This thread is utterly appalling and full of some extremely ignorant people who are excusing the unprofessional behaviour of doctors and midwives with this ignorance.
I would like to try and set the record straight a little in a similar fashion to Shiraztastic by stating what the law says, what your rights are and what informed consent should look like.
The following is from a DoH document dated 2009 entitled Reference Guide to Consent for Examination or Treatment
From the Introduction:
1. It is a general legal and ethical principle that valid consent must be obtained before starting treatment or physical investigation, or providing personal care, for a person. This principle reflects the right of patients to determine what happens to their own bodies, and is a fundamental part of good practice. A healthcare professional (or other healthcare staff) who does not respect this principle may be liable both to legal action by the patient and to action by their professional body. Employing bodies may also be liable for the actions of their staff.
2.While there is no English statute setting out the general principles of consent, case law (?common law?) has established that touching a patient without valid consent may constitute the civil or criminal offence of battery. Further, if healthcare professionals (or other healthcare staff) fail to obtain proper consent and the patient subsequently suffers harm as a result of treatment, this may be a factor in a claim of negligence against the healthcare professional involved. Poor handling of the consent process may also result in complaints from patients through the NHS complaints procedure or to professional bodies.
Unless you are deemed unable to consent under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 no one can perform a medical examination on you without your consent. It is very clear what constitutes being incapable to make a decision. If the OP was able to hold her baby, she quite clearly was capable of giving and refusing consent.
Not only that, but if there was any question about her ability to give consent, her partner should NOT have been sent away.
From the same document
Valid Consent
For consent to be valid, it must be given voluntarily by an appropriately informed person who has the capacity to consent to the intervention in question (this will be the patient or someone with parental responsibility for a patient under the age of 18, someone authorised to do so under a Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) or someone who has the authority to make treatment decisions as a court appointed deputy). Acquiescence where the person does not know what the intervention entails is not ?consent?.
When should consent be sought?
The seeking and giving of consent is usually a process, rather than a one-off event. For major interventions, it is good practice where possible to seek the person?s consent to the proposed procedure well in advance, when there is time to respond to the person?s questions and provide adequate information. Clinicians should then check, before the procedure starts, that the person still consents. If a person is not asked to signify their consent until just before the procedure is due to start, at a time when they may be feeling particularly vulnerable, there may be real doubt as to its validity. In no circumstances should a person be given routine pre-operative medication before being asked for their consent to proceed with the treatment.
Duration of consent
When a person gives valid consent to an intervention, in general that consent remains valid for an indefinite duration, unless it is withdrawn by the person. However, if new information becomes available regarding the proposed intervention (for example new evidence of risks or new treatment options) between the time when consent was sought and when the intervention is undertaken, the GMC guidance states that a doctor or member of the healthcare team should inform the patient and reconfirm their consent. In the light of paragraph 19 above, the clinician should consider whether the new information should be drawn to the attention of the patient and the process of seeking consent repeated on the basis of this information. Similarly, if the patient?s condition has changed significantly in the intervening time it may be necessary to seek consent again, on the basis that the likely benefits and/or risks of the intervention may also have changed.
Withdrawal of consent
A person with capacity is entitled to withdraw consent at any time, including during the performance of a procedure. Where a person does object during treatment, it is good practice for the practitioner, if at all possible, to stop the procedure, establish the person?s concerns and explain the consequences of not completing the procedure. At times, an apparent objection may in fact be a cry of pain rather than withdrawal of consent, and appropriate reassurance may enable the practitioner to continue with the person?s consent. If stopping the procedure at that point would genuinely put the life of the person at risk, the practitioner may be entitled to continue until that risk no longer applies.
Advance decisions to refuse treatment
A person may have made an advance decision to refuse particular treatment in anticipation of future incapacity (sometimes previously referred to as a ?living will? or ?advance directive?). A valid and applicable advance decision to refuse treatment has the same force as a contemporaneous decision to refuse treatment. This is a well-established rule of common law, and the Mental Capacity Act 2005 now puts advance decisions on a statutory basis. The Act sets out the requirements that such a decision must meet to be valid and applicable. Further details are available in chapter 9 of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) Code of Practice, but in summary these are:
?the person must be 18 or over
?the person must have the capacity to make such a decision
?the person must make clear which treatments they are refusing
?if the advance decision refuses life-sustaining treatment, it must be in writing (it can be written by someone else or recorded in healthcare notes), it must be signed and witnessed and it must state clearly that the decision applies even if life is at risk
?a person with capacity can withdraw their advance decision at any time.
Healthcare professionals must follow an advance decision if it is valid and applicable, even if it may result in the person?s death. If they do not, they could face criminal prosecution or civil liability. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 protects a health professional from liability for treating or continuing to treat a person in the person?s best interests if they are not satisfied that an advance decision exists which is valid and applicable. The Act also protects healthcare professionals from liability for the consequences of withholding or withdrawing a treatment if at the time they reasonably believe that there is a valid and applicable advance decision. If there is genuine doubt or disagreement about an advance decision?s existence, validity or applicability, the case should be referred to the Court of Protection. The court does not have the power to overturn a valid and applicable advance decision. While a decision is awaited from the courts, healthcare professionals can provide life-sustaining treatment or treatment to stop a serious deterioration in the patient?s condition.
If an advance decision is not valid or applicable to current circumstances, healthcare professionals must consider the advance decision as part of their assessment of the person?s best interests. Advance decisions made before the Mental Capacity Act came into force may still be valid if they meet the provisions of the Act.
*May I make it VERY VERY clear, that from what the OP says the midwife in question has ignored a great many of these points. It is not a simple, 'doing something in the best interests of a patient'. The ONLY person who, in LAW, knows what is best for that patient, is the patient themselves'. This isn't actually as hard to do as some people on this thread are trying to make out, especially given the information the OP stated about her circumstances.
The following is from www.birthrights.org.uk and its brilliant.
What Should Informed Consent Look Like?
If I am asked by doctors or midwives what informed consent should mean in birth care, I tell them that it could be said to consist of three parts:
1)    Inform. Tell the woman about what you observe to be going on at this moment in the pregnancy or birth. Tell her about all of the healthcare alternatives that are available to her. Not just the one you think she should do. Tell her as much as you know about the risks and benefits of each alternative, and what kind of evidence exists for this information. This part of the discussion should be a transfer of objective facts, and you should leave your opinion out of it.
2)    Advise. Tell the woman what you think she should do. Tell her why. This is a good moment to express the limits of your own skills and knowledge. Are you advising a cesarean for breech because you haven?t been trained in breech births? This is a time to mention that. This part of the discussion can be an expression of your subjective opinion about what you would counsel the woman to do.
3)    Support. Support the woman in the exercise of a decision between the alternatives. This includes the decision not to follow your advice. It isn?t informed consent unless the patient has the ability to choose an alternative other than the one that the provider recommends.
Â
Informed Consent is the bridge between evidence-based care and human rights in childbirth. The information is evidence?all patients have a right to be informed about the evidence regarding the healthcare alternatives available to them. The consent is the human right, the legal right, the constitutional right. Pregnant women, like all citizens, have the right to informed consent.
A ?yes? is not meaningful unless you also have the right to say ?no.?
OP, complain like hell. You were assaulted and a criminal act has taken place.
The rest of you defending that midwife, read the guidelines and law and learn.
If any of you can still tell me that what the midwife treating the OP is right, in any way justifiable and that she followed the DoH advice and guidance, I challenge you to tell me just how she did.
I want to cry, I can't sleep.