Related Experiment Videos
Summary
This commentary analyzes the legal risks of selective pregnancy reduction and failed mifepristone abortions. It finds criminal law risks are higher than suggested, but civil liability for damaged infants is unlikely.
Area of Science:
- Medical Law
- Reproductive Rights
- Criminal Law
Background:
- Jansen raises concerns regarding the legal ramifications of selective pregnancy reduction and unsuccessful mifepristone-induced abortions.
- Existing legal frameworks in England and other common law jurisdictions govern abortion and related procedures.
Purpose of the Study:
- To critically examine the legality of selective pregnancy reduction and failed mifepristone abortions.
- To assess the validity of concerns regarding criminal liability and civil claims arising from these procedures.
Main Methods:
- Legal commentary and analysis of existing statutes and case law.
- Comparative review of legal principles in England and other common law jurisdictions.
Main Results:
- The commentary concludes that Jansen's assessment of low criminal law risk for these procedures is overly optimistic.
- Conversely, anxieties regarding civil liability for subsequent live births of damaged infants are deemed unnecessarily pessimistic.
- Infant-initiated legal actions are unlikely to succeed; maternal claims typically require proof of negligence.
Conclusions:
- The legal risks associated with selective pregnancy reduction and failed mifepristone abortions, particularly concerning criminal law, are significant.
- Civil liability claims by mothers or infants for adverse outcomes are unlikely to succeed without demonstrable negligence.
- The commentary provides a nuanced legal perspective on reproductive procedures within common law frameworks.