1. In re A.C. No. 87–609 (D.C. 16 01 1987).Google Scholar

2. In re A.C. No. 87–609 (D.C. Cir. 26 04 1990).Google Scholar

3. See note 2. In re A.C. 1990:3–4.Google Scholar

4. Kolder VEB, Gallagher, J, Parsons MT. Court-ordered obstetrical interventions. N Engl J Med. 1987;316(19):1192–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5. See note 4. Kolder et al. 1987;316(19):1195. See also: In the Matter of Madyun Fetus. 114 Daily Wash L Rep. 2233 (D.C. 26 07 1986). A court ordered a cesarian section to avert the development of a fatal infection in the fetus over the objection of a woman who wanted natural childbirth. Jefferson versus Griffin Spalding County Hospital Authority. 274 S.E. 2d 457 (Ga. 1981). A court ordered a cesarian section over the religion-based objection of a woman suffering from placenta previa to save both the woman and the fetus. The woman left the hospital before the order was implemented and later delivered a healthy newborn via a vaginal delivery. In re Unborn Baby Wilson. No. 81–108 AV (Mich. Ct. App. 9 03 1981). The administration of insulin to a diabetic woman was ordered over her religion-based objections. Raleigh Fitkin-Paul Morgan Memorial Hosp. versus Anderson. 42 N.J. 421, 201 A.2d 537 (1964), Cert, denied, 377 US 985 (1964). Blood transfusions were ordered performed on a pregnant woman notwithstanding the fact that the fetus was previable. Kolder et al. (see note 4, p. 1193) also describe court orders having been obtained in Colorado for two women with diabetes, 31–33 weeks gestation, who refused treatment. Taft versus Taft. 388 Mass. 331, 446 N.E. 2d 395 (1983). A pregnant woman refused an operation to close her cervix to avoid miscarriage of her previable fetus, her husband sought a court order to override her objections, and the court refused to restrict the woman's constitutional rights.Google ScholarSee generally: Rhoden NK. Cesareans and Samaritans. Law Med Health Care. 1987; 15(3): 118–25.Google ScholarPubMedRhoden NK. The judge in the delivery room: the emergence of court-ordered cesareans. Calif Law Rev. 1986;74:1951–2029.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMedNelson, L, Milliken, N. Compelled medical treatment of pregnant women-life, liberty, and law in conflict. J Am Med Assoc. 1988;259(7): 1060–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarAnnas, G. Protecting the liberty of pregnant patients. N Engl J Med. 1987;316(19):1213–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMedJurow, R, Paul, R. Cesarean delivery for fetal distress without maternal consent. Obstet Gynecol. 1984;63(4):596–9.Google ScholarPubMedAnnas, G. Forced cesareans: the most unkindest cut of all. Hastings Cent Rep. 1982;12(3):16–17;CrossRefGoogle ScholarBowes, W, Selgestad, B. Fetal versus maternal rights: medical and legal perspectives. Obstet Gynecol. 1981;58(2):209–14.Google ScholarPubMed

6. DE, Johnson. The creation of fetal rights: conflicts with women's constitutional rights to liberty, privacy and equal protection. Yale Law J. 1986;95:599–625.Google Scholar

7. See note 5. Rhoden. 1986;74:1965.Google Scholar

8. See note 5. Rhoden. 1986;74:1979.Google ScholarReferring to Robertson, J.The right to procreate and in utero therapy. J Legal Med. 1982;3(3):333–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

9. Even the fact that some programs that train obstetricians identify themselves as “maternal-fetal” fellowships reveal a bias toward viewing pregnant women as “mothers” primarily and as patients with independent medical interests only secondarily. This “pronatalist” bias is also apparent in discussions concerning the selective termination of multiple fetuses induced by hormonal therapy. See, e.g.,Google ScholarOverall, C. Selective termination of pregnancy and women's reproductive autonomy. Hastings Cent Rep. 1990;20(3):6–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMedSignificantly, the tendency of courts to override women's objections to medical treatment extends beyond pregnant women. The New York Times recently reported that in a study of right-to-die decisions in which courts were faced with situations in which a patient had no advance directive so that the courts were forced to “construe” the patients' wishes, courts said that they could not construe female patients' preferences in 12 of 14 cases. In contrast, in cases involving men, the courts were unable to construe male patients' preferences in only 2 of 8 cases. The author of the study noted that in court opinions in these cases, “women are referred to by their first names and constructed as emotional, immature, unreflective and vulnerable to medical neglect, while men are called by their last names, and construed as rational, mature, decisive, and assaulted by medical technology.” From: [Anonymous5]. Courts, wills and women. The New York Times. 1990 07 23;sect A:2.Google Scholar

10. See note 4. Kolder et al. 1987;316(19):1193.Google Scholar

11. See note 5. In re Unborn Baby Wilson. Jefferson versus Griffin Spalding County Hospital Authority.Google Scholar

12. Robertson, J. Legal issues in prenatal therapy. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 1985;29(3):603–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMedHolder, A. Maternal-fetal conflicts and the law. Female Patient. 1985;10:80–90.Google ScholarLenow, J.The fetus as a patient: emerging rights as a person? Am J Law Med. 1983;9(1):l–29.Google ScholarPubMed

13. [Anonymous]. When the courts take charge of the unborn. The New York Times. 1989 01 9;sect A:l.Google Scholar

14. [Anonymous]. Philadelphia Inquirer. 1988 12 17;sect A:3. The New York Times Magazine has reported that prosecutors in Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Massachusetts, California, and Michigan have charged pregnant women whose infants were born addicted to cocaine or whose urine tested positive for cocaine use with delivering a controlled substance to a minor. [Anonymous]. The New York Times Magazine. 1990 08 8:33. Although courts have dismissed charges against most of the women, a Horida Court of Appeals recently upheld the conviction of a woman charged with delivering cocaine to her newborn. [Anonymous]. Appeals court in Florida backs guilt for drug delivery by umbilical cord. The New York Times. 1991 04 20;sect A:5. Also, in Illinois, a court recently ordered a pregnant cocaine addict who was near the end of her term confined to a drug treatment center in an effort to protect her fetus. [Anonymous]. Court orders pregnant woman held in drug treatment center. The New York Times. 1991 04 13;sect A:3.Google Scholar

15. People versus Stewart. No. M50819, slip op., at 7–8, 10 (San Diego County, CaL, 26 02 1987).Google Scholar

16. [Anonymous]. Crime and pregnancy. Am Bar Assoc J. 1989;08:14.Google Scholar

17. See note 13 describing policies in Nassau County, New York, and Los Angeles County, California, requiring drug tests for newborns and possible removal of the child from the home by the Department of Social Service.Google Scholar

18. Field, M.Controlling the woman to protect the fetus. Law Med Health Care. 1989;17(2):114–29.Google ScholarPubMed[Anonymous]. Maternal rights and fetal wrongs: the case against criminalization of ‘fetal abuse’. Harvard Law Rev. 1988;101:994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar[Anonymous]. Maternal substance abuse: the need to provide legal protection for the fetus. South Calif Law Rev. 1987;60:1209–41.Google ScholarPubMedRobertson, J, Schulman, J.Pregnancy and prenatal harm to offspring: the case of mothers with PKU. Hastings Cent Rep. 1987;17(4):23–40, which describes maternal phenylketonuria, a condition that causes mental retardation in offspring unless the pregnant woman's diet is controlled.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

19. [Anonymous]. [Photograph]. Philadelphia Inquirer. 1989 09 29;sect A:8.Google Scholar

20. Scholendorf versus Society of New York Hospitals, 211 N.Y. 125, 129–30, 105 N.E. 72, 93 (1913). The court held: “Every human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with his own body: and a surgeon who performs an operation without his patient's consent commits an assault for which he is liable in damages.”Google Scholar

21. Swartz, M.The patient who refuses medical treatment: a dilemma for hospitals and physicians. Am J Law Med. 1985;11(2):147–94.Google ScholarPubMed

22. In re Spring. 380 Mass. 629, 405 N.E. 2d 115 (1980). In re Jobes. 108 N.J. 394, 529 A.2d 434 (1987).Google Scholar

23. McFall versus Shimp. 10 Pa.D&C 3d 90, 91 (Allegheny County Ct. 1978). The court refused to order Shimp to donate bone marrow that was necessary to save the life of his cousin, McFall, holding “for our law to compel defendant to submit to an intrusion of his body would change every concept and principle upon which our society is founded. To do so would defeat the sanctity of the individual, and would impose a rule which would know no limits, and one could not imagine where the line would be drawn.” See also the case of the Curran twins, in which the father of a leukemia-stricken boy sought the appointment of a guardian by the Illinois Supreme Court to consent to the testing of the bone marrow of the boy's twin half-brothers over the objections of the Martha Swartz twins' mother; a lower court had refused to order the tests saying it would be an invasion of the twins' privacy. [Anonymous]. Guardians named for children in marrow suit. The New York Times. 1990 08 18;sect A:26.Google Scholar

24. See note 2. In re A.C. 1990:31.Google Scholar

25. Griswold versus Connecticut. 380 US 479, 485–6 (1965).Google Scholar

26. Roe versus Wade. 410 US 113, 153 (1973).Google Scholar

27. Webster versus Reproductive Health Services el al. No. 88–605, slip op. (US 3 07 1989).Google Scholar

28. See note 26. Roe versus Wade. 1973:164–5.Google Scholar

29. After overriding the governor's veto, the Louisiana state legislature passed a law prohibiting all abortions except those performed to save the life of the mother or in cases of rape or incest that is reported within 7 days. The law is presently being appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Sojourner T. versus Roemer, No. 91–2247 (DC La. 08. 7, 1991). Guam has also passed a law severely restricting abortions. The Pennsylvania, Louisiana, and Guam laws are likely to be presented to the U.S. Supreme Court in the near future.Google Scholar

30. 18 Pa. C.S.A. Section 3211 (1989).Google Scholar

31. [Anonymous]. With court's OK, abortion done on comatose woman. Philadelphia Inquirer. 1989 02 12;sect A:8.Google Scholar

32. See note 12. Lenow. 1983;9(1):3–15.Google Scholar

33. See note 6. Johnson. 1986;95:600–13.Google Scholar

34. Hornbuckle versus Plantation Pipe Line, 212 Ga. 504, 93 S.E. 2d 727 (1956). Bennett versus Hymers, 101 N.H. 483, 485, 147 A.2d 108, 110 (1958).Google Scholar

35. See note 16. [Anonymous]. 1989;08:16.Google Scholar

36. NJ. Stat. Ann. Section 30:4C-11 (West 1981) authorizes the Bureau of Children's Services to petition to care for an “unborn child” when it appears that the “child” is of such circumstances that his welfare will be endangered unless proper care or custody is provided.Google Scholar

37. In re Ruiz. 27 Ohio Misc. 2d 31, 500 N.E. 2d 935 (1986). The trial court ruled that a viable fetus is a child and that the mother's prenatal use of heroin constituted child neglect. In re Baby X. 97 Mich. 04. 111, 293 N.W. 2d 36 (1980). The court held that evidence about a woman's prenatal “abuse” or “neglect” could be considered in proceedings to determine whether she should be deprived of the custody of her newborn.Google Scholar

38. In re Steven S. 126 Cal. 04. 3d 23 (Cal. App. 1987). In re Dittrick Infant. 263 N.W. 2d 37 (Mich. App. 1977). The courts ruled that fetuses were not “children” under child neglect laws.Google Scholar

39. Cruzan versus Director, Missouri Department of Health. 58 U.S.L.W. 4916, 4918 (US 25 06 1990). Citing Superintendent of Belchertown State School versus Saikewicz. 373 Mass. 728, 370 N.E. 2d 417 (1977). The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Missouri Supreme Court to consider the state's interest in preserving life in deciding whether to allow the guardians of a patient in a persistent vegetative state to withdraw her artificial nutrition and hydration.Google Scholar

40. Chernevak, FMcCullough, L.A practical method of analysis of the physician's ethical obligations to the fetus and pregnant woman in obstetric care. Resid Staff Physician. 1989;35(1):79–87.Google Scholar

41. That a woman's decision should prevail in the vast majority of cases is now the official policy of George Washington University Medical Center, the site of the In re A.C. case. As the result of an out-of-court medical malpractice settlement with Angela Carder's parents, the hospital issued a policy that states, “When a fully informed and competent pregnant patient persists in a decision which may disserve her own or fetal welfare, this hospital's policy is to accede to the pregnant patient's preference whenever possible.” [Anonymous]. The New York Times. 1990 11 29;sect B:14.Google Scholar