UNLESS Britain's most talked about mother decided to spend the last few months of her pregnancy on a retreat, far away from the influences of the media, she could hardly have ignored the world wide offers of cash, support and agonised moral debate her decision to abort one of her healthy twins has provoked.
For the last three days, every national newspaper and media organisation has tried to get inside her mind, wondering exactly what her "socially straitened circumstances" could be, with columnists, prolifers and the general public all arguing over the moral implications of her case. Underneath photographs depicting a 16 week old foetus, the same age as the aborted twin, doctors vividly described the operation.
But this agonised and emotional debate was based upon a false premise. The world had been led to believe by Queen Charlotte's Hospital and in particular the woman's obstetrician, Prof Phillip Bennett, a committed Christian, that her baby could be saved. In fact it was already dead.
As the news of the termination was leaked, Tory MP Mrs Ann Winterton, chairwoman of the all party Parliamentary Pro Life group, immediately demanded a full inquiry into the case by the Health Secretary, Mr Stephen Dorrell.
"The public, the media, politicians and everyone involved in this case have been misled by Queen Charlotte's Hospital and its authorities. They have been underhand in their dealings with the public at large, many of whom came forward to offer financial support and others to help out of the goodness of their hearts. I will be demanding a fill and urgent inquiry," she said.
Perhaps to pre empt this inquiry the hospital, realising that it certainly has a lot of explaining to do, yesterday announced its own internal review of the case.
"We want to see what lessons could be learnt from the last few days. We want to sit back and take stock of events. We will clearly have a review and examine the issues involved. Certain members of staff, including Prof Bennett, will be asked to explain their actions, but there should be no suggestion that this will be a witchhunt," a hospital spokeswoman stated.
Whatever the moral issues and implications of the case. One thing is surely certain. This 28 year old woman, a single parent and unexpectedly pregnant with twins, who was afraid she "could not cope" and sought advice from her doctor, could hardly have expected her story to be blazoned on the front page of the newspapers and the lead item on every news bulletin.
"I am deeply concerned that there has possibly been a breach of confidentiality in this case. The question of how this got into the public domain is an ethical problem in itself," commented Prof Wendy Savage, a leading consultant gynaecologist.
Perhaps Prof Bennett naively used the woman's story as a throw away line in his interview with the Sunday Express on the ethics of performing abortions. However, in doing so he broke the Hippocratic oath by cheerfully telling the world last Sunday of his dilemma.
In the interview, Prof Bennett also admitted he believes abortion is morally wrong, but stressed that he felt he had no right to impose his views on patients.
For the paper and the antiabortion brigade, the mother's story was heaven sent. Not only did it have freak show novelty value - with it being the first publicised case of a healthy twin being selectively terminated - but it reopened the whole abortion debate, forcing it to the top of the political agenda once again, particularly as it appeared the termination had not yet taken place.
Whether the mother had her abortion months ago or on Tuesday, minutes before the Society for the Protection of the Unborn Child obtained a High Court injunction preventing the termination, we will probably never know. Unless of course, she succumbs to the financial enticements on offer by several tabloid papers.
The unanswered questions in this case will undoubtedly ensure that it dominates the public imagination for sometime to come. While the ethical and moral implications will also run and run.