Call to decriminalise abortion in UK

In an editorial in The BMJ, published today, editor in chief of BMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health, Sandy Goldbeck-Wood, on behalf of her editorial board colleagues, calls on British premier, Theresa May, to decriminalise abortion in the UK. This follows the recent decisions to liberalise abortion laws in the Republic of Ireland and the Isle of Man.

Abortion law in UK

The UK 1967 Abortion Act was introduced to provide a legal defence against the criminal law passed in 1861, but the Offences Against the Person Act remains on the statute book.

The women of Northern Ireland are the most vulnerable to this 150 years old, anachronistic piece of Victorian criminal law, because under the law in the Province allows for no defence, even in cases of rape or fatal fetal abnormalities. As a result, women who have an abortion in Northern Ireland still face a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

The UK government has argued that this is a matter for the devolved Northern Ireland Assembly, but currently these powers are being exercised from Westminster whilst the Assembly is suspended.

It is time that access to termination under the law to be made uniform for all United Kingdom citizens.

Four key arguments are presented. First, whether or not it is legal, abortion is widespread. Women are accessing medical abortion on-line despite the risks of prosecution. Secondly, contrary to original concerns, decriminalisation does not increase abortion rates. Thirdly, criminalisation impedes safety. Finally, they argue that the UK is out of step with the rest of Europe.

Law obstructs best clinical practice

Perhaps the key argument the editorial presents is that the law obstructs best clinical practice and undermines reflective decision-making across the whole of the UK and is no longer appropriate.

Instead they suggest: “Future UK law could support conscientious reflection in abortion care more effectively by guaranteeing women access to the resources they need to make the ethical and practical choices which are theirs to make and live with.”

Resources currently used to police choice and access could be reallocated to offering counselling services to women who are unsure about whether to terminate their pregnancy or who face a wider life crisis, and ensuring they get prompt access to contraception.

There widespread public and cross-party parliamentary support for decriminalisation in the UK, including in Northern Ireland.

UK government held to ransom by reliance on DUP support

However, the editorial acknowledges that Theresa May’s slim parliamentary majority depends on the support of Democratic and Unionist Party (DUP) MPs, who have threatened “consequences” if Mrs May were to offer her party a free vote on the matter.

Nevertheless, the editorial calls on the prime minister to "seize the moment" to “champion evidence based reform of an outdated, ineffective and unpopular law, with the backing of health professionals and public opinion in Great Britain and Northern Ireland”.

Act of political courage

As the authors say: “To do so, despite the threats against her, would be a memorable act of courage and leadership.”

Report by: Ray Noble

Subscribe to The Thin End

Follow @Ray_Noble1

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'. The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba...

Ethical considerations of a National DNA database.

Plans for a national DNA database will be revealed by the Prime Minister this week. This is the same proposal the Tories and Liberal Democrats opposed when presented by the Blair government because they argued it posed a threat to civil liberties. This time it is expected to offer an 'opt-out' clause for those who do not wish their data to be stored; exactly how this would operate isn't yet clear. But does it matter and does it really pose a threat to civil liberties? When it comes to biology and ethics we tend to have a distorted view of DNA and genetics. This is for two reasons. The first is that it is thought that our genome somehow represents the individual as a code that then gets translated. This is biologically speaking wrong. DNA is a template and part of the machinery for making proteins. It isn't a code in anything like the sense of being a 'blueprint' or 'book of life'. Although these metaphors are used often they are just that, metapho...

The unethical language of 'welfare dependency'

It is unethical to stigmatise people without foundation. Creating a stereotype, a generalised brand, in order to demonize a group regardless of the individual and without regard for the potential harm it may do is unfair and prejudicial. It is one reason, and a major one, why racism is unethical; it fails to give a fair consideration of interest to a group of people simply because they are branded in this way. They are not worthy of equal consideration because they are different. It seeks also to influence the attitudes of others to those stereotyped. If I said 'the Irish are lazy'; you would rightly respond that this is a ridiculous and unfounded stereotype. It brands all Irish on the basis of a prejudice. It is harmful certainly; but it is worse if I intend it to be harmful. If I intend to influence the attitude of others. And so it is with 'the unemployed'. All I need do is substitute 'work-shy' and use it in an injudicious way; to imply that it applies to...

The Thin End

Search This Blog