堕胎的人权和胎儿损伤理由：Crowter诉卫生和社会保健国务秘书【2022】EWCA Civ 1559

Q2 Social Sciences

Medical Law International Pub Date : 2023-04-24 DOI:10.1177/09685332231167103

Zoe L. Tongue

{"title":"堕胎的人权和胎儿损伤理由：Crowter诉卫生和社会保健国务秘书【2022】EWCA Civ 1559","authors":"Zoe L. Tongue","doi":"10.1177/09685332231167103","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This commentary discusses the Court of Appeal’s decision in Crowter v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care handed down on 25 November 2022. The appellants argued that s.1(1)(d) of the Abortion Act 1967, the foetal impairment ground for abortion, was incompatible with Articles 8 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights for perpetuating discriminatory attitudes towards people with disabilities. The appeal was unsuccessful. In rejecting their argument, the Court of Appeal considered European and international human rights standards on discrimination, and distinguished between the direct and social impacts of discrimination. This commentary will engage with these arguments, and situate the decision within the broader context of recent changes to abortion laws in the United Kingdom and worldwide.","PeriodicalId":39602,"journal":{"name":"Medical Law International","volume":"23 1","pages":"297 - 306"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Human rights and foetal impairment grounds for abortion: Crowter v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care [2022] EWCA Civ 1559\",\"authors\":\"Zoe L. Tongue\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/09685332231167103\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This commentary discusses the Court of Appeal’s decision in Crowter v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care handed down on 25 November 2022. The appellants argued that s.1(1)(d) of the Abortion Act 1967, the foetal impairment ground for abortion, was incompatible with Articles 8 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights for perpetuating discriminatory attitudes towards people with disabilities. The appeal was unsuccessful. In rejecting their argument, the Court of Appeal considered European and international human rights standards on discrimination, and distinguished between the direct and social impacts of discrimination. This commentary will engage with these arguments, and situate the decision within the broader context of recent changes to abortion laws in the United Kingdom and worldwide.\",\"PeriodicalId\":39602,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Medical Law International\",\"volume\":\"23 1\",\"pages\":\"297 - 306\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Medical Law International\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/09685332231167103\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Law International","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09685332231167103","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

本评论讨论了上诉法院在2022年11月25日Crowter诉卫生和社会护理国务秘书一案中的裁决。上诉人辩称，1967年《堕胎法》第1（1）（d）条是堕胎的胎儿损害理由，不符合《欧洲人权公约》第8条和第14条，因为它使对残疾人的歧视态度长期存在。上诉没有成功。在驳回他们的论点时，上诉法院考虑了关于歧视的欧洲和国际人权标准，并区分了歧视的直接影响和社会影响。本评论将涉及这些论点，并将该决定置于英国和世界各地最近堕胎法变化的更广泛背景下。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Human rights and foetal impairment grounds for abortion: Crowter v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care [2022] EWCA Civ 1559

This commentary discusses the Court of Appeal’s decision in Crowter v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care handed down on 25 November 2022. The appellants argued that s.1(1)(d) of the Abortion Act 1967, the foetal impairment ground for abortion, was incompatible with Articles 8 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights for perpetuating discriminatory attitudes towards people with disabilities. The appeal was unsuccessful. In rejecting their argument, the Court of Appeal considered European and international human rights standards on discrimination, and distinguished between the direct and social impacts of discrimination. This commentary will engage with these arguments, and situate the decision within the broader context of recent changes to abortion laws in the United Kingdom and worldwide.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Medical Law International Social Sciences-Law

CiteScore

2.60

自引率

0.00%

发文量

期刊介绍： The scope includes: Clinical Negligence. Health Matters Affecting Civil Liberties. Forensic Medicine. Determination of Death. Organ and Tissue Transplantation. End of Life Decisions. Legal and Ethical Issues in Medical Treatment. Confidentiality. Access to Medical Records. Medical Complaints Procedures. Professional Discipline. Employment Law and Legal Issues within NHS. Resource Allocation in Health Care. Mental Health Law. Misuse of Drugs. Legal and Ethical Issues concerning Human Reproduction. Therapeutic Products. Medical Research. Cloning. Gene Therapy. Genetic Testing and Screening. And Related Topics.