Madam, - The implications of Mr Justice Abbott's judgment that a Jehovah's Witness could be given a blood transfusion against her will for the benefit of her new-born child are profoundly disturbing.
There might be circumstances in which a person's wishes may be overridden in their own interests - although, in the case of a mentally competent adult, it is difficult to envisage why the fundamental rights to freedom of religion and conscience, bodily integrity, privacy and life (including the right to die) should be set aside.
However, to deny these rights to the individual for the benefit of another, even where that other is one's own child, is to deny the very essence of humanity - the right to be regarded as a means rather than an end.
The Constitution may mandate treating pregnant women as objects, rather than subjects, of the law, so as to protect the right to life of the "unborn", but what is the justification for extending this dehumanisation where no such countervailing right is at stake?
It is necessary that Mr Justice Abbott's judgment be challenged on a point of law so that the Supreme Court can consider fully the profound issues that arise from his decision. - Yours, etc,
SÉ D'ALTON, Palmerston Road, Dublin 6.