In reality, the second signature is a formality. Many in the medical profession view it as an archaic remnant that is of little practical relevance. The second signature has its roots in the social mores of the time that the legislation was written: it was introduced as a way of reassuring those wary of legalising abortions that there would be adequate checks and not “abortion on demand”.
So doctors have to agree that an abortion is “warranted”. But this term is so loose as to be meaningless and has, in effect, resulted in abortions given on demand anyway, because any woman can claim mental distress if it is not granted.
However, while much has been written about doctors breaking the law, it is far from clear how they did so. Doctors are legally allowed to sign the form without having seen or examined the woman in question, a fact made clear on the form itself. I’m sure it was originally intended for the second doctor to have assessed the woman, but all they are required to do is satisfy themselves that they have a thorough understanding of the woman’s condition.
Of course, not all the doctors in the current case could have satisfied themselves of this – some had signed so many of the forms in advance that they were still being used even after the doctor had stopped working at the clinic. But in general, doctors rely on information gathered from the medical team, such as nurses or counsellors, and sign the form in good faith. I’m not convinced that this is in the spirit of the law, but it’s not in clear breach of it either. Still, no one seems to know for sure, and I believe this is the real reason why the CPS has not pursued criminal action.
My concern is that the confusion surrounding the way abortion legislation is interpreted not only undermines the legal system and the integrity of the medical profession, but also provides ammunition for opponents of abortion who argue for even tighter rules and restrictions.
They rightly point out that the current legislation is not working, that doctors are riding roughshod over the regulations in place. And for those who want to ensure that all women have access to safe, legal abortion services, this should be worrying.
In the US, there is a growing threat to a woman’s right to choose and we shouldn’t be complacent and think the same couldn’t happen here. We need clarity. The current legislation is outdated, paternalistic and vague.
It is a remnant of history and urgently needs updating.
Jamie’s call to ban junk food outlets
Jamie Oliver with his wife Jools and their four children
Jamie Oliver, the chef, has demanded a crackdown on fast-food outlets near to schools to combat childhood obesity. “I find it completely crazy that we do all this hard work in one part of government, while at the same time you’ve got other parts of government locally and nationally that are still allowing any old junk food operator to open up within spitting distance of a school,” he said. “That, to me, is madness.”
I quite agree with him. The problem, though, is not only that children have access to junk food near their schools – and I’m not sure that closing down every sweet shop would be very practical – but also that they are often served it at home by their parents.
This is a far trickier issue. When I worked in child mental health, I was horrified by the number of parents who genuinely thought that serving a plate of chips to their children was an appropriate evening meal.
For these children, it’s not the vicinity of the local kebab shop to the playground that’s the problem. The damage is being done sitting at home.
There shouldn’t be the need to use cancer victims’ organs
People are now so desperate for donor organs that, according to a report published last week from an advisory committee to the Department of Health, organs from patients who have died from cancer should now be transplanted. This is despite several documented cases of the organ recipient dying as a result of this practice.
The report said that donors with active cancer in the blood should never be used, along with patients whose cancer has spread to the brain. However, in most other cases, the risk of cancer transmission must be weighed against the risk of dying while waiting for another potential donor.
How tragic that there is such a shortage that people are having to consider going to such extremes. A thousand people die every year
waiting for an organ. In the face of such desperation,
surely the rational response is to join the organ donation register (organdonation.nhs.uk) and carry a donor card.
Max Pemberton’s latest book, ‘The Doctor Will See You Now’, is published by Hodder. To order a copy, call Telegraph Books on 0844 871 1515
Another chance to rewrite the law on abortion
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder