Answer

Maternity Health Outcomes

Angela Carder was 28 years old and married, and about twenty-six weeks pregnant. She had lived with cancer right from when she was 13 years of age when she was diagnosed with cancer. The pregnancy was planned and she had been on remission for about 2 years before she got pregnant. She was determined to give birth to her child. She was in good health during her early pregnancy period until the 25^th week of pregnancy when she was diagnosed of a tumor in her lung at George Washington University Hospital (Center for Practical Bioethics (CPB), 2021).

            The physicians in the Hospital established she had terminal cancer and was to die in a few weeks. At about 0400hrs on Jun 15, 1987, she was informed that she was likely to die much sooner than earlier predicted. She accepted to get treatment to get her beyond 28 weeks of pregnancy since her fetus had a better chance of surviving then. However, she stressed that her comfort and care should be of primary concern. Angela’s mother, her husband, and the physician agreed to keep her comfortable as much as possible as she died (CPB, 2021).

            On the morning of June 15, 1987, the outside counsel for the Hospital asked a judge to visit the hospital to help in making of a decision on what to do considering Angela’s wellbeing and that of the fetus. A hearing was then arranged at the University Hospital that comprised of the Hospital’s legal counsel, Angela and her fetus. The legal team focused on the fetus in complete disregard of Angela’s wishes. Angela’s best interests were not honored or protected. The judge ruled that since Angela was to die in about 24hrs to 48hrs, the fetus’s opportunity to live must be respected. The judge directed for a cesarean-section to be conducted (CPB, 2021).

            The physician who was to conduct the cesarean-section talked with Angela about the decision made by the judge and informed her that a cesarean section was to be done. The doctor was persistent to inform her that a cesarean section could not have been done without her informed consent. Angela put clearly in her speech that she did not want to have a cesarean section to be done on her. The judge was informed about Angela’s refusal to give informed consent. However, the judge was stuck on his earlier decision. An appeal was filed but was finally rejected by the same judge. As a result, the cesarean-section was conducted and the non-viable fetus died about 2 hours later while Angela died 2 days later (CPB, 2021). Angela’s acceptance to receive treatment to increase her chance of getting her fetus up to 28 weeks of pregnancy should have been honored. Besides, she had a right to refuse to give informed consent and that should have been honored by anyone including the judge. It was ethically wrong to perform a cesarean section against her will (Biros, 2018). The Judge’s decision to focus on the fetus and disregard Angela’s wishes led to loss of both the fetus and Angela.