An orwellian scenario: Court ordered caesarean section and women's autonomy

Nursing Ethics

Volumn 6, Issue 6, 1999, Pages 494-505

  Cahill, Heather ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF YORK   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Autonomy; Consent; Paternalism

Indexed keywords

ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; CESAREAN SECTION; FEMALE; HUMAN; INFORMED CONSENT; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; JURISPRUDENCE; LEGAL APPROACH; LEGAL ASPECT; MALPRACTICE; MATERNAL WELFARE; MEDICAL ETHICS; MENTAL CAPACITY; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; PATERNALISM; PATIENT ADVOCACY; PATIENT CARE; PERSONAL AUTONOMY; PREGNANCY; PREGNANT WOMAN; PROFESSIONAL PATIENT RELATIONSHIP; REVIEW; TREATMENT REFUSAL; UNITED KINGDOM; WOMEN'S RIGHTS;

LEGAL APPROACH; PROFESSIONAL PATIENT RELATIONSHIP;

ADVANCE CARE PLANNING; CESAREAN SECTION; DEFENSIVE MEDICINE; DISCLOSURE; ETHICS, MEDICAL; FEMALE; GREAT BRITAIN; HEALTH KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES, PRACTICE; HUMANS; INFORMED CONSENT; JUDICIAL ROLE; MATERNAL WELFARE; MENTAL COMPETENCY; PATERNALISM; PATIENT ADVOCACY; PATIENT-CENTERED CARE; PERSONAL AUTONOMY; PREGNANCY; PREGNANT WOMEN; TREATMENT REFUSAL; WOMEN'S RIGHTS;

EID: 0033218922     PISSN: 09697330     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1191/096973399674072388     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Thomson M. 1994 After Re S. Med Law Rev 1994; 2 (summer): 127-48.
2. Re S (adult: refusal of treatment) [1992] 3 WLR 806.
3. Montgomery J. Health care law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997.
4. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Ethics: a consideration of the law and ethics in relation to court-authorised obstetric intervention (no. 1, April 1994). London: RCOG, 1994.
5. Whitfield A. Commentary: a decision that stretches the law too far. BMJ 1997; 314: 1185-86.
6. Cahill H. Non-consensual caesarean section - some arguments for respecting women's autonomy [Thesis]. Staffordshire: University of Keele, 1999.
7. United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting. Court-ordered caesarean sections (Registrar's letter 7/1998). London: UKCC, 1998.
8. Ashcroft B. Court-ordered caesarean sections: a midwife's dilemma. Br J Midwifery 1998; 6: 259-61.
9. Richards J. Too choosy about choice. Br J Midwifery 1997; 5: 163-67.
10. Hobbs L. The great divide. Nurs Times 1998; 94(41): 72-73.
11. Robinson J. Informed refusal. Br J Midwifery 1995; 3: 616-17.
12. Savulescu J, Momeyer, RW. Should informed consent be based on rational beliefs? J Med Ethics 1997; 23: 282-88.
13. Draper H. Consent in childbirth. In: Frith L ed. Ethics and midwifery: issues in contemporary practice. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, 1996: 17-35.
14. Crafter H. Forcible caesareans: a new direction in British maternity care? Thoughts on the case of Mrs S. Nurs Ethics 1994; 1: 53-55.
15. Kennedy I. Consent to treatment: the capable person. In: Dyer C ed. Doctors, patients and the law. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific, 1992: 44-71.
16. Stauch M. Rationality and the refusal of medical treatment: a critique of the recent approach of the English courts. J Med Ethics 1995; 21: 162-65.
17. Wells C. Patients, consent and criminal law. J Soc Welfare Fam Law 1994; 1: 65-78.
18. Brazier M. Hard cases make bad law. J Med Ethics 1997; 23: 341-43.
19. R v Louize Collins and Others (1998 - draft judgment).
20. Draper H. Women, forced caesareans and antenatal responsibilities. J Med Ethics 1996; 22: 327-33.
21. Widdett C, Thomson M. Justifying treatment and other stories. Feminist Legal Stud 1997; 5(1): 77-89.
22. Andrews A. Delivering justice. Nurs Times 1998; 94(23): 31-32.
23. Annas GJ. Protecting the liberty of pregnant patients. N Engl J Med 1987; 316: 1213-14.
24. Madder H. Existential autonomy: why patients should make their own choices. J Med Ethics 1997; 23: 221-25.
25. McMillan RC. Responsibility to or for in the physician-patient relationship? J Med Ethics 1995; 21: 112-15.
26. Campbell A. Dependency revisited: the limits of autonomy in medical ethics. In: Brazier M, Lobjoit M eds. Protecting the vulnerable. Autonomy and consent in health care. London: Routledge, 1991: 101-12.
27. Goldbeck-Wood S. Women's autonomy in childbirth - we may advise and persuade but never coerce. BMJ 1997; 314: 1143-44.
28. Harris J. The value of life. An introduction to medical ethics. London: Routledge, 1985.
29. Beauchamp TL, Childress JF. Principles of biomedical ethics, fourth edition. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994.
30. Eddy A. Caesarean sections: consent to treatment. Br J Midwifery 1998; 6: 358.
31. Tauer CA. When pregnant patients refuse interventions. Clin Issues Perinat Wom Health Nurs 1993; 4: 596-605.
32. National Health Service Executive. Consent to treatment - summary of legal rulings (Executive Letter EL (97)32). Leeds: NHSE, 1997.
33. Feenan D. Capacity to decide about medical treatment. Br J Hosp Med 1996; 56: 295-97.
34. Faulder C. Whose body is it? The troubling issue of informed consent. London: Virago, 1985.
35. Wilkinson C, McIlwaine G, Boulton-Jones C, Cole S. Is a rising caesarean section rate inevitable? Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1998; 105: 45-52.
36. Hewson B. Court ordered caesareans: the saga continues. Br J Midwifery 1997; 5: 316.
37. Ekman Ladd R. Women in labour: some issues about informed consent. In: Bequaert Holmes H, Purdy LM eds. Feminist perspectives in medical ethics. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1992: 216-23.
38. Chervanak FA, McCullough LB, Skupski D. An ethical justification for emergency: coerced caesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 1993; 82: 1029-35.
39. Pinkerton JV, Finnerty JJ. Resolving the clinical and ethical dilemma involved in fetal-maternal conflicts. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996; 175: 289-95.
40. Judge E. Choice in intrapartum care. Nurs Times 1997; 93(10): 54-55.
41. Wells C. On the outside looking in: perspectives on enforced caesareans. In: Sheldon S, Thomson M. eds. Feminist perspectives on health care law. London: Cavendish, 1998: 237-55.
42. Black D. Guidelines or gumption? The role of medical responsibility: a view from the profession. In: Hirsch SR, Harris J eds. Consent and the incompetent patient: ethics, law and medicine. London: Gaskell, 1988: 29-36.
43. Saunders K. Love thy labour. Sunday Telegraph Magazine 1998 28 Jun: 44-45.
44. Davies S. Divided loyalties: the problem of normality. Br J Midwifery 1996; 4: 285-86.
45. Rowan C. Court-ordered caesareans - choice or control? Nurs Ethics 1998; 5: 542-44.
46. Robinson J. Caesarean - by force. Br J Midwifery 1996; 4: 553-54.
47. Murphy-Black T. Comfortable men, uncomfortable women. In: Murphy-Black T ed. Issues in midwifery. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone, 1995: 275-97.
48. Murphy D. Inside the womb, outside the law. Nurs Times 1998: 94(23): 32.
49. Warren MA. The moral significance of birth. In: Bequaert Holmes H, Purdy LM eds. Feminist perspectives in medical ethics. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1992: 198-215.