• Rosamund Scott.
• Centre of Medical Law and Ethics, The Dickson Poon School of Law, King's College London, London, UK rosamund.scott@kcl.ac.uk.
• Med Law Rev. 2016 Jan 1; 24 (1): 1-33.

AbstractAlthough there is no right to abort in English law but rather abortion is a crime, the lawful grounds for which are instantiated in the Abortion Act 1967 (as amended by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990), the regulation of abortion is sometimes perceived as being fairly 'liberal'. Accordingly, the idea that aspects of English law could be criticised under the European Convention on Human Rights, with which the UK must comply following the Human Rights Act 1998, may seem unlikely. Indeed, English law is compatible with the consensus amongst contracting states that abortion should be available on maternal health grounds. However, analysis of the UK's negative obligations under Article 8 shows that section 1(1)(a) of the Act is problematic as it operates in the first trimester. Further, given the European Court of Human Rights' emphasis on the reduced margin of appreciation once a state has legalised abortion to some degree and its jurisprudence relating to a state's positive obligations, the analysis shows that, while English law may not be problematic in relation to the lack of guidelines relating to the lawful grounds for abortion, it may well be in relation to the lack of a formal system for the review of any two doctors' decision not to grant a termination. Notwithstanding the morally serious nature of the decision to abort, the analysis overall raises questions about the need for at least some degree of abortion law reform, particularly in relation to the first trimester, towards a more autonomy-focused, though time-limited, rights-based approach. © The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press.

17 keywords...

hide…