IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/medlaw/v31y2023i4p538-563..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The (mis)use of fetal viability as the determinant of non-criminal abortion in the Netherlands and England and Wales

Author

Listed:
  • Samantha Halliday
  • Elizabeth Chloe Romanis
  • Lien de Proost
  • E Joanne Verweij

Abstract

Time plays a fundamental role in abortion regulation. In this article, we compare the regulatory frameworks in England and Wales and the Netherlands as examples of the centrality accorded to viability in the determination of the parameters of non-criminal abortion, demonstrating that the use of viability as a threshold renders the law uncertain. We assess the role played by the concept of viability, analysing its impact upon the continued criminalization of abortion and categorization of abortion as a medical matter, rather than a reproductive choice. We conclude that viability is misconceived in its application to abortion and that neonatal viability (relating to treatment of the premature infant) and fetal viability (related to the capacity to survive birth) must be distinguished to better reflect the social context within which the law and practice of abortion operate. We show how viability thresholds endanger pregnant people.

Suggested Citation

  • Samantha Halliday & Elizabeth Chloe Romanis & Lien de Proost & E Joanne Verweij, 2023. "The (mis)use of fetal viability as the determinant of non-criminal abortion in the Netherlands and England and Wales," Medical Law Review, Oxford University Press, vol. 31(4), pages 538-563.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:medlaw:v:31:y:2023:i:4:p:538-563.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/medlaw/fwad015
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:medlaw:v:31:y:2023:i:4:p:538-563.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/medlaw .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.