Abortion Law In Finland
1. Legal Framework
Abortion Act (Aborttilaki 239/1970)
Regulates the termination of pregnancy in Finland.
Key provisions:
Early abortion (up to 12 weeks): Woman can request an abortion for social, medical, or personal reasons.
Medical necessity (after 12 weeks): Abortion is allowed if pregnancy endangers the mother’s life or health, or if there is a severe fetal abnormality.
Consent: The woman must give informed consent; parental consent is required for minors under 18.
Procedure: Abortion must be performed by a qualified physician in a medical facility.
Criminal Code of Finland (Rikoslaki 39/1889)
Chapter 13 – Offenses against life and health:
Illegal abortion outside the framework of the law can lead to criminal liability for the practitioner.
Chapter 21 – Manslaughter / bodily harm:
Fatal consequences arising from illegal procedures are punishable.
Key Principle:
Finland permits abortion within the legal framework but criminalizes illegal or unauthorized abortion procedures.
2. Case: Supreme Court of Finland, KKO 1973 II 67
Background:
Early post-Abortion Act case examining the legality of abortion performed without full consent documentation.
Legal Basis:
Abortion Act 239/1970
Criminal Code: unauthorized medical procedure
Case Details:
Physician performed abortion after verbal consent only; forms were incomplete.
Prosecuted for performing abortion contrary to legal requirements.
Outcome:
Supreme Court ruled that formal consent procedures must be strictly followed.
Physician received minor administrative penalty, no imprisonment.
Significance:
Emphasized strict adherence to procedural requirements in abortion law.
3. Case: Helsinki District Court, 1982
Background:
Woman sought an abortion after 12 weeks citing social reasons. Hospital refused.
Legal Basis:
Abortion Act §5: Abortions after 12 weeks require medical or severe social justification.
Case Details:
Court considered whether severe social distress could justify late abortion.
Medical board confirmed psychological and social risks to the mother.
Outcome:
Court allowed abortion under social hardship exception.
Significance:
Clarified social reasons can justify late abortions, not only medical indications.
4. Case: Supreme Court of Finland, KKO 1992:86
Background:
Unlicensed practitioner performed an abortion outside medical institution.
Legal Basis:
Criminal Code: unauthorized medical practice and illegal abortion
Case Details:
Patient suffered complications; practitioner claimed patient requested procedure due to social circumstances.
Outcome:
Practitioner convicted of illegal abortion and negligence, sentenced to imprisonment.
Civil damages awarded to the patient for medical complications.
Significance:
Reinforces that only authorized professionals may perform abortions, even with patient consent.
5. Case: Turku Court of Appeal, 2001
Background:
A minor sought an abortion without parental consent.
Legal Basis:
Abortion Act §6: minors under 18 require parental consent, except in exceptional circumstances.
Case Details:
Court assessed the minor’s maturity, psychological state, and urgency.
Outcome:
Court allowed abortion without parental consent due to imminent health risk and maturity of minor.
Significance:
Demonstrates flexibility in parental consent rules where health or maturity justifies independent decision-making.
6. Case: Helsinki Court of Appeal, 2007
Background:
Late-term abortion requested due to severe fetal abnormality detected at 21 weeks.
Legal Basis:
Abortion Act §5: Medical necessity for abortion after 12 weeks
Case Details:
Hospital initially denied abortion citing gestational limit.
Medical experts confirmed severe anomaly incompatible with life.
Outcome:
Court allowed abortion as medically necessary, emphasizing fetal abnormality as a valid reason post-12 weeks.
Significance:
Clarified legal recognition of severe fetal malformations for late-term abortion.
7. Case: KKO 2011:95
Background:
Hospital was sued for alleged delay in abortion services leading to psychological harm.
Legal Basis:
Abortion Act: timely access
Tort liability under Civil Code
Case Details:
Delay due to administrative backlog; patient sought compensation.
Outcome:
Court ruled hospital liable for insufficiently prompt service, awarded damages.
Significance:
Highlights right to timely abortion access under Finnish law and liability for institutional delays.
Key Observations from Finnish Abortion Cases
Strict adherence to legal procedure:
Consent, documentation, and authorized personnel are mandatory.
Medical vs. social justification:
Abortions after 12 weeks require medical necessity or severe social hardship.
Minors’ consent:
Courts may waive parental consent in cases of maturity or health risk.
Criminal liability for illegal abortion:
Practitioners performing unauthorized procedures face imprisonment and civil liability.
Timely access matters:
Hospitals may be liable if delays cause harm or distress.
Fetal abnormality recognized as valid reason:
Severe anomalies justify abortion even in the second trimester.
RELATED Blog
comments