Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T19:44:47.175Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Recent Case Developments in Health Law: Maternal-Fetal Conflicts and Medical Decision-Making during Pregnancy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Kate Wevers
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

A 2009 decision by a Florida state trial court marks a recent addition to the long line of cases authorizing compelled medical treatment of pregnant women for the benefit of their unborn children. Despite recurring judicial and academic consideration of the issues involved, there is no consensus regarding the correct approach to take in cases that pit a woman's right to refuse medical treatment against the state's interest in protecting fetal health. Burton v. Florida, currently under appeal to Florida's First District Court of Appeals, demonstrates the difficulty of emergency decision-making in this area and the need for robust ex ante consideration of the important interests at stake.

In March 2009, pursuant to a petition by the State of Florida, the Leon County Circuit Court overrode a pregnant woman's informed refusal to consent to medical treatment, and ordered her to remain a hospital inpatient and submit to medical treatment.

Type
JLME Column
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 38 , Issue 2 , Summer 2010 , pp. 436 - 440
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

In Re Unborn Child of Samantha Burton, No. 2009 CA 1167 (Fla. Cir. Ct. Mar. 27, 2009) (order authorizing medical treatment).Google Scholar
Id., at 1.Google Scholar
Id., at 2–3.Google Scholar
Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 125 (1973); see also Harrell v. St. Mary's Hosp. Inc., 678 So.2d 455, 456 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996); In re A.C., 573 A.2d 1235, 1241–42 (D.C. 1990).Google Scholar
Second Amended Initial Brief for Appellant at 10–11, 14–15, Burton v. Florida, No. 1D09–1958 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. filed Apr. 20, 2009).Google Scholar
Brief of Amici Curiae American Civil Liberties Union, American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, and American Medical Women's Association in Support of Appellant at 5–7, Burton v. Florida, No. 1D09–1958 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. filed Apr. 20, 2009).Google Scholar
Appellant's Brief, supra note 5, at 11; Amicus Brief, supra note 6, at 5; both citing In re Guardianship of Browning, 568 So.2d 4 (Fla. 1990).Google Scholar
Appellant's Brief, supra note 5, at 10–18; Amicus Brief, supra note 6, at 5–7.Google Scholar
Amicus Brief, supra note 6, at 7–15.Google Scholar
Id., at 15.Google Scholar
Id., at 19–20.Google Scholar
Appellant's Brief, supra note 5, at 17; Brief, Amicus, supra note 6, at 20.Google Scholar
Amicus Brief, supra note 6, at 20.Google Scholar
Appellant's Brief, supra note 5, at 12–17.Google Scholar
Id., at 18–20.Google Scholar
In re Dubreuil, 629 So.2d 819 (Fla. 1993).Google Scholar
Appellee State of Florida's Answer Brief at 5–9, Burton v. Florida, No. 1D09–1958 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. filed Apr. 20, 2009).Google Scholar
Id., at 9–12.Google Scholar
Id., at 14–16.Google Scholar
Amended Reply Brief for Appellant at 1–3, 10, Burton v. Florida, No. 1D09–1958 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. filed Apr. 20, 2009).Google Scholar
Id., at 8–9.Google Scholar
In re Baby Boy Doe, 632 N.E.2d 326 (Ill. App. Ct. 1994).Google Scholar
In re Fetus Brown, 689 N.E.2d 397 (Ill. App. Ct. 1997).Google Scholar
Gallagher, J., “Prenatal Invasions & Interventions: What's Wrong With Fetal Rights,” Harvard Women's Law Journal 10 (1987): 9–58, at 55.Google Scholar
Levine, E. M., “The Constitutionality of Court-Ordered Cesarean Surgery: A Threshold Question,” Albany Law Journal of Science and Technology 4 (1994): 229–309, at 302.Google Scholar
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Maternal Decision Making, Ethics, and the Law, Committee Opinion No. 321, (Nov., 2005): at 9.Google Scholar
In re A.C., supra note 4.Google Scholar
Id., at 1252.Google Scholar
Jefferson v. Griffin Spalding County Hosp. Auth., 274 S.E.2d 457, 460 (Ga. 1981).Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Pemberton v. Tallahassee Mem'l Reg'l Med. Ctr., 66 F.Supp.2d 1247 (N.D. Fla. 1999).Google Scholar
Id., at 1254.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Levine, , supra note 25, at 301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See, e.g., In re A.C., supra note 4; In re Fetus Brown, supra note 23; Harrell, , supra note 4.Google Scholar
American Medical Association Board of Trustees Report, “Legal Interventions During Pregnancy: Court-Ordered Medical Treatments and Legal Penalties for Potentially Harmful Behavior by Pregnant Women,” JAMA 264, no. 20 (1990): 2663–2770, at 2665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar