Abstract
On April 26, 1990, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals vacated decisions that had allowed an emergency cesarean to be performed on A.C., who was 26-1/2 weeks pregnant and near death from cancer. The hospital had requested legal intervention despite agreement among A.C.'s family and physicians to honor her wishes to be made comfortable as she died. Annas summarizes the court decision that found that the lower court erred in weighing A.C.'s interests against the state's interests in her fetus rather than determining if A.C. were competent to decide about a cesarean section. If A.C. had been found incompetent, the court should have applied the substituted judgment doctrine to determine her wishes. Annas discusses the importance of In re A.C. in situations where physicians turn to the courts to force compliance from competent pregnant women, a use of the judiciary that Annas calls "counterproductive, unprincipled, sexist, and repressive."
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.