Abortion policy and politics on the Lane Committee of Enquiry, 1971-1974.

A. Wivel
{"title":"Abortion policy and politics on the Lane Committee of Enquiry, 1971-1974.","authors":"A. Wivel","doi":"10.1093/SHM/11.1.109","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The 1967 Abortion Act did not quell public discussion on therapeutic abortions in Britain. Criticism of the way the Act was working began almost as soon as the legislation came into force. After only three years, a committee of enquiry, chaired by Justice Elizabeth Lane, studied the working of the Act. This Committee caused some surprise on all sides of the abortion debate by offering unanimous support for the Act in its original form. Understanding how the Lane Committee arrived at its unexpected recommendations is important not only because the Report has proved to be an enduring endorsement of the Act but also because the Lane Committee provides a case study of the process of policy formulation at the level of a committee of enquiry. The Lane Committee appears to have achieved consensus incrementally. First a majority and then the whole Committee supported the Act as a humane measure requiring regulatory and not legislative solutions to the problems of its working. Using both written and oral sources, I will argue that consensus evolved through the compelling leadership of several key members of the majority group with particular influence by the most psychosocially oriented members of the Committee.","PeriodicalId":68213,"journal":{"name":"医疗社会史研究","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1998-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"医疗社会史研究","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/SHM/11.1.109","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

The 1967 Abortion Act did not quell public discussion on therapeutic abortions in Britain. Criticism of the way the Act was working began almost as soon as the legislation came into force. After only three years, a committee of enquiry, chaired by Justice Elizabeth Lane, studied the working of the Act. This Committee caused some surprise on all sides of the abortion debate by offering unanimous support for the Act in its original form. Understanding how the Lane Committee arrived at its unexpected recommendations is important not only because the Report has proved to be an enduring endorsement of the Act but also because the Lane Committee provides a case study of the process of policy formulation at the level of a committee of enquiry. The Lane Committee appears to have achieved consensus incrementally. First a majority and then the whole Committee supported the Act as a humane measure requiring regulatory and not legislative solutions to the problems of its working. Using both written and oral sources, I will argue that consensus evolved through the compelling leadership of several key members of the majority group with particular influence by the most psychosocially oriented members of the Committee.
莱恩调查委员会的堕胎政策和政治,1971-1974年。
1967年的《堕胎法》并没有平息英国公众对治疗性堕胎的讨论。对该法案运作方式的批评几乎在立法生效后就开始了。仅仅三年之后,一个由伊丽莎白·莱恩法官主持的调查委员会研究了该法案的运作。本委员会一致支持该法案的原稿,这使堕胎辩论的各方都感到吃惊。了解莱恩委员会如何得出其意想不到的建议是很重要的,不仅因为该报告已被证明是对该法案的持久认可,而且因为莱恩委员会提供了调查委员会一级政策制定过程的案例研究。莱恩委员会似乎逐渐达成了共识。首先是多数人,然后是整个委员会都支持该法案,认为它是一项人道措施,需要用管制办法而不是立法办法来解决其工作中的问题。我将利用书面和口头资料说明,共识是通过多数群体中几位关键成员的强有力领导而形成的,这些成员受到委员会中最注重心理社会的成员的特别影响。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
140
×
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