When conscience isn't clear

Greater Glasgow Health Board v Doogan and Another [2014] UKSC 68

Research output: Contribution to journalComment/debate

3 Citations (Scopus)
22 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Doogan is a judicial review of a decision by Greater Glasgow Health Board regarding the scope of the conscience-based exemption in section 4(1) of the Abortion Act 1967. The case progressed through the Outer and Inner Houses of the Court of Session in Edinburgh before final judgment was delivered in the Supreme Court by Baroness Hale on 17th December 2014. The Supreme Court eschewed consideration of the human rights dimension of the case (which had featured in the Outer House decision) and approached its judgment as ‘a pure question of statutory construction’. This commentary engages with the judgment on its own terms, assessing it as an exercise in statutory interpretation, and leaves it to others who may wish to do so to comment on the human rights aspects of the case.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)668-682
Number of pages15
JournalMedical Law Review
Volume23
Issue number4
Early online date30 Aug 2015
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2015

Fingerprint

conscience
Supreme Court
Health
human rights
health
judgment or sentence
exemption
abortion
act
interpretation

Keywords

  • Abortion Act 1967
  • Section 4(1)
  • conscience
  • conscience-based exemptions
  • statutory interpretation
  • United Kingdom Supreme Court

Cite this

@article{7e897e85361549fb8871385d01cc4016,
title = "When conscience isn't clear: Greater Glasgow Health Board v Doogan and Another [2014] UKSC 68",
abstract = "The Supreme Court’s judgment in Doogan is a judicial review of a decision by Greater Glasgow Health Board regarding the scope of the conscience-based exemption in section 4(1) of the Abortion Act 1967. The case progressed through the Outer and Inner Houses of the Court of Session in Edinburgh before final judgment was delivered in the Supreme Court by Baroness Hale on 17th December 2014. The Supreme Court eschewed consideration of the human rights dimension of the case (which had featured in the Outer House decision) and approached its judgment as ‘a pure question of statutory construction’. This commentary engages with the judgment on its own terms, assessing it as an exercise in statutory interpretation, and leaves it to others who may wish to do so to comment on the human rights aspects of the case.",
keywords = "Abortion Act 1967, Section 4(1), conscience, conscience-based exemptions, statutory interpretation, United Kingdom Supreme Court",
author = "Mary Neal",
year = "2015",
doi = "10.1093/medlaw/fwv027",
language = "English",
volume = "23",
pages = "668--682",
journal = "Medical Law Review",
issn = "0967-0742",
number = "4",

}

When conscience isn't clear : Greater Glasgow Health Board v Doogan and Another [2014] UKSC 68. / Neal, Mary.

In: Medical Law Review, Vol. 23, No. 4, 2015, p. 668-682.

Research output: Contribution to journalComment/debate

TY - JOUR

T1 - When conscience isn't clear

T2 - Greater Glasgow Health Board v Doogan and Another [2014] UKSC 68

AU - Neal, Mary

PY - 2015

Y1 - 2015

N2 - The Supreme Court’s judgment in Doogan is a judicial review of a decision by Greater Glasgow Health Board regarding the scope of the conscience-based exemption in section 4(1) of the Abortion Act 1967. The case progressed through the Outer and Inner Houses of the Court of Session in Edinburgh before final judgment was delivered in the Supreme Court by Baroness Hale on 17th December 2014. The Supreme Court eschewed consideration of the human rights dimension of the case (which had featured in the Outer House decision) and approached its judgment as ‘a pure question of statutory construction’. This commentary engages with the judgment on its own terms, assessing it as an exercise in statutory interpretation, and leaves it to others who may wish to do so to comment on the human rights aspects of the case.

AB - The Supreme Court’s judgment in Doogan is a judicial review of a decision by Greater Glasgow Health Board regarding the scope of the conscience-based exemption in section 4(1) of the Abortion Act 1967. The case progressed through the Outer and Inner Houses of the Court of Session in Edinburgh before final judgment was delivered in the Supreme Court by Baroness Hale on 17th December 2014. The Supreme Court eschewed consideration of the human rights dimension of the case (which had featured in the Outer House decision) and approached its judgment as ‘a pure question of statutory construction’. This commentary engages with the judgment on its own terms, assessing it as an exercise in statutory interpretation, and leaves it to others who may wish to do so to comment on the human rights aspects of the case.

KW - Abortion Act 1967

KW - Section 4(1)

KW - conscience

KW - conscience-based exemptions

KW - statutory interpretation

KW - United Kingdom Supreme Court

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84958973744&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1093/medlaw/fwv027

DO - 10.1093/medlaw/fwv027

M3 - Comment/debate

VL - 23

SP - 668

EP - 682

JO - Medical Law Review

JF - Medical Law Review

SN - 0967-0742

IS - 4

ER -