Wade Katherine
Wellcome Trust Post-Doctoral Research Associate, Centre of Medical Law and Ethics, Dickson Poon School of Law, King's College London, Strand WC2R 2LS, London, UK.
Med Law Rev. 2017 Aug 1;25(3):494-504. doi: 10.1093/medlaw/fwx007.
In the Irish High Court case of Health Service Executive v B, it was held that a competent woman could not be forced to have a caesarean section against her will notwithstanding the fact that her refusal increased the risk of injury and death to both her and her unborn child.1 This case is of particular interest since it is the first reported case on caesarean section refusal in Ireland. This commentary provides a critical analysis of the judgment, focusing on aspects of the law on informed consent and the way in which the judge reached the conclusion that an order for an enforced caesarean section should not be made. It is argued that, while the outcome can be justified, the reasoning appears at times to be unpersuasive.
在爱尔兰高等法院审理的“卫生服务执行局诉B案”中，法院裁定，尽管有能力自行决定的女性拒绝剖腹产会增加其自身及未出生胎儿受伤和死亡的风险，但不能违背其意愿强迫她进行剖腹产。1 此案尤为引人关注，因为它是爱尔兰首例关于拒绝剖腹产的报道案例。本评论对该判决进行了批判性分析，重点关注知情同意方面的法律以及法官得出不应下达强制剖腹产命令这一结论的方式。有人认为，虽然判决结果有其合理性，但推理过程有时似乎缺乏说服力。
