Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T17:16:30.897Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Role of the Legal System in the Cesarean Childbirth Controversy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2021

Judy Miller
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The threefold increase in the cesarean birth rate in the United States during the last ten years has caused much concern among the general public and some medical professionals. Nurses particularly have shared this concern as the scope of nursing practice has expanded and nurses increasingly see themselves as patient advocates. Obviously, not all cesarean births are unwarranted. The procedure may be indicated if there is maternal or fetal risk during labor, if attempted induction of labor fails, and/or if an emergency mandates immediate delivery which is not possible or suitable vaginally.

A recent review of over 1,000 U.S. and foreign research articles cites three general reasons for the increasing cesarean birth rate: use of the operation for breech presentations and for repeat sections; the need for early intervention due to fetal distress as determined by the increasing use of fetal monitoring; and physicians' fear of malpractice suits. The first two reasons are matters of medical controversy.

Type
Research Article
Information
Nursing Law & Ethics , Volume 1 , Issue 10 , December 1980 , pp. 1 - 8
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 1980

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

1. Jones, O.H., Cesarean Section in Present Day Obstetrics, American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 126:521 (1976), at 527.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2. Lab v. Hall, 200 So. 2d 556 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1967).Google Scholar
3. Beni v. Abrons, 19P.2d 253 (Cal. App. 1933).Google Scholar
4. Dinner v. Thorp, 338 P.2d 137 (Wash. 1959).Google Scholar
5. Wilson v. Martin Memorial Hospital, 61 S.E.2d 102 (N.C. 1950).Google Scholar
6. See, e.g., Stetson v. Easterling, 161 S.E.2d 531 (N.D. 1968); Thomas v. Ellis, 106 N.E.2d 687 (Mass. 1952).Google Scholar
7. See, e.g., Cueva v. Simon, No. 465173 (Kings Co. Sup. Ct. N.Y. Dec. 15, 1977).Google Scholar
8. See, Mark v. Fong, No. 217266 (Cal. Super. Ct. Aug. 7, 1974).Google Scholar
9. Henry v. Bronx Lebanon Medical Center, 385 N.Y.S.2d 772 (App. Div. 1976).Google Scholar
10. Shreiber v. Cestari, 338 N.Y.S.2d 972 (App. Div. 1972).Google Scholar
11. Martin v. Parks, 165 So.2d 220 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1964).Google Scholar
12. Gleason v. McKernan, 66 P.2d 808 (Colo. 1937).Google Scholar
13. Beni, supra, at 254.Google Scholar
14. Annas, G.J., The Rights of Hospital Patients (Avon Books, New York, 1975) p. 58.Google Scholar
15. Shack v. Holland, 389 N.Y.S.2d 988 (1976).Google Scholar
16. Holt v. Nelson, 523 P.2d 211 (Wash. App. 1974).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17. Shack, supra, at 993.Google Scholar
18. See, e.g., Superintendent of Belchertown v. Saikewicz, 370 N.E.2d 417 (Mass. 1977); Matter of Quinlan, 355 A.2d 647 (N.J. 1976).Google Scholar
19. Parker v. Goldstein, 189 A.2d 441 (N.J. Super. 1963).Google Scholar
20. Harris v. McRae, 100 S. Ct. 2671 (1980).Google Scholar
21. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).Google Scholar
22. Bowland v. Municipal Court for Santa Cruz County, 18 Cal.3d 479 (1976).Google Scholar
23. Fitzgerald v. Porter Memorial Hospital, 523 F.2d 716 (7th Cir. 1975).Google Scholar