Letter: Ms S: the need for help and sympathy
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: It is well established that a person cannot be forced to undergo medical treatment for the benefit of another. So, for example, a father cannot be compelled to donate his bone-marrow to benefit his child, even if without it the child will almost certainly die.
One then comes to consider the case of a pregnant woman refusing medical treatment, which refusal will result in the death of her unborn child as well as her own. Putting aside the rather vexed question of whether the rights of men to refuse medical treatment are greater than the rights accorded to women in these circumstances, and the clear but difficult conflict between the rights of a woman and her unborn child, can it really be suggested that the rights of a foetus are greater than those of a child with a life-threatening but curable medical complaint?
HEATHER LAWRENCE
Gray's Inn
London WC1
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments