Due date, not use(ful) by date

A couple of weeks ago, I mused on a submission to the Journal of Medical Ethics that newborn babies are not ‘actual persons’ and ‘have no moral right to life’, indeed that from the philosophical perspective of the authors there was no difference between a foetus and a recently delivered child; ergo, the killing of babies who are ‘unfortunate’ should be as permissible as abortion.  I disagreed with their proposition vehemently and stated I was happy with the abortion laws as they stand.

Dr Max Pemberton, writing in The Daily Telegraph, recognised the polarised nature of the debate and I’m sure he wanted to add an opinion from his own professional experience.  He stated that the laws were muddled, given that the current legal limit for terminating a pregnancy is 24 weeks, though doctors will try to save the life of a premature baby born at 23 weeks.  Though most abortions occur at 13 weeks or before, 2 per cent take place after 20 weeks (Dr Pemberton cited this at about 3,000 terminations a year, which translates at 150,000 abortions in total over a twelve month period – an astonishing figure, if true, that there should be so many unwanted pregnancies, that so many people could be so careless).  Neatly sidestepping Roman Catholic MPs who seek to lower the official sanction to 22 weeks, the good doctor also mentioned that there is legal procedure for abortion after 24 weeks if there is grave risk to the life of the woman, evidence of severe foetal abnormality or risk of grave physical and mental injury to the woman.  Though this accounts for just 0.1 per cent of cases, Dr Pemberton states that this makes the law illogical.

He goes on: “While the baby remains in utero, it can be aborted, but as soon as it passes through the birth canal and enters the world, actively terminating the life is considered murder [sic – it is murder, as legally defined].  How does the mere process of birth suddenly mean that something has human rights and is deserving of protection?”  He finishes: “Every way I turn, I feel uncomfortable with the logical conclusion.”

Well, there is good reason why the prick of uneasiness should be tangible.  Dr Pemberton has taken a path of logic but as any philosopher worth their salt should know, there are many paths to logic.  Dr Pemberton has walked through the field of thought that chimes with him.  In previous articles, I deduce in him that raising children is not a personal priority and though this in no way reflects badly on him, it perhaps gives a clue as to how his subconscious would resolve mental conundrums (cod psychology, patented 2012).  Moreover, taking matters of life and death to logical conclusions has, on occasion, led to abhorrent crimes of great magnitude and should be treated carefully.

Why must life be a binary choice?  It may help those who wish to plot trends on computer models or those who regard it as light switched on and then switched off, but I think there is greater depth than that.  The whole history of jurisprudence has leant itself to greater complexity in tandem (or sometimes a little behind) the rest of society.  So the laws are a fudge but the art of politics is compromise to find the least unacceptable course.  My conclusion is that as long as the baby is inside the mother, it is entirely dependent on the mother’s body, which includes the brain, thus the mother has choice over whether to proceed.  This is not suggesting a charter for late-term abortions as the trauma of such an option would not be approached lightly.  However, once the baby had “passed through the birth canal” as Dr Pemberton put it, the world has a duty of care to it, specifically the medical staff in the delivery ward.  Like a canal, there is a moral lock on what can be done, since the baby is no longer solely reliant on the mother for sustenance.  Therefore, no matter if a disability is present, it does not disqualify this child for life.  That is why a doctor would be charged with murder for ending the infant’s existence.  The Hippocratic Oath primary ethos is seen most commonly as to never do harm to anyone (hence why there are no qualified doctors in American penitentiary execution chambers).  It is now rendered to take into account whether a life support machine should be switched off but that is in the case of people believed to be in permanent vegetative states, not premature babies on ventilators.  Thus, the law should reflect no harm to the mother first, given she is the bearer.  After 24 weeks, the child has a high chance of survival if properly attended and can be reasonably cared for by others if the mother does not want the infant. At 23 weeks, say, the baby is detached from the mother so early that if it lives, it was the way nature intended it but most babies would not, hence the longer gestation period.  Thus the responsibility reverts to the mother until 24 weeks.  I could have emailed Dr Pemberton this cogitation or posted it on the online thread of his column, but I think it is a useful corollary to my original posting on the subject.  This issue is not black and white, much as proponents on either side might want to paint it as such.  If the law is inconsistent, it is done so in order to recognise the vagaries of life.