Share this story
Close X
Switch to Desktop Site

Fetal rights - ruling from the family, not the court

About these ads

THE rights of the unborn are taking a new twist in the courts. And the current controversy may dwarf even the ongoing debate over abortion. It concerns the role of the judiciary as a protector of the life of a fetus. Should judges order delivery of a child by Caesarean section over the objection of the pregnant mother?

A case now in the Washington, D.C., courts - which is probably eventually headed for the United States Supreme Court - raises this issue directly. It will also almost certainly shed light on the increasing use of such surgery.

A survey of deliveries reported earlier this year by the American Medical Association indicates that so-called C-sections account for nearly 2 of every 10 births in the United States today. This represents a 5 percent increase over a three-year period.

Some medical experts suggest that the threat of malpractice lawsuits has prodded many doctors toward C-sections when there are doubts about the health of an unborn child.

The current case - which is attracting worldwide attention - concerns a young woman who was forced by a hospital to undergo a Caesarean delivery against her will.

In this situation, medical officials believed that the baby would die if the operation was not performed. The mother had been diagnosed as terminally ill.

Sadly, neither the woman nor her unborn child survived.

This matter joins a persistent argument about fetal rights. It pits a woman's right of privacy against government responsibility to preserve the life of a newborn.

The mother had refused a Caesarean section - when such an operation was suggested as the only way to save the baby. The hospital, however, obtained a court order to authorize the surgery.

This legal move was not unprecedented. In fact, in at least 20 cases over the last five years, hospitals have sought such mandates. And in most cases - including the current one - they have been successful.

District of Columbia Superior Court Judge Richard A. Levie said it was ``one thing for an adult to gamble with nature regarding his or her own life; it is quite another when the gamble involves the life or death of an unborn infant.''


Page:   1   |   2

Follow Stories Like This
Get the Monitor stories you care about delivered to your inbox.