She Refused a C-Section Mid-Labor, Ends Up in Court

In the middle of labor, Cherise Doyley learned she wasn't just a patient—she was effectively a defendant. Amy Yurkanin of ProPublica reports that after the Jacksonville woman declined to consent to a C-section, a nursing supervisor brought in a computer tablet and informed a stunned Doyley that she was now in virtual court. During the ensuing proceeding, doctors told Judge Michael Kalil that they considered a vaginal birth too risky. Doyley responded that she understood the risk to be extremely low and that previous C-sections had left her with difficult recoveries. After a two-hour hearing, the judge did not order an emergency C-section but gave the hospital permission to perform one should an emergency arise.

Later that night, the hospital did indeed perform a C-section after it said the baby's heart rate dropped. The University of Florida Health in Jacksonville declined to comment for the story. ProPublica situates Doyley's case, and that of another Florida woman, in a broader trend of fetal "personhood" policies and court-ordered medical care during pregnancy. Yurkanin, the reporter, adds a personal view to the story: "Watching her argue her case from her hospital bed shocked me," she writes. "Even though courts have found time and time again that you can't force someone to undergo medical treatment—even if it could save someone else's life—the video underscored for me how pregnant women are the rare exception." Read the full story.