Albany Medical Center
 Search
Home / Caring / Educating / Find a Doctor / News / Give Now / Careers / About / Calendar / Directions / Contact
June 24, 2014 | Posted By Paul Burcher, MD, PhD

I was recently surprised to read in the New York Times that a woman had undergone a cesarean section despite her refusal to consent to the procedure. The details of the case are not entirely clear from the article, so I do not want what follows to be understood as a specific comment on this case. However, the source of my surprise was my assumption that the ethics of refusal of consent were not in dispute.  The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology has taken a clear position on this: it is not permissible to perform surgery on a patient with decisional capacity without her consent. ACOG’s committee opinion, “Maternal Decision Making, Ethics, and the Law,” strongly discourages even attempting to seek a court order for treatment when a pregnant woman refuses cesarean section, and concludes with the following statement:

Pregnant women's autonomous decisions should be respected. Concerns about the impact of maternal decisions on fetal well-being should be discussed in the context of medical evidence and understood within the context of each woman's broad social network, cultural beliefs, and values. In the absence of extraordinary circumstances, circumstances that, in fact, the Committee on Ethics cannot currently imagine, judicial authority should not be used to implement treatment regimens aimed at protecting the fetus, for such actions violate the pregnant woman's autonomy. 

This committee opinion gives six strong and compelling arguments for these conclusions, and I will not repeat them here, but I encourage readers to review them.  What I would like to now focus on is the thinking that may lead some physicians to believe it is ethically permissible to override a patient’s autonomous choice.

We teach cesarean section refusal as an ethical case during the third year clerkship in Obstetrics and Gynecology for medical students. We discuss a hypothetical case where a young woman with pre-eclampsia and a non-reassuring fetal tracing refuses a cesarean section on the grounds that she had hoped to have an abortion, but presented to clinic too late for a termination, and so was carrying a pregnancy that she did not intend and did not desire. A consistent response from at least one medical student of every group is that the pregnant patient is behaving unethically by refusing to make choices in the best interests of her fetus, and therefore we are justified in overriding her wishes.  Leaving aside the excellent arguments that ACOG makes about the limitations of our own knowledge in predicting fetal outcomes, and the arrogance of believing that the physician can address the interests of the fetus better than the pregnant woman herself, there is a simple logical flaw in this reasoning.  It is easier to see if you present it as a series of propositions:

  1. A woman carrying a fetus beyond viability has a duty to the fetus, including acting to best ensure its wellbeing.
  2. If she is acting against medical advice or refuses a recommended procedure, she is not fulfilling this duty. 
  3. Therefore, physicians are justified in overriding her autonomous choice in order to ensure fetal well-being.

The ACOG committee opinion on maternal decision making calls into question the second proposition.  My issue is actually with the third proposition—the conclusion.  There is a logical fallacy here; namely, it does not necessarily follow that because we believe the woman is acting unethically that we are then justified in violating her right to autonomy and bodily integrity.  Put differently, we can agree that pregnant women beyond fetal viability bear some responsibility to their fetuses without leaping to the conclusion that we have the right or duty to compel it.

But isn’t the potential harm of a fetal death a greater harm than the loss of autonomy suffered by the patient?  Again, I would refer readers to ACOG’s committee opinion on maternal decision making for an extensive argument against this point, but I will re-iterate and amplify one of their responses.  The logic that justifies this also justifies the incarceration of pregnant women who have behaviors that jeopardize their fetuses, and it isn’t hard to see where this logic ultimately takes us.  Smoking during pregnancy, by this argument, should be illegal, maybe even inadequate prenatal care and choosing a home birth could lead to laws or actions that restrict a pregnant woman’s liberty.  When critics of this logic argue that it transforms women from moral agents into powerless “baby vessels” they are only following the argument to its logical but unjust conclusions.  This logic isn’t just a theoretical concern; women in several states have been incarcerated for drug use during a pregnancy. 

It is important to note that it is not drug use per se that got them arrested, it was the state of pregnancy combined with drug addiction (and poverty, and lack of good legal counsel) that resulted in their loss of freedom. Furthermore, it is evidence of our historical prejudices that illegal drug use is resulting in incarceration while tobacco addiction is not.  I would suggest that the evidence does not support this demarcation.

It is neither logically necessary nor wise public policy to empower physicians in this way.  History is replete with examples of those so empowered abusing it with tragic consequences, and always the victims seem to be the vulnerable.  While we may experience moral regret if we are the physician on call when a woman refuses a cesarean section for fetal indication, and the fetus ultimately dies or suffers harm, I would rather see this than a woman forcefully sedated or restrained while I deliver her fetus against her will by cesarean section.   No concern regarding fetal wellbeing can justify this act of aggression against a patient.  This flagrant violation of “first, do no harm” has no place in the healing arts.

The Alden March Bioethics Institute offers a Master of Science in Bioethics, a Doctorate of Professional Studies in Bioethics, and Graduate Certificates in Clinical Ethics and Clinical Ethics Consultation. For more information on AMBI's online graduate programs, please visit our website.

1 comments | Topics: Autonomy, Obstetrical Ethics

Comments

Tara Lindsley

Tara Lindsley wrote on 07/01/14 9:46 AM

I applaud Dr. Burcher for articulating so clearly the need to respect the pregnant patient's autonomy. His description of the alternative is chilling.

Add A Comment
(it will not be displayed)




SEARCH BIOETHICS TODAY
SUBSCRIBE TO BIOETHICS TODAY
ABOUT BIOETHICS TODAY
BIOETHICS TODAY is the blog of the Alden March Bioethics Institute, presenting topical and timely commentary on issues, trends, and breaking news in the broad arena of bioethics. BIOETHICS TODAY presents interviews, opinion pieces, and ongoing articles on health care policy, end-of-life decision making, emerging issues in genetics and genomics, procreative liberty and reproductive health, ethics in clinical trials, medicine and the media, distributive justice and health care delivery in developing nations, and the intersection of environmental conservation and bioethics.
TOPICS