DOCSLIB.ORG

Medical Negligence and Wrongful Birth Actions: Australian Developments

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Medical Negligence and Wrongful Birth Actions: Australian Developments Journal ofMedical Ethics 1997; 23: 319-322 J Med Ethics: first published as 10.1136/jme.23.5.319 on 1 October 1997. Downloaded from Medical ethics and law Medical negligence and wrongful birth actions: Australian developments Kerry Petersen La Trobe University, Victoria, Australia Abstract The combination of ethical duties and legal Wrongful birth actions aim to compensate litigants who responsibility form the foundation of professional are negligently deprived by health professionals of their and legal accountability. The health professional has right to reproductive choice. Access to safe and legal an ethical obligation not to impose intentional or abortion is integral to the action and wrongful birth non-intentional harm on a patient. Moreover, if the claims in the United Kingdom have been facilitated by patient suffers harm, the health professional may be the Abortion Act 1967 (as amended). The recent liable in tort law if the plaintiff can establish that the Australian case CES v Superclinics (1995) 38 breach of the duty of care led to the reasonably fore- NSWLR 47' shows howjudicial confusion about the seeable damage. Courtesy of the Bolam2 test, the legality ofabortion can result in judges condoning courts in Australia and the United Kingdom have medical negligence. The Superclinics case also suggests shielded doctors from the fate of their United States that doctors are not required to provide pregnant women counterparts by endorsing medical practice as a copyright. with the same standard ofcare as other patients. These yardstick of legal liability in negligence cases. The developments show that law can become incoherent and Bolam test is still followed in Australia but has to health professionals can act negligently with impunity some extent been mitigated by the ruling in Rogers v when reproductive choice does not have a secure legal Whitaker3 where the Australian High Court decided foundation. that although evidence ofmedical practice is a useful guide for the courts in negligence cases it is not Modern reproductive medicine is particularly determinative. affected by rapid technological change and high Medical advances, particularly in reproductive http://jme.bmj.com/ consumer expectation. The medicalisation of medicine, have contributed to the expansion of a human reproduction has given doctors control over relatively new area of negligence in wrongful birth contraception and abortion and more recently over cases.4 The following discussion shows that the rela- artificial procreation through reproductive tech- tionship between the Australian and English courts nology. In addition, advances in preconception and continues to play an important role in the evolution prenatal testing, together with the relentless march of the wrongful birth actions, but case law can of genetic knowledge, continue to pose more and become incoherent and the ethical and legal respon- increasingly complex ethical dilemmas. These sibilities of medical practitioners can be avoided, on October 2, 2021 by guest. Protected developments place a greater ethical and legal onus when principles governing reproductive choice are on doctors to avoid causing harm through human not carefully distilled and do not have a secure and mechanical error. Furthermore, while the philosophical foundation in law. In the first English availability ofpreconception and prenatal screening wrongful birth case, Scuriaga v Powell,5 the plaintiff provides women with more reproductive choice, mother was awarded damages when her the resulting information adds a further dimension "unwanted" child was born after a negligently per- to the meaning of reproductive choice. Access to formed abortion. Since then, a number of cases safe and legal abortion is an implicit part of the have provided parents with compensation for the testing/screening procedures and, therefore, the birth of an "unwanted" child on the grounds that right of parents to proceed with a pregnancy must the child would never have been born unless the be respected and protected where there are indica- defendant had acted negligently or in breach of tions of fetal abnormality or potential disorders in contract. later life. The essence of the action is the negligent depri- vation of reproductive choice. In part, this action is a response to sophisticated medical advances and Key words societal and legal acceptance of reproductive Wrongful birth; medical negligence, abortion; repro- choice. It imposes legal responsibility and account- ductive choice; Australian laws; health professionals. ability on health professionals and compensates 320 Medical ethics and law: Medical negligence and wrongful birth actions: Australian developments J Med Ethics: first published as 10.1136/jme.23.5.319 on 1 October 1997. Downloaded from victims of medical negligence in cases where there They add: has been an unsuccessful sterilisation; misdiagnosis of pregnancy; failed abortion; misdiagnosis of fetal "[i]t is clearly arguable that a doctor who is abnormality after screening, and misdiagnosis of confronted with a woman in difficult financial maternal illness which can cause fetal abnormality. circumstances, who has had a large number of There is now an established body of English law.6 children and expresses a strong desire to avoid If the child's mother alleges that she was deprived further pregnancy, should reasonably be aware that of the opportunity to have an abortion because of she would be likely to attach significance to the risk the doctor's negligence it will be necessary for her of failure of a proposed sterilisation procedure."8 to be able to prove that she could have secured a legal abortion at the relevant time. Clearly, the This ruling in Rogers v Whitaker should make it action for wrongful birth is facilitated if the easier to prove a breach of the duty of care when abortion laws are liberal and clearly set out. The people seek genetic testing, genetic counselling, Abortion Act 1967 (UK) as amended by the prenatal testing or prenatal counselling for specific Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 reasons such as a family history, where there is (UK) makes specific provision for lawful medical already an afflicted child in their family or where abortion. The "social" clause permits abortions to they have other concerns which could cause fetal dis- be performed for therapeutic and social reasons up orders and the health professional knows and under- to 24 weeks and the remaining grounds which deal stands the reasons for their concern. with more serious indications are now free of gesta- tional limitations. In Rance v Mid-Downs Health Authority,6 which was decided before the Abortion Further obstacles Act was amended in 1990, hospital staff failed to The most recent Australian wrongful birth case CES detect fetal abnormality when conducting prenatal v Superclinics,9 shows that even where defendants are tests and the child was born with spina bifida. The found to have acted negligently, further obstacles wrongful birth claim failed mainly because of have to be overcome by the plaintiff in this areacopyright. of problems with causation but also because the fetus law. This case is important because it illustrates how would have been "capable of being born alive" ethical and legal obligations can be overridden when under the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 (UK) abortion laws are unclear and judges disagree about when the hypothetical abortion would have taken legal principles underpinning state abortion laws. place. The possibility of an English court treating a The case also illustrates the dangers of blurring the hypothetical abortion as unlawful still exists distinction between civil responsibility and criminal because abortion is prima facie a criminal offence. liability in a medical negligence claim. Moreover, The legislation merely provides defences to a even though Australian judges draw on the authorityhttp://jme.bmj.com/ criminal act if the statutory conditions are satisfied. of English precedents in these cases, Australian law Nevertheless, the legislation tends to be interpreted is evolving within a different legal culture because liberally. changes to abortion laws in the majority of Australian states have occurred in the courts rather than in the legislatures. Before considering CES v Material risks Superclinics in further detail, however, I shall discuss There have only been a few wrongful birth cases in the legal framework governing abortion in Australia. Australia7 and the action is relatively novel. As well The Australian constitution gives each state and on October 2, 2021 by guest. Protected as deciding that medical practice does not consti- territory power over criminal laws which include tute a legal standard, the ruling in Rogers v abortion. Moreover, because Australia does not have Whitaker,3 referred to at the beginning of this a Bill of Rights, change to the draconian criminal article, also found that a doctor has a duty of care to statutes based on the English Offences Against the warn a patient of material risks, particularly the Person Act of 1861 can only be made by state or risks that a reasonable doctor would disclose, or territory parliaments or by courts. For obvious risks which the doctor could reasonably be reasons, Australian politicians prefer to avoid the expected to know would be significant for the issue. Moreover, it is worth noting that abortion patient. This case places considerable emphasis on statutes based on the Abortion Act 1967 (UK), the context of the professional
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Amicus Brief
    AMICUS BRIEF PREPARED BY THE CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS THE LOWENSTEIN INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS CLINIC YALE LAW SCHOOL RED ALAS (R ED DE ACADÉMICAS DEL DERECHO ) AND GÓMEZ -PINZÓN , LINARES , SAMPER , SÚAREZ , VILLAMIL ABOGADOS S.A. PRESENTED BEFORE THE COLOMBIAN CONSTITUTIONAL COURT (C ASE NO . D 5764) PRESIDING JUDGE DR. ALVARO TAFFUR EDIFICIO DEL PALACIO DE JUSTICIA DE BOGOTÁ , D.C. CALLE 12 NO. 7–65 BOGOTÁ COLOMBIA MAY 2005 I. Introduction The issue presented before the honorable Constitutional Court of Colombia in this case – whether the categorical ban on abortion in Article 122 of the Colombian Penal Code is constitutional – raises a question of first impression for this Court that involves the most fundamental rights of life, health and dignity. Constitutional courts and legislatures of many countries around the world have considered this important question on numerous occasions over the last several decades. Amici in this case respectfully submit that these countries’ consistent practices treating the rights of women in the context of abortion provides a useful guide for this Court’s analysis of this important issue. Amici respectfully submit this brief to provide this Court with an overview of the constitutional decisions on abortion by courts of several civil law and common law countries. These countries, with their different legal systems and socio-political histories, differ in how they analyze the issue of abortion, the kinds of safeguards they have instituted to protect the women’s rights and the state’s interest in protecting potential life, and the extent to which they have found abortions to be permissible.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Download
    HOW THE CRIMINAL LAW IN AUSTRALIA HAS FAILED TO PROMOTE THE RIGHT TO LIFE FOR UNBORN CHILDREN: A NEED FOR UNIFORM CRIMINAL LAWS ON ABORTION ACROSS AUSTRALIA ∗ PATRICK FERDINANDS This article contends that human life has an intrinsic value from the moment of its conception based on its potential use to the community. This value to the community demands protection from the state. However, there is also a need to balance this aim against the legitimate health interests of pregnant women. Abortions should be permitted only in circumstances where the abortion is necessary to preserve the pregnant woman from any serious danger to her physical or mental health. This article shows that the lack of uniformity in Australia’s criminal law in the area of abortion plays a part in unduly undermining the right to life of unborn children. Accordingly, there is a need for effective uniform criminal laws throughout Australia that properly protect the right to life of unborn children and are duly sensitive to the valid health interests of pregnant women that give rise to circumstances justifying abortion. I INTRODUCTION This article seeks to discover whether or not the criminal law in Australia has failed to promote the right to life for unborn children, and if so, how. It will also examine closely the lack of uniformity in Australia’s criminal law in the 1 area of abortion to see if it plays a part in undermining the rights of unborn ∗ BA (Deakin University), LLB (Hons) (Charles Darwin University), Grad.Dip.Leg.Prac (Australian National University), Public Servant, Victoria.
    [Show full text]
  • R V. DAVIDSON Victorian Supreme Court [1969] Vicrp 85 Menhennitt, J
    R v. DAVIDSON Victorian Supreme Court [1969] VicRp 85 Menhennitt, J.: The accused is charged on four counts of unlawfully using an instrument or other means with intent to procure the miscarriage of a woman and one court of conspiring unlawfully to procure the miscarriage of a woman. The trial is in its eighth day. The Crown is about to call medical witnesses to give expert evidence. In order to determine questions of admissibility of evidence which may well arise, it is necessary that an aspect of the relevant law relating to the charges be stated. Accordingly, I invited counsel to make submissions so that I could then make appropriate rulings. The particular matter as to which I have heard submissions and on which I make this rulings is as to the element of unlawfulness in the charges. The relevant portion of s65 of the Crimes Act 1958, under which the first four counts are laid and which is the basis of the conspiracy charge in the fifth count, is as follows: "Whosoever...with intent to procure the miscarriage of any woman whether she is or is not with child unlawfully administers to her or causes to be taken by her any poison or other noxious thing, or unlawfully uses any instrument or other means with the like intent, shall be guilty of a felony, and shall be liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than fifteen years." The use of the word "unlawfully" in the section implies that in certain circumstances the use of an instrument or other means to procure a miscarriage may be lawful.
    [Show full text]
  • Abortion and the Law in New
    NSW PARLIAMENTARY LIBRARY RESEARCH SERVICE Abortion and the law in New South Wales by Talina Drabsch Briefing Paper No 9/05 ISSN 1325-4456 ISBN 0 7313 1784 X August 2005 © 2005 Except to the extent of the uses permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part of this document may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means including information storage and retrieval systems, without the prior written consent from the Librarian, New South Wales Parliamentary Library, other than by Members of the New South Wales Parliament in the course of their official duties. Abortion and the law in New South Wales by Talina Drabsch NSW PARLIAMENTARY LIBRARY RESEARCH SERVICE David Clune (MA, PhD, Dip Lib), Manager..............................................(02) 9230 2484 Gareth Griffith (BSc (Econ) (Hons), LLB (Hons), PhD), Senior Research Officer, Politics and Government / Law .........................(02) 9230 2356 Talina Drabsch (BA, LLB (Hons)), Research Officer, Law ......................(02) 9230 2768 Lenny Roth (BCom, LLB), Research Officer, Law ...................................(02) 9230 3085 Stewart Smith (BSc (Hons), MELGL), Research Officer, Environment ...(02) 9230 2798 John Wilkinson (MA, PhD), Research Officer, Economics.......................(02) 9230 2006 Should Members or their staff require further information about this publication please contact the author. Information about Research Publications can be found on the Internet at: www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/WEB_FEED/PHWebContent.nsf/PHPages/LibraryPublications Advice on
    [Show full text]
  • Patents – What Is a Human Being
    Legal pragmatism and the pre-birth continuum: an absence of unifying principle Pam Stewart* and Anita Stuhmcke** The common law has historically been clear – the rights of the unborn do not exist prior to birth. A child becomes a legal person and able to enforce legal rights upon being born alive and having a separate existence from his or her mother. This article assesses whether new developments in biomedical technologies have left this legal principle inviolate and answers the question as to what is the state of law in relation to pre-birth. It is argued that there is a pre-birth continuum where the law punctuates points in a lineal timeline fashion as to when a pre-birth ‘non-entity’ becomes a legal entity. The article concludes that there is no singular rule of law with respect to being or becoming a human but rather a collection of discrete and increasingly divergent legal categories. This recognition of a pre-birth continuum or timeline as to the legal recognition of this ‘non-entity’ has significant ramifications for the future development of law and impact on legal thinking about what it means to be human. INTRODUCTION At common law, a human does not attain legal rights until being “born alive”.1 This traditional assumption permeates the common law – both civil and criminal. This article suggests that the allure of this rule lies in its simplicity rather than its accuracy and that in part it is a legal fiction which hides both the pragmatism of the common law in finding exceptions to the general rule and the growing legislative intervention which is changing both the legal functions of creating rights and affording protection to the unborn child, embryo or fetus in this area.2 At first blush this argument is not new.
    [Show full text]
  • Decriminalising Abortion in the Uk the in Abortion Poli Sally Sheldon and Kaye Wellings Kaye and Sheldon Sally
    “Abortion plays a fundamental Available Open Access under Decriminalising Abortion UK the in role in women’s health but is CC-BY-NC licence. often shrouded in myth and hyperbole. This lucid and The public and parliamentary accessible text provides robust debate about UK abortion law and reliable evidence on this reform is often diverted away important issue.” from key moral and political Professor Dame Lesley Regan questions by disputes regarding DBE, MD DSc, Royal College of basic questions of fact. And all Obstetricians and Gynaecologists too often, claims of scientific ‘fact’ are ideologically driven. “This excellent book steps aside from the heat of debate What effect would Edited by Sally Sheldon and Kaye Wellings in order to provide an accurate decriminalisation be likely to account of the evidence about have on women’s health? What clinical safety, public opinion and would be the impact on the legal regulation. It provides an incidence of abortions? Would essential reference point for all decriminalisation equate to those seeking to approach the deregulation, sweeping away reform of abortion law with moral necessary restrictions on integrity.’’ dangerous or malicious conduct? Professor Sir Jonathan Montgomery, University College With each chapter written by London leading experts in the fields of medicine, law, reproductive health and social science, this book offers a concise and Sally Sheldon is Professor of authoritative account of the Law at the University of Kent and University of Technology, Sydney. evidence regarding the likely impact of decriminalisation of POLICY PRESSPOLICY & PRACT ICE Kaye Wellings is Professor of abortion in the UK. Sexual and Reproductive Health Research at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.
    [Show full text]
  • A Recommendation for Reform of New Zealand's Abortion
    Abort Mission: A Recommendation for Reform of New Zealand’s Abortion Law Courtney Naughton A dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the degree of Bachelor of Laws (with Honours) at the University of Otago. October 2017 Acknowledgements To my supervisor and Dutch fairy godmother, the wonderful Professor Nicola Peart. Without your limitless patience, dedication and wit, this dissertation would not have been achieved at all. To my family, particularly Mum, Dad and Budget: thank you for your unconditional support, unwavering belief in me, and constant encouragement. I appreciate the proof-reading, the all- hours phone calls and the stubbornness I inherited from you more than you know. To my friends: for all the coffees, the beers, the laughs and the much-needed stress relief, thank you. i Table of Contents I Introduction 1 II England 2 A Historical Legislation 2 B Current law 5 C Practise 6 III New Zealand 8 A Historical Legislation 8 B Current Law 8 1 Pregnancy before 20 weeks’ gestation 9 2 Pregnancy of more than 20 weeks’ gestation 12 3 Killing unborn child 12 4 Procedural requirements in the Contraception, Sterilisation and Abortion Act 1977 13 5 Right to Life New Zealand v Abortion Supervisory Committee 14 C Practise 15 IV Australia 16 A Australian Capital Territory 16 1 Historical Legislation 16 2 Current Law 17 3 Practise 19 B Victoria 20 1 Historical Legislation 20 2 Development of the Law 21 3 Current Law 22 4 Practise 24 V Reform 27 A Justifications for Removing Abortion from the Crimes Act 27 1 Those affected when abortion
    [Show full text]
  • Queensland Abortion Laws: Criminalising One in Three Women * Katherine Kerr
    QUT Law Review Volume 14, Number 2, 2014 QUEENSLAND ABORTION LAWS: CRIMINALISING ONE IN THREE WOMEN * KATHERINE KERR In an era where abortion is one of the safest and most common medical or surgical procedures, its criminalisation in Queensland serves no valid purpose beyond a form of oppression against women and a State attempt to dictate or influence a woman’s capacity to determine whether to continue a pregnancy. Sections 224, 225 and 226 of the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) (Criminal Code) criminalise the provision of, assistance in, and undergoing an abortion. These provisions contain no explicit rationale, defence or exemption. Criminalisation affects accessibility of services, availability of information regarding options, and implies a social condemnation of a woman’s choice to access abortion. Women must be ensured autonomy to make decisions that affect their own lives and individual circumstances. Policy ensuring the safe and lawful provision of abortion should be focused on the protection and promotion of women’s health and wellbeing, rather than on criminalisation and punishment. I INTRODUCTION A woman’s exercise of her reproductive rights in Queensland is severely compromised by the criminalisation of abortion. Criminalisation influences the accessibility of services, the availability of information, and a woman’s capacity to negotiate a system which straddles both criminal law and health services provision. It is estimated that one in three women will undergo an abortion during their lifetime, and laws that criminalise the exercise of reproductive choice undermine women’s autonomy, self-determination and their right to bodily integrity. The unstated assumption of the criminalising of abortion is that women are incapable of making the right decision for themselves and require State intervention in their lives.
    [Show full text]
  • Early Medical Abortion: Legal and Medical Developments in Australia
    MEDICINE AND THE LAW Early medical abortion: legal and medical developments in Australia Kerry A Petersen here is no doubt that abortion is a controversial issue; it is ABSTRACT also a common, safe and publicly subsidised medical • Mifepristone is a safe, effective and relatively cheap drug that procedure in Australia. Although there are no completely T plays an important role in women’s health care and is widely reliable national statistics, the Victorian Law Reform Commission used for early medical abortion in many countries. (VLRC) accepted that the estimated annual number of abortions performed in Australia is between 80 000 and 85 000.1 On the • The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) can authorise question of public opinion in Australia, the VLRC concluded that mifepristone to be imported into and marketed in Australia. To date, no pharmaceutical company has applied to register the majorityThe Medical support Journal a woman’s of Australia right ISSN:to choose, 0025- but an undefined subset of these people also support restrictions based on the mifepristone in Australia. 729X 5 July 2010 193 1 26-29 1 grounds©The for Medicalabortion Journaland gestational of Australia age. This2010 finding strongly • The TGA can also permit medical practitioners to prescribe suggestswww.mja.com.au that there is considerable support in Australia for a medicine that is not approved for marketing in Australia Medicine and the Law woman’s right to choose an abortion early in an unintended under the Authorised Prescribers scheme. The number of pregnancy. approvals for mifepristone has gradually increased, in spite of Most abortions performed in Australia are surgical first-trimester a complicated and protracted application process.
    [Show full text]
  • Abortion and the Law in Australia
    PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE Abortion and the law Risk management in Australia The legal test for when an abortion is not ‘unlawful’ – and therefore permitted – is different in each state and territory. This article describes the current legal position in Australia with respect to abortion, but does not attempt to discuss the Sara Bird complex ethical issues surrounding abortion. MBBS, MFM(clin), FRACGP, is Medicolegal Adviser, MDA National. sbird@mdanational. com.au Case history On 23 August 2006, a medical practitioner in Sydney was found guilty of performing an illegal abortion, but found not guilty of the manslaughter of a premature baby in May 2002. It was reported that the jury found the medical practitioner guilty in relation to two charges of giving a 20 year old patient a drug to procure an abortion. The following day, the patient gave birth at home. The baby, born at 23 weeks gestation, was pronounced dead in hospital about 4 hours later. The abortion was found to have been unlawful because the medical practitioner had failed to adequately counsel the patient. This case has prompted discussion about the vexed would be for the jury to decide whether there existed in question of abortion law reform. When reviewing the case of each woman any economic, social or medical the current legal position in relation to abortion, ground or reason which in their view could constitute three broad categories of criminal law need to be reasonable grounds upon which a medical practitioner considered: the laws that create the crime of ‘unlawful could honestly and reasonably believe there would result abortion’, the laws that create ‘child destruction’ and a serious danger to the woman’s physical or mental health the law of ‘homicide’.
    [Show full text]
  • Decriminalisation of Abortion) Bill 2007’; These Sections Have Been Updated and Expanded
    Research Service, Parliamentary Library, Department of Parliamentary Services Current Issues Brief No. 4, 2008 ABORTION LAW REFORM BILL 2008 An examination of issues relevant to the Abortion Law Reform Bill 2008. The paper includes a summary of the Bill, and a discussion of the current legal context in Victoria, other jurisdictions of Australia and selected overseas jurisdictions. It also provides some statistics related to abortion, and some suggested sources for further information. Parliamentary Library Research Service September 2008 This Current Issues Brief is part of a series of papers produced by the Library’s Research Service. Current Issues Briefs seek to provide an overview of a subject area for Members, and include information on key issues related to the subject. __________________________________________________________________________ P a r l i a m e n t o f V i c t o r i a Parliamentary Library Research Service NB: Readers should note that this paper was prepared prior to the passage of the Abortion Law Reform Bill 2008 through both Houses of the Victorian Parliament. The Bill was passed through the Legislative Assembly on 12th September 2008 and passed through the Legislative Council on 10th October 2008, receiving Royal Assent on 22nd October 2008. Readers interested in the Act as passed should visit the Victorian Legislation & Parliamentary Documents website @ http://www.dms.dpc.vic.gov.au/. Contents ______________________________________________________________ Introduction 1 1. The Victorian Law Reform Commission Report 3 1.1 Model A 3 1.2 Model B 4 1.3 Model C 4 1.4 Recommendations 4 2. About the Bill 7 2.1 Second Reading Speech 7 2.2 The Bill 7 2.3 Views of Parliamentary Parties 9 3.
    [Show full text]
  • The Abortion Question: Germany's Dilemma Delays Unification Terri E
    Louisiana Law Review Volume 53 | Number 4 March 1993 The Abortion Question: Germany's Dilemma Delays Unification Terri E. Owens Repository Citation Terri E. Owens, The Abortion Question: Germany's Dilemma Delays Unification, 53 La. L. Rev. (1993) Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/lalrev/vol53/iss4/10 This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews and Journals at LSU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Louisiana Law Review by an authorized editor of LSU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Abortion Question: Germany's Dilemma Delays Unification As a reunified Germany begins to jell, one divisive topic remains to be settled. This issue is abortion. East German law freely permitted abortion on demand within the first three months of a pregnancy., West Germany allowed abortions only if a woman met one of four criteria: endangerment to the mother's health, risk of damage to the child, pregnancy as a result of rape, or a life sithation that would make raising 2 a child difficult. In the summer of 1992, the German Parliament, the Bundestag, voted to extend the liberal abortion law of East Germany to all of Germany and to add a restriction that women were required to obtain counseling at least three days before obtaining the abortion.' This leg- islation was signed into law by German President Richard von Wei- zaecker. However, the German Constitutional Court issued a temporary injunction blocking the new law on the day before it was to go into effect, due to a petition submitted which alleged the new ruling was unconstitutional because it violated the German Constitution's provision guaranteeing protection of human life.4 After two days of arguments in December 1992, the Federal Constitutional Court announced it was postponing its decision until August 4, 1993.
    [Show full text]