Women's wellbeing as an empty declaration? A qualitative exploration of challenges in accessing termination of pregnancy due to fetal anomaly in Germany
- The provision of prenatal testing through publicly funded healthcare systems, including non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT), is frequently justified on the basis of supporting reproductive autonomy and informed choice. This includes decision-making around termination of pregnancy (TOP), including where it is due to a diagnosis of fetal anomaly (TOPFA). In Germany, TOP is regulated under the criminal code. However, it is exempt from punishment, if provided upon request from the woman up to 12 weeks after conception (14 weeks gestation) and following mandatory counselling. After this gestational stage, TOP may be provided where it is necessary to ensure the physical and mental wellbeing of the pregnant woman. However, there is a significant lack of clarity about how to interpret and apply this criterion. Fetal anomaly is often detected or confirmed after the time limit for TOP upon request has passed, which introduces uncertainty whether a fetal indication justifies legal access to TOP.The provision of prenatal testing through publicly funded healthcare systems, including non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT), is frequently justified on the basis of supporting reproductive autonomy and informed choice. This includes decision-making around termination of pregnancy (TOP), including where it is due to a diagnosis of fetal anomaly (TOPFA). In Germany, TOP is regulated under the criminal code. However, it is exempt from punishment, if provided upon request from the woman up to 12 weeks after conception (14 weeks gestation) and following mandatory counselling. After this gestational stage, TOP may be provided where it is necessary to ensure the physical and mental wellbeing of the pregnant woman. However, there is a significant lack of clarity about how to interpret and apply this criterion. Fetal anomaly is often detected or confirmed after the time limit for TOP upon request has passed, which introduces uncertainty whether a fetal indication justifies legal access to TOP.…
Author: | Tamar Nov-KlaimanORCiDGND, Hilary Bowman-Smart, Ruth HornORCiDGND |
---|---|
URN: | urn:nbn:de:bvb:384-opus4-1206806 |
Frontdoor URL | https://opus.bibliothek.uni-augsburg.de/opus4/120680 |
ISSN: | 1472-6939OPAC |
Parent Title (English): | BMC Medical Ethics |
Publisher: | Springer Science and Business Media LLC |
Type: | Article |
Language: | English |
Year of first Publication: | 2025 |
Publishing Institution: | Universität Augsburg |
Release Date: | 2025/03/24 |
Volume: | 26 |
Issue: | 1 |
First Page: | 40 |
DOI: | https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-025-01196-3 |
Institutes: | Medizinische Fakultät |
Medizinische Fakultät / Professur für Ethik der Medizin | |
Dewey Decimal Classification: | 6 Technik, Medizin, angewandte Wissenschaften / 61 Medizin und Gesundheit / 610 Medizin und Gesundheit |
Licence (German): | ![]() |