Protecting future children from in-utero harm

Journal article

Actions of pregnant women can cause harm to their future children. However, even if the possible harm is serious and likely to occur, the law will generally not intervene. A pregnant woman is regarded as an autonomous person who is entitled to make her own decisions. A fetus in-utero has no legal right to protection. In striking contrast, the child, if born alive, may sue for injury in-utero; and the child is entitled to be protected by being removed from her parents if necessary for her protection. Indeed, there is a legal obligation for health professionals to report suspected harm, and for authorities to protect the child’s wellbeing. We ask whether such contradictory responses are justified. Should the law intervene where a pregnant woman’s actions risk serious and preventable fetal injury?

The argument for legal intervention to protect a fetus is sometimes linked to the concept of ‘fetal personhood’ and the moral status of the fetus. In this paper we will suggest that even if the fetus is not regarded as a separate person, and does not have the legal or moral status of a child, indeed, even if the fetus is regarded as having no legal or moral status, there is an ethical and legal case for intervening to prevent serious harm to a future child. We examine the arguments for and against intervention on behalf of the future child, drawing on the example of excessive maternal alcohol intake.

Authors: Wilkinson, D; Skene, L; DeCrespigny, L; Savulescu, J

• Publication status: Accepted
• Peer review status: Peer reviewed
• Publisher: Wiley
• Journal: Bioethics
• Publication date: 2015-01-01
• ISSN: 1467-8519