| Literature DB >> 11642779 |
Abstract
Jansen expresses concern as to the legal implications of both selective reduction of pregnancy and unsuccessful attempts at termination of pregnancy using mifepristone. This commentary examines the legality of both procedures and concludes that Jansen is over-optimistic in his belief that neither procedure is likely to fall foul of the criminal laws on induced abortion. By contrast his anxieties about civil liability arising from the subsequent live birth of a damaged infant are, it is suggested, unnecessarily pessimistic. Such an action is most unlikely to succeed if brought by the infant herself and any claim on the part of the mother will normally be dependent on proof of negligence. The commentary focusses on the law in England with relevant references to other common law jurisdictions.Entities:
Keywords: Abortion Act 1967 (Great Britain); Genetics and Reproduction; Legal Approach; Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (Great Britain)
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 1990 PMID: 11642779 PMCID: PMC1375931 DOI: 10.1136/jme.16.2.68
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Med Ethics ISSN: 0306-6800 Impact factor: 2.903