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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

No. It’s not safer at all.

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

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. !

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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?