1. United States
2. Tenn.
3. Letter

The recent case of Adriana Smith, the brain-dead pregnant woman in Georgia who was kept on life support due to the state's abortion ban, raises serious ethical concerns. Despite her tragic condition, the law forced medical professionals to prolong her bodily functions until her fetus reached viability for delivery by emergency C-section. This tragic situation highlights the need to separate personal health care decisions from legislation centered on arbitrary developmental markers. Mandating that a brain-dead woman be kept on life support for months until fetal viability shows a callous disregard for patient autonomy and puts an undue burden on families. It transforms the intimately personal into a political battle, with laws dictating private medical choices. Such policies prioritize a potential life over the wellbeing and dignity of the living woman. This case exemplifies how restricting abortion access has far-reaching implications beyond the procedure itself. Ultimately, the decision to continue or terminate a pregnancy is an immensely personal one that should remain between a woman, her family, and her medical team. Codifying one ethical viewpoint into law undermines the nuances of each situation and prevents physicians from providing comprehensive, ethical care. A request: carefully reexamine the ethical principles at stake and work to enact policies that preserve personal freedoms in reproductive healthcare. The complex issue of abortion deserves reasoned debate, not inflexible mandates that supersede medical expertise.