following circumstances
- Patient consents
- Overall benefit to patient (when patient lacks capacity)
- Required by law
- Justifiable in public interest
- *Doctors have a statutory duty to report FGM (Young person under 18- may not be in their best interests), Some infectious diseases, Court request/GMC, Can breach a patients confidence in the interest of the public (public can mean just one person)
Issues: abortion not like a notifiable disease, why must they know the women’s names?
Statistics on abortion?
2016 DOH abortion statistics
(A-E in statistics (A divided into 2 on forms))
- 190,406 abortions in 2016, slightly lower than in 2015 (191,014); (2017: 194,681)
• Rate was highest for women at the age of 22
• 98% funded by NHS, 68% of these independent sector under NHS contract
• 92% per cent under 13/40
• 81% under 10/40
• 2% under ground E (risk of serious handicap)
What is the law on abortion in NI / ROI?
Law in NI
- Medical abortions are legal up to 9 weeks; only if threat to the life of the woman or risk of serious adverse effect on her health, which is either long term or permanent
- Ireland 2018 referendum: ROI now legal up to 12 weeks
What is conscientious objection?
Arguments against it?
Not wanting to do act as do not agree (fertility treatment, contraception, abortion)
Should be allowed to object to ANY procedure/Tx on basis of moral/religious reasons?
o Trained by public money
o Should act within our limitations
o More closely aligned the ethical values are to goals and values in medicine the more we might support the CO e.g. enhancing dignity, relieving suffering, saving life, respecting patient’s choices.
o Duty as a doctor outweighs one’s own beliefs: doesn’t comply with duty to put patient first (and act in their best interests) and harks back to paternalism.
GMC Guidance on conscientious objection?
Good medical practice 2013
- You may choose to opt out of providing a particular procedure because of your personal beliefs and values
- As long as it does not result in direct or indirect discrimination against, or harassment of individual patients or groups of patients
- You must not refuse to treat a patient/group of patients because of your personal beliefs or views about them
- You must not refuse to Tx the health consequences of lifestyle choices to which you object because of your beliefs
BMA: Doctors should have the right to CO to participation in abortion, fertility treatment and withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment, where another doctor is willing to take over the patient’s care. Doctors should not claim a CO to particular patients or groups of patients
CO to treatment or procedure: Actions according to GMC guidelines
- Tell the patient that you do not provide the particular Tx or procedure, being careful not to cause distress, you may mention the reason for your objection (be careful not to imply judgement of the patient)
- Tell the patient they have the right to discuss their condition and make sure the patient can see another doctor who does not hold the same objection as you
Outline CO in relation to abortion
- Doctors can conscientiously object* to abortion but they still have a duty to participate in Tx which is necessary to save the life or prevent grave permanent injury to a woman
- Any doctor/nurse with a CO must refer her to another doctor without delay
- Role of nurses in providing abortion services was examined by the supreme court which ruled that a nurse does not have the right to avoid supervising other nurses involved in abortion procedures (Supreme Court; must be ‘hands-on’ procedure)
Summary:
Doctors may practice medicine in accordance with their beliefs, provided that they act in accordance with relevant legislation and:
- Do not treat patients unfairly
- Do not deny patients access to appropriate medical treatment or services
- Do not cause distress
If any of these circumstances is likely to arise, we as doctors are to provide effective care, advice or support in line with Good medical practice, whatever their personal beliefs.
Should women be held to account morally or legally if their lifestyles/activities cause potential harm to a fetus?
- Could argue fetus has interests but not rights, when to justify restricting woman’s liberty, removing children from parents for neglect – high threshold
Legal status is only acquired when child is born therefore unborn child has no rights until birth. Mother cannot be sued in negligence for harm caused in utero unless harm occurred as a result of a road traffic accident where insurance would fund a claim for compensation
Foetal alcohol syndrome case (court of appeal 2014): Section 23 Offence against the Person Act – unlawful to administer to any other person any noxious agent to inflict grievous bodily harm – foetus not believed to person at the time. If case won: suggests that foetus + mother as separate entities rather than part of mothers body – would also damage relationship between mother and healthcare professionals.
Congenital Disabilities (Civil Liability) Act 1976 – enables child once born to make a compensation claim for disabilities occurring before birth as a result of breach of duty owed to one of his parents
“Wrongful life” claim is one made by a child alleging that but for the negligence of doctor would not be born because mother was deprived of choice not to continue with pregnancy > English Law does not recognise claim for wrongful life as impossible to compare life of poor quality to no life at all
- Moral issues
- Women’s autonomy
- Cannot restrict a woman’s behaviour/activity without grey areas
Screening in obstetrics?
Infections (HIV, Hep B, syphilis, ?rubella) and Rhesus
Anomaly screen 20-22 weeks (congenital defects)
Trisomy screening: T21, Edwards (high mortality at birth) bonding with pregnancy and preparation
- *Harmony test-privately available (not 100% sensitive): ~99% look at book for more info
- Can be seen as a disablist argument- having down’s unacceptable by screening for it and is effectively eugenic