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

[NibliaBiblia]

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/

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.

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.

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.

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

That’s legally wrong in the U.K.

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

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.

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.

So if a woman disagrees with her doctor, the law should step in on the side of the doctor? Do you think doctors are always right?
Up until the eighties almost all women were given a routine episiotomy because of the very mistaken belief it was helpful. Up until very recently most babies had their cords immediately clamped and cut, which we now know is harmful. Some doctors have operated on patients with no medical indication whatsoever, just because of their own personal reasons (Ian Patterson for one).
I'm all for vaccines but as long as a woman has capacity to make decisions about her care, forcing her to undergo treatment without her consent is never the right decision. Not least because it will drive women away from seeking medical care in the first place.

It is a very complex situation when ultimately two lives are involved. You surely must recognise that there are times when medical staff have to intervene to save the child?

Absolutely, but if the mother is refusing then it is a very different situation.

Not in a country where the law says that you can’t force somebody who has capacity to have medical treatment and where a foetus does not have separate rights.

I understand your argument, but having thought about it I think that is the right position. Any situation like this is going to be distressing, but the converse - that a woman can have capacity but not be able to refuse treatment - is worse.

So in a situation where a child will die without a kidney transplant, and the mother who is a match is refusing to donate hers - should medical staff intervene to save the child?

Donating a kidney is about as risky as childbirth.

No, not in law.

If the mum has capacity (which is generally presumed) then she has the right to refuse transfer to hospital/treatment there. Treatment without consent, in UK law, is assault. This even applies if a term baby, in utero, is about to die. This can be fucking heart breaking. But it is the law. And if it were not the law, it would be the thin end of a wedge ultimately ending up in Gilead. Though I consider it deeply hypocritical when the mother turns round and tries to sue the hospital for the child's brain damage, that was a direct result of her actions. And yes I have seen it happen, and no of course I can't give details.