1,721,036 research outputs found
Pregnancy and Birth
No full textThis chapter takes an intersectional approach to exploring the pressing ethico-legal challenges that result from or cause poor maternity care in the UK. Black women in the UK are, at present, five times more likely to die in childbirth, which results from the pervasive culture of obstetric racism and obstetric violence. This chapter outlines this problem and considers how the law might respond. This chapter also explores barriers to choices in and about birth and socio-medical pressures impacting on pregnant people’s behaviour, as facets of obstetric violence
Introduction
No full textThis introduction introduces the motivations behind Diverse Voices in Health Law and Ethics – primarily bringing greater inclusivity to the healthcare law curriculum. The chapter reflects on the method with which we approached diversification of the content of health care law and introduces the key theoretical approaches that are featured throughout this textbook. All of these approaches are critical and examine law in context: feminism, critical race theory, the social model of disability, and intersectionality. Finally, this chapter provides a synopsis of the chapters in this book
Medical Negligence
No full textThis chapter explores the process for attempting to obtain compensation for medical negligence, and what is required for successful litigation. It highlights the issues with this process for women and people who give birth, in light of the significant number of negligence claims relating to obstetric care. The chapter considers the issues with how damage is framed in ‘wrongful pregnancy’ cases and offers a critique of the Bolam test for its gendered medical paternalism. Finally, the chapter addresses the broader issues with litigation as an adversarial and often unfair system that fails to tackle the systemic issues within medical care, particularly in relation to obstetric negligence, and does not provide adequate justice for patients
Confidentiality
No full textConfidentiality, the protecting of patient information to keep it private, is a key facet of good healthcare, which is recognised by the law. Health data is highly sensitive and is protected by the law surrounding data protection as well as the individual right to privacy. However, confidentiality is not always absolute. Sometimes patient information can, or must, be shared where necessary to protect the public interest or the patient themselves. Deciding when disclosure is both lawful and the right thing to do is challenging for health professionals. This chapter explores two case studies that exemplify the importance of confidentiality and the complex dilemmas it can present: safeguarding (adults and children) and abortion reporting requirements
Addressing Rising Caesarean Rates: Maternal Request Caesareans, Defensive Practice and the Power of Choice in Childbirth
Get PDFThe number of caesarean sections performed in high-income economies has been rising for decades. In this paper I expand on feminist scholarship to argue that the likely explanation for this trend is defensive practice in obstetrics. I argue that the harm caused by defensive practice is that women are not being empowered to choose their childbirth. I demonstrate that this same harm is evident when women are denied the opportunity to opt for an elective caesarean. In this paper I seek to demonstrate how routinely offering women elective caesareans is the best solution to rising caesarean rates in high-income economies
Artificial Womb Technology and the Significance of Birth: Why Gestatelings are not Newborns (or Fetuses)
No full textIn a recent publication I argued that there is a conceptual difference between artificial womb technology, capable of facilitating gestation ex utero, and neonatal intensive care, providing incubation to neonates born prematurely. One of the reasons I provided for this distinction was that the subjects of each process are different entities. The subject of the process of gestation ex utero is a unique human entity: a ‘gestateling,’ rather than a foetus or a newborn preterm neonate. Nicholas Colgrove wrote a response to my paper, claiming that my distinction between the subject of an artificial womb and a newborn (in intensive care) was false. He provides two primary challenges to my distinction; (1) that I have not accounted for the proper definition of ‘birth,’ and (2) that I provide only arbitrary reasons to consider some capacities, and not others, evidence of the exercise of independent life. Further, Colgrove posits that even if I can successfully distinguish gestatelings from preterms, such a distinction is morally irrelevant because the entities would have the same moral status. In this paper, I address the three challenges raised and defend the claim that gestatelings are unique entities. Moreover, I argue that moral status should not be considered ipso facto determinative in the debate about artificial wombs
Appropriately framing maternal request caesarean section
Get PDFIn their paper, ‘How to reach trustworthy decisions for caesarean sections on maternal request: a call for beneficial power’, Eide and Bærøe present maternal request caesarean sections (MRCS) as a site of conflict in obstetrics because birthing people are seeking access to a treatment ‘without any anticipated medical benefit’. While I agree with the conclusions of their paper -that there is a need to reform the approach to MRCS counselling to ensure that the structural vulnerability of pregnant people making birth decisions is addressed—I disagree with the framing of MRCS as having ‘no anticipated medical benefit’. I argue that MRCS is often inappropriately presented as unduly risky,without supporting empirical evidence,and that MRCS is most often sought by birthing people on the basis of a clinical need. I argue that there needs to be open conversation and frank willingness to acknowledge the values that are currently underpinning the presentation of MRCS as ‘clinically unnecessary’; specifically there needs to be more discussion of where and why the benefits of MRCS that are recognised by individual birthing people are not recognised by clinicians. This is important to ensure access to MRCS for birthing people that need it
- …
