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

No. It’s not safer at all.

Really. First I've heard of that "rule". If you don't want to quote an entire post then @ is the best way of referring back to that person's post. I will continue to do it when appropriate.

That is a shocking story. Internal checks are used on busy wards where people can't have one to one continuous care.They aren't an essential component of birthing safety but are so commonly used for the benefit of staff/treatment protocols many women are unaware. One-to-one care from a midwife who knows the mother is the gold standard on safety in birth but strangely isn't offered on the NHS... if maternity services were genuinely focussed on safety they would look a lot different.

i feel like we forget that no two births are the same no one’s birth is identical and everyone else’s views/wants are different. I managed it okay and I do think the fact I had been in hospital 5 days prior gave me the confidence and calm I needed. I don’t feel like anyone needs to be sorry for my experience because apart from my first labour midwife I had an incredible experience albeit painful to some degree I just know next time I’m around 5 weeks to advocate to the midwife in charge If I see same midwife or anything remotely similar, as I am facing complications in this pregnancy.

Good. Why would she allow herself to go so overdue?

I read the article that she did return only to find the department closed and being in Labour she returned home. She was about to give birth in the next few hours when police arrived, the results being that the birth was delayed for another 2 days

If the police and court order was about getting the baby birthed because baby was well overdue, that spectacularly back fired and had the opposite effect

I too cannot understand the ruling. If you are going to go in with all guns blazing, given they closed for the night and wouldn’t have had up to date information.

Wouldn’t a call to find out what has happened overnight been a better use of time and resources.

Oh absolutely I just think sometimes it can be portrayed in a way that women are choosing different things over their baby’s life however I guess now everyone has confidence or doesn’t in some cases like myself I guess that our bodies will do the right things for our babies. I trust my body but my anxiety wouldn’t allow me to do it at home and I have no interest in doing it at home but someone else may and that’s absolutely perfect for all involved! I feel like I’ve slightly been educated!

No my point remains that every single pregnant woman can do as they wish to do. I however in my last pregnancy 5 years ago had to be induced because my waters slowly went at 36+2 and my child’s heart rate was dipping all the time. I told them after staying in for 3 days being monitored when they suggested C section when it dipped again that we wouldn’t need to as the heart rate would come back
to which it did every time and that was final even in actual labour once my waters had been manually popped they threw a gown at me and told me to put it on and I said no I am not going for a c section.

I didn’t like said midwife and I knew I needed to wait for 8pm for night shift staff lol

I don’t agree with anyone being forced to do anything against their will that’s where I don’t agree however it’s bonkers to me that people are that confident that the baby will survive the choices and decisions that we make.

I completely agree that every parent wants to make the decision they believe is safest. I think where we differ is in what we consider the safest option, and that’s okay. I’d never want to tell someone else what they should do with their pregnancy or birth, but I’m equally comfortable making my own decisions based on the guidance and medical advice available to me and also I feel like I’m more confident in a hospital setting with dozens of trained people that will do all they can to save the life of my unborn and myself if it came to it rather than being home with little support and or overdue but again it’s all personal preference and beliefs, wants and everyone’s are different. I’m not interested in C sections or epidural either i had induction at 37 last time due to waters breaking at 36+2 and I birthed within 5 hours

No i wouldn't. I would advise her of all the risks and benefits of her options including the risk of needing instrumental interventions and/or emergency c section and then let her choose what she thinks is the best option for her.

Yes your placenta can stop working. However I know from experience that dates
determined by scans can be very inaccurate. So you could say that every pregnant woman who gets to 40 +2 according to her scan dates will be forced to have an induction whether she likes it or not, and involve the police where necessary. But the date is arbitrary, many of those women won’t actually be that far along in their pregnancy. And how can a woman have trust in her care providers if she knows that they can force her to have a procedure against her will? That would result in women withholding information from the medics to give themselves breathing space,
and stepping back from the monitoring processes that can be helpful at that point. Overall it would do far more harm than good.
Am induction is no guarantee of safety, even without taking in to account some of the procedural issues that we were all aware of but have now been logged in Amos’s report.

I wish you well with your labour. Please bear in mind that you do have agency and are entitled to ask questions of your caregivers and are entitled to full answers.

"The right to refuse treatment is not the same as the right to have treatment."

You're correct, but the treatment would not be denied to her on the grounds of pregnancy, therefore this is a red herring. Any 'right' to treatment is not pregnancy dependant.

The right to abortion is another technicality. In practise, any woman who wants one could get an abortion in the UK (under the 24 week limit) .

Edit for clarity

You are conflating womens bodily autonomy with pro choice extremists and that is a dangerous conflation which risks stripping women of all rights including the right not to be raped or be bought and sold.
Please think long and hard about what you are arguing for when you talk about removing womens bodily autonomy

I think it's a bit of a stretch to argue that a woman has the right to an abortion whenever she wants under UK law.

Abortion may have been decriminalised, but that isn't the same as having the right to have one.

The right to refuse treatment is not the same as the right to have treatment.

I agree, Aston. I don't want to live in a society where women are coerced into particular procedures to save their unborn baby. And I know it's frustrating and upsetting when women make decisions that might put their baby's life at risk, whether it's free birthing or refusing an emergency c-section. But the idea that women should be forced to give birth in hospital, or forced to have a c-section against their will is horrifying.

No it doesn't not in UK law.
A pregnant woman has the right to an abortion if she wants, has the right to take lifesaving medication that will kill her baby to have surgeries that will cause the death of her baby if she needs them.
That is just part of what a womens bodily autonomy means and is what you are trying to strip from women all so you can turn her onto a walking incubator

The article says she was giving birth at home supported by her husband and a registered midwife.

This is not free birthing, which is giving birth alone.

A PP has repeatedly stated the mother was free birthing - that's not what the article says.

Equating the two is not helpful as they are completely different things.

I appreciate that risks to the baby need to be managed, but as PP have said, where do we draw the line? Its inconsistent to argue that the baby has absolute rights as a human but then to also say that you don't agree with women being strapped down and forced to have procedures they don't consent to.

You cant have one without the other. Therefore a line has to be drawn somewhere.

Affording total rights to the baby leads to situations like in Texas, Arizona and other southern US states where a mother cannot access proper medical care for a failed pregnancy 'in case' the medics are seen to be participating in an abortion. They just let nature take its course. Putting women at risk of infection, infertility and death for the sake of a principle seems to me to be taking it too far. But that is where the principle of the baby being a person leads.

Or the awful old fashioned scenario of the doctor asking the husband in a difficult birth whether they should save the mother or the child.

Its easy to argue in moral absolutes. Its rather more difficult to translate that into workable policy.

Would you like to see women who suffer miscarriages or stillbirths arrested and put on trial for murder?
Women who took medication that she was told was safe but the drs were mistaken or hadn't been informed or dangers to the baby prosecuted for gbh along with the Dr's?
Would you want women who find out that they have cancer when their pregnant to be forced to delay treatment until after the baby is born full term even if that ment that the cancer was untreatable.
I ask because these are just some of the consequences to women of giving rights and/or personhood to an unborn child.
Also think about this what dr or pharmaceutical company would treat pregnant women or make drugs for them if doing so risks jail?

Babies born by vaginal delivery are exposed to the mothers vaginal bacteria which improves their immune system and the squeezing action helps clear their lungs of fluid. Both of these are shown to lower the risks of asthma and allergies.
All in all where possible (ie no complications that would prevent a safe delivery) its better for both mother and baby to have a natural delivery.
Also it takes on average 4 weeks to recover from a vaginal birth whereas it takes 4 months to recover from a c section

Don't @ me. It's considered bad etiquette on this forum.

Is it?
I’m really surprised by that.
People do it all the time, sometimes to thank a specific poster, sometimes for clarity if they’re addressing a variety of points that have been brought up by different posters.

What makes you say it’s poor etiquette? Genuinely perplexed here.

The actions described in the article above seem very heavy handed, but I’d like to have more detail before commenting. On the face of it, it seems wrong, but then I wonder why the decision was upheld.