header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
05 January 2018 / Julian Savulescu , Charles Foster
Issue: 7775 / Categories: Features
printer mail-detail

Separated at birth?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
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—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll