Polish Abortion Legal Framework after the Judgment of the Constitutional Court of 22 October 2020 in case no. K 1/20: Impact on Doctors.

IF 0.5 4区 医学 Q3 LAW
Issues in Law & Medicine Pub Date : 2022-01-01
Kamila Kocańda, Olga Adamczyk-Gruszka
{"title":"Polish Abortion Legal Framework after the Judgment of the Constitutional Court of 22 October 2020 in case no. K 1/20: Impact on Doctors.","authors":"Kamila Kocańda,&nbsp;Olga Adamczyk-Gruszka","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In 2020, the rules governing the practice of abortion in Poland were narrowed and became some of the strictest in Europe. These new rules were the result of the Constitutional Court's oral announcement of its judgment in case K 1/20, making abortion for embryo-pathological reasons illegal. Thus, terminations of pregnancy in cases where prenatal tests and other medical findings indicated a high risk of a severe and irreversible damage to the foetus, or an incurable life-threatening ailment of the foetus, which in 2018 accounted for approximately 98% of all abortions in Poland, were declared illegal. In the Constitutional Court's written opinion, however, the court included a statement that may constitute a basis for broader interpretation, namely, that reasons of an embryo-pathological nature, insofar as they pose a <i>threat to the life or health of the pregnant woman</i>, may constitute a basis for legal termination of a pregnancy on the grounds of \"the mother's well-being.\" But it is not clear in the Court's opinion how many doctors (and of what specialties) should make the relevant evaluation that would constitute sufficient legal justification for a decision to perform a legal abortion, thereby mitigating the risk of facing legal liability for terminating a pregnancy. For these reasons, doctors are likely to bear the burden that should have been placed on the legislators, who are, after all, obliged to consistently and exhaustively consider all the factual situations that are bound to happen in medical practice. Such factual situations should be addressed by thoughtful legislation instead of subjecting physicians to potentially unorthodox or free interpretation of laws falling short of meeting the actual needs of their patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":48665,"journal":{"name":"Issues in Law & Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Issues in Law & Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In 2020, the rules governing the practice of abortion in Poland were narrowed and became some of the strictest in Europe. These new rules were the result of the Constitutional Court's oral announcement of its judgment in case K 1/20, making abortion for embryo-pathological reasons illegal. Thus, terminations of pregnancy in cases where prenatal tests and other medical findings indicated a high risk of a severe and irreversible damage to the foetus, or an incurable life-threatening ailment of the foetus, which in 2018 accounted for approximately 98% of all abortions in Poland, were declared illegal. In the Constitutional Court's written opinion, however, the court included a statement that may constitute a basis for broader interpretation, namely, that reasons of an embryo-pathological nature, insofar as they pose a threat to the life or health of the pregnant woman, may constitute a basis for legal termination of a pregnancy on the grounds of "the mother's well-being." But it is not clear in the Court's opinion how many doctors (and of what specialties) should make the relevant evaluation that would constitute sufficient legal justification for a decision to perform a legal abortion, thereby mitigating the risk of facing legal liability for terminating a pregnancy. For these reasons, doctors are likely to bear the burden that should have been placed on the legislators, who are, after all, obliged to consistently and exhaustively consider all the factual situations that are bound to happen in medical practice. Such factual situations should be addressed by thoughtful legislation instead of subjecting physicians to potentially unorthodox or free interpretation of laws falling short of meeting the actual needs of their patients.

宪法法院于2020年10月22日对第(1)号案件作出判决后的波兰堕胎法律框架。K 1/20:对医生的影响
2020年,波兰对堕胎的规定有所缩小,成为欧洲最严格的国家之一。这些新规定是宪法法院在K /20案件中口头宣布因胚胎病理原因堕胎为非法的判决的结果。因此,在产前检查和其他医学检查结果表明胎儿有严重和不可逆转损害的高风险,或胎儿有无法治愈的危及生命的疾病的情况下,终止妊娠(2018年占波兰所有堕胎的约98%)被宣布为非法。然而,在宪法法院的书面意见中,法院包括了一项声明,该声明可能构成更广泛解释的基础,即胚胎病理性质的原因,只要它们对孕妇的生命或健康构成威胁,就可以构成以"母亲的福祉"为理由合法终止妊娠的基础。但是,在本院的意见中,没有明确指出应该有多少医生(以及哪些专业的医生)进行相关评估,从而构成决定进行合法堕胎的充分法律理由,从而减轻因终止妊娠而面临法律责任的风险。由于这些原因,医生很可能承担了本应由立法者承担的责任,毕竟,立法者有义务始终如一地、详尽地考虑医疗实践中必然发生的所有实际情况。这种实际情况应该通过深思熟虑的立法来解决,而不是让医生接受可能非正统的或对法律的自由解释,而不能满足患者的实际需求。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Issues in Law & Medicine
Issues in Law & Medicine Medicine-Health Policy
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Issues in Law & Medicine is a peer reviewed professional journal published semiannually. Founded in 1985, ILM is co-sponsored by the National Legal Center for the Medically Dependent & Disabled, Inc. and the Watson Bowes Research Institute. Issues is devoted to providing technical and informational assistance to attorneys, health care professionals, educators and administrators on legal, medical, and ethical issues arising from health care decisions. Its subscribers include law libraries, medical libraries, university libraries, court libraries, attorneys, physicians, university professors and other scholars, primarily in the U.S. and Canada, but also in Austria, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Italy, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Japan, Russia, South Korea, Spain, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信