In re A.C.

Last updated
In re A.C.
Court District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Full case nameIn re A.C., Appellant.
DecidedApril 26, 1990 (1990-04-26)
Citation(s) 573 A.2d 1235
Court membership
Judges sitting Judith W. Rogers, Theodore R. Newman Jr., John M. Ferren, James A. Belson, John A. Terry, John M. Steadman, Frank E. Schwelb, Julia Cooper Mack
Case opinions
Decision byTerry
ConcurrenceRogers, Newman, Ferren, Steadman, Schwelb
Concur/dissentBelson
Keywords

In re A.C., 573 A.2d 1235 (1990), was a 1987 District of Columbia Court of Appeals case. It was the first appellate court case decided against forced Caesarean sections, although the decision was issued after the fatal procedure was performed. [1] Physicians performed a Caesarean section upon patient Angela Carder (née Stoner) without informed consent in an unsuccessful attempt to save the life of her baby. [2] The case stands as a landmark in United States case law establishing the rights of informed consent and bodily integrity for pregnant women.

Contents

Background

George Washington University Hospital George Washington University Hospital - 2012.JPG
George Washington University Hospital

At age thirteen, Angela Stoner was diagnosed with a rare and usually fatal form of cancer, Ewing's sarcoma. After years of chemotherapy and radiation therapy she was declared to be in remission. [3] At twenty-seven, she married and became pregnant. [2] Carder was referred to George Washington University Hospital's high-risk pregnancy clinic during her fifteenth week due to her medical history. [2]

During a routine hospital visit on June 9, 1987, Carder received an X ray due to complaints of back pain and shortness of breath. [2] Her cancer was shown to have returned in the form of an inoperable tumor, causing her to be admitted to hospital two days later. [2] When Carder was twenty-six weeks pregnant, her cancer was discovered to have recurred and metastasized to her lung. The doctors at George Washington University Hospital in Washington, D.C. inserted an oral feeding tube into her and administered sedatives in an effort to delay her death and increase her fetus' chance of continued development. On June 12, Carder initially expressed a desire to deliver the baby. [3] Her condition worsened and physicians notified Carder of her terminal illness on June 15, leading Carder to consent to palliative care. [2] The intent of such treatment was to prolong her life, raising the survival rate of the fetus. [2] Carder was again inquired as to whether she wished to deliver the baby, to which she provided an ambiguous answer. [2]

Initial Hearing and Procedure

On June 16, administrators of the hospital convened a court hearing at the facility to request an emergency Caesarean section. Carder's husband, parents, and personal obstetricians opposed the C-section on the ground that neither Carder nor the fetus would survive. [3] Evidence to the court hypothesized that the fetus currently had a fifty to sixty percent chance of survival, which would decrease if the procedure was delayed. [4] The court was informed that the fetus was viable, or could live outside the mother, but would be unlikely to survive a post-mortem delivery. [2] It was also stated that Carder was likely to die sooner as a result of such a procedure. [4] However, doctors' testimony to the court was contradicting in regards to the prognosis of the procedure. [2] The judge had also been unable to identify Carder's wishes or her level of competency. [4] Ultimately, an order was issued by the judge authorizing the hospital to perform an immediate Caesarean section. The judge based the decision on both evidence provided by the hospital and precedent of In Re Madyun. [4]

Carder was informed of the court's order once she became conscious and she was asked if she wanted to proceed with the Caesarean section. Although she initially confirmed her intent to proceed, she reportedly contradicted herself a few moments later. [2] The court maintained its decision and ordered the procedure to continue. Given the apparent change in circumstances, Carder's family and attorney attempted to gain a stay of proceedings from the judge, but the request was denied. [3]

Thus, Carder underwent the operation. The fetus reportedly survived for three hours after the surgery, while Carder survived two days before her death. [1] Some physicians suggest that she would have lived a few days longer if not for the Caesarean section. [1]

Appeal Proceedings

In the wake of the surgery, Carder's family and the American Civil Liberties Union's Reproductive Freedom Project asked the D.C. Court of Appeals to vacate the order and its legal precedent, on grounds that the order had violated Carder's right to informed consent and her constitutional rights of privacy and bodily integrity. [3] One hundred and twenty organizations joined amicus briefs on Carder's behalf, including the American Medical Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Two groups defended the forced surgery: the Americans United for Life and the United Catholic Conference, now known as the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB). On April 26, 1990, the court vacated the initial court order by issuing the ruling In re A.C. [4] The decision found the judge had failed to properly balance the rights of Carder not to consent to the procedure and the interests of the state. [4] In re A.C. is commonly lauded as a victory for women's rights, but it did not grant absolute autonomy of a woman against procedures ordered by the state. [4] Instead, it asserted that in "virtually all cases," a patient's desires must be adhered to if they are deemed competent. [4]

Civil Suit

At the same time as the Court of Appeals case, the ACLU and Carder's parents, Daniel and Nettie Stoner, instituted a civil action, Stoners v. George Washington University Hospital, et al., suing the hospital for deprivation of human rights, discrimination, wrongful death and malpractice, among other charges. [3] In November 1990, days before the scheduled trial was to begin, the hospital settled out of court for an undisclosed amount of money and a promise of new hospital policies protecting the rights of pregnant women.

See also

Notes

  1. 1 2 3 Feitshans, Ilise (1995). "Legislating to Preserve Women's Autonomy during Pregnancy". Medicine and Law. 14: 397–412 – via HeinOnline.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Bourke, Leon (1990). "In re A.C.". Issues in Law & Medicine. 6: 299–305 – via EBSCOhost.
  3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 American Civil Liberties Union (September 30, 1997). "Coercive and Punitive Governmental Responses to Women's Conduct During Pregnancy" . Retrieved 2016-01-29.
  4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Plomer, Aurora (1997). "Judicially Enforced Caesareans and the Sanctity of Life". Anglo-American Law Review. 26: 235–270 – via HeinOnline.

Related Research Articles

Caesarean section Surgical procedure in which a baby is delivered through an incision in the mothers abdomen

Caesarean section, also known as C-section or caesarean delivery, is the surgical procedure by which one or more babies are delivered through an incision in the mother's abdomen, often performed because vaginal delivery would put the baby or mother at risk. Reasons for the operation include obstructed labor, twin pregnancy, high blood pressure in the mother, breech birth, and problems with the placenta or umbilical cord. A caesarean delivery may be performed based upon the shape of the mother's pelvis or history of a previous C-section. A trial of vaginal birth after C-section may be possible. The World Health Organization recommends that caesarean section be performed only when medically necessary. Some C-sections are performed without a medical reason, upon request by someone, usually the mother.

The paternal rights and abortion issue is an extension of both the abortion debate and the fathers' rights movement. Abortion can be a factor for disagreement and lawsuit between partners.

Many jurisdictions have laws applying to minors and abortion. These parental involvement laws require that one or more parents consent or be informed before their minor daughter may legally have an abortion.

Abortion in El Salvador is illegal. The law formerly permitted an abortion to be performed under some limited circumstances, but, in 1998, all exceptions were removed when a new abortion law went into effect.

Abortion in South Africa Overview of the legality and prevalence of abortions in South Africa

Abortion in South Africa is legal on request during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, and under certain conditions afterwards. Abortion is provided free at government hospitals and a tele-medical or 'pills by post' service is provided by Marie Stopes South Africa and Abortion Clinic Johannesburg. Abortion was legal only under very limited circumstances until 1 February 1997, when the Choice on Termination of Pregnancy Act came into force, providing abortion on demand for a variety of cases.

Symphysiotomy Surgical procedure assisting childbirth

Symphysiotomy is an outdated surgical procedure in which the cartilage of the pubic symphysis is divided to widen the pelvis allowing childbirth when there is a mechanical problem. It is also known as pelviotomy, synchondrotomy.

Pregnant patients' rights regarding medical care during the pregnancy and childbirth are specifically a patient's rights within a medical setting and should not be confused with pregnancy discrimination. A great deal of discussion regarding pregnant patients' rights has taken place in the United States.

Pemberton v. Tallahassee Memorial Regional Center, 66 F. Supp. 2d 1247, is a case in the United States regarding reproductive rights. In particular, the case explored the limits of a woman's right to choose her medical treatment in light of fetal rights at the end of pregnancy.

Abortion law in the United States by state Termination of pregnancy in states of the United States

{{longitem |style=font-size:105%;padding-bottom:0.3em;border-bottom:1px solid #aaa |Color-coded map illustrating the legality of elective abortion in the United States as of July 7, 2022 (UTC)

Abortion in Greece has been fully legalized since 1986, when Law 1609/1986 was passed effective from 3 July 1986. Partial legalization of abortion in Greece was passed in Law 821 in 1978 that provided for the legal termination of a pregnancy, with no time limitation, in the event of a threat to the health or life of the woman. This law also allowed for termination up to the 12th week of pregnancy due to psychiatric indications and to the 20th week due to fetal pathology. Following the passage of the 1986 law, abortions can be performed on-demand in hospitals for women whose pregnancies have not exceeded 12 weeks. In the case of rape or incest, an abortion can occur as late as 19 weeks, and as late as 24 weeks in the case of fetal abnormalities. In case of inevitable risk to the life of the pregnant woman or a risk of serious and continuous damage to her physical or mental health, termination of pregnancy is legal any time before birth. Girls under the age of 18 must get written permission from a parent or guardian before being allowed an abortion.

The North Carolina Woman's Right to Know Act is a passed North Carolina statute which is referred to as an "informed consent" law. The bill requires practitioners read a state-mandated informational materials, often referred to as counseling scripts, to patients at least 72 hours before the abortion procedure. The patient and physician must certify that the information on informed consent has been provided before the procedure. The law also mandated the creation of a state-maintained website and printed informational materials, containing information about: public and private services available during pregnancy, anatomical and physiological characteristics of gestational development, and possible adverse effects of abortion and pregnancy. A review of twenty-three U.S. states informed consent materials found that North Carolina had the "highest level of inaccuracies," with 36 out of 78 statements rated as inaccurate, or 46%.

Madrigal v. Quilligan was a federal class action lawsuit from Los Angeles County, California involving sterilization of Latina women that occurred either without informed consent, or through coercion. Although the judge ruled in favor of the doctors, the case led to better informed consent for patients, especially those who are not native English speakers.

V.C. vs Slovakia was the first case in which the European Court for Human Rights ruled in favor of a Romani woman who was a victim of forced sterilization in the state hospital in Slovakia. It is one of many cases of forced sterilization of Roma women brought to the Court by the Slovak feminist group Center for Civil and Human Rights from Košice.

Sterilization law is the area of law, within reproductive rights, that gives a person the right to choose or refuse reproductive sterilization and governs when the government may limit this fundamental right. Sterilization law includes federal and state constitutional law, statutory law, administrative law, and common law. This article primarily focuses on laws concerning compulsory sterilization that have not been repealed or abrogated and are still good laws, in whole or in part, in each jurisdiction.

Resuscitative hysterotomy

A resuscitative hysterotomy, also referred to as a perimortem Caesarean section (PMCS) or perimortem Caesarean delivery (PMCD), is a hysterotomy performed to resuscitate a woman in middle to late pregnancy who has entered cardiac arrest. Combined with a laparotomy, the procedure results in a Caesarean section that removes the fetus, thereby abolishing the aortocaval compression caused by the pregnant uterus. This improves the mother's chances of return of spontaneous circulation, and may potentially also deliver a viable neonate. The procedure may be performed by obstetricians, emergency physicians or surgeons depending on the situation.

Maternal-fetal conflict, also known as obstetric conflict, occurs when a pregnant woman's (maternal) interests conflict with the interests of her baby (fetus). Legal and ethical considerations involving women's rights and the rights of the fetus as a patient and future child, have become more complicated with advances in medicine and technology. Maternal-fetal conflict can occur in situations where the mother denies health recommendations that can benefit the fetus or make life choices that can harm the fetus. There are maternal-fetal conflict situations where the law becomes involved, but most physicians avoid involving the law for various reasons.

Abortion in Georgia is legal up to the 22nd week of pregnancy. This right came into force with the U.S. Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling. In 2007, mandatory ultrasound requirements were passed by state legislators. Georgia has continually sought to legislate against abortion at a state level since 2011. The most recent example, 2019's HB 481, sought to make abortion illegal as soon as embryonic cardiac electrical activity can be detected; in most cases that is around the six-week mark of a pregnancy. Most women are not aware they are pregnant at this time. An injunction was issued against this bill by a federal judge, who ruled that it contravened the Supreme Court's 1973 ruling. A poll conducted by the Pew Research Center in 2014 found that 49% of Georgians believed abortions should be illegal in all or most cases vs 48% legal in all or most cases.

Abortion in Indiana is legal up to the 22nd week of pregnancy. In 2014, 51% of Indiana adults said in a poll by the Pew Research Center that abortion should be illegal in all or most cases. By 1950, the state legislature had tried to pass a law criminalizing women seeking or having abortions. By the early 2000s, the state had passed a law banning abortions after 22 weeks because they alleged that the fetus can feel pain. In 2007, the state had a customary informed consent provision for abortions in place. In 2018, the state legislature tried and failed to make abortion illegal in almost all cases.

Abortion in Nevada is legal within 24 weeks since fertilization, under the Nevada Revised Statutes chapter 442, section 250; and after 24 weeks if the pregnancy could be fatal for the pregnant woman. 62% of adults said in a poll by the Pew Research Center that abortion should be legal while 34% said it should by illegal in all or most cases. Legislation by 2007 required informed consent. Attempts were successfully made to pass abortion legislation in May 2019, being pushed through a largely Democratic controlled state legislature. The number of abortion clinics in Nevada has declined over the years, with 25 in 1982, seventeen in 1992 and thirteen in 2014. There were 8,132 legal abortions in 2014, and 7,116 in 2015.

Abortion in Ohio is illegal after embryonic cardiac activity can be detected, which typically occurs around six weeks of pregnancy. On April 11, 2019, Ohio Governor Mike DeWine signed the Human Rights and Heartbeat Protection Act, which bans abortion in the state after embryonic cardiac activity is detectable. On June 24, 2022, after the Supreme Court of the United States overturned Roe v. Wade, judge Michael R. Barrett lifted a preliminary injunction that had blocked state officials from enforcing the law against certain abortion providers, allowing the Human Rights and Heartbeat Protection Act to take full effect.

References

Text of In re A.C. is available from:  CourtListener    Justia    Leagle  

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.