At a minimum we ought to be able to agree that there are two lives to be considered in the latest right-to-die/right-to-life case to come to our attention, namely the tragic case of the pregnant woman who is clinically brain-dead but whose unborn baby has a chance at life.

However, to judge from much pro-choice commentary on the matter to date, only the mother is being considered, or the wishes of her family. The life of the baby does not weigh in the balance at all. That is wrong.

There is much finger-pointing at the Eighth Amendment, or Article 40.3.3 which protects the right to life of the unborn. This imposes a constitutional duty upon doctors to try and save the baby in this case. It is a good thing that our law forces doctors to try and save the lives of unborn children. That is as it should be. Indeed, they should not need to be forced because the first duty of a doctor is to ‘do no harm’.

It must be admitted, however, that this case is not black and white. Doctors are not morally obliged to go beyond what is reasonable to save a life, nor beyond what is practicable. It is reasonable to keep this woman alive against the wishes of her family? Is it practicable to keep her alive for another ten or so weeks which is what will be necessary to give the baby a good chance of being delivered alive and well?

What do we know about other, similar cases overseas? It seems cases like this one are occurring with increasing regularity because medical science is becoming better and better at delivering the babies in these situations.

For example, there is this one that happened in Milan within the last fortnight. Or this one that happened in Alaska in the summer. Or this one that happened in Hungary last year.

The only survey of these cases in the medical literature appears to be this one. It reviewed 30 cases over a 28 year period.

Tellingly the paper says: “When confronted with BD (Brain Death) in a pregnant woman, physicians must primarily focus on saving the life of the fetus”.

No ifs, buts or maybes are added to that sentence. Although again what is practicable and reasonable and proportionate in any given case must be considered but it seems it is becoming increasingly practicable, reasonable and proportionate to seek to save the baby in these cases.

A factor that must, of course, be considered is also the wishes of the family. This is something else that must be weighed in the balance. If they wish the mother to be kept alive for the sake of the baby, then doctors can proceed much more freely. If they don’t wish the mother to be kept alive, then the doctors must consider whether the child has a separate right to life anyway.

And this brings us back to the Eighth Amendment, and to morality itself (which we never really left) quite apart from the legal issues.

When the court decides upon this case, it might well hand the decision right back to the doctors and say it is up to them in consultation with the family and taking into account the fact that a second life is at stake to decide what to do. But at least the life of the child must count for something. If pro-choicers ever have their way, it will count for nothing, and that would be a very retrograde step.