Is current practice around late termination of pregnancy eugenic and discriminatory? Maternal interests and abortion
Open Access
- 1 June 2001
- journal article
- research article
- Published by BMJ in Journal of Medical Ethics
- Vol. 27 (3) , 165-171
- https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.27.3.165
Abstract
The attitudes of Australian practitioners working in clinical genetics and obstetrical ultrasound were surveyed on whether termination of pregnancy (TOP) should be available for conditions ranging from mild to severe fetal abnormality and for non-medical reasons.These were compared for terminations at 13 weeks and 24 weeks. It was found that some practitioners would not facilitate TOP at 24 weeks even for lethal or major abnormalities, fewer practitioners support TOP at 24 weeks compared with 13 weeks for any condition, and the difference in attitudes to TOP between 13 weeks and 24 weeks is most marked for pregnancies which are normal or involve a mild disorder. It is argued that a fetal abnormality criterion for late TOP is inconsistently applied, discriminatory and eugenic. Four possible moral justifications for current practice are examined, each of which would require significant changes to current practice. I argue in favour of a maternal interests criterion for any TOP.Keywords
This publication has 9 references indexed in Scilit:
- Can we learn from eugenics?Journal of Medical Ethics, 1999
- Third trimester abortion: is compassion enough?BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 1999
- Is third trimester abortion justified?BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 1995
- Ethics and late termination of pregnancyThe Lancet, 1993
- Ethics and late termination of pregnancy.1993
- Ethics and late termination of pregnancyThe Lancet, 1993
- Ethics and late termination of pregnancyThe Lancet, 1993
- Pain and Its Effects in the Human Neonate and FetusNew England Journal of Medicine, 1987
- Active and Passive EuthanasiaNew England Journal of Medicine, 1975