
                         Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: FRIDAY, April 27, 1990                   TAG: 9004270404
SECTION: NATIONAL/INTERNATIONAL                    PAGE: A2   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: The New York Times
DATELINE: WASHINGTON                                LENGTH: Medium

RULING PROHIBITS FORCING OF BIRTHS TO SAVE FETUSES

An appeals court here ruled Thursday that a pregnant woman, even one who is terminally ill and whose fetus is probably viable, may not be forced to undergo a Caesarean delivery in an effort to save the fetus.

The 7-to-1 ruling by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals came in a case that drew national attention three years ago, when a judge ordered a Caesarean section to be performed on a woman who was dying of cancer. Both the woman, who was in the 26th week of pregnancy, and her baby died.

The woman's parents appealed the order on the ground that their daughter had not consented to the operation and that the surgery had violated her right to bodily integrity.

The case emerged at the center of growing national debate over how courts should balance the rights of pregnant women and the interests of fetuses. The question has been posed in several contexts, including what approach courts should take toward women whose use of narcotics or alcohol threatens to harm the fetus.

In his majority opinion, Judge John A. Terry noted that courts have uniformly refused to require people to donate organs or undergo other forms of "significant intrusion" for the medical benefit of others.

"A fetus cannot have rights in this respect superior to those of a person who has already been born," Terry said.

While the ruling Thursday is binding only in the District of Columbia, it is expected to have broader ramifications as the first appellate decision in the United States to address any version of this issue on the basis of full briefing and arguments.

There have been several dozen reported cases in which women with serious illnesses or complications of pregnancy have been required to undergo Caesarean operations.

More than 100 individuals and organizations, including the American Medical Association and many women's and religious groups, filed briefs on behalf of the family.

The Court of Appeals, a local court that is the equivalent of a state supreme court for the District of Columbia, based its decision on what it identified as both common law and constitutional principles that safeguard individuals against unwanted medical treatment.

Vincent C. Burke III, a lawyer for the hospital, said there were no plans to appeal the decision.

The woman's own doctors had opposed operating, but George Washington University Hospital, asserting that it feared potential legal liability if no effort was made to save a potentially viable fetus, sought a judicial ruling.

The woman was heavily sedated and did not attend the hearing. She gave contradictory answers to doctors at her bedside who asked her what she wanted to do.

by CNB