The claimant sought a declaration that the administration of an abortifacient drug was not ‘any treatment for the termination of pregnancy’ for the purposes of section 1 of the 1967 Act, allowing the piloting and possible adoption of early medical abortions in part self-administered.
Held: The request was refused. Parliament had passed the Act aware that future medical developments might allow medical rather than surgical abortions.
Section 1(3A) refers to treatment consisting primarily in the ‘use’ of medicines; it is not limited to the prescription of medicines. Furthermore the section does make clear Parliament’s decision that it is the Secretary of State, not the medical profession, who has the responsibility for approval of the place where the treatment may take place.
Supperstone J
[2011] EWHC 235 (Admin), [2011] 3 All ER 1012, [2011] 3 FCR 541, [2011] Med LR 191, (2011) 118 BMLR 172, [2012] 1 WLR 580
Bailii
Abortion Act 1967 1, Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Royal College of Nursing of the United Kingdom v Department of Health and Social Security HL 2-Jan-1981
The court was asked whether nurses could properly involve themselves in a pregnancy termination procedure not known when the Act was passed, and in particular, whether a pregnancy was ‘terminated by a medical practitioner’, when it was carried out . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Health ex parte Quintavalle (on behalf of Pro-Life Alliance) HL 13-Mar-2003
Court to seek and Apply Parliamentary Intention
The appellant challenged the practice of permitting cell nuclear replacement (CNR), saying it was either outside the scope of the Act, or was for a purpose which could not be licensed under the Act.
Held: The challenge failed. The court was to . .
Cited – Janaway v Salford Area Health Authority HL 1-Feb-1988
The plaintiff took work as a secretary at a health centre, but objected to having to type out letters referring patients to an abortion clinic, saying that she conscientiously objected to participation in the process.
Held: Her appeal was . .
Cited – Boss Holdings Ltd v Grosvenor West End Properties and others HL 30-Jan-2008
The tenant sought to enfranchise the property under the 1967 Act. The freeholders replied that it was not a ‘house’ within the Act at the time of the notice. It had been built in the eighteenth century as a house, but the lower floors had been . .
Cited – Isle of Anglesey County Council and Another v The Welsh Ministries and others CA 20-Feb-2009
The claimants, the Commissioners and the County Council, sought declarations to establish their right to build a marina on parts of the foreshore currently used for commercial mussel fishing. Section 40 of the 1868 Act authorised ministers to make . .
Cited by:
Main Judgment – British Pregnancy Advisory Service v Secretary of State for Health Admn 18-Mar-2011
. .
Cited – Doogan and Another v NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde Health Board SCS 24-Apr-2013
(Extra Division, Inner House) The reclaimers, Roman Catholic midwives working on a labour ward as co-ordinators, sought to assert a right of conscientious objection under the 1967 Act. The respondents said that only those directly involved in the . .
Cited – British Pregnancy Advisory Service, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care Admn 5-Jun-2019
Abortion Time Limit statement was correct.
The Court considered ‘ the correct interpretation of the words, ‘the pregnancy has not exceeded its twenty-fourth week’ in s.1(1)(a) of the Abortion Act 1967 ‘ The guidance was challenged as the calculations. The date of the beginning of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Health, Health Professions
Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.429679
