A Florida woman faced a harrowing experience when she was compelled to attend a virtual court hearing from her hospital bed after refusing a C-section while in labour. In September 2024, Cherise Doyley, a 35-year-old doula from Jacksonville, found herself at University of Florida Health Hospital trying to follow her birth plan for a natural delivery.
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():format(jpeg)/Cherise-Doyley-judge-zoom-call-040226-f719bee0d86f4af8a713169e83a511ed.jpg)
Doyley, who was already a mother of three, had made it clear to her medical team that her preference was to have a vaginal birth. However, due to concerns over the risks of uterine rupture, which can occur in women attempting a vaginal delivery after a previous C-section, hospital staff insisted that she should opt for a surgical procedure. While such ruptures are relatively rare—with an incidence of about 1 in 300 deliveries—they can endanger both mother and child.
Although informed of the risks, Doyley understood them to be under 2% and expressed her desire to try for a vaginal delivery first. She asserted that her previous C-sections had resulted in significant complications, including a severe haemorrhage that necessitated an extended hospital stay. Doyley also insisted that an additional surgical recovery would hamper her ability to care for her newborn and her other children.
As her labour progressed, Doyley found herself confronted with unexpected circumstances. Medical staff placed a tablet before her, explaining that she was required to attend a court hearing concerning her refusal of the C-section. Doyley later described the situation as “the craziest thing I’ve ever seen,” according to reports by ProPublica. The hearing included a judge, attorneys, doctors, and hospital personnel, yet Doyley was unrepresented by counsel during this critical time.
Judge Michael Kalil presided over the hearing, which had been instigated by a request from the hospital to gain permission for an emergency C-section for the sake of the unborn baby. Hospital staff expressed urgent concerns for the child’s welfare, which prompted the court’s involvement. During her testimony, Doyley passionately stated her desire to make her own medical choices, reflecting on her rights as both a patient and a citizen.
“I still have rights as an American citizen and as a patient that I am allowed to decide what goes on with me and my body and my baby,” she articulated during the court session. Her poignant remarks highlighted concerns over the implications of forced medical interventions. “If it’s between them choosing whether I have to live or the baby has to live, I did tell them that I want to live,” she continued, emphasising her responsibilities as a mother to her other children.
After three hours of deliberation, although the judge did not call for an immediate surgery, he ruled that the hospital could proceed with a C-section if a genuine emergency arose. Doyley’s fears materialised overnight when doctors reported a concerning drop in her baby’s heart rate, prompting a swift move to surgery. Ultimately, she delivered her daughter, Arewa, via C-section. Her newborn was subsequently admitted to the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) for monitoring.
In the wake of this experience, Doyley has voiced her deep feelings of violation and distress at having been compelled into surgery against her will. “When we use the courts to basically strong-arm, bully someone into an unnecessary medical procedure, it’s akin to torture, in my eyes,” she remarked, firmly advocating for her rights and autonomy as a patient.
The American Medical Association supports the notion that mentally competent patients retain the right to refuse medical treatment, although pregnant individuals often find themselves in a legally complex landscape wherein hospitals can seek court intervention to override a refusal, positing that the rights of the unborn must be protected. Experts have noted that such legal actions are increasingly common in the aftermath of the 2022 overturn of Roe v. Wade, with many states enacting laws that can supersede a pregnant woman’s advance directives.
Bioethics scholars have questioned the implications of such judicial actions, pointing out the unique situation in which one person’s rights may be compromised for the wellbeing of another. “There aren’t any other instances where you would invade the body of one person in order to save the life of another,” said Lois Shepherd from the University of Virginia School of Law, highlighting the ethical dilemmas posed by such cases.
These incidents are indicative of a broader conversation regarding women’s autonomy in childbirth and their rights amidst healthcare systems that may prioritise fetal welfare over maternal choice. As Doyley’s experience demonstrates, the intersection of healthcare and law can have profound implications on personal agency and the right to make informed decisions regarding one’s body.