I argue for compatibility between feminism and medicine by developing a model of the physician-other relationship which is essentially egalitarian. This entails rejection of (a) a paternalistic model which reinforces sex-role stereotypes, (b) a maternalistic model which exclusively emphasizes patient autonomy, and (c) a model which focuses on the physician's conscience. The model I propose (parentalism) captures the complexity and dynamism of the physician-other relationship, by stressing mutuality in respect for autonomy and regard for each other's interests.

Whether it is morally permissible to compel women to undergo a caesarean section is a topic of longstanding debate. Despite plenty of arguments against the moral permissibility of a forced caesarean section, the question keeps cropping up. This paper seeks to scrutinise a particular moral argument in favour of compulsion: the appeal to parental obligation. We present what we take to be a distillation of the basic form of this argument. We then argue that, in the absence of an exhaustive (...) theory of parental obligation, the question of whether a labouring woman is morally obliged to undergo emergency surgery—and especially the further question of it is morally permissible for third parties to compel this—cannot be answered via ready-made theory. We propose that the most viable option for settling both questions is by analogy. We follow earlier writers in presenting an analogous case—that of fathers being compelled to undergo non-consensual invasive surgery to save their children—but expand the analogy by considering objections that appeal to the ownership of the fetus. We offer two lines of response: the parthood view of pregnancy and chimaera dad. We argue that it is clear in the analogous case that compulsion cannot be justified. We also offer this analogy as a useful tool for assessing whether mothers have a moral duty to undergo caesarean sections, both in general and in particular cases, even if such a duty is insufficient to warrant compulsion. (shrink)

Approaches to supporting autonomy in medicine need to be able to support complex and sensitive decision-making, incorporating reflection on the patient's values and goals. This should involve deliberation in partnership between physician and patient, allowing the patient to take responsibility for her decision. Nowhere is this truer than in decisions around pregnancy and Caesarean section where maternal autonomy can seem to directly conflict with foetal interests. Medical and societal expectations and norms such as the expectations of a ‘mother’, constraints of (...) making decisions in an emergency, and the role of technology in viewing the foetus as a separate patient and surgery as a guarantor of results can all act to limit a woman's autonomy. In considering decisions about Caesarean section, maternal interests in bodily integrity can be dismissed as being less important than the foetus's own interests and the mother's duties to it, despite the inherent risks and impacts of such a major surgical procedure... (shrink)

Medea killed her children to take away the smile from her husband's face, according to Euripides, an offence against nature and morality. What if Medea had still been carrying her two children, perhaps due to give birth within a week or so, and had done the same? If this would also have been morally reprehensible, would that be a judgment based on her motives or on her action? We argue that the act has multiple and holistic moral features and that, (...) in fact, there is no absolute principle, such as the right of the fetus to life, which governs our moral judgments about fetal-maternal conflicts. We suggest that they illustrate a pervasive feature of human moral discourse and can only be addressed by attending to a range of negotiable moral considerations which depend on particular features of each situation. (shrink)

Is it morally justifiable to force non-consenting pregnant women to submit to caesarean surgery to save their fetus in distress? Even though proponents and opponents largely agree on the interests at stake, such as the health and life of the fetus and the respect for bodily integrity and autonomy of pregnant women, they disagree on which moral weight to attach to these interests. This is why disagreements about the justifiability of forced caesareans tend to be pervasive and intractable. To sidestep (...) this deadlock, we will focus on conditions that give rise to the ‘caesarean dilemma’ in the first place, namely the conflict between inherent norms and values medical professionals are committed to by virtue of being a medical professional. Using the reflective equilibrium, we will test the opponents’ and proponents’ considered judgments about forced caesareans against the norms and values they—as medical professionals—are committed to and determine whether they are coherent. Subsequently we will identify the proponents’ incoherencies between the considered judgments and norms and values they are committed to and conclude that as long as these incoherencies are in place, forced caesareans are morally impermissible. (shrink)

In the late twentieth century the United States experienced a wave of cases concerning compelled obstetric interventions, cases which attracted much legal and philosophical interest. Behind and alongside them, however, lies a little known strand of authorities which concerns a parent wishing to refuse life-sustaining treatment and a hospital seeking to prevent this on the basis of the State's interest in protecting innocent third parties, usually the patient's dependent minor children. This issue appears to be unique to the United States. (...) Although the leading case in point was influential in cases concerning compelled obstetric intervention, it has received little examination in its own right. This is a shame, since it spawned an intriguing line of cases worthy of reflection today. (shrink)

In the late twentieth century the United States experienced a wave of cases concerning compelled obstetric interventions, cases which attracted much legal and philosophical interest. Behind and alongside them, however, lies a little known strand of authorities which concerns a parent wishing to refuse life-sustaining treatment and a hospital seeking to prevent this on the basis of the State's interest in protecting innocent third parties, usually the patient's dependent minor children. This issue appears to be unique to the United States. (...) Although the leading case in point was influential in cases concerning compelled obstetric intervention, it has received little examination in its own right. This is a shame, since it spawned an intriguing line of cases worthy of reflection today. (shrink)

Hospital ehtics committees are often consulted when cmopeting patient interests blur an otherwise clear course of medical treatment. Nowhere is the potential for competing interests greater than in the field of abosterics, wherer obstetricians have traditionally viewed themselves as having two patients: the pregnant woman and the fetus.

I argue that pregnant women have a duty to refrain from behaviours or to allow certain acts to be done to them for the sake of their foetus if the foetus has a reasonable chance of living and being in a harmed state if the woman does not refrain from those behaviours or allow those things to be done to her. There is a proviso: that her refraining from acting or allowing acts to be performed upon her does not significantly (...) harm her. This duty does not presuppose that the foetus is a person. It is grounded on principles of respect for the interests of sentient beings and prevention of harm to future individuals. I give an argument for a general duty of easy rescue. (shrink)