Family planning groups concerned that ruling may lead to US-style targeting of abortion doctors
The government has lost a high court case over release of data on late terminations, the publication of which, family planning groups believe, could lead to the US-style targeting of abortion doctors.
Mr Justice Cranston ruled that the Information Tribunal had been correct in 2009 when it ruled that the data should be released to the anti-abortion ProLife Alliance.
James Eadie QC, representing the Department of Health, said patients could be identified if the data was put together with other information in the public domain. But the judge ruled that this was an extremely remote risk and there had been no error of law. No data will be released pending a possible health department appeal.
The Information Tribunal had also been entitled to conclude that release of the material to a campaign group was "proportionate" and necessary to inform the public debate on the controversial subject of abortion, he said.
The department stopped publishing full statistical data on abortions arising from foetal abnormality after 24 weeks of pregnancy in 2003, when information about a late-stage termination owing to a cleft palate led to a particular hospital, and then one doctor, being named in connection with the case.
Critics argued that cleft palates were now relatively simple to repair with surgery, and anti-abortion groups argued the law was being flouted to weed out "less than perfect" babies. A police investigation was launched after a complaint by the Rev Joanna Jepson, who was herself born with a cleft palate.
Another anti-abortion group began a campaign against the doctor who carried out the termination, putting his address on its website. The doctor eventually held a press conference to defend himself.
Concerns grew that women who underwent late terminations and their doctors could be personally identified by the data because they were so few.
The case went to the Information Tribunal after the ProLife Alliance requested the information under the Freedom of Information Act, a request refused by the Department of Health.
A DoH spokesman said: "The department will now consider the implications of this judgment and the options available."
Outside the court, Josephine Quintavalle of the ProLife Alliance said: "This is a great victory for freedom of information and accountability and most importantly for the rights of the disabled unborn child. There is no proper mechanism for the scrutiny of abortion provision other than the meagre information provided by statistics, and these were far more detailed in 2001 than they are today, particularly in relationship to late abortions."
Ann Furedi, chief executive of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, said: "The real issue at stake is not how and when statistics are published, but that the late abortions currently performed for foetal anomaly are lawful and that doctors should be able to carry them out without intimidation. They are no one's 'dirty little secret' and the doctors and nursing staff involved deserve admiration and support."
It is legal to have an abortion without a specific medical reason up to the 24th week of gestation. Abortions after 24 weeks are allowed if there is grave risk to the life of the woman; evidence of severe foetal abnormality; or risk of grave physical and mental injury to the woman.
Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/apr/20/late-abortions-data-court
SYNNEX SYMANTEC SYKES ENTERPRISES INORATED SYBASE SUN MICROSYSTEMS
No comments:
Post a Comment