The Child Minder

As part of its inquiry, it examined ground E of the act which says abortion can be considered where there is “substantial risk” that if a child were born it would suffer from physical or mental abnormalities making it “seriously handicapped.”

There are “inconsistencies” on the way abnormalities are defined, leading to unborn children with minor disabilities being aborted, the committee found.

Just two doctors can currently assess whether an unborn child would suffer severe abnormality, leading to an “unacceptable risk of subjective decision-making,” David Randall, a final year medical student, argued in his evidence to the committee.

The consequences have been highly controversial, as outlined in the committee’s report.

In 2001, a 28-week foetus was aborted because it was diagnosed with a bilateral cleft lip and palate. Joanne Jepson, a trainee curate, asked the police to investigate but the Crown Prosecution Service refused to prosecute, arguing that the doctors had acted in good faith.

This decision was made despite previous outrage caused by two lawyers who sent a letter to all MPs arguing that a healthy foetus at greater than 24 weeks’ gestation could be legally aborted for having a hare lip or cleft palate.

The letter was sent during the government’s 1990 review of the Abortion Act, causing David Steel MP to describe it as a “gross calumny on the medical profession”.

There were 20 abortions for foetuses with clubbed feet from 1996 to 2006, and around half of foetuses affected by Down’s syndrome are aborted.

Randall gave compelling evidence against such terminations. Clubbed feet can always be successfully cured, he argued, pointing out that the winner of the 1992 Olympic gold medal for women’s figure skating was born with the condition.

Other terminations have been carried out for minor abnormalities including webbed fingers and extra digits, the committee heard.

In response to its findings, the science and technology committee has called on MPs to consider whether a clarification or definition of “seriously handicapped” is needed.

It has also recommended that the Department of Health should produce guidance for doctors and patients, and that data should be collected on the reasons for abortion beyond 24 weeks for foetal abnormality.

But has it gone far enough to protect the rights of children who would be born disabled?

Anti-abortion organisations including the Lawyer’s Christian Fellowship told the committee they did not accept that foetal abnormality “can ever justify abortion.”

It said: “The mere existence of this clause of the Act is highly controversial because of the way it discriminates unashamedly against the disabled and makes sweeping assumptions about the quality of life and of the intrinsic value of life.”

The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children which also gave evidence, has also spoken out against abortion of the disabled, saying it is “not only an attack on the most vulnerable and most in need of protection, but also an affront to all members of the community who are disabled. It sends them the message that they are inferior to, and of less value than, the able-bodied.”

But while the anti-abortion lobby seemingly spoke out on behalf of disabled children and their parents, views from the grassroots were surprisingly absent.

Those giving evidence to the committee were largely divided between doctors and anti-abortion lobbyists.

There was vital but far too patchy evidence on medical advances that mean disabled children now stand a better chance of having equality and quality of life than before. This made something of a mockery of the inquiry’s purpose to look at “scientific developments” since the Abortion Act was passed in 1967.

The Lejeune Clinic for Children with Down’s Syndrome was the sole disability organisation that gave evidence, but where were the voices of the countless other disability groups?

The abortion debate is too dominated by doctors, the women’s lobby and the anti-abortionists. The voices of disabled children and their parents must be heard to create a better future for the next generation.

More information

Read the evidence submitted to the committee.

Also, there are a couple of interesting Community Care articles on this issue:
Is it right to screen embryos for disabilities?
A woman’s right to decide is paramount [Jepson case]