Court Opinion

ID: 9731449
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 15:46:01.802116+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:18.213108
License: Public Domain

PAPADAKOS, Justice,
concurring and dissenting.
I dissent from the majority’s resolution of the informed consent issue. Their decision on this point defies both logic and common sense.
Once a baby is conceived, childbirth is a process that progresses according to biological rules. It is, of course, true that a woman cannot remain pregnant forever and that the phenomenon of childbirth is not pathological. Nonetheless, childbirth is analogous to injury or illness which also often progress in a natural and predictable fashion. Medical intervention is frequently beneficial in cases of injury or illness just as it is in some cases of childbirth that have become problematic. It is the medical intervention itself that constitutes the procedure that a patient must give informed consent to, however, not the underlying physical condition. On this basis, it is absurd to claim that the use of forceps is part of the natural delivery process. It is not. It is a specific form of drastic medical intervention in the process and informed consent should be required just as it is for a caesarian. Use of forceps is an invasive procedure. It is well known that forceps can cause serious injury to, or serious disfiguration of, the child. A prospective mother could reasonably choose to avoid the use of forceps for the sake of the child’s safety and elect to proceed directly to a caesarian if serious problems develop. She should have the right to choose. Because the majority takes away that right, I vigorously dissent. ^
On the second issue decided by the majority, I concur in remanding the matter to the trial court for proper instruction of the jury on the “two schools of thought” doctrine.