Childbirth Is Not an Emergency: Informed Consent in Labor and Delivery

Wolf, Allison B.; Charles, Sonya

doi:10.3138/ijfab.11.1.23

Cited by 13 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In recognition of the importance of autonomy, the law dictates that it is “a criminal and tortious assault to perform physically invasive medical treatment…without the patient’s consent”. 14 Further, it is clear that this consent must be informed and freely given—as coerced consent is not valid consent (Wolf and Charles 2018 ).…”

Section: Facilitating Harm Impeding Redressmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Vaginal Examinations During Childbirth: Consent, Coercion and COVID-19

Nelson

2021

Fem Leg Stud

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper I assess the labour ward admission policies introduced by some National Health Service (NHS) trusts during the COVID-19 pandemic, arguing that these intersected with other policies in a manner which may have coerced birthing people into consenting to vaginal examinations they might have otherwise refused. In order to fully understand the potential severity of these policies, I situate this critique in the historical and contemporary context of the problematic relationship between consent and vaginal examinations. Identifying the legal wrongs associated with performing coerced vaginal examinations, I highlight that the law is inadequately equipped to provide appropriate redress. Further, I illustrate that the issue explored in this paper reflects broader problems which exist with regard to the focus of, and the (under)investment in, the maternity services.

show abstract

Section: Facilitating Harm Impeding Redressmentioning

confidence: 99%

“… 3 There is a significant body of literature exploring the negative impact of medicalisation/medical hegemony over labour on the autonomy of the birthing person. See, for example, Johanson et al ( 2002 ); Burrow ( 2012 ); Wolf and Charles ( 2018 ); Romanis et al ( 2020 ). I also explore these themes in co-authored work that is under review elsewhere.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Vaginal Examinations During Childbirth: Consent, Coercion and COVID-19

Nelson

2021

Fem Leg Stud

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…http://jme.bmj.com/ as an 'inherently dangerous, unpredictable process that must be controlled to remove its dangers and lack of predictability' because 'serious complications can arise at any moment and create an emergency'. 62 Burrow suggests that there is an operative technological imperative in obstetrics, 84 which increasingly encourages individual clinicians to 'rationalise surgical [or technological] intervention to gain as much control as possible'. 85 Furthermore, pathologising pregnancy treats all pregnancies as homogeneous.…”

Section: Pathologising Gestationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reviewing the womb

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Throughout most of human history women have been defined by their biological role in reproduction, seen first and foremost as gestators, which has led to the reproductive system being subjected to outside interference. The womb was perceived as dangerous and an object which husbands, doctors and the state had a legitimate interest in controlling. In this article, we consider how notions of conflict surrounding the womb have endured over time. We demonstrate how concerns seemingly generated by the invisibility of reproduction and the inaccessibility of the womb have translated into similar arguments for controlling women, as technology increases the accessibility of the female body and the womb. Developments in reproductive medicine, from in vitro fertilisation (IVF) to surrogacy, have enabled women and men who would otherwise have been childless to become parents. Uterus transplants and ‘artificial wombs’ could provide additional alternatives to natural gestation. An era of ‘womb technology’ dawns. Some argue that such technology providing an alternative to ‘natural’ gestation could be a source of liberation for female persons because reproduction will no longer be something necessarily confined to the female body. ‘Womb technology’, however, also has the potential to exacerbate the labelling of the female body as a source of danger and an ‘imperfect’ site of gestation, thus replaying rudimentary and regressive arguments about controlling female behaviour. We argue that pernicious narratives about control, conflict and the womb must be addressed in the face of these technological developments.

show abstract

“…Autonomy is more than just a matter of access to options [12]. Choices are only sufficiently autonomous when made with understanding [66], thus reflecting true wishes. Informed choice is exercised when patients freely and intentionally choose a medical procedure, over another, ‘after having substantial understanding of the proposed medical treatment[s]’ [66].…”

Section: Prejudice Against Autonomy In Childbirthmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Choices are only sufficiently autonomous when made with understanding [66], thus reflecting true wishes. Informed choice is exercised when patients freely and intentionally choose a medical procedure, over another, ‘after having substantial understanding of the proposed medical treatment[s]’ [66]. Some claim that because MRCS is elective, and evidence is complex, it is difficult for women to make MRCS decisions.…”

Section: Prejudice Against Autonomy In Childbirthmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why the Elective Caesarean Lottery is Ethically Impermissible

Romanis

2019

Health Care Anal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the United Kingdom the law and medical guidance is supportive of women making choices in childbirth. NICE guidelines are explicit that a competent woman’s informed request for MRCS (elective caesarean in the absence of any clinical indications) should be respected. However, in reality pregnant women are routinely denied MRCS. In this paper I consider whether there is sufficient justification for restricting MRCS. The physical and emotive significance of childbirth as an event in a woman’s life cannot be understated. It is, therefore, concerning that women are having their wishes ignored, and we must ascertain whether the denial of agency is justifiable. To answer this question I first demonstrate that access to MRCS is a lottery in the UK. Second, I argue that there is nothing unique about pregnancy that displaces the ethical norm of respecting patents’ sufficiently autonomous choices. Thus, the starting presumption is that all informed choices regarding MRCS should be respected. To ascertain whether any restriction of MRCS is justifiable the burden of proof must be placed on those who argue that MRCS is ethically impermissible. I argue that the most common justifications in the literature against MRCS are insufficient to displace the presumption in favour of autonomous choice in childbirth. I conclude that MRCS should be available to pregnant women, and we must strive to reduce the lottery in access to choice.

show abstract

Childbirth Is Not an Emergency: Informed Consent in Labor and Delivery

Cited by 13 publications

References 20 publications

Vaginal Examinations During Childbirth: Consent, Coercion and COVID-19

Vaginal Examinations During Childbirth: Consent, Coercion and COVID-19

Reviewing the womb

Why the Elective Caesarean Lottery is Ethically Impermissible

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About