ABSTRACT
Woolf J tested the statute by supposing that a registered medical practitioner performed an abortion operation upon a woman whom he believed to be pregnant but who was not so in fact. The Act of 1967 would give him no defence to a charge under the Act of 1861. That is such a fanciful instance that I do not think it throws any light on the true construction of this statute.
(vi) The Solicitor-General emphasised the word 'treatment' in ss 1(3), 3(1)(a) and (c) and 4(1). He suggested that s 1(1) should be read as if it said that a person should not be guilty of an offence 'when the treatment (for termination of a pregnancy) is by a registered medical practitioner'. He submitted that whenever the registered medical practitioner did what the Department of Health advised it satisfied the statute, because the treatment, being initiated by him and done under his instructions, was 'by' him. I cannot accept this interpretation. I think the word 'treatment' in those sections means 'the actual act of terminating the pregnancy'. When the medical induction method is used, this means the continuous act of administering prostaglandin from the moment it is started until the unborn child is expelled from the mother's body. This continuous act must be done by the doctor personally. It is not sufficient that it is done by a nurse when he is not present.
