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

Received wisdom among medics is that c-sections are safer for the baby, less safe for the mother. This is because c-sections raise the risk of postpartum haemorrhage and blood clots, and the more c-sections you have, the riskier it becomes. From the baby's point of view, however, a planned c-section means a much lower risk of brain damage or stillbirth.

I hate reading posts with @, as it makes it clear that post is a response, but I have no idea to what, and listint through previous pages to find the username there and than going back is too confusing.

Quote option is there for a reason, or copy the relevant part you are responding too to your post, but don't just @, unless it is purely for allerting purposes.

Looking at the very high C-section rates in the UK, has every mother who has opted for an elective chosen to do so with the welfare of their baby coming first and foremost? Or due to the fact they have bodily autonomy?

No it isn't!

Are you actually ok @CoupDeToe 😂😉

Looking at it properly, I agree that in principle the court should not be allowed to force a mother to attend hospital. In the UK, that couldn't happen unless the mother lacked mental capacity. That's because in the UK, as a PP has pointed out, the unborn child is not regarded as a separate person with rights, and the woman has the autonomy to do what she wants with her own body.

The reason the ECHR upheld this decision was made "on the basis that Spanish legal protection afforded to children extended to an unborn child." To my mind, this is all about the extent to which the ECHR should, or should not, be allowed to overrule national law. And even though I don't agree with the decision, I can see why they made it - I think there is an argument for saying that the ECHR shouldn't overreach its remit.

Its not considered bad form to @ someone on this site or board.
As for the rights of an unborn child they have none as they are not legally a person until after birth.
Your anti women's rights and bodily autonomy will not go down well on this board if you continue to post in such an aggressive manner, however if you want to have a reasoned discussion without the frothing then you will find many of us are willing to do so

You can just turn off notifications if you don't like it.

I was wondering about that. I use @ all the time and no-one has ever said it was poor etiquette?

OP would you like to edit your first post to make it clear that she wasn’t forced to induce?

Otherwise it seems as if you didn’t read the whole story.

The ECHR gives a 'high margin of appreciation" on this kind of issue, which presumably is why Malta can have an almost complete ban on abortion.

Spain has much more relaxed laws on e.g. assisted suicide, so the issue seems to be less bodily autonomy and more the status of the foetus.

The mother should make these decisions as long as she understands the risks. I seriously doubt any mother would risk her baby's life to maintain her bodily autonomy and right to choose what is done.

Yes, I agree it is barbaric. But my understanding is that the woman had already been told that her baby's head might be too big to pass her pelvis at 42+ weeks - according to evidence of a CT scan. And that means obstructed labour, of which woman and children can die. If her midwife knew the result of the scan she was being reckless to continue with a home birth.

https://rcoa.ac.uk/sites/default/files/documents/2021-05/“Caesarean%20sections%20without%20consent”.pdf

And the answer is the in the UK a patient can refuse any treatment as long as they have capacity.

Doubtless she does and should therefore understands the dangers of free birthing, if that was what she was doing. Free birthing is a US practice, partly fed by the high cost of having a baby in that uncivilized country, and has resulted in mother and baby deaths and the disablement of babies. Not that I think the midwife in question would have let this happen! We have the right to do what we like to our bodies as adults. I don't think we have the right to risk the life of our unborn child.
I also don't think the UK should have allowed abortion up to the point of birth. It has always been legal to abort a baby that cannot live e.g. a baby with anencephaly, or to abort a dead baby - we did not need this legislation. Are we Roman paterfamiliases that we think we have the power of life and death over our children?

She wasn't perfectly healthy but into the 43rd week of pregnancy and there was a suggestion that the baby's head was too big to pass her pelvis. And she wasn't forced to have an induction or anything else. When labour would not restart she agree to a caesarian - not sure why labour stalled but presumably had it done so at home the midwife would have called an ambulance since this might be an emergency. I am in favour of home birth but sometimes it is not possible. Baby and mother have the right to be delivered.

It demonstrates clearly that treating foetuses as children under Spanish law has the consequence of destroying the bodily autonomy of pregnant women and birthing persons in Spain.

I'm a bit confused about this.

I don't know what status foetuses have in the UK, but I don't think any doctor would be thinking 'It's OK folks, the baby doesn't have any rights yet, no need to worry until it does'.

Since when did tagging people become poor etiquette @CoupDeToe ? It's a way to ensure that a) you're responding to the right poster b) that other posters know to whom you're replying and c) that the poster to whom you're replying sees your response.

Not much point having the feature if we're not supposed to use it!

Yes, wow! That anyone should care that the baby might die as a result of stupid behaviour on the part of the mother, who appears to have been 'free birthing'! Two people are involved in childbirth, a woman and a child. Both have the right to come out of it alive.
I note that the writers of this report refer to 'women and birthing people' thus kowtowing to the most misogynistic ideology on the planet - gender identity. I am shocked that UK law allows a woman with capacity to refuse treatment that would save the life of her baby - I think this needs looking at, because that is taking bodily autonomy (which, really, we do not have) much too far. What woman answers the question, 'can we save your baby by doing a caesarian?' with 'No, I want a natural birth even if it is of a dead baby'? One would question the capacity of a woman who made such a decision.

My understanding of the case is that she was not forced to have an induction, she actually didn’t have an induction, her checks at the hospital initially had not been satisfactory and she had not returned after saying she would. Their laws extend to unborn children and so between the unsatisfactory checks, failing to return & being post-term she was brought back to hospital to be checked again. Those checks were okay and so she just waited for labour to restart, and did ultimately agree to a c section. She was not forced to have an induction.