Vive La France!

[noseall]

I would say that as long as the third doctor is content, after reading the other doctor's notes, that they have come to a good faith opinion, he hasn't acted unlawfully. He has acted unprofessionally and might be liable to sanction. But there is no criminal offence, either in the Abortion Act, or the Offences Against the Persons Act, that he has committed. If after carrying out the abortion, he wilfully doesn't complete the HSA4, then he will have committed an offence, and will be liable for a big fine.

Content?
As long as a HSA1 form has been filled correctly and dated, yes.
Have you bothered reading the Act and the Paliamentary report I linked?

 

[noseall]

I have no interest in that debate

What is the point of your posts then, if you are going to ignore all the information?

 

[Notch7]

I have no interest in that debate and the 60 pages it has taken so far.

But you tried to claim MTB was “technically correct”

So you do have an interest.

 

[JonathanM]

Content?
As long as a HSA1 form has been filled correctly and dated, yes.
Have you bothered reading the Act and the Paliamentary report I linked?

Content doesn't mean happy in this context, it means satisfied.
I have read the whole of the Abortion Act and the relevant sections of the OAPA several times. They are not difficult to understand. As I am only trying to explain the law here, I don't need to read the Parliamentary report. Having said that, I have read some parts and found it very interesting.

 

[JonathanM]

What is the point of your posts then, if you are going to ignore all the information?

Purely to clarify a legal point which many on here seemed to be misunderstanding, concerning in which situations specific offences are committed. It seemed something useful that I could do, to help move things forward.

 

[JonathanM]

But you tried to claim MTB was “technically correct”

So you do have an interest

He was technically correct in regards to the criminal offences that might be committed in various situations.

I wasn't saying that he was correct in regards to the whole debate about whether doctors need to "approve" the abortion. I am totally neutral on that.

 

[noseall]

Purely to clarify a legal point which many on here seemed to be misunderstanding, concerning in which situations specific offences are committed. It seemed something useful that I could do, to help move things forward.

Our debate centred around two doctors opinion and sign off required in order to approve an abortion.
What are you going on about? Do you wish to start another thread on the subject?

 

[noseall]

He was technically correct in regards to the criminal offences that might be committed in various situations.

And?

It has no bearing on the fact he was wrong regards the two doctor's thing, the sign off and the approval.
Start a thread on the severity of legal jeopardy if you want. You and MBK will have a boon.

 

[motorbiking]

Just to confirm, as I said above, that I am not weighing in on the argument taking place in this thread about whether two doctors need to "approve" the abortion. I don't think that is ever going to be resolved, because it is open to too much interpretation. I have only been trying to help clear up some of the technical legal aspects around which offences might be committed in various situations and at various stages.



I would say that as long as the third doctor is content, after reading the other doctor's notes, that they have come to a good faith opinion, he hasn't acted unlawfully. He has acted unprofessionally and might be liable to sanction. But there is no criminal offence, either in the Abortion Act, or the Offences Against the Persons Act, that he has committed. If after carrying out the abortion, he wilfully doesn't complete the HSA4, then he will have committed an offence, and will be liable for a big fine.

100% correct

 

[motorbiking]

Nonsense.
It is both explicit and distinct. No approval no abortion.

do you even know what the word explicit means? It means it's stated. In this case it isn't.

 

[JonathanM]

Our debate centred around two doctors opinion and sign off required in order to approve anabortion.
What are you going on about? Do you wish to start another thread on the subject?

On several occasions during the past 60 pages, MBK pointed out that not having an HSA1 did not make it an illegal abortion under the OAPA, as long as two doctors had come to an opinion, in good faith, that the grounds for abortion were met. Other posters replied that this was wrong. I was simply pointing out that MBK was actually correct on that particular point.

 

[noseall]

Requirement for two doctors' signatures

84. The Abortion Act 1967 requires that an abortion under ground A to E is certified by two doctors, who must each sign a Department of Health HSA 1 form to give notification that the abortion has been approved and on what grounds,

100% Accurate and written in a Parliamentary report boyo.
Stick that in your pipe.

No sign off- no abortion.

 

[noseall]

do you even know what the word explicit means? It means it's stated. In this case it isn't.

More irrelevant waffle.
Your knowledge of the law has been shown to be dire.
Quit whist you are behind boyo.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

100% correct

But missing out the 1 important fact

 

[carmanmemoranda]

On several occasions during the past 60 pages, MBK pointed out that not having an HSA1 did not make it an illegal abortion under the OAPA, as long as two doctors had come to an opinion, in good faith, that the grounds for abortion were met. Other posters replied that this was wrong. I was simply pointing out that MBK was actually correct on that particular point.

He may be.

But that isn't the fact being discussed that he continually avoids.

He avoids stating what happens if 2 doctors don't think the grounds are met. And that is the crux !