And if a woman obtains pills by post then the doctor's opinion is irrelevant.That is what the law requires. If the criteria in the law are not met, in the opinion of two doctors, then the termination cannot proceed.
And if a woman obtains pills by post then the doctor's opinion is irrelevant.That is what the law requires. If the criteria in the law are not met, in the opinion of two doctors, then the termination cannot proceed.
I accept that it is absolutely a woman's right to choose, but there need to be rules around it. I don't see that as a contradiction.but once you accept the premise of a 'woman's right to choose', then how far should it go?
The doctors opinion was relevant in your example. She got in to difficulty because she lied about the circumstances and conned the doctor. If she had said "I want the pills and I'm 32 weeks gone", do you think the doctor would have sent out the pills?And if a woman obtains pills by post then the doctor's opinion is irrelevant.
She needs a consultation with the doctor who will decide if she gets them by post, or not. The doctors opinion is anything but irrelevant.And if a woman obtains pills by post then the doctor's opinion is irrelevant.
If she had access to medication then i'm sure she'd have taken it anyway. That's the crux of decriminalisation. The woman's right to choose. Once you accept that premise they're basically taking matters into their own hands. The doctor can give an opinion but the woman will decide.The doctors opinion was relevant in your example. She got in to difficulty because she lied about the circumstances and conned the doctor. If she had said "I want the pills and I'm 32 weeks gone", do you think the doctor would have sent out the pills?
I don't think one necessarily leads to the other actually. Decriminalisation doesn't mean she can choose a 39 week termination.That's the crux of decriminalisation. The woman's right to choose
Yes, satisfy the criteria being the important bit. It isn't on demand at the moment.All she need do then is arrange a phone consultation, satisfy the criteria and the NUPAS pills by post service allows patients to take the medical abortion pills at home without having to attend a clinic.
certifying that the medical exemptions apply is giving official approval it can go ahead.Yes, certifying that the medical exemptions apply, a medical judgement, not an approval of the procedure.
More deflective waffle and fudge all to do with the doctor approving the abortion.Certification in the context means the official confirmation that the medical exemptions are met, nothing to do with permission or approval That is the woman's choice. It would be bizarre in such sensitive circumstances if a doctor was akin some kind of agent of the state approving the termination.
And illegal if not approved by two doctors.And if a woman obtains pills by post then the doctor's opinion is irrelevant.
certifying that the medical exemptions apply: otherwise known as approvalYes, certifying that the medical exemptions apply, a medical judgement, not an approval of the procedure.
Yes approval. It is stated in many pages, that once the abortion has been signed off then the abortion is approved.Certification in the context means the official confirmation that the medical exemptions are met,
nothing to do with permission or approval That is the woman's choice.
Let’s see the case law then. Do you have any?Case law involves interpreting different judgements across many different fields of expertise and scenarios to find similarities in current cases. To say that it hinges of specific words being present is ridiculous.
It’s not a medical exemption ffs. It’s a legal exemption. An exemption from prosecution.certifying that the medical exemptions apply: otherwise known as approval
"not an approval of the procedure" -yes approval it can go ahead, no not moral approval