Letter: Parliament must rule on birth ethics
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: Your report and leading article concerning the judicial review proceedings involving Ms S raise important issues.
However, on behalf of the approved social worker Louize Collins, who is employed by Merton council, I wish to correct some points. It is not correct that the section order made by the social worker was because of Ms S's refusal to accept treatment for pre-eclampsia. Louize Collins made the order under the Mental Health Act because, after lengthy discussion, she judged that Ms S was suffering from a mental disorder which needed further assessment.
Your leading article then states: "If S turns out to have been too seriously ill to give informed consent for medical treatment, then the actions of the courts, doctors and social workers will have been fair enough." The social worker played no part in the decision to carry out the Caesarean. Her involvement ended once the section order for further assessment had been made.
Finally, the leader states that refusing treatment that would save your or your baby's life seems crazy and not the behaviour of a normal mother. You add: "But this evidence is not enough to section a pregnant woman under the Mental Health Act."
You are, of course, correct, and our social worker was entirely aware of this.
Her decision was reached on better evidence than this and I would suggest it is better that we wait for the outcome of the case rather than prejudge the situation.
PETER WALTERS
Director of Housing and Social Services
London Borough of Merton
Morden, Surrey
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments