Royal College of Nursing v Department of Health and Social S...

Facts

• The case arose from the use of prostaglandins in abortion procedures, which allowed termination of pregnancy by inducing uterine contractions.
• The initial stages of the procedure were performed by a doctor, but the subsequent administration of prostaglandins and patient monitoring were conducted by nurses.
• The Abortion Act 1967 stipulated that abortions must be "terminated by a registered medical practitioner."
• The Royal College of Nursing sought clarification on whether nurse participation in these procedures complied with the 1967 Act.

Issues

1. Whether nurse participation in administering prostaglandins and monitoring patients during abortion procedures complied with the requirement in the Abortion Act 1967 for termination to be performed by a registered medical practitioner.
2. Whether the statutory language should be interpreted literally or purposively, considering advances in medical practice since the Act was enacted.

Decision

• The House of Lords, by majority, held that nurse participation in administering prostaglandins and monitoring patients in abortion procedures was lawful under the Abortion Act 1967.
• The Court adopted a purposive interpretation, concluding that the Act’s aim was to ensure the safety of abortion procedures, not to restrict such procedures solely to acts performed personally by doctors.
• Lord Diplock’s leading judgment emphasized that restricting nurses’ involvement would hinder the safe and effective provision of abortion services.

Legal Principles

• The case is a key authority on purposive statutory interpretation, where courts ascertain and give effect to the intended purpose of legislation, particularly where literal interpretation may undermine legislative aims.
• Parliament's intention in the Abortion Act 1967 was to ensure safe and lawful abortions, allowing for medical and technological advances.
• The legal scope of the phrase "terminated by a registered medical practitioner" may include broader supervision and delegation in medical processes.

Conclusion

The House of Lords decision in Royal College of Nursing v Department of Health and Social Security [1981] 2 WLR 279 affirmed that nurses may lawfully participate in abortion procedures initiated by doctors, setting a leading precedent for purposive statutory interpretation to ensure legislation remains effective amid societal and technological developments.