WOMEN'S sexual and reproductive rights are long enshrined in International Law with the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women stating that "ensuring women’s sexual and reproductive health rights means that women’s capacity to make decisions regarding their bodies must be respected. Requirements of third-party consent for access to certain services have been consistently criticised by human rights mechanisms as contrary to women’s rights."

The Beijing Platform for Action (the Forth World Conference on Women, 1995) states that "the human rights of women include their right to have control over and decide freely and responsibly on matters related to their sexuality, including sexual and reproductive health, free of coercion, discrimination and violence".

The Pause Project's requirement for women to give up control of their sexual and reproductive rights in order to access support ("'Pause' in pregnancy programme is 'breaching human rights'", The Herald, July 4, and Letters, July 4) flies in the face of these established rights. Modern human rights organisations still campaign with this in clear focus. Leading rights charity Amnesty International's position on sexual and reproductive rights are that:

• Governments must stop using criminal law to control people’s sexuality and reproduction.

• People should be empowered to make their own decisions about their bodies and they live their lives without interference from others.

• Governments should make sure that sexual and reproductive health services, education and information are available and easy to access.

• Countries should prohibit all forms of discrimination and violence

While all of these positions are not relevant to the Pause Project, it is clear that women's control over their own bodies is a human rights issue and that there should be no interference in women's sexual and reproductive rights.

Further, the Pause Project seems to lack a full understanding of the lasting effects of trauma caused by issues ranging from gender-based violence, adverse child experiences and substance use. This concern is put forward powerfully by Dr Alison Scott, who runs the Women’s Inclusive Sexual Health Extended Service. This means that many of those who need the kind of support that Pause offers, will either be excluded from the project or subject themselves to situations they would fund uncomfortable or traumatic.

Furthermore, I find it a worrying precedent to set that certain support is conditional especially in the field of healthcare and especially if those conditions are sacrificing your fundamental human right of bodily autonomy. There is a long and proud history of universal, unconditional healthcare in this country and this cannot be allowed to be eroded. Furthermore, Dundee City Council must also recognise that even if this project can show positive results, it cannot ever be allowed to replace their statutory responsibility to provide support to people who do not want to engage with the project.

Gabriel Calvert, Dundee DD2.

THE intended Pause pilot in Dundee seems to be a reasonable initiative towards supporting women with multiple problems, to begin sorting them without the added burden of a pregnancy; therefore, the “researchers, practitioners, and advocates” who criticised it (Letters) on what seems to me "touchy-feely" grounds, perhaps need to check that they have not "gone native" to the extent that they can no longer see the wood for the trees.

Philip Adams, Crosslee.