A recent judgment of the Supreme Court of India, allowing the medical termination of pregnancy at 28 weeks, has received significant media attention. Much of this attention stems from the arguments advanced on behalf of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), which has sought for a reconsideration of the judgment.Doctors at AIIMS argued that what the court described as a medical termination of pregnancy would, in reality, involve delivering a living child at 28 weeks, one likely to be born with serious medical complications, long-term co-morbidities and disabilities. They asked that the delivery be pushed by six weeks to improve the child’s chances of survival. These arguments were rejected by the court in rather strong terms.A doctor’s ethical burdenThe nature of the doctors’ argument is not inherently distinct from claims about a (much younger) foetus’ interest in being carried to term. In both cases, more time in the womb increases the chances of survival outside it. However, since a 28-week foetus is at a more advanced stage of gestation, two things change about the claim.First, doctors are better able to predict both the foetus’ chances of survival and the medical complications it may face, making concerns about neo-natal care and future health more concrete. Second, and not unrelatedly, the ethical burden of the doctor who must perform the delivery increases significantly. Where a foetus is not viable, the doctor’s sole obligation is to the pregnant woman. But where a living child may be delivered, the doctor’s obligations extend to that child as well. A doctor may, therefore, experience the procedure not merely as an abortion, but as a medically induced premature delivery that immediately creates an obligation to preserve life. While the court’s order protects her from legal action, it does not extinguish her ethical and moral obligations as a doctor and as a human being.