Pro-life campaigners have reacted with fury after doctors asked a judge to allow them to perform an abortion on a mentally-ill woman who is 22 weeks pregnant.
And they’ve compared the proposal to the kind of "cruelty and barbarity reminiscent of 1930s Nazi Germany".
The woman, who is in her 20s and cannot be identified for legal reasons, has been diagnosed with a "moderately severe" learning disorder and a mood disorder.
Specialists caring for her say a termination is in her best interests.
But the woman's mother disagrees.
She says she could care for the baby and says abortion is against her Roman Catholic religious beliefs and her cultural beliefs.
She has been backed by the world’s oldest pro-life group the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC).
SPUC’s deputy chief executive John Deighan said:
"This is an outrage which should shock every right-thinking person. It is a level of cruelty and barbarity reminiscent of how people with mental health issues were treated in the 1930s of Nazi Germany. To force abortion on any person is abhorrent and to do so in the name of medicine and in the complete defiance of the religious and cultural values of the mother concerned calls into question the structures of law and justice in our society."
The criticism of the move comes in the wake of actress Sally Phillips hitting out at prenatal screening aimed at eliminating Down’s Syndrome children before they are born.
The Miranda and Miranda and Bridget Jones star has a 14-year-old son, Olly, with Down’s syndrome, and has been a vocal critic of the Government’s prenatal screening programme.
Earlier this week she made an emotional presentation to prominent obstetricians and said:
"If making money out of testing that leads in most cases to termination is not a form of eugenics then I do not know what is."
She was part of a panel debating the ethics of non-invasive prenatal screening (NIPT) at the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists’ 2019 conference.
She has previously said: "When the doctor told me Ollie had Down’s syndrome, he said ‘I’m sorry’, and the nurse cried and that was 11 years ago. But, you hear those stories still today." Now, she says, the eugenic thinking in the NHS means that people with Down’s syndrome are treated like a 'population of toads that must be managed'.
"Is it enough to target a population of people based on the opinions of another population of people perceiving the former’s lives to be crap?" she asked.
During the controversial court case this week, bosses at the NHS trust responsible for the woman's care have asked Mrs Justice Lieven to decide what is in the woman's best interests.
The judge began analysing evidence at a hearing in the Court of Protection, where issues relating to people who lack the mental capacity to make decisions are considered, at the Royal Courts of Justice complex in London on Thursday.
Mrs Justice Lieven is considering the case at a public hearing but she has ruled that the woman cannot be identified in reports of the case.
She also says the NHS trust which has begun litigation cannot be named.
Barrister Fiona Paterson, who is leading the trust's legal team, said specialists thought a termination would be in the woman's best interests.
She said the baby might be taken into council care and said the woman would find the loss of pregnancy easier to recover from than separation from her child.
"(Her) treating clinicians consider that on balance, a termination is in her best interests," she said, in a written case outline.
"(They) consider that (she) is likely to find the loss of a pregnancy easier to recover from than separation from the baby if he or she is taken into care.
"They also consider that (she) is at increased risk of psychosis if the pregnancy continues."
Lawyers said the judge would have to consider the terms of the 1967 Abortion Act, which says termination may be performed up to the 24th week of pregnancy, and the 2005 Mental Capacity Act.
They said any termination would have to be carried out soon.
The woman is independently represented by staff from the office of the Official Solicitor, who help mentally-ill people at the centre of litigation.
Barrister Susanna Rickard, who is leading the woman's legal team, said abortion did not appear to be in her best interests.
Barrister John McKendrick QC, who is leading the woman's mother's legal team, suggested that doctors were underestimating the woman's abilities.
"It is accepted that (the woman) lacks capacity to conduct these proceedings and to make a decision in respect of whether or not to consent to a termination and associated ancillary treatment," he told the judge in a written case outline.
"That being said, (her mother) considers that the applicant has underestimated (her) ability and understanding, and that more weight should be placed on her wishes and feelings."
He added: "Termination is not in (the woman's) best interests."
Mr McKendrick said the judge had "no proper evidence" to show that allowing the pregnancy to continue would put the woman's life or long-term health at grave risk.
"The applicants have failed to carry out a proper best interests analysis," he said.
"Their evidence is premised on a narrow clinical view."
He added: "The application must be dismissed."
For further information contact
John Deighan, Deputy CEO of SPUC:
- Tel: 0141 221 2094
- Mob: 07802 739265
Issued on behalf of SPUC by:
Tom Hamilton Communications