Talk:In re A.C.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Msjohn15. Peer reviewers: Zoejerome.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Type of Cancer?

"At age thirteen, Angela Stoner was diagnosed with a rare and usually fatal form of cancer." Do we know what type? -Fsotrain⁰⁹ 00:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC) Article now names type of cancer, but has no source. I can't find anything to corroborate. Msjohn15 (talk) 01:13, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

New bibliography

Some neutral and credible sources that can be used to cite the information presented in "The Facts". Bourke, Leon (1990). "In re A.C.". Issues in Law & Medicine. 6: 299–305 – via EBSCOhost.; Michalowski, Sabine (1999). "Court-Authorised Caesarean Sections - The End of a Trend [case]". Modern Law Review. 62: 115–127 – via HeinOnline.; Plomer, Aurora (1997). "Judicially Enforced Caesareans and the Sanctity of Life [article]". Anglo-American Law Review. 26: 235–270 – via HeinOnline.; Feitshans, Ilise (1995). "Legislating to Preserve Women's Autonomy during Pregnancy [article]". Medicine and Law. 14: 397–412 – via HeinOnline. Msjohn15 (talk) 03:06, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Link doesn't work

Can this article be renamed or the URL changed? Unfortunately, I don't know how to do either of these things.

When a link to this article is made by copy/pasting the URL, it doesn't work. Clicking the link or pasting the URL results in this error message: "The article that you're looking for doesn't exist."

I believe this may be due to the periods in the URL.

Can someone fix this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfcameron (talk • contribs) 18:51, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Rmee13 (talk) 22:58, 25 February 2023 (UTC) Information getting added to "Background";

- A.C.'s initial checkup was at week 25
- The fetus, at the time the case had began, was 26 and a half weeks old
- Dr. Louis Hamner, one of A.C.'s obstetricians, disclosed would not intervene with baby until week 28 
- Dr. Maureen Edwards, neonatologist giving a second opinion, stated 'chances of survival for a twenty-six- 
week fetus delivered at the hospital might be as high as eighty percent, but that this particular fetus, 
because of the mother's medical history, had only a fifty to sixty percent chance of survival'
- After reviewing A.C.'s medical history, Dr. Edwards estimated that at week 26.5, the fetus would have less 
than a 20% chance of survival 

Rmee13 (talk) 22:58, 25 February 2023 (UTC) Information getting added to "Initial Hearing and Procedure";

- Dr. Hamner stated that A.C. agreed to give consent, later discouraged court from moving hearing to A.C.'s  
bedside 
- Dr. Alan Weingold, another one of A.C.'s treating obstetricians, stated that A.C. was not able to give 
informed consent 
- Dr. Hamner stated that 'A.C. was much more alert' and that 'sedation worn off for A.C. to wake up to this 
state', Hamner thought reducing her medication to get consent would not be reasonable. Hamner believed that 
he had support from other doctors and nurses that were in agreeance to his testimony 
- Dr. Weingold said that A.C. was not in an environment to agree and give consent because she was in a 
hospital and had her family around, which at the time were extremely emotional. Weingold thought A.C. was 
reactive but through attempts to reduce sedatives to get consent, that would shorten her chances of survival 
- Weingold heard [A.C] mouth the words 'I don't want it, I don't want it'. Weingold believed that was clear 
and evident that she did not want to have the cesarean section. 
- Weingold argued that no consent couldn't have been given because of environment and intensive care 
- Arguably believed nobody give consent in an environment induced by sedation, pain, and family members
- Parens patriae [the parents role] protects citizens who cannot protect themselves; a fetus is unable to 
indicate choice; political authority
- Court appointed counsel for A.C. and fetus, wanted to represent interest of fetus - right to life - 
interest of society - Dr. Weingold stated that delaying cesarean risked fetus survival. Autonomy impossible 
for fetus, court takes action against potential maternal harm - presents question of whose 
autonomy is more important; fetus is a nonperson under federal law
- Amicus curiae [friend of the court]; Referencing one who is not committed to a certain party, but rather 
has a primary focus on the strongest interest of matter between the court
- Court ordered c-section; abridge the trust between pregnant woman and their physicians, preventing healthy 
communication rather than protecting the health both the woman and the fetus. Communication without the fear 
of appraisal or coercion of treatment 
- Under Common Law, in the constitution, has the ability to accept and/or refuse medical treatment under any 
circumstances (religious or personal), due to the right of bodily autonomy and integrity, equally for both 
of those who are competent or not 

Rmee13 (talk) 22:58, 25 February 2023 (UTC) Information getting added to "Appeal Proceedings";

- substitute of judgment; A.C. cannot make informed decision, court steps in to make decision - makes it on 
behalf of patient who is incompetent
- "[W]ithout a competent refusal from A.C to go forward with the surgery, and without a finding through 
substituted judgment that A.C. would not have consented to the surgery, it was error for the trial court to 
proceed to a balancing analysis, weighing the rights of A.C. against the interests of the state" 

Rmee13 (talk) 22:58, 25 February 2023 (UTC) Information getting added to, new subtitle, "Reference Cases";

- McFall v. Shimp

The courts sided with Shimp and his decision of refusal to donate the bone marrow needed for McFall’s survival The Common Law is enacted, a consistency rule that ensures no human being can give aid, or take action to save another human being under the compulsion of legal or governmental authority Jefferson v. Griffin Spalding County Hospital Authority, supra The order of a cesarean section to be performed on a woman during her 39th week of of pregnancy in efforts to save the mother and fetus https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6638020/ Roe v. Wade (potential life) State’s interest in potential human life becomes compelling at the point of viability; though recognised a woman’s right to privacy State has an “important and legitimate interest in protecting the potentiality of human life” Around third trimester, state’s interest becomes compelling to justify what otherwise would be “unduly burdensome state interference with woman’s constitutionally protected against private interest” The court’s decision balanced state interest with the right to privacy of women. https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/can-court-protect-fetus-maternal-harm/2003-05 Religious Cases: Raleigh Fitkin-Paul Morgan Memorial Hospital v. Anderson One cannot order blood transfusions over the objection of a Jehovah’s Witness, despite the woman being in her 32nd week of pregnancy in necessity to save both her, and the fetus In re Jamaica Hospital- Supreme Court 1985 The ordering of a blood transfusion to a Jehovah’s Witness 18 weeks pregnant despite her objections on religious grounds. The State found the not-yet-viable fetus’s interest to outweigh the mothers Crouse Irving Memorial Hospital, Inc. v. Paddock- Supreme Court 1985 The ordering of transfusion over religious objection to save mother’s life and enabled a prematurely delivered fetus “The state has a vital interest in the welfare of children,” which overrides even the parents’ religious beliefs and wants. https://casetext.com/case/crouse-irving-hosp-v-paddock Amicus curiae (friend of the court): Referencing one who is not committed to a certain party, but rather has a primary focus on the strongest interest of matter between the court (https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/amicus_curiae) Court-ordered cesareans abrade the trust between pregnant women and their physicians, preventing healthy communication rather than protecting the health of both the women and fetus. Communication without the fear of reprisal or coercion of treatment If everyone, under Common Law and the Constitution, has the ability to accept and/or refuse medical treatment, under any circumstances (religious, or personal) due to the right of bodily autonomy and integrity, equally for both those who are competent and those who are not.