About Me
The rights of a mother in childbirth
A prominent Israeli professor in Obstetrics and Gynecology, prof. Mark Glazerman wrote a very interesting article in the Haaretz. He is asking the question if a woman in labor has the right to refuse a C-Section (or any other intervention), even if it means death for herself and/or the fetus.
In the western world, there have been several cases of mothers who refused cesareans, and were ordered by the court to have one anyway, on the basis of saving her life or that of her unborn baby.
He describes a case where the court ordered a C-Section on a woman with a large fetus. The mother escaped from the hospital, and went to another hospital where she ended up giving birth (vaginally) to a baby that was smaller in size than the other babies that she had given birth to vaginally in the past!!
The question Prof. Glazerman raises is whether it's ethical to force sane women to undergo medical treatments against their will. On the one hand, society has the duty to protect the rights of the unborn fetus (does a fetus have rights at all?). On the other hand, wouldn't it be contradicting to the basic human rights to force medical interventions upon a person (in this case the mother)? What happens if the needs of the fetus contradict those of the mother, in other words, if one had to choose between saving the mother's life or the one of the fetus. Who comes first?
In my opinion, nobody should be forced to undergo any medical treatment against their will, at any point. This includes a mother refusing a cesarean section, even if it means the death of her baby.
If a person who is not pregnant needs to undergo a life-saving surgery, can he be forced to do it? I didn't think so.
And what if a person needs to undergo surgery in order to save another person's life and he is the only one to do it, such as in the case of a kidney transplant, and he is the only possible donor, is he forced to undergo the surgery if this will save the other person's life? Unheard of!
So then, why should it be any different in the case of a pregnant woman?
Of course this doesn't mean that I think that we shouldn't try to convince mothers who refuse essential treatments. But it is very important that the mother knows the whole story of the situation, all the pros and the cons, in order to make the right choice for herself and her unborn child. If she doesn't know all the sides involved, how can she make an informed choice that is right for her?
That's why I always tell my ladies the pros and the cons of everything that comes on their path, and I also tell them that they have the right to refuse anything they don't want. They don't always realize that.
Here is the link to the article in the Haaretz.
Technorati Tags: birth, childbirth, rights, cesarean, c-section, medical treatments
In the western world, there have been several cases of mothers who refused cesareans, and were ordered by the court to have one anyway, on the basis of saving her life or that of her unborn baby.
He describes a case where the court ordered a C-Section on a woman with a large fetus. The mother escaped from the hospital, and went to another hospital where she ended up giving birth (vaginally) to a baby that was smaller in size than the other babies that she had given birth to vaginally in the past!!
The question Prof. Glazerman raises is whether it's ethical to force sane women to undergo medical treatments against their will. On the one hand, society has the duty to protect the rights of the unborn fetus (does a fetus have rights at all?). On the other hand, wouldn't it be contradicting to the basic human rights to force medical interventions upon a person (in this case the mother)? What happens if the needs of the fetus contradict those of the mother, in other words, if one had to choose between saving the mother's life or the one of the fetus. Who comes first?
In my opinion, nobody should be forced to undergo any medical treatment against their will, at any point. This includes a mother refusing a cesarean section, even if it means the death of her baby.
If a person who is not pregnant needs to undergo a life-saving surgery, can he be forced to do it? I didn't think so.
And what if a person needs to undergo surgery in order to save another person's life and he is the only one to do it, such as in the case of a kidney transplant, and he is the only possible donor, is he forced to undergo the surgery if this will save the other person's life? Unheard of!
So then, why should it be any different in the case of a pregnant woman?
Of course this doesn't mean that I think that we shouldn't try to convince mothers who refuse essential treatments. But it is very important that the mother knows the whole story of the situation, all the pros and the cons, in order to make the right choice for herself and her unborn child. If she doesn't know all the sides involved, how can she make an informed choice that is right for her?
That's why I always tell my ladies the pros and the cons of everything that comes on their path, and I also tell them that they have the right to refuse anything they don't want. They don't always realize that.
Here is the link to the article in the Haaretz.
Technorati Tags: birth, childbirth, rights, cesarean, c-section, medical treatments
Powered by ScribeFire.
Stumble It!
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home