Is a cleft lip and palate a serious "handicap"? Jepson v Chief Constable of West Mercia--a legal and ethical critique.

This column considers the legal and ethical dimensions of the controversial case of Jepson v Chief Constable of West Mercia. The purpose of bringing legal proceedings was to judicially review the notion that a cleft lip and palate should be regarded as a serious "handicap" for the purposes of s 1(1)(d) of the Abortion Act 1967 (UK). The Column argues that while Parliament failed to provide a sufficiently precise definition of "seriously handicapped", it is clear that it never intended and positively rejected the notion that a cleft lip and palate was a serious enough condition to warrant the lawful termination of a pregnancy. In determining what constitutes a sufficiently serious disability, the column critiques the medical model of disability and proposes a remedy model in its place. Finally, it argues that an attentive and responsive moral framework is fundamental to any substantial narrative ethics, and it suggests that a life with a disability can generate meaningful stories and that when there is a network of support and relationships around the person living that life, that human life is not only viable but also, in its own way, fulfilling, even if not ordinary.