Vive La France!

[noseall]

Posted by MBK.....

To show that an opinion has been formed 'in good faith' does not mean that authorising an abortion must be the 'right' course of action, simply that the doctor has not been dishonest or negligent in forming that opinion. What makes an abortion lawful is the doctor's opinion that there are lawful grounds for the procedure, rather than the fact that those grounds exist.
So, for example, if two doctors believe in good faith that abortion carries less risk to a woman's physical or mental health than carrying the pregnancy to term, this makes the abortion legal – even if, in the eventuality, it would have been safer to carry the pregnancy to term (for example, if the abortion resulted in death or injury). Similarly, if a woman states that she cannot afford to continue the pregnancy, the doctor is not obliged to check that she really is lacking in funds.

It doesn't say 'authorisation in the Act...? How can this be!

 

[noseall]

Posted by MBK....

The doctors are required to authorise it because they have to assess if the abortion is likely to cause more harm than going term

Authorise, how can this be! It doesn't say it in the Act?

 

[motorbiking]

But how do you reconcile that with the following post of yours, which seems to be the one which kicked off this whole argument?

because authorising a medical procedure - which doctors do every day has nothing to do with the legal criteria for an abortion to be legal.

Waffle.

I'm asking you a straight question here:

Are doctors 'authorising' an abortion when they sign it off after the consultation process. Yes or no?

no

 

[noseall]

because authorising a medical procedure - which doctors do every day has nothing to do with the legal criteria for an abortion to be legal.
no

No one said it did. Just more waffle.

If a solicitor that specialises in abortion, were to say that the doctors sign-off is authorising an abortion, would you believe them?

 

[noseall]

no

Of course they are, you even said so yourself.

 

[noseall]

Make it as big as you like - You don't understand it. The doctors are required to authorise it because they have to assess if the abortion is likely to cause more harm than going term.

Can anyone see the word authorise here and who wrote it?

 

[noseall]

To show that an opinion has been formed 'in good faith' does not mean that authorising an abortion must be the 'right' course of action, simply that the doctor has not been dishonest or negligent in forming that opinion. What makes an abortion lawful is the doctor's opinion that there are lawful grounds for the procedure, rather than the fact that those grounds exist.
So, for example, if two doctors believe in good faith that abortion carries less risk to a woman's physical or mental health than carrying the pregnancy to term, this makes the abortion legal – even if, in the eventuality, it would have been safer to carry the pregnancy to term (for example, if the abortion resulted in death or injury). Similarly, if a woman states that she cannot afford to continue the pregnancy, the doctor is not obliged to check that she really is lacking in funds.

Can anyone see the word authorise here and who c&p it?

 

[JonathanM]

because authorising a medical procedure - which doctors do every day has nothing to do with the legal criteria for an abortion to be legal.

But you specifically say

The doctors are required to authorise it because they have to assess if the abortion is likely to cause more harm than going term

You are explicity saying that, in reaching their opinion as to whether the abortion meets the criteria, they are authorising the abortion.

 

[noseall]

But it doesn't say it in the Act, how can this be!

 

[noseall]

But you specifically say



You are explicity saying that, in reaching their opinion as to whether the abortion meets the criteria, they are authorising the abortion.

The bloke is a deluded fruit loop. He even said it himself. He will now lecture you for five pages on the word explicit in order to deflect his embarrassment.

 

[noseall]

But you specifically say



You are explicity saying that, in reaching their opinion as to whether the abortion meets the criteria, they are authorising the abortion.

Read this.

It's one of the best articles on abortion law I have read. I think even MBK will find it entertaining as it is written from a legal point of view.

 

[noseall]

no

So what did you mean when you wrote this....

Make it as big as you like - You don't understand it. The doctors are required to authorise it because they have to assess if the abortion is likely to cause more harm than going term.

 

[noseall]

Maybe the French aren't too concerned about Le Penn but their introductions from the North and African territories.

What the fook is this sentence supposed to mean? Is it English?

 

[Notch7]

no

If form HSA1 with 2 signatures is not needed for authorisation / approval / certification............then abortion must be able to go ahead without it.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

If I wanted the forum trolls to know what I do for a living, I would say so, perhaps with a link to my bio. This forum allows some level of anonymity and as long as I remain silent on my professional status etc.. I am free to offer all sorts of suggestions.

The only thing I have ever claimed to be on here - is a commercial skipper, ex-plod advanced motorcycle instructor - both of which are/were hobby jobs.

And i think that covers your legal "expertise".

Ex plod.