(Crown Court at Birmingham) A doctor who had fitted a patient, with an IUD was charged with an offence under section 58 of the 1861 Act. Having heard medical evidence from two consultant gynaecologists and legal argument the judge withdrew the case from the jury. The medical expert said ‘so far as the current thinking of the medical profession is concerned the use of the word ‘miscarriage’ relates to the spontaneous loss of an established pregnancy and not the result of anything done to interfere with the processes of fertilization or implantation.’
Held: ‘Both doctors agree that so far as the current thinking of the medical profession is concerned the use of the word ‘miscarriage’ relates to the spontaneous loss of an established pregnancy and not the result of anything done to interfere with the processes of fertilization or implantation.’ and ‘Both doctors agree that in the proper use of modern medical terminology the function of both the pill and the coil in such circumstances is contraceptive, and not abortifacient. To put it in layman’s terms, the use of pill or coil in such circumstances is to prevent a pregnancy commencing, and not to displace an established pregnancy.’ The court referred to the case of Price: ‘The essential question for the jury is . . whether the defendant, at the time he inserted the coil, knew or believed that Miss F was pregnant, and, accordingly, introduced the instrument with intent to procure a miscarriage, or whether, as is the case for the defence, that he knew or believed that she was not pregnant, in the true sense of the word, and that his purpose in inserting the coil was for contraceptive purposes; in other words, to prevent her from becoming pregnant thereafter.’ As to the meaning of ‘miscarriage’: ‘I . . adopt the narrower interpretation of this part of section 58, and hold that the word ‘miscarriage’ in this context relates to the spontaneous expulsion of the products of pregnancy. I further hold, in accordance with the uncontroverted evidence that I have heard, that a pregnancy cannot come into existence until the fertilized ovum has become implanted in the womb . . It follows from this – and I so hold – that the insertion of an intra-uterine contraceptive device before a pregnancy has become established, with the intention of preventing the successful implantation in the uterine wall of any fertilized ovum that may result from a prior act of sexual intercourse, does not amount to an offence under section 58 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.’
Judges:
Wright J
Citations:
Unreported, 1991
Statutes:
Offences Against the Person Act 1861 58
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Price (Herbert) CACD 1989
A woman went to consult the defendant, a doctor, as she thought she was pregnant and did not wish to have the child. It was common ground that she told the defendant she thought she was some three months pregnant, that she desired not to have the . .
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 by:
Cited – Regina (Smeaton) v Secretary of State for Health and Others Admn 18-Apr-2002
The claimant challenged the Order as regards the prescription of the morning-after pill, asserting that the pill would cause miscarriages, and that therefore the use would be an offence under the 1861 Act.
Held: ‘SPUC’s case is that any . .
Cited – Regina (Smeaton) v Secretary of State for Health and Others Admn 18-Apr-2002
The claimant challenged the Order as regards the prescription of the morning-after pill, asserting that the pill would cause miscarriages, and that therefore the use would be an offence under the 1861 Act.
Held: ‘SPUC’s case is that any . .
Cited – Regina (Smeaton) v Secretary of State for Health and Others Admn 18-Apr-2002
The claimant challenged the Order as regards the prescription of the morning-after pill, asserting that the pill would cause miscarriages, and that therefore the use would be an offence under the 1861 Act.
Held: ‘SPUC’s case is that any . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Crime, Health Professions
Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.223705