You are here

Article Text

Article menu

Download PDFPDF

Research
Vacuum aspiration for induced abortion could be safely and legally performed by nurses and midwives
  1. Sally Sheldon1,
  2. Joanne Fletcher2
  1. 1Professor of Law Kent Law School, Eliot College, Kent University, Canterbury, UK
  2. 2 Consultant Nurse in Gynaecology, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, UK
  1. Correspondence to Professor Sally Sheldon, Kent Law School, Eliot College, Kent University, Canterbury CT2 7NS, UK; s.sheldon{at}kent.ac.uk

Abstract

Background Some 40% of abortions carried out in England and Wales are done by vacuum aspiration. It is widely assumed that, in order to be lawful, these procedures must be performed by doctors.

Aim and design This study aimed to provide a detailed reassessment of the relevant law and the clinical evidence that supports this assumption.

Conclusions A close reading of relevant law reveals that this assumption is unfounded. On the contrary, it would be lawful for appropriately trained nurses or midwives, acting as part of a multidisciplinary team, to carry out vacuum aspiration procedures. This interpretation of the law offers the potential for developing more streamlined, cost-effective abortion services, which would be both safe and highly acceptable to patients.

  • abortion
  • family planning service provision
  • medico-legal

This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt and build upon this work, for commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

https://doi.org/10.1136/jfprhc-2016-101542

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Funding Arts and Humanities Research Council (AH/L006537/1).

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

    • Authors’ note A more detailed account of the legal analysis contained in this article, contextualised within a broader consideration of the Abortion Act (1967), is provided in a recent Modern Law Review article.16

    Linked Articles

    • Highlights from this issue
      In this issue
      British Medical Journal Publishing Group
      BMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health 2017; 43 247-248 Published Online First: 10 Oct 2017. doi: 10.1136/jfprhc-2017-101910