CFP-Gender abortions

Gender abortions: criminal charges not in 'public interest' says CPS
By John Bingham, and Claire Newell
www.telegraph.co.uk, 04 Sep 2013
1) The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS)1 was accused of failing to uphold the law after it ruled that it would
not be in the “public interest” to prosecute the two doctors exposed in an undercover Daily Telegraph
investigation.
2) Jeremy Hunt, the Health Secretary, on Wednesday night raised the case with the Attorney General2. The
two doctors were filmed agreeing to arrange terminations for women who requested them purely because
they said they did not want to have a baby girl. One of the doctors did so despite likening the practice to
“female infanticide” while the other told a woman her job was not to “ask questions”.
3) The CPS acknowledged, following a 19-month inquiry, that there was sufficient evidence to warrant a
prosecution with a “realistic prospect of conviction”. But it told police that a “public interest test” had not
been met. The CPS said that there was no need to mount a prosecution because the General Medical Council,
the body which oversees the conduct of doctors, could deal with the case. However, the GMC has no
criminal powers and cannot prosecute breaches of the law.
4) Mr Hunt voiced alarm at the decision and pressed for “urgent clarification” from the Attorney General. He
said: “We are clear that gender selection abortion is against the law and completely unacceptable. This is a
concerning development and I have written to the Attorney General to ask for urgent clarification on the
grounds for this decision.” Sources familiar with the Scotland Yard investigation said that prosecutors saw
the issue as “sensitive” and that it had become “political”.
5) On Wednesday night MPs and abortion campaign groups also expressed concern at the decision, which
they said amounted to putting doctors above the law on a “whim”, and called for Parliament to urgently
examine whether the CPS has overstepped its powers. Dr Peter Saunders, chief executive of the Christian
Medical Fellowship, who was among those who complained to police, said: “We seem to have a situation
where, at the whim of the CPS, procedures that are clearly laid out in the Abortion Act can be completely
disregarded by doctors and the NHS”.
6) “That seems to put doctors above the law and raises questions about the CPS upholding the will of
Parliament. We seem to have doctors being allowed to reinterpret the law with apparent impunity — it is
quite extraordinary.”
7) So-called sex-selection abortion is banned in the UK and has repeatedly been condemned as “morally
wrong” by ministers. The practice has long been considered a problem in parts of India and China, where
boys are sometimes considered preferable for cultural or economic reasons. But a recent Government
analysis of birth records provided the first clear indications that it is be taking place within some
communities in the UK.
8) The CPS concluded that even though the terminations did not go ahead there was enough evidence to
prosecute Dr Mohan and Dr Sivaraman for an attempted breach of the Abortion Act. But Jenny Hopkins,
Deputy Chief Crown Prosecutor for London, said it “would not be in the public interest” to prosecute the
doctors. She added: “Taking into account the need for professional judgment which deals firmly with
wrongdoing, while not deterring other doctors from carrying out legitimate and medically justified abortions,
we have concluded that the cases would be better dealt with by the GMC rather than by prosecution.”
1 The principal public prosecuting authority in England and Wales, with responsibility for conducting the vast
majority of prosecutions for alleged criminal offences within the jurisdiction. It is a non-ministerial department of
the Government of the United Kingdom, headed by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP).
2 The chief law officer of the Crown in England and Wales. e advises and represents the Crown and government
departments in court.
Gender abortions: criminal charges not in 'public interest' says CPS
VOCABULARY
Title gender abortion: avortement sélectif selon le sexe
charge: chef d'accusation (to charge sb with +ing: accuser qq de/ to press charges against sb : porter
plainte contre qq)
Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) ≈ Ministère public (qui décide si les affaires doivent être portées
devant les tribunaux)
§1
to fail to: ne pas faire qq chose
to uphold: faire respecter, appliquer
to rule: statuer, décider
to prosecute: poursuivre (prosecution: poursuites)
to expose: découvrir, exposer ; révéler
undercover: secret, clandestin (undercover journalist: journaliste infiltré)
investigation: enquête
§2
Health Secretary: Ministre de la santé
to raise a case: soulever une question, évoquer une affaire
Attorney General: Procureur général
to agree to: accepter de
termination (of pregnancy): IVG
to request: demander
to liken to: assimiler à
§3
to acknowledge: reconnaître, admettre
inquiry: enquête
evidence: preuves
to warrant: justifier
conviction: condamnation (to convict sb of sthg/ for+ing: condamner qq pour)
test: critère(s)
to meet a test: satisfaire à des critères/ conditions
to mount: monter
General Medical Council (GMC): Ordre des médecins
body: organe, organisme
to oversee: superviser
to deal with: s'occuper de
breach of the law: violation de la loi, infraction
§4
to voice: exprimer
alarm: inquiétude, alarme
to press for: faire pression pour obtenir qq chose
concerning: inquiétant
development: développements, fait nouveau
grounds (for): motifs, raisons, fondements
issue: question
sensitive: sensible
PTO
§5
MP (Member of Parliament): député
concern: préoccupation
to amount to + ing: revenir à
whim: caprice (at/ on a whim: sur un coup de tête)
to call for sb to: demander à qq de
to overstep one's powers/ authority: abuser de ses pouvoirs/ son autorité
chief executive: directeur général
fellowship: association, conporation
to complain (about): se plaindre (de)
to lay out: énoncer
Act (of Parliament): texte de loi
to disregard: ignorer, ne pas tenir compte de
NHS: le service britannique de santé
§6
will: volonté
§7
so-called: soi-disant
to ban (from + ing): interdire
birth records: registres des naissances
to provide: fournir
within: au sein de
§8
to go ahead: avoir lieu (comme prévu)
attempted...: tentative de
deputy: adjoint:
Chief Crown Prosecutor: Procureur-en-chef
to add: ajouter
to take sthg into account: prendre qq chose en considération
wrongdoing: actes répréhensibles, léfaits
to deter sb from +ing: dissuader qq de
to carry out: effectuer
Gender abortions: criminal charges not in 'public interest' says CPS
Structure
Title: A shocking paradox: some practices are banned when they are deemed [considérer] contrary
to the public interest. Yet in the case at hand the very same notion apparently precluded [empêcher]
criminal prosecution of the suspects in a sensitive bioethical area.
The decision not to bring criminal charges against two doctors accused of breaching abortion law
was seen as an instance of gross negligence [faute lourde] by the UK authorities (§1: “failing to
uphold the law”). Although the evidence appeared to be damning [accablant] (§2: “The two doctors
were filmed agreeing...”/ §3: “sufficient evidence to warrant a prosecution”), the CPS had rather
offload its responsibility [se décharger de sa responsabilité] onto the medical watchdog, the GMC
(§3: “the General Medical Council, the body which oversees the conduct of doctors, could deal with
the case”), raising concern that doctors are not subject [être soumis à] to the same rules are ordinary
citizens (§3: “the GMC has no criminal powers and cannot prosecute breaches of the law”/ §5:
“putting doctors above the law on a “whim””).
The reason behind the decision may well be that gender abortion, though clearly outlawed in the
UK (§4: “We are clear that gender selection abortion is against the law”/ §7: “So-called sexselection abortion is banned in the UK”) is a political minefield (§4: prosecutors saw the issue as
“sensitive” and […] it had become “political”).
Doctors, indeed, when faced with situations that mix cultural and medical factors, may find it hard
to strike a balance [trouver le juste milieu] when exercising professional judgement. How far then
can the CPS interfere without running the risk of undermining [saper, amoindrir] the notion of
medical discretion [jugement, capacité de prendre une décision] (§8: while not deterring other
doctors from carrying out legitimate and medically justified abortions)?
Note: Although it is technically illegal under the 1967 Abortion Act, an abortion based on the sex of
a foetus can still be carried out if two doctors agree that it is in the best interests of the woman's
health. Keith Starmer, Director of Public prosecution, admitted at the time that "the law does not, in
terms, expressly prohibit gender-specific abortions; rather it prohibits any abortion carried out
without two medical practitioners having formed a view, in good faith, that the health risks of
continuing with a pregnancy outweigh [l’emporter sur] those of termination". Another difficulty is
the reluctance of ministers to accept that there is (statistical) evidence of gender abortion in the UK.
Issues
Why does it seem so difficult to prosecute doctors offering terminations where gender is an issue?
How far do you agree that such questions are best left to bodies like the GMC?
How far should pregnant women be legally allowed to know the sex of their babies following
ultrasound scans?
What policies could help solve the issue, or at least address it with some effect?
Des milliers de bébés filles avortées au Royaume-Uni
lefigaro.fr
Par Sara Bergez - le 16/01/2014
1) Une enquête menée par le journal The Independent témoigne d'une sélection du sexe de l'enfant
qui concernerait des milliers de foetus. L'Angleterre n'est pas le seul pays européen concerné.
2) Avorter pour avoir un garçon plutôt qu'une fille, un phénomène déjà bien installé dans certains
pays d'Asie comme la Chine ou l'Inde, gagne l'Europe. Son installation est confirmée au RoyaumeUni par les résultats d'une enquête menée par The Independent et publiées par le quotidien
mercredi. Alors que d'autres médias et organismes européens ont déjà tiré la sonnette d'alarme sur le
vieux continent, cette nouvelle dénonciation de la sélection du sexe par le recours à l'avortement
pourrait relancer les débats sur la mise en place d'une lutte systématique contre cette pratique.
3) Ce n'est pas la première fois que ce type d'avortement sélectif est dénoncée au Royaume-Uni. En
février 2012, le quotidien britannique Daily Telegraph révélait des vidéos de médecins, filmés à
leur insu, acceptant de couvrir des interruptions de grossesse motivées par l'envie d'avoir un enfant
de l'autre sexe. Cette semaine, The Independant estime qu'il «manquerait» ainsi entre 1400 et 4700
filles en Angleterre et au Pays-de-Galles, après une analyse poussée du dernier recensement
britannique.
4) Le problème ne concerne pas que les Britanniques. Les pays d'Europe du Sud-Est (Albanie,
Kosovo, Monténégro) connaissent un déséquilibre préoccupant entre les sexes à la naissance depuis
une dizaine d'années, selon un rapport de l'Institut national d'études démographiques publié en
décembre. Au sein de l'Union européenne, le nombre d'avortements volontaires tardifs a doublé aux
Pays-Bas depuis 2007, année de la mise en place de l'échographie généralisée à la vingtième
semaine de grossesse, qui permet, entre autres, de connaître le sexe du fœtus. De même, de
nombreux foetus avortés tardivement en Suède sont des filles issues de couples norvégiens. Les
familles profiteraient d'un délai plus long chez leurs voisins pour interrompre la grossesse après
avoir eu connaissance du sexe de l'enfant, dénonçait l'agence de santé publique de Norvège il y a
cinq ans.
5) En réaction, le Conseil de L'Europe s'est prononcé contre la sélection du sexe avant la naissance
en 2011, qualifiés de «féminicides», et a appelé les pays concernés à renforcer leur lutte contre ces
pratiques. Outre-Atlantique, les États-Unis ont tenté de pénaliser ce type d'avortements en 2012. Le
projet de loi fédérale, qui prévoyait cinq ans de prison et des amendes pour les responsables, a
cependant été rejeté faute d'obtenir la majorité des deux tiers requise à la chambre des représentants
américains.
6) La France resterait épargnée par ce phénomène. En effet, dans l'Hexagone tout test génétique est
strictement encadré par une équipe médicale comprenant au moins un généticien, ainsi qu'un
psychologue. Le rapport filles/garçons à la naissance étant par ailleurs normal, cette structure
semble prévenir efficacement les dérives. Cependant des tests génétiques américains, que l'on peut
se procurer sur Internet bien qu'ils soient illégaux en France, promettent de déterminer précocement
le sexe du futur enfant avec une fiabilité de 95%, selon la société californienne Consumer Genetics
qui le produit.