Citation

Burgart A, Sutton C. Am. J. Bioeth. 2024; 24(2): 4-7.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2024, MIT Press)

DOI

10.1080/15265161.2024.2299629

PMID

38295250

Abstract

Once anesthetized, patients are inherently “compliant” with surgical interventions because they can no longer intervene on their own behalf. In their target article, Minkoff et al. (Citation2024) reasonably predict that the loss of a legal right to abortion will likely lead to patients’ loss of the right to refuse surgical interventions during pregnancy, including forced/coerced cesarean sections. Despite having no indication that they lack decision-making capacity (other than disagreeing with their medical team), women declining obstetric procedures have been threatened with reports to child protective services, had their decisional capacity questioned or ignored, and their objections overridden by physicians, hospital administrators, and courts. Most forced surgeries necessarily involve forced/coerced chemical restraint with anesthesia, lest patients be subjected to surgery without anesthesia. Such forced interventions are entirely counter to the principles of reproductive justice (Ejiogu Citation2021).

The authors state, “Once a decisionally-capable pregnant person has refused an obstetrical intervention, the provider’s role is to ensure that the decision is honored.” All people who work in operating rooms must develop a robust surgical conscience and protect patients from harm (Angelos Citation2019; Quintana Citation2022). Here, we specifically address the unique power of anesthesia professionals (anesthesiologists, nurse anesthetists, anesthesia assistants, and their respective trainees) to elevate patient autonomy and prevent forced surgical interventions if faced with a surgical team intent on providing forced surgical interventions. Our role in administering consciousness—, movement—, and sensation-altering medications places us in a unique position to prevent and mitigate obstetric violence. ...

Language: en