Legal Causes and Council in Reproductive Health

Article

Abstract

To study Judicial determinants of the ordered obstetrical and fertility interventions. Nature, corresponding laws, decisions upon the 37 expounded holdings at the Probate, Trial, District, Appellate, and Supreme Courts are studied in 92 published materials identified through the ACOG, RCOG, SOCG portals, and Legal Scholarship Repository. Hearings are held in the US (83.8 %), Canada (10.8 %) and U.K (5.4 %). Of all the hearings reviewed, 27 % concern mentally impaired, 37.8 %-maternal incompetence, and 21.6 % cases are of criminal nature. The Judicial determinants vary from country to country. In Canada, the ordered medical interventions are effected by the child protection legislation, whereas in the US, by court orders. In majority of cases, orders are obtained by dismissing the patriae petitions for involuntary sterilizations of mentally impaired sui juris adults (57 %); coerced obstetrical interventions (33.3 %), fetal custody (50 %); enforcement of surrogacy contracts (62.5 %) in favor of the Common Humanity Benefit clause; and recognizing the rights to inherit in posthumously conceived children (80 %) pursuant to the Social Security Act, Law of obviousness, Law of inherent anticipation, and Intestacy statute. Current study prioritizes two questions: (1) whether it is justified to override the wishes of a competent patient purportedly in her best interests; and (2) whether the patient’s autonomy and competence is an absolute concept. With the law unsettled as to a woman’s right to assent a treatment and contradict her fetus, parties concerned with fetal rights should consider exercising of screening tools on maternal judgmental fitness jointly developed by medical and legal practitioners. Further, given the advances in gamete conservations, states consider enacting legislation in order to safeguard the orderly administration of estates disrupted by claims from posthumously conceived children. A balance must be struck between the child’s right to inherit, the state’s interest, as well as the interests of prior born children.

Keywords

Court-ordered medical interventions Maternal-fetal conflicts Fetal wardship Surrogacy Non-consensual sterilization Posthumous reproduction 

References

  1. 1.
    American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists. 2005. Maternal decision making, ethics, and the law. ACOG committee opinion number 32.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    American Medical Association. (1990). Legal interventions during pregnancy: Court-ordered medical treatments and penalties for potentially harmful behavior by pregnant women. JAMA, 264(20): 2663–2670.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Anikwue M. 2003. Breast still best: An argument in favor of one HIV positive mother’s right to breastfeed. 9 William. & Mary Journal of Women and Law 9: 474–494.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Annas, G.J. 1987. The impact of medical technology on the pregnant woman’s right to privacy. American Journal of Law and Medicine 13: 213–232.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Annas, G.J. 1987. Protecting the liberty of pregnant patients. New England Journal of Medicine 316(19): 1213–1214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Atkinson, L., and S. Butler. 1996. Court-ordered assessment: Impact of maternal noncompliance in child maltreatment cases. Child Abuse and Neglect 20(3): 185–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bornstein, B.H. 2003. Pregnancy, drug testing, and the fourth amendment: Legal and behavioral implications. Journal of Family Psychology 17(2): 220–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brenner, B., and P. Burnet. 1995. Court ordered obstetric intervention: A commentary. The New Zeeland Medical Journal 108(1010): 431–432.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cahill, H. 1999. An Orwellian scenario: Court ordered cesarean section and women’s autonomy. Nursing Ethics 6(6): 494–505.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Calibey, K.A. 1981. Nonconsensual sterilization of the mentally retarded—analysis of standards for judicial determinations. Western New England Law Review 33(4): 688–715.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cave, E. 2004. The mother of all crimes: Human rights, criminalization, and the child born alive. Cornwall: MPG Books Ltd.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chervenak, F.A., and L.B. McCullough. 1990. An ethically justified, clinically comprehensive management strategy for third-trimester pregnancies complicated by fetal anomalies. Obstetrics and Gynecology 75(3 Pt 1): 311–316.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chervenak, F.A., L.B. McCullough, and M.I. Levene. 2007. An ethically justified, clinically comprehensive approach to peri-viability: Gynecological, obstetric, perinatal and neonatal dimensions. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 27(1): 3–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cook, R.J., and B.M. Dickens. 1999. Human rights and abortion laws. International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics 65: 81–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Coverdale, J.H., F.A. Chervenak, L.B. McCullough, et al. 1996. Ethically justified clinically comprehensive guidelines for the management of the depressed pregnant patient. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 174(1): 169–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Crockin, S.L. 2005. Adoption and reproductive technology law in Massachusetts. MA Family Law Journal 23(5): 133–149.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Curran, W.J. 1990. Court-ordered cesarean sections receive judicial defeat. The New England Journal of Medicine 323: 489–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dalton K.J. 2005 Refusal of interventions to protect the life of the viable fetusa case-based transatlantic overview. University of Cambridge, report.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Derouin, J. 1982. In re Guardianship of Eberhardy: the sterilization of the mentally retarded. Wisconsin Law Review 6: 1199–1227.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Diekema, D.C. 2003. Involuntary sterilization of persons with mental retardation: An ethical analysis. MRDD Research Reviews 9: 21–26.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Fish J. 2010. Fetal advocacy and the wisdom of judicial intervention. Health Law and Policy Institute, University of Houston Law Center. http://www.law.uh.edu/healthlaw/perspectives/2010/(JF)%20Florida.pdf.
  22. 22.
    Fleischman, A.R., and N.K. Rhoden. 1988. Perinatal law and ethics rounds. Obstetrics and Gynecology 71(5): 790–795.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gallagher, J. 1987. Prenatal invasions and interventions: What’s wrong with fetal rights. Harvard Women’s Law Journal 10: 9–58.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gary S.N. 2005 Posthumously conceived heirs: Where the law stands and what to do about it now. Problems & Propositions 19: 32 Paperback.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hagell, E.I. 1993. Reproductive technologies and court-ordered obstetrical interventions: The need for a feminist voice in nursing. Health Care for Women International 14(1): 77–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ibid. 1982. Unborn; Part 1: 16.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    In Re AC. 1987. 533 A 2d 611. (DC).Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    In Re AC. 1990. 573 A 2d 1235(DC).Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    In Re “A”. 2000. 1 FLR 549, 1 FCR 193 (U.K.).Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    In Re A (in utero). 1990. 28 R.FL. (3d) 288,72 D.L.R. (4th) 722 (Canada).Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    In Re Baby Jeffries. 1982. C.R.-C.L. L. Rev. 523 (MI).Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    In Re Baby M. 1988. 537 A.2d 1227, 109 N.J. 396 (NJ).Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    In Re Baby R. 1982. S.B.C 1980, c.11, s.1 (Canada).Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    In Re Baker v. State. 1999. 744 A.2d 864 (VT).Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    In Re C.A.S., Belleville v. T(L). 1990. 59 O.R. (2d) 204,7 R.F.L. (3d) 191 (Canada).Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    In Re Children`s Aid Society for the District of Kenora. 1982. 28 R.EL. (2d) 278 (Canada).Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    In Re Culliton v. Beth Israel Deaconess. 2001. MGL 209C, §§ 14 and 21 (MA).Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    In Re Dunn v. Roseway. 1983. 333 N.W. 2nd 830 (IA).Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    In Re Estate of Kolacy. 2000. 753 A.2d 1257 (NJ).Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    In Re F. 1988. 2 All ER 193 (U.K).Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    In re Fetus Brown. 1997. 689 N.E.2d 397, 400 (NE).Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    In RE Gillett-Netting v. Barnhart. 2004. 371 F.3d 593 (AZ).Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    In Re Grady. 1981. 85 NJ 235, 426 A.2d 467 (NJ).Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    In RE Hodas v. Morin. 2004. MGL 215, § 6 (MA).Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    In Re Johnson v. Calvert. 1993. 5 Cal.4th 84 (CA).Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    In Re Li, Yu. 2003. 356 F.3d 1153 (CA).Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    In Re Maxon v. Superior Court. 1982. 35 Cal.App.3d 628 (CA).Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    In Re MB. 1997. 2 FCR 541(CA).Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    In Re Moore. 1976. 221 S.E.2d 307 (NC).Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    In Re Morganton v. North Carolina Eugenics Board. 1955. 224 S.E 4, Public Law (NC).Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    In Re Nikolas E. 1998. 22 M.S.R.A. § 4071 (ME).Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    In Re R.R. v. M.H & Another. 1998. Adoption statute MGL. c. 2 10, §§ 2, 11A, MGL c. 46, § 4B (MA).Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    In RE State South Carolina v. McKnight. 2003. S.C. Code Ann. § 16-3-85 (SC).Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    In RE Stem Cell Patent Claims. 2007. 35 U.S.C. §102, and § 103(WI).Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    In Re Surrogate vs. Intended Father. 1997. MGL c. 215 § 6 (MA).Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    In Re Taft v.Taft. 1983. 388 Mass 331, 446 N.E. 2D 395 (MA).Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    In Re Termination of Paternal Rights. 2009. Supp. 59-2136(h)(1)(D) (KS).Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    In Re Whitner v. State. 1995. 492 S.E.2d 777, 778 (SC).Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Woodward v. Comm’r of Soc. Security. 2002. 760 N.E. 2d 257 (MA).Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Irwin, S., and B. Jordan. 2009. Knowledge, practice, and power: Court-ordered cesarean sections. Medical Anthropology Quarterly 1(3): 319–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Judicial Waiver of Parental Notice of Termination of Pregnancy. 2006: V-06-N-1 (FL).Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Keyserlingk, E.W. 1982. The unborn child’s right to prenatal care (Part 1). Health Law of Canada 3(10): 18.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Kindregan, P., Jr., McBrien, M. 2004. Embryo donation: Unresolved legal issues in the transfer of surplus cryopreserved embryos. The Village Law Review 49(169).Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Kolder, V.E., J.D. Gallagher, and M.T. Parsons. 1987. Court-ordered obstetrical intervention. The New-England Journal of Medicine 316: 1192–1196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Krauss, D.J. 1991 Regulating women’s bodies: The adverse effect of fetal rights theory on childbirth decisions and women of color. Harvard Civil Rights - Civil Lib. Law Review. 26(2): 523–547Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Lachance, D. 1981. In re Grady: the mentally retarded individual’s right to choose sterilization. American Journal of Law and Medicine 6(4): 559–590.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Levine, J., K. Nolan, N.K. Rhoden, et al. 1988. When refusing treatment jeopardizes another life. Nursing 18(5): 145–147.Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Martin, S., Coleman, M. 1995. Judicial intervention in pregnancy. McGill Law Journal 40(4): 947–991.Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Matevosyan, N.R. 2012. Court-visited obstetrical and fertility procedures. Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics 289(5): 1195–1203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Matevosyan, N.R. 2010. Pregnancy and postpartum specifics in women with schizophrenia. Archives of Gynecology & Obstetrics 283(2): 141–147.Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Matevosyan, N.R. 2009. Reproductive health in women with serious mental illnesses. Sexuality and Disability 27(2): 109–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Murray, T.H. 1990. Moral obligations to the not-yet born: The fetus as patient. In Ethical issues in the new reproductive technologies, ed. Richard.T. Hull, 210–223. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Neale, H. 1990. Mother’s rights prevail: In re A.C. and the status of forced obstetrical intervention in the District of Columbia. Journal of Health and Hospital Law 23(7): 208–213.Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Newkirk, K.L. 1998. State-compelled fetal surgery: The viability test is not viable. William & Mary Journal of Women and Law 4(2): 467–498.Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Noonan, K. 2007. WARF stem cell patent claims rejected in re-examination. Biotech & Pharma Patent Blog, Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation.Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    North Carolina Eugenics Board. 1935. Records of Eugenical sterilization in North Carolina. Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Ouellette, A.R. 1994. New medical technology: A chance to reexamine court-ordered medical procedures during pregnancy. Albany Law Review 57(3): 927–960.Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Rhoden, N.K. 1991. A compromise on abortion? The Hastings Centre Report 19(4): 32–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Rhoden, N.K. 1986. The judge in the delivery room: The emergence of court-ordered cesareans. Hain Law Journal 74: 1951–2030.Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Richmond, F.C. 1934. Sterilization in Wisconsin. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 25(4): 586–590.Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Robinson, F.C., S.W. Robinson, and L.J. Williams. 1979. Eugenic sterilization: Medico-legal and sociological aspects. Journal of the National Medical Association 71: 6.Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Rodgers, S. 1986. Fetal rights and maternal rights: Is there a conflict? Canadian Journal of Women and the Law 1: 456–469.Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Royal College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists. 2006. Law and ethics in relation to court-authorized obstetric intervention. Ethics committee guideline number 1.Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Pinkerton TM, Esq. 1988. Surrogacy and egg donation law in California. Kennesaw: The American Surrogacy Center, Inc.(TASC).Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Samuels, T.-A., H. Minkoff, J. Feldman, et al. 2007. Obstetricians, health attorneys, and court-ordered cesarean sections. Women’s Health Issues 17(2): 107–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Sheena, M. 2005. Policing pregnancy: The law and ethics of obstetric conflict. Medical Law Review 15(1): 148–151.Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Simon, G.R., C.J. Wilkins, and I. Smith. 2002. Sevoflurane induction for emergency cesarean section: Two case reports in women with needle phobia. International Journal of Obstetric Anesthesia 11(4): 296–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Smith, K.A. 2002. Conceivable sterilization: A Constitutional analysis of a Norplant/Depo-Provera welfare condition. Indiana Law Journal 77: 389.Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    Taylor E. 1981. Constitutional limitations on state intervention in prenatal Care. Va L Rev 67: 1051.Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Thampapillai, D. 2005. Court-ordered obstetrical intervention and the rights of a pregnant woman. Journal of Law and Medicine 12(4): 455–461.Google Scholar
  91. 91.
  92. 92.
    Van Tine, N.R., Smith, P.G. 1999. R.R. vs. M.H. & Another: The Enforceability of Traditional Surrogacy Agreements. Boston Bar Journal 43 (8).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.AtlantaUSA

Personalised recommendations