Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Court-visited obstetrical and fertility procedures

  • Maternal-Fetal Medicine
  • Published:
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

To study proposals and benefits of the court-visited obstetrical and fertility interventions.

Methods

A total of 72 articles including 25 published decisions of the trial, circuit, appellate, and supreme courts are identified through the ACOG, RCOG, SOCG, and keyword search. The grounds of the hearings and their outcomes are modeled as measurable outcomes. The hearing counts are used as index units.

Results

Of the total adjudications reviewed, 28% are for criminal complaints and 72% for civil lawsuits. A substantial number of hearings (40%) concern mentally ill or impaired individuals. Among the hearings based on maternal–fetal conflicts, women’s autonomy is preserved in 25%, fetal rights are favored in 75%, and the rights of both are addressed in 6.25% of cases. Orders in favor of fetus are executed by coerced C-sections (20%), fetal custody (20%), and termination of parental rights (16%). The burden versus benefit ratio is 0.67 in the reviewed sample of coerced C-sections; 83.4% of the orders for involuntary sterilizations of mentally impaired are dismissed in favor of the constitutional rights (Amendments 1, 9, 14) and state mental health laws.

Conclusions

Court-ordered obstetrical procedures present an unsettled legal forum in terms of their complex interplay. The awareness of legal precedent can alert providers to possibility of an exception to the general presumption that the mother is competent, where it might trigger a legal or ethical council. Screening inventories (covering maternal–fetal attachment, judgmental fitness, prior obstetrical history, perinatal risk, formal/informal social support) jointly developed by the health providers and lawyers would assist involved parties in resolving complex situations without resorting to legal conflicts.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (2005) Maternal decision making, ethics, and the law. ACOG Committee Opinion Number 32

  2. American Medical Association (1990) Legal interventions during pregnancy: court-ordered medical treatments and penalties for potentially harmful behavior by pregnant women. JAMA Report 0098–7484

  3. Anikwue M (2003) Breast still best: an argument in favor of one HIV positive mother’s right to breastfeed. 9 William and Mary J Women Law 479

  4. Annas GJ (1987) The impact of medical technology on the pregnant woman’s right to privacy. Am J Law Med 13:213–232

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Annas GJ (1987) Protecting the liberty of pregnant patients. N Engl J Med 316(19):1213–1214

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Bornstein BH (2003) Pregnancy, drug testing, and the fourth amendment: legal and behavioral implications. J Family Psychol 17(2):220–228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Brenner B, Burnet P (1995) Court ordered obstetric intervention: a commentary. N Z Med J 108(1010):431–432

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Cahill H (1999) An Orwellian scenario: court ordered cesarean section and women’s autonomy. Nursing Ethics 6(6):494–505

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Cave E (2004) The mother of all crimes: human rights, criminalization, and the child born alive. MPG Books Ltd

  10. Chervenak FA, McCullough LB (1990) An ethically justified, clinically comprehensive management strategy for third-trimester pregnancies complicated by fetal anomalies. Obstet Gynecol 75(3 Pt 1):311–316

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Chervenak FA, McCullough LB, Levene MI (2007) An ethically justified, clinically comprehensive approach to peri-viability: gynecological, obstetric, perinatal and neonatal dimensions. J Obstet Gynecol 27(1):3–7

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Cook RJ, Dickens BM (1999) Human rights and abortion laws. Int J Gynecol Obstet 65:81–87

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Coverdale JH, Chervenak FA, McCullough LB et al (1996) Ethically justified clinically comprehensive guidelines for the management of the depressed pregnant patient. Am J Obstet Gynecol 174 (1Pt 1):169–173

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Curran WJ (1990) Court-ordered cesarean sections receive judicial defeat. N Engl J Med 323:489–492

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Dalton KJ (2005) Refusal of interventions to protect the life of the viable fetus: a case-based transatlantic overview. University of Cambridge, Report

  16. Derouin J (1982) In re Guardianship of Eberhardy: the sterilization of the mentally retarded. Wisconsin Law Rev 6:1199–1227

    Google Scholar 

  17. Diekema DC (2003) Involuntary sterilization of persons with mental retardation: an ethical analysis. MRDD Res Rev 9:21–26

    Google Scholar 

  18. Fish J (2010) Fetal advocacy and the wisdom of judicial intervention. Health Law and Policy Institute, University of Houston Law Center

    Google Scholar 

  19. Fleischman AR, Rhoden NK (1988) Perinatal law and ethics rounds. Obstet Gynecol 71(5):790–795

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Gallagher J (1987) Prenatal invasions and interventions: what’s wrong with fetal rights? Harvard Women’s Law J 9:58

    Google Scholar 

  21. Hagell EI (1993) Reproductive technologies and court-ordered obstetrical interventions: the need for a feminist voice in nursing. Health Care Women Int 14(1):77–86

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Ibid (1982) Unborn; Part 1:16

  23. In Re AC (1987) 533 A 2d 611 (DC)

  24. In Re AC (1990) 573 A 2d 1235 (DC)

  25. In Re “A” (2000) 1 FLR 549, 1 FCR 193 (UK)

  26. In Re A. (in utero) (1990) 28 R.FL. (3d) 288,72 D.L.R. (4th) 722 (Canada)

  27. In Re Baby Jeffries (1982) C.R.-C.L. L. Rev. 523 (MI)

  28. In Re Baby M (1988) 537 A.2d 1227, 109 N.J. 396 (NJ)

  29. In Re C.A.S., Belleville v. T(L) (1990) 59 O.R. (2d) 204,7 R.F.L. (3d) 191 (Canada)

  30. In Re Children’s Aid Society for the District of Kenora (1982) 28 R.EL. (2d) 278 (Canada)

  31. In Re Dunn v. Roseway (1983) 333 N.W. 2nd 830 (IA)

  32. In Re F (1988) 2 All ER 193 (U.K)

  33. In Re Grady (1981) 85 NJ 235, 426 A.2d 467 (NJ)

  34. In Re Johnson v. Calvert (1993) 5 Cal.4th 84 (CA)

  35. In Re Li, Yu (2003) 356 F.3d 1153 (CA)

  36. In Re Maxon v. Superior Court (1982) 35 Cal.App.3d 628 (CA)

  37. In Re MB (1997) 2 FCR 541(CA)

  38. In Re Moore (1976) 221 S.E.2d 307 (NC)

  39. In Re Nikolas E (1998) 22 M.S.R.A. § 4071 (ME)

  40. In RE Stem Cell Patent Claims (2007) 35 U.S.C. §102, and § 103(WI)

  41. In Re Taft v.Taft (1983) 388 Mass 331, 446 N.E. 2D 395 (MA)

  42. In Re Termination of Paternal Rights (2009) Supp. 59-2136(h)(1)(D)(KS)

  43. In Re Whitner v. State (1995) 492 S.E.2d 777, 778 (SC)

  44. Irwin S, Jordan B (2009) Knowledge, practice, and power: court-ordered cesarean sections. Med Anthropol Q 1(3):319–334

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Judicial waiver of parental notice of termination of pregnancy (2006) V-06-N-1 (FL)

  46. Keyserlingk EW (1982) The unborn child’s right to prenatal care (Part 1). Health Law Can 3(10):18

    Google Scholar 

  47. Kolder VE, Gallagher JD, Parsons MT (1987) Court-ordered obstetrical intervention. New Engl J Med 316:1192–1196

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Krauss DJ (1991) Regulating women’s bodies: the adverse effect of fetal rights theory on childbirth decisions and women of color. Hein’s Law J

  49. Lachance D (1981) In re Grady: the mentally retarded individual’s right to choose sterilization. Am J Law Med 6(4):559–590

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Levine J, Nolan K, Rhoden NK et al (1988) When refusing treatment jeopardizes another life. Nursing 18(5):145–147

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Martin S, Coleman M (1995) Judicial intervention in pregnancy. 40 McGill Law J; 947

  52. Matevosyan NR (2010) Pregnancy and postpartum specifics in women with schizophrenia. Arch Gynecol Obstet; 1–7

  53. Matevosyan NR (2009) Reproductive health in women with serious mental illnesses. Sex Disabil 27(2):109–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Murray TH (1990) Moral obligations to the not-yet born: the fetus as patient. In: Richard T. Hull (eds) Ethical Issues in the New Reproductive Technologies. Wadsworth, Belmont, pp 210–223

    Google Scholar 

  55. Neale H (1990) Mother’s rights prevail: in re A.C. and the status of forced obstetrical intervention in the district of Columbia. J Health Hospital Law 23(7):208–213

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Newkirk KL (1998) State-compelled fetal surgery: the viability test is not viable. William Mary J Women Law; 467

  57. North Carolina Eugenics Board. Records of Eugenical sterilization in North Carolina (1935); http://www.learnnc.org/lp/editions/nchist-worldwar/6163

  58. Ouellette AR (1994) New medical technology: a chance to reexamine court-ordered medical procedures during pregnancy. 57 Albany Law Review; 927

  59. Rhoden NK (1991) A compromise on abortion? The Hastings Centre Report 19(4):32–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Rhoden NK (1986) The judge in the delivery room: the emergence of court-ordered cesareans. Hain Law J

  61. Richmond FC (1934) Sterilization in Wisconsin. J Crim Law Criminol; 586–590

  62. Robinson FC, Robinson SW, Williams LJ (1979) Eugenic sterilization: medico-legal and sociological aspects. J Natl Med Assoc 71:6

    Google Scholar 

  63. Rodgers S (1986) Fetal rights and maternal rights: is there a conflict? Can J Women Law 1:456–469

    Google Scholar 

  64. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (2006) Law and ethics in relation to court-authorized obstetric intervention. Ethics committee Guideline Number 1

  65. Pinkerton TM, Esq. (1988) Surrogacy and egg donation law in California. The American Surrogacy Center, Inc. (TASC) Kennesaw

  66. Samuels T-A, Minkoff H, Feldman J et al (2007) Obstetricians, health attorneys, and court-ordered cesarean sections. Women’s Health Issues 17(2):107–114

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Sheena M (2005) Policing pregnancy: the law and ethics of obstetric conflict. Med Law Rev 15(1):148–151

    Google Scholar 

  68. Simon GR, Wilkins CJ, Smith I (2002) Sevoflurane induction for emergency cesarean section: two case reports in women with needle phobia. Int J Obstet Anesth 11(4):296–3000

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  69. Smith KA (2002) Conceivable sterilization: a constitutional analysis of a Norplant/Depo-Provera welfare condition. Indiana Law J 77:389

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Taylor E (1981) Constitutional limitations on state intervention in prenatal Care. 67 Va L Rev 1051

  71. Thampapillai D (2005) Court-ordered obstetrical intervention and the rights of a pregnant woman. J Law Med 12(4):455–461

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. 505 US 833 (1992) http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-744.ZS.html

Download references

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Open Medical Institute, Atlanta, GA, USA

    Naira Roland Matevosyan

Authors
  1. Naira Roland Matevosyan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Naira Roland Matevosyan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Matevosyan, N.R. Court-visited obstetrical and fertility procedures. Arch Gynecol Obstet 285, 1195–1203 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-012-2216-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-012-2216-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation