> "Black, John" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I am pretty certain that a fetus, even at term, does not have
> 'legal rights' as such and that existing law is centred on
> the mother's clinical needs.
>
> John Black
>
>
> Surely that can't be true John, even from the point of view
> that abortion is unlawful beyond the date of viability. And
> there have been many cases brought before the courts
> supporting the rights of the foetus over and above the
> mother, case law, not statute, I hasten to add, but legal nonetheless.
>
> Adrian
>
I think John's right here. My understanding is that in English law, a fetus
has no legal personality (in the way a person or a corporation has a
personality) and cannot bring a case. There are laws protecting fetuses but
that is a different thing. Hence once a decision is made to terminate a
pregnancy, the process of decision making can be opposed if it does not
follow statute, but nobody can bring the case on behalf of the fetus to
prevent even a late termination. If you (deliberately or negligently) cause
damage to a fetus that is then born as a live child, that child has a legal
personality and can seek compensation for the effects of the damage.
Matt Dunn
This email has been scanned for viruses by NAI AVD however we are unable to
accept responsibility for any damage caused by the contents.
The opinions expressed in this email represent the views of the sender, not
South Warwickshire General Hospitals NHS Trust unless explicitly stated.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender.
|