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

And generalities do not make for good individual patient care. What works for 60 per cent of births may not for the woman in front of you because of her specific circumstances. Ask any (decent) midwife.

The problem is that we can’t trust that hospitals and medics in the U.K. are acting in the best interests of the individual mother and child. There are too many verified incidences of them not doing so.

If medical staff are to be given unbridled rights to do whatever they deem expedient to the mother, then we’d need a lawyer and independent doctor witness on every admission to discourage abuse.

This. What’s the point in becoming pregnant and carrying if you don’t care if the baby lives or dies as long as a woman has full body autonomy. I’m currently 32 weeks pregnant and I’m going to put the needs of my baby and myself above everything else

Obviously however if you go too far over your placenta can stop working. A risk of still birth is higher etc so why would anyone want to run these risks on their unborn child or themselves why would anyone want to risk loosing their baby and having to give birth and cause harm to yourself or the unborn it’s mental that some women are so okay with these choices because in my opinion it’s safer to bring labour on than sit around and watch the risks increase

Women should have total rights over their own body even if you think they are stupid or make bad decisions.

But birth is unpredictable - medics can’t guarantee a safe delivery, and unfortunately intervention can in some cases cause more harm than good (anyone remember the case of the mother that died because they accidentally overdosed her with the induction hormone?). So you’re not dealing in absolutes, you’re dealing with a balance of probablilities and someone taking the responsibility to make the call. Since the mother is has the most to lose or gain, why can’t she be permitted to make that call?
From what I’ve read, the court order was to get the mother to go to hospital to be induced to start labour. However by the time the police arrived apparently labour was well underway, as you’re not allowed in the birth pool until you’re at a certain stage. So there was no longer a need to give the mother drugs she didn’t want to get the labour going.
In 2 of my labours the effort of getting to the hospital stalled the process, and it took a while to for it to pick up again once settled in a new environment. So it doesn’t surprise me at all that the stress of this team arriving mid labour and forcing her to go to hospital like some criminal being arrested stalled the Labour process and disrupted baby’s heart rate, resulting in a CS.
It’s great that the baby made it out safely, but the mother must be deeply traumatised and that has negative implications for her and her baby’s wellbeing which were probably not taken in to consideration at the outset. And once her labour had established at home there was no reason to assume that the baby wouldn’t have made it out safely if the police had sat back and allowed nature to take its course.
And I agree OP, the worrying thing is that the ECHR validates this.

@EvelynBeatrice Failures of the current NHS system should not mean that natural birth is deemed as unsafe. Change the system, not push the mother into an unecessary C-section due to lack of staffing etc.
I personally chose not to have my last born with the NHS due to all of those things you have mentioned. But not all women have the choice.
To add, my baby was born at the height of Covid. My hospital trust advised that any woman in labour must have an internal check before their birthing partner would be permitted onto the labour ward with them.
If that isn't breach of women's rights then I don't know what is.
No chance I was ever going to accept that!

The thing is normal mothers would do anything to protect and ensure their baby would come into the world alive and well but the way some women free birth or refuse intervention it’s scary especially if your 42 weeks etc

It is an idea many people would support on paper, but than no-one would agree what it means and how far it should go.

CS seems to be safer for the baby, at least from a short term point of view. Do you mean that every woman need to get a CS to protect baby from potential unnecessary damage (like broken bones) from hard vaginal birth?

I'm not sure that would be legally upheld in a British court...

While it sounds good on the surface, it is an extremely slippery slope.

Protect the unborn child from what exactly?

In my country home birth is extremely rare and seen by many as putting the child at risk. It was illegal for a long time for any medical personel to assist at home birth, but even my country haven't try to criminalise women giving birth at home, because it sometimes just happens no matter what the plans are.

In the UK home birth seems to be a normal thing (when conditions are met).
Mother&child mortality is very similar between our two countries, which suggests that my country's perceived protection of unborn babies is probably not doing anything useful.

No, but most people - apart from extreme bodily autonomy ones who believe in the right to abort up to the point of birth - would think the child has the right to be born alive and to live without unnecessary damage.

I also abhor the idea of strapping someone down but I do not think a woman has the right to cause the death of her child in utero because she values her bodily autonomy over its life.
Education and trust are the key. Currently the maternity services in the UK have neither. I doubt throwing money at the problem will help but more and better trained staff might (I know, that's also money).

Hi CoupDeToe, Not @ you but it's not bad form (but I find it irritating as I have to go back to look for the original post and prefer to quote) but the point of my post - should you see it - is that I agree with you, the baby has a right to be born alive and the mother's wishes are subordinate to this especially if it is suspected that intervention will be needed. One can refuse treatment for oneself, but should one morally or ethically do this when the life of another person (ok, I know an unborn baby is not a person in UK law most of the time*) is at stake?
I also do not think a woman has a right to abort a viable child at 40 weeks. That's evil.

*Because the UK has an offence called, iirc, 'child destruction' which comes into play if a person other than the mother, and without the mother's consent, does something to cause destruction of a child in utero e.g. a man beating up his wife/partner so that she goes into premature labour or her child is killed resulting in the need for a termination. This offence confers no rights on the child in utero but makes it clear that destroying it without the consent of the mother (i.e. in an abortion) is a crime. Nothing to do with the Spanish case in question, of course.

If that is to be the case, then in turn the law must support the tying down, physical restraint and effective torture of the mother. Not a world I want to live in.

I’m afraid that much as I respect many doctors and nurses, statistical and anecdotal evidence of failing maternity care in the U.K. makes it foolish to accord them unquestioning obedience.

In most cases I’d hope that we’d aspire to maternity education and healthcare that seeks to develop a relationship of trust between the medical staff and the patient which is almost entirely lacking in the U.K. system.

Most ordinary people would consider that the baby has some form of rights at 42+ weeks

Says who? What is your evidence for this?

There is no legal basis to this assumption in the UK.

A child in utero has the right to be born alive and not die because his/her mother worries more about her bodily autonomy than her child's life. Honestly, this is what most people think.

If you’re implying that an elective C-section is less in the interests of the infant than a natural birth’ in the U.K., then I’d suggest that you reflect on

1. the Care Quality Commission’s recent reports on U.K. failing maternity services and several well reported scandals
2. that at least with a C-section the mother and infant are assured of constant doctor care ( which is often lacking otherwise)
3. that completely ‘natural’ no intervention or instrumental births are something of a rarity in first time births in many places and for many demographics
4. that a mother who is resistant to the idea of a natural ‘ birth for whatever reason is unlikely to have a straightforward experience.

I think the law should protect the unborn child.

I don’t pretend to be an expert on the maternal end, so commented on the side of things I know.

Yep. Cold sections are more likely to result in short term breathing difficulties and SCBU admission, but less likely to result in brain damage.