Not a US case...but interesting, nonetheless. This question over what is and isn't a serious health concern for mother or baby is one the US deals with as well, obviously. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1439312,00.html Cleft lip abortion done 'in good faith' James Meikle, health correspondent Thursday March 17, 2005 The Guardian Doctors and health officials will consider whether more guidance on abortions is needed following the decision of the Crown Prosecution Service not to prosecute two doctors who authorised a late abortion on a foetus with a cleft lip and palate. Jim England, the chief crown prosecutor for West Mercia, said the doctors believed, in good faith, that there was a substantial risk the child would be seriously handicapped. "In these circumstances, I decided that there was insufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction and that there should be no charges against either of the doctors," he said. The inquiry began after a legal challenge over a previous decision by police not to charge the doctors involved in the abortion carried out, in 2001, on an unnamed woman from Herefordshire who was more than 24 weeks pregnant. Joanna Jepson, 28, now at St Michael's Church, Chester, but then a trainee vicar, found out about the procedure in 2002 when studying abortion statistics and suggested that it amounted to unlawful killing. Yesterday Ms Jepson said: "While I'm disappointed about the CPS's decision to drop the case, I am pleased the case has raised the issue of late-term abortion and the plight of disabled babies in late-term pregnancy. It has exposed grave discrimination and I will be seeking legal advice." She said she might try to get clarification from the courts about whether unborn children in the third trimester have got human rights and what constituted "serious handicap". She might consider whether to re-open a judicial review of the first decision not to prosecute. This was stayed after police decided to conduct a second inquiry into the case, admitting the initial decision was not based on a full investigation. Ms Jepson was born with a congenital jaw defect, uncorrected until her teens, and her brother has Down's syndrome. Her lawyers had argued that a cleft palate could not be considered as a severe disability. The prosecutor's decision coincides with heated debate over whether the 24-week limit on terminating pregnancy should be reduced. The 1967 Abortion Act allows for later termination if two doctors decide a child would be seriously handicapped. The Department of Health would not comment on the case but the Royal College of Obstetrics and Gynaecology said it knew the doctors "were acting in good faith and within the current legislation," adding: "We now need to consider whether further guidance is needed." Ann Furedi, chief executive of the abortion care organisation Bpas, said: "This is very good news. We were very concerned at the prosecution because this situation arose because somebody who had nothing to do with the particular case took this case to court claiming an offence had been committed." She added: "Rather than leap into court or the papers, we need to take stock of the circumstance in which women and doctors make decisions around abortion." The Cleft Lip and Palate Association accepted the CPS verdict. "Our concern was that if it was beyond all doubt that all it was a cleft lip and palate, then we could not understand why a decision to terminate had been taken," said the chief executive, Gareth Davies. Hereford County Hospital's management, where the abortion was performed, reported "many expressions of support" for staff.
actually this seem irrelevant. If you think it is a human life you can't kill it -- if you think it's just a bunch of tissue, then who cares?
according to the US Supreme Court it's absolutely relevant for any abortion after the first trimester. there has to be a health issue to justify an abortion past that mark. this is a group saying that a baby's cleft lip meets a similar standard in the UK.
Problem #1. US Supreme Court doesn't have jurisdition here. Problem #2: Are you questioning the medical opinion of a doctor? Mind you, the doctor was there and you weren't plus they went to medical school and you didn't (I assume). I don't know all the info. I'm just pointing out a couple of your problems.
1. yeah...i know. read my comments at the top of the page, above the link i posted. 2. i'm thinking a cleft lip is not the kind of thing most of us would say justifies a late-term abortion. assuming we agree with Roe, to begin with (of course, extrapolating this case to the US). by the way...medical opinions of doctors are questioned everyday. for every doctor you can get to say one thing, i can get another to say the opposite. they make a killing as experts in trials doing that very thing.
I saw your comment but I'm failing to see the relavancy of comparing the legal implications of another country based on America's value system...which is significantly more conservative (obviously). I agree with you, in principal. But the fact remains that the doctors made their choice. I doubt they made such a decision on a whim. "Hey doc, look this kid has buck teeth. terminate!!" No, I imagine it was a little more thoughtful than that. Given that they came to a conclusion based on the info they had in front of them, without knowing anymore, I'd simply be an arm-chair quarterback to second guess the doctors. If it was my family and I was there at the hospital, then perhaps I'd have a stronger opinion. If I was a lawyer involved in the case, perhaps I'd know more. Look, I beleive doctors should be allowed to make medical decision. Parents should too. I don't feel I should impose my personal beliefs on others, if their decision doesn't impact me.
1. The relevancy is merely because apparently we have a similar system of setting up some marker of time in the pregnancy after which you can not have an abortion without citing some health complications. 2. A cleft lip is NOT health complication. Not one that puts either the woman's life or the baby's life in jeopardy. In the US, you can use soft health reasons...like "i'm going through anxiety because I don't know how I could support this baby financially" as a reason for a post-first trimester abortion. That's not how it was originally...it's not the standard in Roe, originally...but that's what Roe has been diluted to. That dilution is exactly what I had in mind when I posted this article, because I see the UK doing the same thing, here. 3. You're right. I wasn't hurt by Al Qaeda's attacks in Spain at all. I can't judge that act. That's where the logic leads you. It falls down. If this is a child...if it's protected...and apparently the legal systems in both US and UK say it is to some measure....then i'm disputing the necessity of an abortion because of a freaking cleft lip. You're right...I didn't review the doctor's notes. Of course I'm assuming the facts are as they are reported in the article. We are forced to do that all the time here. This isn't an op-ed piece, though. It's a reported story. If the facts change, my view might as well.
Not being a doctor myself, I could see that perhaps a cleft lip might be seen as a possible indicator of a potentially much more serious health defect that would merit (arguably) the abortion. However, it seems much more likely to me that it was a handy factoid exploited by the doctors so that their patient would not have to suffer the terrible affliction that is motherhood. Happens all the time here, and I wouldn't be surprised if they did it all the time in Europe too.
Ok. It might be. It depends how bad it is. If the kid can never eat without a tube or the bone pallet is so deformed it compromises the skull, that's pretty bad. My logic doesn't fall down...we just have differing opinions about where life begins. So to equate a medical procedure with a terriorist act, in my mind, is an unfair apples to oranges comparison. That's where we differ. Anything else we argue beyond this goes back to that same old philosophical difference. In other words...stale mate.
krosfyah -- i hear ya. i think most of what we're arguing about there was just an attempt to try to make sense to one another. particularly on the US/UK thing. i guess my point is this...whether or not it's a human past the first trimester is no longer an issue, in the US at least (and that appears to be somewhat similar in the UK, apparently.) Roe says it's worthy of protections past that, no matter what you call it, barring some serious health risks. the question is whether or not cleft lip gets you to a point that justifies saying, "this is different...an abortion is ok here." i'd argue it doesn't. but the philosophical question of whether or not its life??? eh...doesn't really matter here. most pro-choice folks i know aren't arguing with Roe. they're trying to protect Roe. Roe protects the fetus/baby/life/thing/whatever once outside the first trimester.
The crucial point here is if it qualifies as a human being, it amounts to Nazi-style eugenics. I am very much pro-abortion, but “third trimester” legality aside, the point where I draw a moral line is the point when the embryo has a functional brain, but I realize that everybody has different opinions and I respect all but the most stringent. Where do you draw the line? If you argue against the procedure, would you do the same if the baby had a fatal and painful abnormality? How about if it had the cleft lip but could live outside the womb? As to the question of “full human life” from the moment of conception, try this thought argument: You are in a burning building and can save a 1 year old baby or 9 test-tube embryos. Which do you save? I think most people would save the baby. If that was your choice, there clearly has to be some sort of state that doesn’t qualify as “full life”. I realize that it’s difficult to contemplate these subjects with finely gradated distinction, but I would argue that the fetus, assuming it met some baseline criteria, was not human but was not a candidate for abortion. The fetus fits no currently well defined moral status that I can see. It is unpleasant for me to realize I believe this, but there should be some series of steps of moral culpability between fertilized ovum and the point where the umbilical cord is cut. The argument, by the way, should occur on a moral, not a legal level, but it always devolves to legal arguments because morality it so difficult to argue, but legally I think you always end up with an approximation of morality, and I'm glad that I don't have to codify my personal moral scale of life in legal terms. Intrestingly, there is a link between cleft lip and congenital heart defects. I tried to post a link to a cached google of the article from the Obstetric and Gynecologic Survey, but it didn't work and the site requires membership. You can, however, go down to your local medical school library and look it up in Volume 56(2) February 2001 pp 69-70.
That is interesting and isn't surprising. Aborting due to a facial deformity just doesn't make sense. There has to be more to it than that. so MadMax, on the surface I tend to agree with you that a cleft lip is insufficient grounds by all moral and legal parameters. But my argument is that there must be more to it than that. It just can't be that simple.
I think you'll find that doctors, like the rest of us, have different views on abortion. The doctor who approved this one was much more comfortable with late term abortion than most of us. If this was the 'norm' we wouldn't be reading about it. The fact that this UK case hits our radar shows you it's the exception. We sometimes hear stories of doctors refusing birth control -- they'd be on the other side of that spectrum. Max is quite right in pointing this out -- just highlighting the need for a standard. I expect I would disagree where that standard should be -- but I do agree that there should be more guidance. And the guidance should be more than a doctor's judgment. Because each doctor has his or her biases in these issues. I'm not going to debate Max about Roe...this is an issue on which he's extremely well read...plus he's kind of up on all that legal stuff. But I'm not convinced that 'soft health reasons' are necessarily a dilution of Roe. Perhaps an evolution. But that's another debate. One we've had here a time or two before.
