By Dahlia Ward, State Strategist, ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project
Imagine this — you're the busy mother of two small kids with another one on the way. This pregnancy has been fraught with complications. During a medical exam, your doctor orders bed rest for the remainder of your pregnancy. You explain that you can't possibly stay in bed for four months with two small children (!). The doctor insists. You say you want to get a second opinion. The doctor refuses and goes to court and gets a court order mandating your confinement in the hospital for the remainder of your pregnancy.
Sound crazy? Well something along these lines happened to Samantha Burton, a mother of two in Florida who was 25 weeks pregnant when she was hospitalized against her will due to pregnancy complications. When she requested a transfer to another hospital so she could get a second opinion, the state refused because it was not in the fetus' "best interests at the time." After three days in state-mandated confinement, Ms. Burton lost the baby. The ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project and the ACLU of Florida filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of Burton earlier this week.
Being pregnant does not mean that you lose the basic right to make decisions about your own health care. In a free society, each of us has the liberty to conduct our lives according to what we believe is best for ourselves and our families. Though we may disagree with the health decisions of some, we do not force people into medical care, or in the case of Burton, into confinement in a hospital.
Don't get me wrong — of course I want pregnant women to follow their doctor's advice. But I do not think that pregnant women should be confined against their will if they are unwilling or unable to do so. If we allow the government to confine a pregnant woman for not following orders to remain in bed, what's next? Will we forcibly hospitalize pregnant women for having a glass of wine with dinner? Or eating too much fast food? What if they don't take their prenatal vitamins? Or miss their doctor's appointments? What if a pregnant woman refuses a cesarean section? While we each may have strong opinions about such behaviors, our government cannot interfere in a woman's personal private medical decisions. Allowing the government to make medical decisions for pregnant women means that literally every decision and every activity a pregnant woman engages in could be regulated by the state. And certainly the possibility of state-mandated hospitalization for those who have engaged in "unhealthy behaviors" would deter some women from seeking any prenatal care for fear of being punished. In that situation, everybody loses.
We would all be better off engaging in healthy behaviors. In our society, we motivate people to do so through education and information, not threats of confinement or punishment. Unfortunately, Samantha Burton's case is not unique. We hear of a number of cases in which women are discriminated against, even thrown in jail, simply because they are pregnant. Every pregnant woman should be able to access the health care she needs to have a healthy pregnancy and a healthy baby without fearing forced hospitalization or confinement.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Who Get to Make Medical Decisions for Pregnant Women?.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/15332
Though we may disagree with the health decisions of some, we do not force people into medical care, or in the case of Burton, into confinement in a hospital.
Doctors take an oath.
If you submit yourself to their care, they can, and will use the law to force you. As it should be. Otherwise, if that woman went home, and lost the baby? She'd have turned right around and sued the doctor for not doing more. You can bet on that.
Yes, we do force people, if it's necessary. It has nothing to do with being pregnant. You're just trying to make this an "against women" issue, when it's not.
If during a routine checkup, they discover your appendix is about to burst, you can't say you'll go home and tough it out. They're going to wheel you into the OR, whether you like it or not, and cut you open. They have to. It's not only their job, but their future that is at stake otherwise.
Doctors are quite possibly the most-sued profession in the United States. Your ideas of refusing treatment would, as I said above, make that worse.
reread the item above: this woman wanted a second opinion. a doctor's oath does not state that they must prevent patients from getting another opinion from a licensed professional. i have never in my life had a physician recommend i NOT get a second opinion during a serious medical crisis. it's obscene.
People in their right state of mind have an ultimate right to refuse medical care. A doctor who violates this right can be prosecuted for assault.
People in their right state of mind have an ultimate right to refuse medical care. A doctor who violates this right can be prosecuted for assault.
Not true. Like I said, if your appendix is about to burst, and you're at the doctor, it's much like checking yourself into a mental hospital.
You leave when they tell you you can leave.
They would be held criminally liable for the negligence involved in allowing you to leave the hospital, and would likely be sued by your family if you died, and you as well if you lived.
They know this. "Sound mind" doesn't give you the right to refuse treatment. If you're in their hands, and your life is potentially in danger, they have to treat you.
I'm fairly certain that this is incorrect, at least in the way that you are framing it. People can (and do) refuse medical treatment, even in emergency situations. The issue here is that while adults can do this, they cannot always legally make that same decision on behalf of a minor (for example: http://wcco.com/local/medical.ethics.good.2.1016414.html).
So, it appears that what this boils down to is the doctor deciding that A) the woman's fetus had the same rights as a child; and B) the woman's decision to seek a second opinion put that child at risk, and therefore the doctor had the right and responsibility to intervene. I think there are major issues with both of those points.
I also think that had this exact same woman shown up with a burst appendix and declined treatment, the doctor probably would not have forced her. I'm almost certain there would not have been a court order forcing her to accept treatment.
... and Femisting's not-so-awesome commenting system strikes again. The link is:
http://wcco.com/local/medical.ethics.good.2.1016414.html
Wrong. Any adult person that can demonstrate they are of sound mind can refuse medical care. Doctors can appeal the court to prove that the patient is not of sound mind, but that's as far as they can go. Hospitals are not jails. People can and do walk out of them against medical advice (AMA) every single day. Any move a doctor makes to prevent leaving can leave them open to assault and false imprisonment charges.
Their oath is not an actual binding law. It's just a standard they try to hold themselves to.
I also think that had this exact same woman shown up with a burst appendix and declined treatment, the doctor probably would not have forced her. I'm almost certain there would not have been a court order forcing her to accept treatment.
Tell that to my friend. His just burst. He has no insurance, and attempted to refuse the surgery. He went in for a stomach ache, they said if they didn't do this, he'd likely die, and cut him open. He didn't get a say in it, and when he said no, he couldn't, he had no insurance, that didn't matter.
If he passed out, yes, he's not of a mind to make decisions and doctors will make them FOR patients in those cases. If he out-and-out refused and was in a state of mind to refuse and can prove it, he has a real case against the doctors.
"...People can and do walk out of them against medical advice (AMA) every single day. Any move a doctor makes to prevent leaving can leave them open to assault and false imprisonment charges..."
I heard all they can do in these situations is mutter behind the ex-patient's back about how AMA supposedly stands for "Adios, Moronic Asshole."
Have you heard the phrase "medical assault and battery"? Say it with me now!
This is something that I like to ask anti-choicers about. If you can't trust a woman with her own pregnancy, how far do you go? Do you also restrict alcohol and cigarettes to pregnant woman? Should restaurants be able to refuse women certain foods (like fish) because of the possibility that she may be pregnant? What if she sleeps in a position that is bad for pregnancy? Maybe we should just put all pregnant women in special facilities, similar to mental hospitals, so that we can govern everything that they do.
No one should ever put the rights of a fetus over the rights of the woman carrying the fetus. Ever.
I would also ask Anti-choicers -- where do you draw the line? Do you start regulating all women of child-bearing years, because of the possibility that they will someday be pregnant? Are you going to force all young women to make medical decisions based on the fact they may want/get pregnant someday?
no but a woman knows what she can and cannot possibly do. OBGYN's are quick to make rash decisions about a babies health without taking everything into account. As patients we have to the right to a second opinion and any doctor who tries to deny that of their patients is not holding up the hypocratic oath. Woman are not just baby incubators we are human beings with thoughts and feelings, lives, loved ones, ect. nobobody gets to tell them what to do with their body and their health. Oh and forced imprisonment cannot be good for a baby because it puts the mother undeer unecessary stress
The amount of crap that many women have to go through at the hands of OBGYNs is obscene.
The first time I was pregnant, my OBGYN tried to pressure me into getting an epidural. When, after the pregnancy, I requested copies of all my medical forms, I discovered he had listed me as a "high risk" pregnancy on my forms and said I was "uncooperative" because I told him I had no interest in going to an epidural "informed consent" class. This is the same OBGYN who showed up very late to my labor - arriving twenty minutes into pushing - because he was at the golf course (I kid you not).
Second pregnancy, I went with a CNM. One of the best decisions I ever made.
Most women in pregnancy (and labor) have enhanced instincts and intuition. I think most men (and many women who have never been pregnant, and even some women who have) don't believe that's true. It's no wonder they want to make decisions for us; they think we're "irrational" and "emotional" when really we're just following our instincts.
As an attorney, I feel for OBGYNs, who are sued more often than any other form of doctor. But by the same token, a doctor's fear of being sued should not dictate how far a woman's rights can go.
A fetus is not a person. It has no rights. The woman who is carrying the fetus has rights, including the right to make medical choice for herself. Seriously, how hard a concept is this? Why can't doctors respect the right to bodily autonomy?
Joan
I think the problem is that, somehow, a woman who becomes pregnant is suddenly not seen as fully human anymore. They are seen as walking incubators or something. Lots of people seem to believe that pregnant women do not have their own needs/rights and, if they express them, they are suddenly "selfish" or "bad mothers." Sad, but it appears to be true what with stories like these and the ones about women being jailed to protect their fetuses or whatever.
multipass - you are incorrect.
so long as the patient is competent and capable of making decisions for themselves, they have the right to refuse any recommended treatment.
even patients who are incompetent to make their own decisions - if they are able to express that they do not want a particular intervention - it generally cannot be forced upon them unless a life or death situation is at hand.
"Why can't doctors respect the right to bodily autonomy? - Joan"
The vast majority of doctors do - in fact, the vast majority of us PREFER to, partly because the burden of medical decision making is then shared and somewhat lifted off our shoulders. The downside - for the patient - of this is that they are responsible for the consequences of them forgoing treatment.
Most doctors (I promise!) just want to see their patients get better, regardless of the treatment options chosen. If my patient refuses my recommendations and gets better anyway - good for them! However, there are definitely times where it is painfully obvious that though the patient is clearly competent and capable, their decisions will lead them to medical ruin...and those are the ones that you try and try to get through to, and you can't, and it just breaks your heart because you know the inevitable is coming, but you are bound to respect their decision.
I don't know what the particulars are of this case, and while it is somewhat interesting to me that the courts agreed with the doctor here, if the ACLU feels strongly enough to file a suit, than perhaps the patients rights were indeed infringed. I don't know. But if so, that's a shame, and should not have happened.