Editing Caesarean section (section)

==Society and culture==

===Court cases===
''[[In re A.C.]]'', 573 [[Atlantic Reporter|A.2d]] 1235 (1990), was a [[District of Columbia Court of Appeals]] case. It was the first American appellate court case decided against a forced Caesarean section, although the decision was issued after the fatal procedure was performed.<ref name=":Carder2">{{Cite journal|last=Feitshans|first=Ilise|year=1995|title=Legislating to Preserve Women's Autonomy during Pregnancy|journal=Medicine and Law|volume=14|issue=5–6 |pages=397–412|pmid=8868499 |via=HeinOnline}}</ref> Physicians performed a Caesarean section upon patient Angela Carder (née Stoner) without informed consent in an unsuccessful attempt to save the life of her baby.<ref name="Carder:0">{{Cite journal|last=Bourke|first=Leon|year=1990|title=In re A.C.|journal=Issues in Law & Medicine|volume=6|pages=299–305|via=EBSCOhost}}</ref>  The case stands as a landmark in United States [[case law]] establishing the [[pregnant patients' rights in the United States|rights]] of informed consent and bodily integrity for pregnant women.

In Illinois, ''In re Baby Boy Doe'', 632 N.E.2d 326 (Ill. App. Ct. 1994) was a court case holding that courts may not balance whatever rights a fetus may have against the rights of a competent woman, whose choice to refuse medical treatment as invasive as a Cesarean section must be honored even if the choice may be harmful to the fetus.

''[[Pemberton v. Tallahassee Memorial Regional Center]]'', 66 F. Supp. 2d 1247 (N.D. Fla. 1999), is a case in the [[United States]] regarding [[reproductive rights]]. Pemberton had a previous Caesarean section (vertical incision), and with her second child attempted to have a [[VBAC]] (vaginal birth after c-section).<ref name=":Pemberton0">{{Cite web |title=Pemberton v. TALLAHASSEE MEMORIAL REGIONAL MEDICAL, 66 F. Supp. 2d 1247 (N.D. Fla. 1999) |url=https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/66/1247/2489193/ |access-date=2023-03-02 |website=Justia Law |language=en}}</ref> When a doctor she had approached about a related issue at the [[Tallahassee Memorial HealthCare|Tallahassee Memorial Regional Center]] found out, he and the hospital sued to force her to get a c-section. The court held that the rights of the fetus at or near birth outweighed the rights of Pemberton to determine her own medical care.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Kaplan |first=Margot |date=2010 |title="A Special Class of Persons": Pregnant Women's Right to Refuse Medical Treatment after Gonzalez v. Carhart |url=https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1070&context=jcl |journal=Journal of Constitutional Law |volume=13 |via=Penn Law Legal Scholarship Repository}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Pratt |first=Lisa |date=2013–2014 |title=Access to Vaginal Birth after Cesarean Section: Restrictive Policies and the Chilling of Women's Medical Rights During Childbirth |url=https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1371&context=wmjowl |journal=William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice |volume=20 |pages=119}}</ref> She was physically forced to stop laboring, and taken to the hospital, where a c-section was performed.<ref name=":Pemberton0" /> Her suit against the hospital was dismissed.<ref name=":Pemberton0" />  The court held that a cesarean section at the end of a full-term pregnancy was here deemed to be medically necessary by doctors to avoid a substantial risk that the fetus would die during delivery due to uterine rupture, a risk of 4–6% according to the hospital's doctors and 2% according to Pemberton's doctors. Furthermore, the court held that a state's interest in preserving the life of an unborn child outweighed the mother's constitutional interest in bodily integrity.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=U.S. District Court, N.D. Florida, Tallahassee Division |date=1999 |title=Pemberton v. Tallahassee Memorial Regional Center |url=https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11868571/ |journal=West's Federal Supplement |volume=66 |pages=1247–1257 |issn=1047-7306 |pmid=11868571}}</ref> The court held that ''[[Roe v. Wade]]'' was not applicable, because bearing an unwanted child is a greater intrusion on the mother's constitutional interests than undergoing a cesarean section to deliver a child that the mother affirmatively desires to deliver. The court further distinguished ''[[In re A.C.]]'' by stating that it left open the possibility that a non-consenting patient's interest would yield to a more compelling countervailing interest in an "extremely rare and truly exceptional case." The court then held this case to be such.<ref name=":Pemberton0" /><ref>{{Cite book |last=Roth |first=Louise |title=The Business of Birth: Malpractice and Maternity Care in the United States |date=2021 |publisher=New York University Press |location=New York |pages=189–213}}</ref>

===Presence of father===
{{See also|Men's role in childbirth}}
In many hospitals, the mother's partner is encouraged to attend the surgery to support her and share the experience.<ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Hugill K, Kemp I, Kingdon C | title = Fathers' presence at caesarean section with general anaesthetic: evidence and debate | journal = The Practising Midwife | volume = 18 | issue = 4 | pages = 19–22 | date = April 2015 | pmid = 26328461 }}</ref> While traditionally there has been an opaque surgical drape obstructing the parents' view, some patients and doctors are opting for a "gentle C-section" using a clear drape, allowing the parents to watch the delivery and see their infant immediately.<ref>{{Cite web |title='Gentle C-sections': Bringing a traditional birth experience to the OR {{!}} Your Pregnancy Matters {{!}} UT Southwestern Medical Center |url=http://utswmed.org/medblog/gentle-c-section/ |access-date=2023-07-13 |website=utswmed.org |language=en-us}}</ref>

===Special cases===
In [[Judaism]], there is a dispute among the ''[[poskim]]'' (Rabbinic authorities) as to whether the first-born son from a caesarean section has the laws of a ''[[bechor]]''.<ref>See Chok Yaakov 470:2; Kaf ha-Chayim 470:3; {{cite web |url=http://www.torah.org/advanced/weekly-halacha/5758/pesach.html |title=Weekly-Halacha, Pesach 5758 - Torah.org |access-date=28 July 2010 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100818005722/http://www.torah.org/advanced/weekly-halacha/5758/pesach.html |archive-date=18 August 2010  }}</ref> Traditionally, a male child delivered by caesarean is not eligible for the ''[[Pidyon HaBen]]'' dedication ritual.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://judaism.about.com/od/lifeevents/g/pidyonhaben.htm |title=Pidyon HaBen&nbsp;— Definition of Pidyon HaBen (Redemption of the Firstborn) |publisher=Judaism.about.com |date=19 October 2012 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111019184726/http://judaism.about.com/od/lifeevents/g/pidyonhaben.htm |archive-date=19 October 2011 |access-date=15 August 2011 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.cohen-levi.org/the_cohens_heritage/pidyon_ha_ben.htm |title=Kohanim forever from the sources, who is a cohen, the blessing of the Cohanim,. Mitvah of the cohen, Halacha, Temple service groups, pidyon—redemption of the firstborn |publisher=Cohen-levi.org |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110818124425/http://www.cohen-levi.org/the_cohens_heritage/pidyon_ha_ben.htm |archive-date=18 August 2011 |access-date=15 August 2011 }}</ref>

In rare cases, caesarean sections can be used to remove a dead [[fetus]]; otherwise, the woman has to labour and deliver a baby known to be a [[stillbirth]]. A [[late-term abortion]] using caesarean section procedures is termed a [[hysterotomy abortion]] and is very rarely performed.<ref name="Medscape Abortion">{{cite web| vauthors = Casey FE, Spandorfer SD | date = 25 January 2022 | veditors = Rivlin ME  |title=Elective Abortion|url=http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/252560-overview|website=Medscape|access-date=18 March 2016|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20041214092044/http://www.emedicine.com/MED/topic3311.htm|archive-date=14 December 2004}}</ref>

The mother may perform [[self-inflicted caesarean section|a caesarean section on herself]]; there have been successful cases, such as Inés Ramírez Pérez of Mexico who, on 5 March 2000, took this action. She survived, as did her son, Orlando Ruiz Ramírez.<ref name="smh">{{cite news|url=https://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/06/01/1086037758224.html|title=True grit: the mum who delivered her own baby|newspaper=The Sydney Morning Herald|date=1 June 2004|access-date=4 November 2010|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100718021023/http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/06/01/1086037758224.html|archive-date=18 July 2010}}</ref><ref name="Molina-Sosa_2004">{{cite journal | vauthors = Molina-Sosa A, Galvan-Espinosa H, Gabriel-Guzman J, Valle RF | title = Self-inflicted cesarean section with maternal and fetal survival | journal = International Journal of Gynaecology and Obstetrics | volume = 84 | issue = 3 | pages = 287–290 | date = March 2004 | pmid = 15001385 | doi = 10.1016/j.ijgo.2003.08.018 | s2cid = 38220990 }}</ref><ref name="pmid24318749">{{cite journal | vauthors = Szabó A, Brockington I | title = Auto-Caesarean section: a review of 22 cases | journal = Archives of Women's Mental Health | volume = 17 | issue = 1 | pages = 79–83 | date = February 2014 | pmid = 24318749 | doi = 10.1007/s00737-013-0398-z | s2cid = 10641064 }}</ref>

In 2024, a female [[western lowland gorilla]] had a successful cesarean section after zoo veterinarians diagnosed her with [[pre-eclampsia]]. The premature gorilla infant survived, as a result of similar methods used with human infants.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Yousef |first1=Nadine |title=Texas zoo delivers baby gorilla via caesarean section |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68313089 |website=BBC News |date=17 February 2024 |access-date=18 February 2024}}</ref>