Affiliation:
1. Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, Oxford, UK
2. School of Law, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland
Abstract
Currently, many women who are expecting to give birth have no option but to attempt vaginal delivery, since access to elective planned caesarean sections (PCS) in the absence of what is deemed to constitute ‘clinical need’ is variable. In this paper, we argue that PCS should be routinely offered to women who are expecting to give birth, and that the risks and benefits of PCS as compared with planned vaginal delivery should be discussed with them. Currently, discussions of elective PCS arise in the context of what are called ‘Maternal Request Caesarean Sections’ (MRCS) and there is a good deal of support for the position that women who request PCS without clinical indication should be provided with them. Our argument goes further than support for acceding to requests for MRCS: we submit that healthcare practitioners caring for women with uncomplicated pregnancies have a positive duty to inform them of the option of PCS as opposed to assuming vaginal delivery as a default, and to provide (or arrange for the provision of) PCS if that is the woman's preferred manner of delivery.
Funder
Arts and Humanities Research Council
Wellcome Trust
Subject
Philosophy,Issues, ethics and legal aspects,Medicine (miscellaneous)
Reference43 articles.
1. NICE. NICE guidance caesarean birth. 2021.
2. Birthrights. Maternal request caesarean. 2018.
3. Obstetricians say yes to maternal request for elective caesarean section: a survey of current opinion
4. No. 361-Caesarean Delivery on Maternal Request
5. RANZCOG. Caesarean Delivery on Maternal Request (CDMR), RANZCOG East Melbourne, Australia. 2017.
Cited by
4 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献