Obstetricians, Health Attorneys, and Court-Ordered Cesarean Sections

Samuels, Terri Ann; Minkoff, Howard; Feldman, Joseph; Awonuga, Awoniyi O.; Wilson, Tracey E.

doi:10.1016/j.whi.2006.12.001

Cited by 29 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This is certainly so, but a survey conducted by Samuels et al 23 also points to underlying beliefs about women's reproductive autonomy as a significant factor in perpetration of obstetric violence. Samuels et al surveyed physicians and health attorneys and found that the personal value they ascribe to the foetus (i.e.…”

Section: Systemic Failures With Politicized Rootsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Invisible wounds: obstetric violence in the United States

Diaz-Tello

2016

Reproductive Health Matters

118

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent years, there has been growing public attention to a problem many US health institutions and providers disclaim: bullying and coercion of pregnant women during birth by health care personnel, known as obstetric violence. Through a series of real case studies, this article provides a legal practitioner's perspective on a systemic problem of institutionalized gender-based violence with only individual tort litigation as an avenue for redress, and even that largely out of reach for women. It provides an overview of the limitations of the civil justice system in addressing obstetric violence, and compares alternatives from Latin American jurisdictions. Finally, the article posits policy solutions for the legal system and health care systems.

show abstract

Section: Systemic Failures With Politicized Rootsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Invisible wounds: obstetric violence in the United States

Diaz-Tello

2016

Reproductive Health Matters

118

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Legal measures have also been taken after the fact: several mothers have been charged with murder after refusing a caesarean section deemed necessary to save the life of their child [11][12][13][14]. Bowes, in 1981, cited jurisprudence where "the fetus may be the victim of homicide if born alive but dies as a result of prenatal injury [15].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In a survey performed among the heads of maternal-fetal medicine fellowships in the United States in 1987, many thought that pregnant women who endangered their fetus's life should be detained and that forced treatment under those circumstances was acceptable [6]. Adams in 2003 and Samuels in 2007 did similar surveys and found that, although the willingness to go against patient's wishes by taking legal action had significantly decreased, still every interviewee could envision conditions under which they would ultimately take such a step [13,17].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Women Refusing Standard Obstetric Care: Maternal Fetal Conflict or Doctorpatient Conflict?

Hollander¹,

Dillen²,

Lagro‐Janssen³

et al. 2016

J Preg Child Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: Some women choose to give birth outside medical protocol or ignore medical advice. This could be perceived as a maternal-fetal conflict. Many professionals are unsure about the legal possibilities and ethical intricacies in these circumstances, and the position of the fetus. This paper attempts to elucidate and provide a framework for these issues. Methods:We did a literature search on Pubmed in October 2014, using the terms "legal/law", "pregnant/ pregnancy", "legal measures", "court-ordered caesarean/cesarean", "birth", "childbirth" and "homebirth". We also reviewed some professional organisations' guidelines.Results: Much has been written about legal restrictions and measures against women who go against medical advice, for instance court-ordered cesarean sections or forced hospital admissions. Medical professionals fear litigation in case of a bad outcome when the mother's wishes are respected. However, medical assessment of risk and benefit is sometimes inaccurate. Maternal competence is a central issue.The pregnant patient has the right to autonomy, bodily integrity, freedom and self-determination and the fetus has the right to have its life protected. However, it is unethical to invade one person's physical integrity for the benefit of another, especially if the other is not born yet. Religious rights are generally respected, but this is not unlimited.International guidelines on this subject generally state that a competent pregnant patient has the same rights as any other person and that her autonomy should prevail. Conclusions:In contrast to the general perception the conflict described is not between mother and child but between doctor and patient. Communication can be the key to solving this problem. In cases of continued disagreement, the mother's autonomy should prevail.Significance: In this era of social media and access to information for all, patients are better informed than ever before. At the same time, shared decision making is rapidly becoming the norm. Obstetrical care providers are increasingly faced with pregnant patients who refuse some or all proposed interventions. These decisions may appear to be at odds with what medical professionals deem best for the fetus. We have attempted to provide a legal and ethical framework for looking at this dilemma.

show abstract

“…The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (RCOG) recommends ''that it is inappropriate to invoke judicial intervention to overrule an informed and competent woman's refusal of a proposed medical treatment, even though her refusal might place her life and that of her fetus at risk'' [7,66]. A competent adult has the right to refuse treatment, and surgery without consent is an assault in English law [1,64].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This review locates the following major themes for ethical, legal, or ethical-legal debates in obstetrics and reproductive medicine: abortion [6,11,12,59,72], adolescent's pregnancy [1,45], advanced decisions for mentally impaired [23, 57,64], breastfeeding in HIV-positive mothers [3], elective fetal surgery [42, 53,55], enforced C-sections in favor of fetus [5,14,18,24,44,47,60,66], eugenics [62], fetal abnormality [10,19,56], HIV treatment during pregnancy and postpartum [10], intrauterine transfusions [47], maternal autonomy [8], and maternal mental illness [13,17,53,64]; needle phobia [68], oocyte donation [65], religious refusal of a blood transfusion [58], rights of the intrauterine patient [20,63], stem cell registry [40], sterilization (vasectomy, tubal ligation, salpingectomy, ovariectomy, total hysterectomy) [16,17,49,57,69], surrogacy [65], substance abuse in pregnancy [2,…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Court-visited obstetrical and fertility procedures

Matevosyan

2012

Arch Gynecol Obstet

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Court-ordered obstetrical procedures present an unsettled legal forum in terms of their complex interplay. The awareness of legal precedent can alert providers to possibility of an exception to the general presumption that the mother is competent, where it might trigger a legal or ethical council. Screening inventories (covering maternal-fetal attachment, judgmental fitness, prior obstetrical history, perinatal risk, formal/informal social support) jointly developed by the health providers and lawyers would assist involved parties in resolving complex situations without resorting to legal conflicts.

show abstract

Obstetricians, Health Attorneys, and Court-Ordered Cesarean Sections

Cited by 29 publications

References 8 publications

Invisible wounds: obstetric violence in the United States

Invisible wounds: obstetric violence in the United States

Women Refusing Standard Obstetric Care: Maternal Fetal Conflict or Doctorpatient Conflict?

Court-visited obstetrical and fertility procedures

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About