Dr. Peter Boylan:

It is extremely ambiguous and it allows a doctor to take away autonomy and decision-making from a woman. It allows an interpretation of the law, if you like, in a particular circumstance. The most egregious example of that was pre-repeal with Ms P, the well-known case of the woman who was brain-dead and the doctors interpreted that it was clinically inappropriate to turn off the life support machines to allow her, effectively, to complete her death because she happened to be pregnant. That is one situation. A woman could, say, present herself for a termination at less than 12 weeks, which she is perfectly entitled to make a decision about herself, and the doctor might say he does not think it is clinically appropriate.