Contesting the Rule of Emotions? The Press and Enforced Caesareans

Abstract

The mass media are becoming increasingly interested in legal trials. This has led to concerns that legal rationality could be threatened by an emotionally driven media spectacle. The dichotomy between emotions and law has recently come to the fore in the enforced caesarean case of St George’s Healthcare NHS Trust v S[1998]. Studying the press reports on this case, my argument is that maintaining this dichotomy can produce the undesirable effect of justifying coercive medical treatment of pregnant women as an authentic, natural and spontaneous response. Emotions in this respect have to be denaturalized. Coercive surgery for pregnant women is neither a universal nor a necessary response, but one that has to be situated in its appropriate ideological, cultural and philosophical context. This requires attention to be focused on the fluidity and possible interconnections of law and emotions, and not so much on their polarity and mutual exclusion.