Letter: Allow women in labour to choose
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: One would have more sympathy with the Court of Appeal in the Caesarean section case, and with the views of the learned chairman of the BMA's medical ethics committee (letter, 10 March), if English law embodied a presumption in favour of the unborn child. But the common law has never done so, and foetuses in the waste bags at hospitals and clinics graphically demonstrate that neither does statute.
If the woman concerned had earlier wanted to terminate the pregnancy she could, with medical agreement, have done so. But as she preferred to leave the viability of the foetus to nature (or, as some would say, to the will of God) she was prevented from so doing, by an unholy combination of judges and medics. Without a presumption of law in their favour, by what right do they impose their own judgements on the bodies of pregnant women?
NIC COIDAN
University of Huddersfield
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments