The doctor will judge whether the childbirth process will be safe based on experience or the experience of predecessors. If it is not safe, the doctor can only tell the pregnant woman's husband and let him make a choice. The following is the query information.
Life is above all else
Associate professor Mou Ruijin of Northeastern University School of Liberal Arts believes that when the mother’s right to life conflicts with the fetus’ right to birth, the right to life is above all else, and the right to life is It is also inviolable. my country's modern civil law theory believes that the right to life is the most precious personality right of natural persons and is the basis of all civil rights. In our country's current civil law regulations, the birth certificate is generally used as the standard for determining human life. Only those who meet this standard have legal personality. Therefore, from a legal perspective, the unborn fetus is not a legal "person." Although some Western countries advocate that the right to life begins when the fetus is formed, abortion is strictly prohibited because abortion is tantamount to murder. However, in our country's legal principles and concepts, there is no controversy about birth. Therefore, when a mother is in crisis, the life of the mother should be considered as a matter of course. The fetus can only work hard if the mother is safe. Strictly speaking, as long as the mother is given up when there is still a chance of rescue, it is an act of illegally depriving the mother of her right to life. Therefore, when the mother and the fetus cannot be preserved at the same time, the fetus' right to birth cannot be compared with the mother's right to life. In this case, all that should be done is to protect the mother's right to life. From a purely subjective perspective, the mother is a human being, but the fetus is not a person in the legal sense.
The husband has no right to choose
Mu Ruijin believes that for her husband, he has no right to choose. Although reproductive rights are exclusive to both husband and wife, the wife's life is more important than reproductive rights. If the husband chooses to have a fetus, objectively it is very likely that he will deprive his wife of her life. Therefore, once the husband chooses the fetus, he violates our country's criminal law. Therefore, the husband's signature on the hospital's opinion letter has no legal significance. It definitely does not constitute a reason for doctors to give up the best possible rescue of the mother. If the husband chooses to keep the child and the doctor acts accordingly, resulting in the mother's death after losing the maximum chance of rescue, the husband and the attending doctor should be held accountable.
The right to life is a person’s most basic right. At the same time, it is also the natural human right with the strongest human nature. Rights of a personal nature generally do not allow agency in law. Everyone has the freedom to dispose of their own life and body, including the freedom to give up. We cannot interfere in other people's affairs without their authorization (unless it constitutes uncaused management). Therefore, a husband will never automatically enjoy this right of choice just because he is married. Marriage does not attach the wife's right to life to the husband, and the husband cannot make this choice in his own name. A person can only have the right to dispose of what he owns. If a husband makes decisions in his own name, it is equivalent to treating his wife as his own private property. The reason why there are such absurd choices in reality is actually due to such a deep-rooted old concept.
Marriage only creates certain identity and property relationships between the husband and wife, and creates certain legal rights and obligations, such as cohabitation and mutual assistance, but it does not grant the husband the right to dispose of his wife's life. Since the husband does not have the right to dispose of his wife's life, if the mother and fetus cannot be preserved at the same time, the hospital does not need to seek the husband's opinion because the latter has no right to dispose of his wife's life and agrees to give priority to preserving the fetus. The behavior does not have the legal effect of excluding the hospital's legal liability.
The collision between the right to life and the right to be born
Mu Ruijin believes that this choice is actually a collision between the mother’s right to life and the fetus’ right to be born. It is undeniable that the mother's right to life is above all else, but there are exceptions. Under certain circumstances, the husband and the hospital may also make a choice to preserve the fetus. However, the prerequisite for choosing the fetus is that the pregnant woman has no possibility of survival or the possibility is very slim. This shows that in difficult labor or other situations where mother and fetus cannot be preserved at the same time, under certain circumstances, the fetus can be preserved first. This should be decided by the doctor based on the actual situation.
Under normal circumstances, there are not many such examples, and mothers will not give up their right to life easily. The person who has more say than her husband and doctors is the pregnant woman herself. my country's "Law on the Protection of Women's Rights and Interests" stipulates: "Women have the right to have children in accordance with state regulations, and also have the freedom not to have children." Women have the right to decide whether to have children according to their own wishes, and are not forced by their husbands or other third parties. ,put one's oar in. Based on this, it is suggested that the hospital can establish such a complete system to allow pregnant women to choose from various possible situations before delivery (that is, before the risk of dystocia occurs), and make independent decisions about whether to save the fetus or themselves, and use the legal documents to The form is determined.
At the same time, the mother herself can also make a choice to preserve the fetus, but it must be a choice made by the mother herself without any external influence, and must be supported by sufficient evidence.
On this issue, our reporter also interviewed staff from relevant hospitals. According to hospital staff, when a mother has a difficult delivery and her life is endangered, it is difficult for anyone to make a choice, including the mother herself. For a long time, hospitals have formed a common practice of giving this right of choice to the mother's family members, such as the mother's husband. This is also a manifestation of the full exercise of the patient and the patient's family members' right to informed consent.