Caesarean sections and the right of autonomy

Abstract

CYNICS were unimpressed by the proclamation of the Court of Appeal in Re MB (Caesarean section) [1997] 2 F.C.R. 541 (noted [1997] C.L.J. 509) that the law protects a pregnant woman's right to autonomy and bodily integrity. The Court of Appeal had held that it would be unlawful for a doctor to perform a Caesarean section on a competent woman if she refused to consent to the operation–even if the lives of the woman and unborn child would be endangered if the operation was not performed. Cynics argued that the courts would always circumvent these fine-sounding principles by finding the woman incompetent to make the decision, as they did in Re MB itself. However, subsequently in St. George's Healthcare NHS Trust v. S [1998] 3 All E.R. 673 the Court of Appeal held that a woman was competent and that a doctor acted unlawfully in carrying out a Caesarean section on her. The NHS Trust and doctors were therefore potentially liable in tort for trespass and perhaps even guilty of criminal offences.