A Violent Birth: Reframing Coerced Procedures During Childbirth as Obstetric Violence.

IF 1.8 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW
Duke Law Journal Pub Date : 2018-01-01
Maria TR Borges
{"title":"A Violent Birth: Reframing Coerced Procedures During Childbirth as Obstetric Violence.","authors":"Maria TR Borges","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In the United States, women are routinely forced to undergo cesarean sections, episiotomies, and the use of forceps, despite their desire to attempt natural vaginal delivery. Yet, the current American legal system does little to provide redress for women coerced to undergo certain medical procedures during childbirth. Courts and physicians alike are prepared to override a woman's choice of childbirth procedure if they believe this choice poses risks to the fetus, and both give little value to the woman's right to bodily autonomy. This Note proposes a solution for addressing the problem of coerced medical procedures during childbirth by importing a framework created in Venezuela and Argentina that characterizes this issue as \"obstetric violence.\" First, this Note contains an overview of the shortcomings of the existing American legal framework to address the problem. Second, it explains the advantages of the obstetric violence framework and argues that its adoption in the United States would address many of the failures of the existing system. And third, this Note introduces a few legislative and litigation strategies that can be used to implement this framework in the United States and briefly addresses some of the challenges these strategies may pose.</p>","PeriodicalId":47625,"journal":{"name":"Duke Law Journal","volume":"67 4","pages":"827-62"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2018-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Duke Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In the United States, women are routinely forced to undergo cesarean sections, episiotomies, and the use of forceps, despite their desire to attempt natural vaginal delivery. Yet, the current American legal system does little to provide redress for women coerced to undergo certain medical procedures during childbirth. Courts and physicians alike are prepared to override a woman's choice of childbirth procedure if they believe this choice poses risks to the fetus, and both give little value to the woman's right to bodily autonomy. This Note proposes a solution for addressing the problem of coerced medical procedures during childbirth by importing a framework created in Venezuela and Argentina that characterizes this issue as "obstetric violence." First, this Note contains an overview of the shortcomings of the existing American legal framework to address the problem. Second, it explains the advantages of the obstetric violence framework and argues that its adoption in the United States would address many of the failures of the existing system. And third, this Note introduces a few legislative and litigation strategies that can be used to implement this framework in the United States and briefly addresses some of the challenges these strategies may pose.

暴力分娩:将分娩过程中的强迫程序重新定义为产科暴力。
在美国,尽管妇女希望自然阴道分娩,但她们通常被迫接受剖宫产、外阴切开术和使用产钳。然而,目前的美国法律体系几乎没有为在分娩过程中被迫接受某些医疗程序的妇女提供赔偿。如果法院和医生认为妇女选择的分娩程序对胎儿有风险,他们都准备推翻妇女选择的分娩程序,而且两者都不重视妇女的身体自主权。本说明提出了一种解决办法,通过引进委内瑞拉和阿根廷创建的框架,将这一问题定性为"产科暴力",来解决分娩期间的强迫医疗程序问题。首先,本说明概述了解决这一问题的现行美国法律框架的缺点。其次,它解释了产科暴力框架的优势,并认为在美国采用该框架将解决现有体系的许多缺陷。第三,本说明介绍了一些可用于在美国实施这一框架的立法和诉讼策略,并简要介绍了这些策略可能带来的一些挑战。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The first issue of what was to become the Duke Law Journal was published in March 1951 as the Duke Bar Journal. Created to provide a medium for student expression, the Duke Bar Journal consisted entirely of student-written and student-edited work until 1953, when it began publishing faculty contributions. To reflect the inclusion of faculty scholarship, the Duke Bar Journal became the Duke Law Journal in 1957. In 1969, the Journal published its inaugural Administrative Law Symposium issue, a tradition that continues today. Volume 1 of the Duke Bar Journal spanned two issues and 259 pages. In 1959, the Journal grew to four issues and 649 pages, growing again in 1970 to six issues and 1263 pages. Today, the Duke Law Journal publishes eight issues per volume. Our staff is committed to the purpose set forth in our constitution: to publish legal writing of superior quality. We seek to publish a collection of outstanding scholarship from established legal writers, up-and-coming authors, and our own student editors.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信