Article info
PDFOriginal research
Recognising our ‘invisible infants’: there is no internationally agreed definition of live birth—is this ethically acceptable?
- Correspondence to Dr Jennifer Peterson, Neonatal Intensive Care Unit, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester M13 9WL, Greater Manchester, UK; jennifer.peterson{at}hotmail.co.uk
Citation
Recognising our ‘invisible infants’: there is no internationally agreed definition of live birth—is this ethically acceptable?
Publication history
- Received July 20, 2020
- Revised October 17, 2020
- Accepted October 25, 2020
- First published December 4, 2020.
Online issue publication
January 07, 2022
Article Versions
- Previous version (7 January 2022).
- You are viewing the most recent version of this article.
Request permissions
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Copyright information
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
Other content recommended for you
- Equal rights—unless you are pregnant
- Circumcision of male infants as a human rights violation
- Will international human rights subsume medical ethics? Intersections in the UNESCO Universal Bioethics Declaration
- Economic sanctions, healthcare and the right to health
- A proposed new international convention supporting the rights of pregnant women and girls and their newborn infants
- Tobacco industry’s human rights makeover: an archival review of British American Tobacco’s human rights rhetorical veneer
- Ethical dilemmas in medical humanitarian practice: cases for reflection from Médecins Sans Frontières
- Human rights and HIV: rhetoric or determinants?
- Out of step: fatal flaws in the latest AAP policy report on neonatal circumcision
- The human rights responsibilities of multinational tobacco companies