Court ordered medical treatment for pregnant woman in the US

Informed consent and right of refusal are accepted legal concepts. The woman has the right to make informed decisions, including consent or refusal of any aspect of her care. The courts have consistently affirmed that the autonomy of the individual prevails, even when a patient refuses to consent to life-saving treatment.

Autonomy; Even when his or her own life depends on receiving medical treatment an adult of sound mind is entitled to refuse it. This reflects the autonomy of individuals and the right to self determination........as you will read from Judge Butler-Sloss in the St George’s Healthcare NHS Trust case where a woman was forced by a court order to have a caesarean section against her will...... You could liken this to the current issues surrounding women making a choice to have a ‘Homebirth’..... and doctors applying pressure and creating a ‘fear’ culture to ensure that women choose hospital as opposed to homebirth.....

Judge Butler-Sloss in St George’s Healthcare NHS Trust v S (1999) “...while pregnancy increases the personal responsibilities of a woman it does not diminish her entitlement to decide whether or not to undergo medical treatment. Although human and protected by the law in a number of different ways..., an unborn child is not a separate person from its mother. Its need for medial assistance does not prevail over her rights. She is entitled not to be forced to submit to an invasion of her body against her will, whether her own life or that of her unborn child depends on it. Her right is not reduced or diminished merely because her decision to exercise it may appear morally repugnant.,....”.

Now in the US where the fetus has arguably had more rights than its mother in some states, which in my opinion is outrageous the State of Florida has recently ruled that a woman who refused medical treatment was ordered to comply with her doctor’s orders. The woman a mother of two who was experiencing complications during her pregnancy was ordered to hospital, made to receive medical treatment and have a caesarean delivery.

“The trial court ruled that the woman's refusal of medical treatment placed her pregnancy at high-risk and created a "substantial and unacceptable" risk to her fetus. The trial court said the state's interests in protecting the fetus superseded the woman's privacy interests, and she was ordered to comply with her doctor's orders. The woman submitted to hospitalization, medical treatment and a caesarean delivery, although the fetus was delivered stillborn.”

The case went to appeal and the decision was overturned......

“In its ruling, the appeals court said the state's interest in the life of the fetus becomes compelling only when the fetus reaches viability, as outlined in the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court ruling on Roe v. Wade. The court added that there was no indication of viability when the trial court ordered medical treatment and that even if viability were shown, the trial court applied the wrong legal test. The "test to overcome a woman's right to refuse medical intervention in her pregnancy is whether the state's compelling interest is sufficient to override the pregnant woman's constitutional right to the control of her person, including her right to refuse medical treatment," the court said in its ruling. It added that the state also must show that its method of pursuing the compelling state interest is narrowly tailored to protect the woman's rights”.

However for this woman her rights have been totally obliterated..... mind you this case now becomes another precedent and hopefully some other woman does not have to go through the same ordeal. We have to remember that women have the right to self determination; because they are pregnant they do not lose that right.

We in Australia have to be mindful that this does not happen here, that women’s right to self determination is not eroded such as this.

“The American Civil Liberties Union, which filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of the woman, said in a statement that the ruling is "an important decision for the right of women to make their own medical choices." Diana Kasdan, a staff attorney with the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project, said that women "do not relinquish their right to determine their own medical care when they become pregnant."

Ref:.http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/197902.php

St George’s Healthcare NHS Trust v S [1999] Fam, 26’ [1998] 3 All ER 673

Who will be the next American President? My view!

BBC World news
Democratic convention - Denver
Whilst away in Singapore teaching I happened to be watching the BBC World news, as you do when in a hotel room and listened to a speech delivered by Mr Bill Clinton, he received an overwhelming standing ovation. I know you might think that is sad, however I do think it is important for the world to know what is happening in America and the world can certainly do without another George Bush. I found Bill Clinton to be charismatic and interesting to listen to. He was a diplomat and inspiring. Clinton suggested that “America needs to be strong at home before strong within the world” – how true is this, you have to love yourself before you can love someone else.
I think Clinton is an easy man to look at, not a hair out of place, he presents very well – despite his admission of his indiscretions, I think he still does a good job and goes to show that we are all human and make mistakes. The other way to look at this is off course, is that I am being pulled into a false sense of security and falling for his charm and really he is a womaniser, I will reserve my judgement. However I do think that a President should be above reproach. He paid tribute to his wife Hilary Clinton, who I am disappointed is still not in the running; however I can see why Hilary could not be Obama’s right hand person. I do like both the Clinton’s and see why they have made a good team. However I have never understood why Hilary remained by her man, unless it was a pact, so that she could achieve her dream, only time will tell. Bill’s speech was directed at Hilary’s followers and other democrats to support Barack Obama, saying, he is ready to be President:– well by the time he finished his speech I was ready to agree with him, not because he said so, because his speech outlined all aspects/issues of what is required of the next American president: global warming, health care for the poor, poverty, military, rising costs of gasoline, food, utilities – equal opportunities for women etc; I am not sure if Barack Obama can achieve all this but he seems to me a better option than McCain and Palin.
I was disappointed that I did not get to listen to Obama’s speech as I had teaching commitments, but it did get good reviews. Barack Obama accepted the Democratic Party presidential nomination, declaring that the “American dream has been threatened” by rule under President George Bush and the McCain represented a continuation of policies that undermined the nation’s economy and devalued it standing around the world.
How cleaver of the Republicans, to choose a woman as second in command, but then, how, appropriate to be behind the man. Now let’s look at Sarah Palin, normally I would be supportive of a woman in this position, but Sarah Palin is pro-life, pro guns, pro war, her son is just off to Iran to war, but I guess it depends on what side of the fence you sit on, this is certainly not my choice. I think that this is a step backwards for women in terms of pro-life issues. America under the current Presidency has put the women’s movement in America backwards by giving the fetus more rights than the women that carry the fetus.
This will be a closer race than first anticipated now that McCain has a woman at his side; it will be very interesting to watch. Whichever way this election goes, history is in the making, the first black American to be President, or the first woman to be Vice President.

ref picture: Alan Davidson: Daily Mail: http://images.google.com.sg/imgres?imgurl=http://img.dailymail.co.uk/