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

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

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

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.

No it isn't!

Are you actually ok @CoupDeToe 😂😉

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?

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.

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.

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

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

I think the law should protect the unborn child.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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

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?

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

@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!