Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40210468›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical ethics2026

Reproductive self-determination and regulation of termination of pregnancy in Germany: current controversies and developments.

Christin Hempeler, Hilary Bowman-Smart, Tamar Nov-Klaiman, Ruth Horn

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical ethics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Christin Hempeler *Institute for Medical Ethics and History of Medicine, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany christin.hempeler@rub.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8532-3284
Hilary Bowman-Smart *Australian Centre for Precision Health, Clinical and Health Sciences, University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Tamar Nov-KlaimanEthics of Medicine, Institute for Ethics and History of Health in Society, Faculty of Medicine, University of Augsburg, Augsburg, Germany.
Ruth HornEthics of Medicine, Institute for Ethics and History of Health in Society, Faculty of Medicine, University of Augsburg, Augsburg, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In Germany, efforts to reform current legislation governing access to termination of pregnancy (TOP) have recently gained momentum. In 2023, the German Federal Government appointed a 'Commission on Reproductive Self-Determination and Reproductive Medicine', which released recommendations to revise legislation of TOP in April 2024. Currently, TOP is unlawful under the German Criminal Code, with exemptions from punishment for TOP performed within the first 12 weeks of pregnancy following mandatory counselling. Additional exemptions exist in case of criminological or medical-social indications.The Commission report recommends the decriminalisation of early-stage TOP and potential abolition of the mandatory counselling requirement. It further recommends a revision of the medical-social indication, due to a lack of clarity in its interpretation. This indication allows for TOP beyond 12 weeks of pregnancy, where there is danger to the pregnant woman's life or health.This paper provides an overview of Germany's current TOP regulation and the Commission's recommendations, with a particular focus on the ethical and legal challenges posed by the application of the current medical-social indication in cases of fetal anomalies. We argue that while legislative clarity is important, maintaining a broad interpretation of the medical-social indication is crucial to prevent undue restrictions on TOP access at later gestations.The Commission report represents a promising step forward in changes for TOP legislation in Germany, and we welcome its call for legal reform. However, given the outcome of the recent federal election in February 2025, it is unlikely that the revision of TOP legislation will be part of the new government's agenda.

Indexed as

Abortion, LegalPersonal AutonomyReproductive RightsCongenital AbnormalitiesCounselingFemaleGermanyHumansPregnancyAbortion - InducedEmbryos and FetusesEthics- MedicalFuture child disabilityWomen's rights

Identifiers

PMID40210468
PMCPMC12911635

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.