Pregnant Women Warned: Consent to Surgical Birth or Else

[dawheat]

I love all the liberals saying pregnant women aren't capable of making choices about their medical care and need to have old white men tell them what treatment is appropriate for them.

Considering 75-85% of OBGYNs are female, you're such a hack.

 

[nehalem256]

So you want parents to be able to demand that a child with a sore throat have their legs cut off too?

Trust me, you don't want to go down his roadm

Except liberals have been it very clear that before its born its a fetus not a child.

How many fetuses do you treat for sore throats? 😀

 

[RandomWords]

It depends on how the prior C-Section was done whether a woman can have a vaginal birth after. In some cases they can and in some cases they can't. If this woman was one of the one's that couldn't; I can see why the hospital refused to let her. They likely refused for a very good reason and that this woman wanted to jeopardize the life of her child just to have a birth "naturally" and protect her delicate ego is stupid... but it is her child and the life of a fetus isn't given much value in our nation.

 

[zinfamous]

I love all the liberals saying pregnant women aren't capable of making choices about their medical care and need to have old white men tell them what treatment is appropriate for them.

Except liberals have been it very clear that before its born its a fetus not a child.

How many fetuses do you treat for sore throats? 😀

your false equivalence humors me.

toaster.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

We have a basic human right to define what happens to our body.

Page 3,

http://www.rbs2.com/rrmt.pdf

Union Pacific Railway Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251 (1891)

Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hospital, 105 N.E. 92, 93 (N.Y. 1914

Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dept. of Health, 497 U.S. 261, 270 (1990)

Cruzan v. Harmon, 760 S.W.2d 408, 417 (Mo. 1988)

Matter of Guardianship of L.W., 482 N.W.2d 60, 65 (Wis. 1992)

In re Fiori, 673 A.2d 905, 910 (Pa. 1996)


Stouffer v. Reid, 993 A.2d 104, 109 (Maryl. 2010)



Do you see that part, medical treatment may not be imposed without the patient's informed consent.

The woman did not consent to a c-section.

It's the right to refuse treatment you hack not demand any treatment you want. That's not disputed. All the hospital did was defend there ability to provide proper care if she creates an emergency by walking into that hospital in labor demanding a vbac.

 

[Texashiker]

Yes, she did when she later unsuccessfully tried to give birth and failed.

Please explain to me when she fortified her rights.

Please be exact and cite court decisions as to when someone gives up their rights.

Please quit now for your own sake. You are fast approaching your own fail record. You don't know medicine or law.

What about the cited court decisions do you disagree with?

It's the right to refuse treatment you hack not demand any treatment you want.

She has a right to refuse a c-section.

In Stouffer v. Reid, state of Maryland, a person has the right to refuse treatment.

Performing a medical procedure without consent is medical assault and battery.

 

[nehalem256]

your false equivalence humors me.

False equivalence how?

Its damn near the exact same situation. Does a woman get to choose how her pregnancy ends or not?

toaster.

Microwave.

 

[abj13]

Do you see that part, medical treatment may not be imposed without the patient's informed consent.

How sad, are you now an internet lawyer? Clearly once again, you are utterly ignorant of the true breath of the case law.

I suggest you read Jacobson v. Massachusetts. Your argument is not black and white, it is very much a shade of gray.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

What about the cited court decisions do you disagree with?

I didn't disagree with them. The difference between you and I is that I can understand English

 

[Texashiker]

I didn't disagree with them. The difference between you and I is that I can understand English

If you harm someone without their consent, that is assault.

What about that do you not understand?

 

[Texashiker]

I suggest you read Jacobson v. Massachusetts. Your argument is not black and white, it is very much a shade of gray.

Fail.

That case deals with public health.

Public health trumps individual rights.

 

[nehalem256]

How sad, are you now an internet lawyer? Clearly once again, you are utterly ignorant of the true breath of the case law.

I suggest you read Jacobson v. Massachusetts. Your argument is not black and white, it is very much a shade of gray.

Pretty sure forced sterilization was legal back then too.

Might not want to use court cases from 1905 to justify forced medical procedures.

 

[abj13]

Public health trumps individual rights.

Once again, a complex concept goes over your head. In fact, your statement summarizes it, there are cases in which individual rights relating to health can be overruled. An individual's rights are not absolute, contrary to your poor understanding of the concepts involved.

 

[abj13]

Pretty sure forced sterilization was legal back then too.

Might not want to use court cases from 1905 to justify forced medical procedures.

Oh, so what's your reading of the case law for medical rights then? Jacobson v. Massachusetts does not involve sterilization, so your comparison is moot. If you actually have something to add, let's hear it.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

If you harm someone without their consent, that is assault.

What about that do you not understand?

I am about done being as considerate as I have been. You don't know the terms, applicable law nor medicine. You are embarrassing yourself.

 

[Texashiker]

Once again, a complex concept goes over your head. In fact, your statement summarizes it, there are cases in which individual rights relating to health can be overruled. An individual's rights are not absolute, contrary to your poor understanding of the concepts involved.

Funny how you keep leaving out the public health part of your argument.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schloendorff_v._Society_of_New_York_Hospital

Every human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with his own body; and a surgeon who performs an operation without his patient's consent commits an assault for which he is liable in damages.

This is true except in cases of emergency where the patient is unconscious and where it is necessary to operate before consent can be obtained.

If the doctor preformed a c-section without her consent, he assaulted her.

That is why the hospital was going to get a court order. So the hospital could bypass her rights.

 

[Texashiker]

I am about done being as considerate as I have been. You don't know the terms, applicable law nor medicine. You are embarrassing yourself.

Please cite a court decision that allows a doctor or hospital to force a patient to submit to unwanted procedures.

I have provided several court decisions to backup my opinion.

You have provided nothing but hot air.

 

[abj13]

Funny how you keep leaving out the public health part of your argument.

Sad, you don't even see the trees or even the forest at the same time. As Jacobson indicated there are roles in which the government can intervene and limit individual rights. That's the key point you don't seem to understand or grasp.

Better yet, have you actually read Roe v Wade? As indicated in the majority opinion, there is certainly situations in which abortion can be regulated or banned. The court did not find an unlimited right to have an abortion (unless one wanted to count their concept of protecting maternal health, but that was vague and not the focus of that part of the decision).

Then again, these cases are surprisingly omitted from your internet review of the case law, which clearly indicates how little you know of the subject.

 

[Texashiker]

Sad, you don't even see the trees or even the forest at the same time. As Jacobson indicated there are roles in which the government can intervene and limit individual rights. That's the key point you don't seem to understand or grasp.

Please cite a court case when the hospital and/or doctor can force a patient to submit to an unwanted procedure.

Public health is an unrelated topic. Public health is not even in the same ball park as a forced c-section, it is not even in the same town or county.

 

[MrPickins]

Please cite a court decision that allows a doctor or hospital to force a patient to submit to unwanted procedures.

I have provided several court decisions to backup my opinion.

You have provided nothing but hot air.

You're asserting that if the woman created an emergency situation by showing up at their hospital in labor that the doctors do not have the final say in treatment?

Informed Consent in the Emergency Department
John C. Moskop, Ph.D.
In the more than forty years since its introduction into case law in the United States in 1957, the concept of informed consent has become a central topic in the disciplines of health law and bioethics, with a variety of works by leading scholars devoted to its evolution and interpretation [1-4].

Despite its importance, the duty to obtain the patient’s informed consent to treatment is not absolute - several exceptions are generally recognized and accepted. One prominent exception refers directly to emergency care. According to this emergency exception, if immediate treatment is required in order to prevent death or other serious harm to a patient, that treatment may be provided without informed consent.

http://www.ecu.edu/cs-dhs/medhum/newsletter/v4n2.cfm?mod

(Yes the article is encouraging the doctors to obtain consent, but it recognizes that there are times when it is not required.)

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Please cite a court decision that allows a doctor or hospital to force a patient to submit to unwanted procedures.

I have provided several court decisions to backup my opinion.

You have provided nothing but hot air.

You have provided nothing. Find a decision which specifically requires that a person can demand a practitioner provide a service against their will if the professional judgment is that it would be harmful. Find the law that lets you force that doctor to cut off a child's legs because it or the parents want that to fix a sore throat. You have and will fail. Your citations do not force anything.

 

[Texashiker]

You're asserting that if the woman created an emergency situation by showing up at their hospital in labor that the doctors do not have the final say in treatment?

(Yes the article is encouraging the doctors to obtain consent, but it recognizes that there are times when it is not required.)

Thank you, but you posted an opinion piece and not an actual court decision.

In some of the cases I cited the patient has to be unconscious before the doctor can override her wishes..

 

[Texashiker]

You have provided nothing. Find a decision which specifically requires that a person can demand a practitioner provide a service against their will if the professional judgment is that it would be harmful.

You did not read Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hospital.

The plaintiff, Mary Schloendorff, was admitted to New York Hospital and consented to being examined under ether to determine if a diagnosed fibroid tumor was malignant, but withheld consent for removal of the tumor.

The physician examined the tumor, found it malignant, and then disregarded Schloendorff's wishes and removed the tumor.

I feel that is exactly what you asked for.

The doctor found the tumor malignant and removed it without patient consent. She specially said "do not remove the tumor", the doctor did it anyway.

The Court found that the operation to which the plaintiff did not consent constituted medical battery. Justice Benjamin Cardozo wrote in the Court's opinion:

Every human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with his own body; and a surgeon who performs an operation without his patient's consent commits an assault for which he is liable in damages. This is true except in cases of emergency where the patient is unconscious and where it is necessary to operate before consent can be obtained.

The woman in the opening post - do not do a c-section.

Mary Schloendorff - do not remove the tumor.

 

[MrPickins]

Thank you, but you posted an opinion piece and not an actual court decision.

Knock yourself out:

REFERENCES

1. Appelbaum PS, Lidz CW, Meisel A: Informed Consent: Legal Theory and Clinical Practice. New York, Oxford University Press, 1987.

2. Brock DW: Informed consent. In: VanDeVeer D, Regan T [eds.]: Health Care Ethics: An Introduction. Philadelphia, Temple University Press, 1987, pp. 98-126.

3. Faden RR, Beauchamp TL, King NMP: A History and Theory of Informed Consent. New York, Oxford University Press, 1986.

4. President’s Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research: Making Health Care Decisions [Vol. 1, report]. Washington, US Government Printing Office, 1982.

In some of the cases I cited the patient has to be unconscious before the doctor can override her wishes..

The State of CA (and probably many more) disagree with you:

DOES A WOMAN IN LABOR HAVE AN EMERGENCY MEDICAL CONDITION?

Any pregnant woman who is having contractions has an emergency medical condition if there is inadequate time before delivery of the baby to have her safely transferred to another hospital, or if such a transfer may pose a threat to the health or safety of the woman or unborn child.5 Federal regulations at Medicare hospitals clarify that a pregnant woman experiencing contractions is not in "true labor" if, after a reasonable time of observation, the doctor certifies that the woman is in "false labor."6

...

5. 42 U.S.C. §1395dd(e)(1)(B) and Cal. Health and Safety Code § 1317.1(c).
6. 42 Code Of Federal Regulations §489.24(b).

Edit: Didn't see the USC reference:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1395dd

(e) Definitions
In this section:
(1) The term “emergency medical condition” means—
...
(B) with respect to a pregnant woman who is having contractions—
(i) that there is inadequate time to effect a safe transfer to another hospital before delivery, or
(ii) that transfer may pose a threat to the health or safety of the woman or the unborn child.

 

[Texashiker]

Knock yourself out:

Would you please give me an exact court decision.

You are citing books. Do you have an exact quote from those books?

Maybe you want me to buy the books, read them, then "try" to guess the exact part you are referencing?