Article Text

Download PDFPDF

Maternal request caesareans and COVID-19: the virus does not diminish the importance of choice in childbirth
  1. Elizabeth Chloe Romanis1,
  2. Anna Nelson2
  1. 1 Centre for Ethics and Law in the Life Sciences, Durham Law School, Durham University, Durham, UK
  2. 2 Centre for Social Ethics and Policy, Department of Law, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
  1. Correspondence to Elizabeth Chloe Romanis, Centre for Ethics and Law in the Life Sciences, Durham Law School, Durham University, Durham DH1 3LE, UK; elizabeth.c.romanis{at}durham.ac.uk

Abstract

It has recently been reported that some hospitals in the UK have placed a blanket restriction on the provision of maternal request caesarean sections (MRCS) as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Pregnancy and birthing services are obviously facing challenges during the current emergency, but we argue that a blanket ban on MRCS is both inappropriate and disproportionate. In this paper, we highlight the importance of MRCS for pregnant people’s health and autonomy in childbirth and argue that this remains crucial during the current emergency. We consider some potential arguments—based on pregnant people’s health and resource allocation—that might be considered justification for the limitation of such services. We demonstrate, however, that these arguments are not as persuasive as they might appear because there is limited evidence to indicate either that provision of MRCS is always dangerous for pregnant people in the circumstances or would be a substantial burden on a hospital’s ability to respond to the pandemic. Furthermore, we argue that even if MRCS was not a service that hospitals are equipped to offer to all pregnant persons who seek it, the current circumstances cannot justify a blanket ban on an important service and due attention must be paid to individual circumstances.

  • autonomy
  • feminism
  • reproductive medicine
  • right to healthcare
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Footnotes

  • Twitter @ECRomanis, @Anna_Nelson95

  • Contributors Both authors contributed equally to the conception, planning of this article and the research. ECR led the writing process and revisions.

  • Funding Elizabeth Chloe Romanis was supported at the time of writing by a Wellcome Trust Studentship in Society and Ethics (grant reference 208245/Z/17/Z).

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Patient consent for publication Not required.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Data availability statement There are no data in this work.

Other content recommended for you