|
|
此文章由 BreakingBad 原创或转贴，不代表本站立场和观点，版权归 oursteps.com.au 和作者 BreakingBad 所有！转贴必须注明作者、出处和本声明，并保持内容完整
LEGISLATION
NSW Crimes Act 1900, sections 82, 83, 84.
In NSW abortion is contained in sections 82, 83 and 84 of the NSW Crimes Act, with penalties of up to 10 years imprisonment for women, doctors and anyone who assists:
Section 82. Whosoever, being a woman with child, unlawfully administers to herself any drug or noxious thing; or unlawfully uses any instrument to procure her miscarriage, shall be liable to penal servitude for ten years.
Section 83. Whosoever unlawfully administers to, or causes to be taken by, any woman, whether with child or not, any drug or noxious thing; or unlawfully uses any instrument or other means, with intent in such cases to procure her miscarriage, shall be liable to penal servitude for ten years.
Section 84. Whosoever unlawfully supplies or procures any drug or noxious thing, or any instrument or thing whatsoever, knowing that the same is intended to be unlawfully used with intent to procure the miscarriage of any woman whether with child or not, shall be liable to penal servitude for life.
The Crimes Act specifies that abortion is a crime only if it is performed unlawfully. However, it does not define when an abortion would be considered lawful or unlawful.
CASE LAW
R v Wald: Judge Levine established a legal precedent on the definition of lawful in his ruling on the case of R v Wald in 1971. He allowed that an abortion should be considered to be lawful if the doctor honestly believed on reasonable grounds that “the operation was necessary to preserve the woman involved from serious danger to her life or physical or mental health which the continuance of the pregnancy would entail” and that in regard to mental health the doctor may take into account “the effects of economic or social stress that may be pertaining to the time”. Levine also specified that two doctors’ opinions are not necessary and that the abortion does not have to be performed in a public hospital.
The Levine judgement has been affirmed in other NSW court cases, and expanded to include a threat to the woman’s mental health that may occur following birth if the pregnancy continues. A more detailed examination of NSW case law is available here.
https://www.childrenbychoice.org.au/factsandfigures/australianabortionlawandpractice#NSW
“Mental health” has since been interpreted to include “the effects of economic or social stress that may pertain either during pregnancy or after birth” (CES v Superclinics Australia Pty Ltd [1995] 38 NSWLR 47).
https://www.fpnsw.org.au/health-information/abortion/law-abortion-nsw
问题是医生到底怎样定义reasonable grounds呢？ |
|
堆栈摄影实践 (2015-8-17) wangbo1118 
楼主:哇哇哇
发表于 2017-5-11 18:34
