Medical abortion and the 'golden rule' of statutory interpretation. BPAS v the Secretary of State for Health (2011) EWHC 235.

摘要

At present, approximately 70,000 women a year in the UK seek to terminate a pregnancy by means of an 'early medical abortion' (EMA) or, as it is more commonly known, the abortion pill. The relative benefits to women of EMA (available under nine weeks' gestation) as opposed to the alternative surgical abortion are well known. As well as presenting no anaesthetic risk, EMA is not invasive, less likely to result in complications (like excessive bleeding), and hence also, usually, the least emotionally distressing of the various procedural options. The method involves a two-pill regimen. After initial consultation and testing, the woman is administered the first pill, mifepristone, which acts to block the pregnancy hormone. Between one and three days later, she then returns to receive the second pill, misoprostol, the taking of which brings on a miscarriage. The miscarriage itself is experienced much like a very severe period. Though the level of painfulness naturally varies, it is at the very least an extremely uncomfortable process.