The sentence declares that the medical decision was necessary to preserve the life of the baby, who was born by urgent caesarean section
The plenary session of the Constitutional Court has endorsed the hospital admission of a pregnant woman who wanted to give birth at homeunderstanding that this decision did not violate their rights to equality, physical and moral integrity, ideological freedom and privacy personal and family The sentence, however, has had the particular votes of the vice president of the guarantee body, Immaculate Montalbanand the magistrate Maria Luisa Balaguer.
The case studied by the court was elevated to the plenary a little over a year ago. The woman appealed the action of the Health Service of the Principality of Asturias to enter it in the Central University Hospital of Asturias (HUCA) between on April 25, 2019 until his discharge, after the birth of his daughter by caesarean section on April 26, 2019. The sentence, for which the magistrate Concepcion Espejeldeclares that the continued fetal surveillance that the doctors recommended and led to hospital admission was necessary to preserve the life and health of the unborn.
No violation of rights
It also considers that the medical actions, which led to an urgent caesarean section, were necessary as it was a high-risk pregnancy that had already occurred. past week 42 of gestationwith the consequent danger of fetal hypoxia and intrauterine death that existed. Although the woman resisted giving birth in the hospital, her right to autonomy as a patient and her informed consent were not limited, the sentence declares.
The sentence concludes that the actions of the Health Service of the Principality of Asturias, carried out through the HUCA, have not constituted unfavorable discriminatory treatment of the appellant for reasons of sex nor has he deprived her of right to self-determination as a patient and the right to informed consent.
The vice president of the Constitutional Court disagrees with the majority of the plenary, because she understands that the medical action on the pregnant woman, who had been admitted against her will, did violate her right to patient autonomy and to consent freely, informed and consciously.