header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us

Separated at birth?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
05 January 2018 / Julian Savulescu , Charles Foster
Issue: 7775 / Categories: Features
printer mail-detail
nlj_7775_foster

Should pregnant mothers owe a duty to their unborn children? Charles Foster & Julian Savulescu review the legal & ethical issues
  • The autonomy rights of pregnant mothers are hugely important, but should not always prevail over the rights of future children not to be injured by the acts or defaults of their mothers
  • Legislation is needed to correct the imbalance between these rights

Suppose that a woman is pregnant. She drinks a lot of alcohol, knowing that it is likely to harm her foetus. Can or should the law do anything—either during or after the pregnancy?

The mother’s position

ECHR arguments

The woman has, prima facie, a right to do what she wants with her own body. That is a right enshrined in that most elastic of the Articles of the ECHR: Article 8. Article 8 is, of course, not an absolute right: the right conferred by Article 8(1) is subject to the wider societal considerations of 8(2), the provisions of which read: ‘There shall be no interference

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: The insider returns
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
NLJ this week: Drawing the line on contempt
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
NLJ this week: Stop and search by the numbers
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
NLJ this week: Looking back on the prorogation that never was
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
NLJ this week: How not to plead a schedule of loss
A construction defect claim in the Court of Appeal offers a sharp lesson in pleading discipline. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains how a catastrophically drafted schedule of loss derailed otherwise viable claims. Across the areas explored in this week's column, the message is consistent: clarity, economy and proper pleading matter more than ever
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll