Forced hospital transfer in labour - for induction of labour - upheld by ECHR

Exactly this.
I am so very grateful I had enough saved to be able to afford to employ an Independent Midwife for all of my maternity care at the height of Covid in 2020.
By making this choice I was afforded a minimum of 1:1 care at all times; increasing to 2:1 in established labour.
I also knew that there was a guarantee that my husband would be present for the birth of his first and last baby.
How dare the NHS basically say "Unless we unecessarily stick fingers inside you, increasing infection risk by doing so, your husband is not welcome on the ward."
I am still angry that this was OK. I am still angry for the women who had to agree to this.
The pre and post-natal care offered on the NHS at this time was also virtually non-existent; I am shocked that they were not brought to task on this.
All care was via telephone so BP readings and urine/blood samples were simply not taken.
I still can't believe how badly pregnant women were let down over this period of time, and I really do hope that NHS standards have improved since then.
I won't be having any more babies, but I absolutely would opt for my IM again.

Seriously?

There are thousands of idiots, mothers as well as fathers, who refuse vaccinations for their DC, and therefore risk their children’s health and ultimately lives, because they believe some crap on the internet. Don’t be so naive.

Those examples concern a child that has been born, so in UK law are not comparable to this case.

That’s legally wrong in the U.K.

Should a mother be forced to donate her kidney to her child if she decides not to?

That scenario (refusing to allow your child treatment for appendicitis) is not comparable to the one discussed here, as the mother’s body does not need to be touched for treatment to proceed.

Youre making a lot of assumptions.

Why would the midwife simply not have the mothers medical records?

Often medical decisions are a judgement call, not black and white, and the midwife perhaps was happy with the data she had?

We don't know. Are you suggesting that in your hypothetical situation of a woman concealing evidence from a midwife, that somehow justified her being forced to have medical intervention she doesn't consent to?

Do you not understand the difference between a mother wutholding consent to treatment for an existing child (one who has personhood in UK law), and refusing medical treatment/ intervention on her own body - even if that affects the unborn baby?

They are two very different scenarios.

I really would recommend reading the whole thread.

Would a court take action if a patient with capacity declines to follow medical advice for themselves?
Would a man ever be in a situation where a court orders police to take him to hospital for a medical procedure against his will?

It depends on the circumstances - clearly you’re ignoring this though.

No I’m not. That is what happened. What we don't know is what the woman told the home birth midwife.

Don’t be so dramatic.
There are many instances when the courts will decide to take action that a patient - or their family - may be against. If a mother refused to let her child undergo life saving surgery for something like a ruptured appendix should the courts be allowed to intervene or just wait for the child to die? If the mother then went into hiding with their child to avoid surgery then yes, she should be charged with causing the death of her child.

I’d be interested to know if she told the midwife present at her home about the advice that the doctors had given, and the test results which indicated a hospital delivery. Because if the midwife did know all this, they acted recklessly in the circumstances.

Should all women who experience pregnancy losses be arrested on suspicion of murder in case their decisions potentially caused the death of the baby?

Why don't you read the thread? This has been argued at length.

ETA youre not "being very clear', you're misrepresenting what happened.

Let’s be very clear here - a mother was overdue, her test results indicated a possible significant problem which could result in harm to both mother and baby, mother ignored such issues and chose to stay at home until she had the choice removed from her.
The legal position is from the view of the unborn baby. Bodily autonomy does not, thankfully, mean you can make decisions regarding delivery that will potentially cause the death of baby.
As an aside, when a report chooses to use the term ‘pregnant woman and birthing parent’ it speaks volumes about priorities.

Are we legally obliged to follow all medical advice?
Does that apply to men too, or just women?

was the mother refusing to transfer to hospital against medical advice? That is key. Health professionals adhere to do no harm, not transferring could come under this but I’m not familiar with this situation

That's fine, you can have that opinion about your own body.
It's not fine to impose your opinion on other women's bodies.
People do risky things all the time. I'd never go bungee jumping or ride a motorbike but if you want to, that's your choice.

But most first time mothers in many areas won’t have a complicated free natural birth. I believe that the safety list ranges from
1 completely intervention free natural birth
2 elective C- section (ie non emergency)
3 instrumental ‘natural’ birth ( excluding forceps)
4 emergency section
5 forceps
In many cases individual women are never going to achieve a 1. because of personal physical and mental features, which makes 2. a sensible option for some women, particularly in the U.K. At least you’re assured of medical attention and pain relief for 2. !

Absolutely this!
The rough rules of thumb about due date are just that. Rough/approximate for the average woman. Statistically there will be maybe 5-10% of women who would safely exceed the 40+2 guidance. The problem is knowing who they are in advance. Both my pregnancies went over 40+2 by a couple of days. Before anyone says anything about being reckless - safety was addressed with increased observation and monitoring. There are different ways of doing things available to those who ask. The idea that there was only one option to the woman in the OP seems really odd - the article doesn't mention if she was offered a second opinion.

I'm reminded of that case where the family wanted a specialist cancer treatment for their child which was not available so they left an NHS hospital to go to their home country (Poland?). I think they were being told to accept a treatment with a poor chance of success? Their departure sparked a huge manhunt where the parents were to be arrested and it was suggested they had opted for quackery. I believe the eventually had him treated in poland. Much less reported is that the NHS built a massive specialist centre for UCL to offer this treatment in the UK... One doctor's opinion is not always 100% reliable. Patients have to be able to work with their carers. Calling the police is not OK in these borderline cases