Active discussions

Help protect children from gaming harms.

Take our survey

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

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

108 replies

NibliaBiblia · 28/08/2026 11:58

Police and an ambulance arrived with a court order to compel the transfer to hospital if a woman safely labouring at home with her midwife - and forced her to undergo an induction of labour!

And the ECHR has upheld the court order. Dark day for our right to control our own bodies.

https://birthrights.org.uk/2026/08/27/cp-v-spain-why-a-major-european-court-ruling-on-maternity-care-is-a-wake-up-call-for-bodily-autonomy-rights/

CP v Spain: Why a major European court ruling on maternity care is a wake-up call for bodily autonomy rights - Birthrights

Birthrights 'End Coercion in Maternity Care in the UK' Report Case Study Social Services and Maternity Care blog long read

https://birthrights.org.uk/2026/08/27/cp-v-spain-why-a-major-european-court-ruling-on-maternity-care-is-a-wake-up-call-for-bodily-autonomy-rights/

OP posts:
AstonCanKissMyArse · Yesterday 13:27

Soontobe60 · Yesterday 13:22

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

Show quote history

Youre making a lot of assumptions.

Why would the midwife simply not have the mothers medical records?

Often medical decisions are a judgement call, not black and white, and the midwife perhaps was happy with the data she had?

We don't know. Are you suggesting that in your hypothetical situation of a woman concealing evidence from a midwife, that somehow justified her being forced to have medical intervention she doesn't consent to?

Do you not understand the difference between a mother wutholding consent to treatment for an existing child (one who has personhood in UK law), and refusing medical treatment/ intervention on her own body - even if that affects the unborn baby?

They are two very different scenarios.

I really would recommend reading the whole thread.

DitheringDaisyPetal · Yesterday 13:36

Soontobe60 · Yesterday 13:20

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.

Show quote history

That scenario (refusing to allow your child treatment for appendicitis) is not comparable to the one discussed here, as the mother’s body does not need to be touched for treatment to proceed.

Original poster
NibliaBiblia · Yesterday 13:47

DitheringDaisyPetal · Yesterday 13:36

That scenario (refusing to allow your child treatment for appendicitis) is not comparable to the one discussed here, as the mother’s body does not need to be touched for treatment to proceed.

Show quote history

And even the severity of wrong. Untreated appendicitis apparently has a 50-90% fatality rate. Being pregnant between 42-43 weeks is about 0.3% risk of stillbirth.
Not many women would refuse induction if they're baby was at a 50-90% risk of death otherwise.

OP posts:
Oliwiaa · Yesterday 13:49

Should a mother be forced to donate her kidney to her child if she decides not to?

EvelynBeatrice · Yesterday 14:21

Soontobe60 · Yesterday 13:14

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.

Show quote history

That’s legally wrong in the U.K.

iwishitwouldstartraining · Yesterday 14:32

Soontobe60 · Yesterday 13:20

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.

Show quote history

Those examples concern a child that has been born, so in UK law are not comparable to this case.

Maray1967 · Yesterday 21:33

Grammarnut · 28/08/2026 14:16

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.

Show quote history

Seriously?

There are thousands of idiots, mothers as well as fathers, who refuse vaccinations for their DC, and therefore risk their children’s health and ultimately lives, because they believe some crap on the internet. Don’t be so naive.

FunPartyIdeas · Yesterday 22:04

KnottyAuty · Yesterday 11:20

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.

Show quote history

Exactly this.
I am so very grateful I had enough saved to be able to afford to employ an Independent Midwife for all of my maternity care at the height of Covid in 2020.
By making this choice I was afforded a minimum of 1:1 care at all times; increasing to 2:1 in established labour.
I also knew that there was a guarantee that my husband would be present for the birth of his first and last baby.
How dare the NHS basically say "Unless we unecessarily stick fingers inside you, increasing infection risk by doing so, your husband is not welcome on the ward."
I am still angry that this was OK. I am still angry for the women who had to agree to this.
The pre and post-natal care offered on the NHS at this time was also virtually non-existent; I am shocked that they were not brought to task on this.
All care was via telephone so BP readings and urine/blood samples were simply not taken.
I still can't believe how badly pregnant women were let down over this period of time, and I really do hope that NHS standards have improved since then.
I won't be having any more babies, but I absolutely would opt for my IM again.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page