Between 1992 and 1996, a small number of women in the UK were forced by the courts to undergo caesarean section against their expressed refusal. Analysis of the reported cases reveals the blanket assumption of maternal incompetence and the widespread use of thinly veiled coercion. Such attitudes and practices are themselves frequently compounded by inadequate communication. Medical discretion in such problematic cases seems to err on the side of safety and so appears to favour the life of the fetus over (...) maternal autonomy. Despite current policy’s placement of the pregnant woman at the centre of maternity care, obstetricians’ concerns appear to lie more with the unborn fetus. In other words, there seems to be a point at which the value of fetal life begins to outweigh, not so much the life of the woman, but her right to self-determination, her plans and her choices. While it is important to acknowledge that these court ordered caesareans represent an unusual extreme within contemporary maternity care in this country, that they have happened brings into sharp relief some of the stereotypical assumptions about women. These are assumptions that underlie much of current medical practice and may compromise or disempower women in other ways during their experience of pregnancy and labour. Using the first and last of the six reported cases as contextual illustrations, this article focuses on the complex interplay of processes that have brought the medical profession to a position in which their own self-conviction and determination to do what they believe is best for their patients has resulted in gross denial of women’s autonomy and the use of the law to override pregnant women’s refusal of consent. (shrink)

The prelims comprise: Introduction Controversial Choices Kinds of Normative Reasons for Action Limits on Respect for Autonomy Children and Controversial Choice Controversial Choices and the Duty to Strive Toward Perfection and Full Autonomy Acknowledgments Notes References.

Requests by patients or their families for treatment which the patient's physician considers to be "inappropriate" are becoming more frequent than refusals of treatment which the physician considers appropriate. Such requests are often based on the patient's religious beliefs about the attributes of God (sovereignty, omnipotence), the attributes of persons (sanctity of life), or the individual's personal relationship with God (communication, commands, etc). We present four such cases and discuss some of the basic religious tenets of the three Abrahamic faith (...) traditions as they relate to such requests. We suggest that religious reasons for requesting "inappropriate" treatment are "special" and deserve serious consideration. We offer guidance to assist clinicians and clinical ethicists as they attempt to resolve these conflicts, emphasising the importance of understanding the religious beliefs of the patient/surrogate and suggesting the assistance of a religious interpreter. We suggest open discussion with patients and families of both the clinical situation and the theological basis for these requests. We also suggest that clinicians use additional religious doctrines or principles from patients' own traditions to balance the reasons behind the requests. We conclude that most persistent requests for "inappropriate" treatment should be honoured. (shrink)