In re A.C. Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained скачать в хорошем качестве

In re A.C. Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained

Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 35,900 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 984 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o... In re A.C. | 573 A.2d 1235 (1990) A young woman was dying of cancer and unconscious. She was also twenty-six and a half weeks pregnant. Racing against the clock, the hospital asked the court for permission to perform a c-section. The court was still struggling with this decision and its implications for bodily integrity three years later in the appeal In re A. C. A. C. had been treated for leukemia since she was a child, but her cancer was in remission when she got married at twenty-seven. She wanted to have a baby right away. When A. C. was twenty-five weeks pregnant, her doctor discovered a tumor in her lung. She was admitted to the hospital with a terminal prognosis. The doctors believed the fetus’s chances of viability would improve by reaching twenty-eight weeks of gestation. A week later, A. C.’s condition deteriorated. Doctors predicted that she’d die within twenty-four hours. She was heavily sedated. The fetus was suffering oxygen starvation. Some of the treating physicians wanted to perform an immediate cesarean section. Others objected that A. C. hadn’t consented to a c-section before twenty-eight weeks of gestation and cited the risk of disabilities. The hospital brought the dispute to the superior court. After a hearing at the hospital, the trial judge determined that the fetus was viable, and the District of Columbia had an interest in protecting its potential life. It decided that a c-section should be performed. In a lucid moment, A. C. agreed to this, but then apparently mouthed the words, quote, “I don’t want it done,” unquote. The trial court’s motions division declined to stay the order, and the c-section was performed. Both A. C. and the baby died. A few months later, the court heard the case en banc. It held that interference with a mother’s bodily integrity is permissible if it gives a potentially viable fetus a chance at life. Three years later, A. C.’s personal representative sued the hospital. He argued that the state shouldn’t have subordinated A. C.’s right to bodily integrity to the state’s interest in preserving the potential life of a viable fetus. Though A. C.’s specific case was moot, the court agreed to hear the appeal because similar situations were likely to occur in the future. Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/in-re-a-c The Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o... Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/in-re-a-c Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► https://www.youtube.com/subscription_... Quimbee Case Brief App ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o... Facebook ►   / quimbeedotcom   Twitter ►   / quimbeedotcom   #casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries