A recent UK court decision determined that a child born with foetal alcohol syndrome cannot receive financial compensation. The reason given was that ‘an essential ingredient for a crime to be committed is the infliction of grievous bodily harm on a person - grievous bodily harm on a foetus will not suffice’. The child in question, a seven year old girl, has significant health problems as a result of her mother consuming around twice the recommended weekly alcohol limit for non-pregnant women every day.
That the child is not entitled to any compensation seems harsh, given that victims of thalidomide have, quite rightly, been given compensation. The difference in the cases, however, is important: thalidomide victims resulted from government failure properly to regulate the use of the pregnancy-sickness drug; foetal alcohol syndrome compensation would, it seems, have required an acknowledgment that a pregnant woman had committed a crime by drinking to excess during pregnancy.
While no one has suggested that it is sensible for a pregnant woman to consume other than very modest amounts of alcohol (if any) during pregnancy, many have welcomed the court’s decision as a victory for every woman’s right to use her body as she chooses, whether pregnant or not.
I am torn on this issue. I firmly believe that everyone, female and male alike, ought to have primary rights over the use of their bodies and that such rights ought only to be limited in legally and ethically justifiable circumstances. I baulk at the idea that the State (or anyone else) ought to be able to dictate to a woman whether or not she must continue with a pregnancy while, at the same time I hope that in most circumstances most pregnant women will choose to bestow the amazing gift of childhood on the developing lives within them.
If rights are based on addressing ‘interests’ rather than on enabling personal choice it can be argued that foetuses, like children, adults and animals have interests that ought to be protected by law. This would mean balancing some of the rights of adults with the rights of foetuses. If a woman chose to continue with a pregnancy, that choice would entail accepting certain limitations on her subsequent actions. Similarly, if male violence resulted in a miscarriage, the aggressor would be guilty not only of assaulting a woman, but also of causing the death of her foetus.
It is not my intention to impinge on women’s rights. Many of our freedoms, however, are correctly limited to some extent. It should be possible to ensure that a foetal rights/protection law did not supersede the Abortion Act (that is a different issue) and that harm caused by addiction was not treated as a criminal, but as a civil offence. My suggested solution might not be the correct one, but it cannot be right that one young girl and others like her, both female and male, have fewer protections than are properly afforded to our pets.
That the child is not entitled to any compensation seems harsh, given that victims of thalidomide have, quite rightly, been given compensation. The difference in the cases, however, is important: thalidomide victims resulted from government failure properly to regulate the use of the pregnancy-sickness drug; foetal alcohol syndrome compensation would, it seems, have required an acknowledgment that a pregnant woman had committed a crime by drinking to excess during pregnancy.
While no one has suggested that it is sensible for a pregnant woman to consume other than very modest amounts of alcohol (if any) during pregnancy, many have welcomed the court’s decision as a victory for every woman’s right to use her body as she chooses, whether pregnant or not.
I am torn on this issue. I firmly believe that everyone, female and male alike, ought to have primary rights over the use of their bodies and that such rights ought only to be limited in legally and ethically justifiable circumstances. I baulk at the idea that the State (or anyone else) ought to be able to dictate to a woman whether or not she must continue with a pregnancy while, at the same time I hope that in most circumstances most pregnant women will choose to bestow the amazing gift of childhood on the developing lives within them.
If rights are based on addressing ‘interests’ rather than on enabling personal choice it can be argued that foetuses, like children, adults and animals have interests that ought to be protected by law. This would mean balancing some of the rights of adults with the rights of foetuses. If a woman chose to continue with a pregnancy, that choice would entail accepting certain limitations on her subsequent actions. Similarly, if male violence resulted in a miscarriage, the aggressor would be guilty not only of assaulting a woman, but also of causing the death of her foetus.
It is not my intention to impinge on women’s rights. Many of our freedoms, however, are correctly limited to some extent. It should be possible to ensure that a foetal rights/protection law did not supersede the Abortion Act (that is a different issue) and that harm caused by addiction was not treated as a criminal, but as a civil offence. My suggested solution might not be the correct one, but it cannot be right that one young girl and others like her, both female and male, have fewer protections than are properly afforded to our pets.
No comments:
Post a Comment