## 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.


Royal College of Nursing v Department of Health and Social Security [1981] 2 WLR 279 (HL)