Home births as a "right" of female patients in the context of medicine, legislation and court jurisprudence
Authors:
Andrea Erdősová 1; Petra Gašparová 2; Zuzana Ballová 2; Erik Dosedla 2
Authors‘ workplace:
Ústav medzinárodného a európskeho práva, Fakulta práva, Paneurópska vysoká škola, Bratislava, Slovenská republika
1; Gynekologicko-pôrodnícka klinika LF UPJŠ a Nemocnice AGEL Košice-Šaca a. s., Slovenská republika
2
Published in:
Ceska Gynekol 2023; 88(5): 390-396
Category:
doi:
https://doi.org/10.48095/cccg2023390
Overview
Currently, in the Czech Republic and Slovakia, more and more women prefer a planned home birth to a hospital birth, despite the fact that the hospital provides a safe environment for laboring women, thanks to the possibility to intervene at any time in case of complications. These women consider childbirth a natural process, while obstetric care is often considered unnecessary. According to the World Health Organization, birth can only be defined as physiological after birth. Even though women can give birth without medical assistance, it is not possible to identify in advance the mothers and newborns who will need some kind of intervention during childbirth. Although a planned home birth is associated with fewer maternal interventions and the probability of a spontaneous vaginal birth, compared to a planned hospital birth, the risk of neonatal death is two- to three-times higher.
Keywords:
maternal mortality – perinatal mortality – home birth – out-of-hospital birth – low-risk pregnancy
Sources
1. Drife J. The start of life: a history of obstetrics. Postgrad Med J 2002; 78 (919): 311–315. doi: 10.1136/pmj.78.919.311.
2. Olsen O, Clausen JA. Planned hospital birth versus planned home birth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012; 9 (9): CD000352. Doi: 10.1002/146 51858.
3. Kyei-Nimakoh M, Carolan-Olah M, McCann TV. Access barriers to obstetric care at health facilities in sub-Saharan Africa – a systematic review. Syst Rev 2017; 6 (1): 110. doi: 10.1186/s136 43-017-0503-x.
4. WHO – World Health Organization. Maternal and newborn health/safe motherhood unit. Care in normal birth: a practical Guide. Geneva, WHO: 1996.
5. ACOG – the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee Opinion No. 476: planned home birth. Obstet Gynecol 2011; 117 (2 Pt 1): 425–428. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b 013e31820eee20.
6. Newman A. Bad nedicine: AMA seeks to outlaw home births. 2008 [online]. Available from: http: //rhrealitycheck.org/article/2008/06/16/bad-medicine-ama-seeks-to-outlaw-home-births/.
7. Galková G, Böhm P, Hon Z et al. Comparison of frequency of home births in the member states of the EU between 2015 and 2019. Glob Pediatr Health 2022; 9: 2333794X211070916. doi: 10,1177/2333794X211070916.
8. Ziogou R, Zografou K. Homebirth and homecare during COVID-19. Eur J Midwifery 2020; 4: 14. doi: 10.18332/ejm/120972.
9. Patakyová M. Hovorme otvorene o pôrodoch: ľudskoprávny prístup pri poskytovaní zdravotnej starostlivosti pri pôrodoch. 2021 [online]. Dostupné z: https: //vop.gov.sk/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Sprava_porody_FINAL.pdf.
10. Humeník I, Kováč P et al (eds). Zákon o zdravotnej starostlivosti. Komentár. § 2 ods. 18 ZoZS. 2. vydanie. Bratislava: C. H. Beck 2023: 956.
11. Nález ÚS ČR z 24. 7. 2013, I. ÚS 4457/12. Ústaví soud ČR. 2015 [online]. Dostupné z: https: //www.usoud.cz/aktualne/plne-zneni-nalezu-sp-zn-i-us- 4457-12.
12. Česká lékařská společnost Jana Evangelisty Purkyně. Stanovisko k porodům doma. 2012 [online]. Dostupné z: https: //www.cls.cz/stano- visko-k-porodum-doma.
13. Dohovor o ochrane základných práv a slobôd, podpísaný v roku 1950 Radou Európy, nadobudol platnosť 3. 9. 1953. 1992 [online]. Dostupné z: https: //www.upn.gov.sk/data/pdf/209- 1992.pdf.
14. Ternovszky v. Maďarsko. Sťažnosť č. 67545/09, rozsudok zo 14. 12. 2010. 2014 [online]. Dostupné z: www.pravo-medicina.sk/aktuality/855/eslp-pripad-ternovsky-v-madarsko.
15. Hanzelkoví v. Česká republika Sťažnosť č. 43643/10, rozsudok z 11. 12. 2014. 2023 [online]. Dostupné z: eslp.justice.cz.
16. Dubská a Krejzová v. Česká republika Sťažnosť č. 28859/11 a 28473/12, rozsudok z 15. 11. 2016. 2023 [online]. Dostupné z: eslp.justice.cz.
17. Stanovisko Vlády SR vo veci Dubská a Krejzová v. Česká republika Sťažnosť č. 28859/11 a 28473/12, rozsudok z 15. 11. 2016. 2016 [online]. Dostupné z: https: //www.ustavnysud.sk/documents/10182/ 1270872/ESLP+29.pdf/3db96614-cdea-4191-8c 48-d111db86d3ef.
18. Věstník Ministerstva zdravotníctví ČR 8/2013. 2013 [online]. Dostupné z: https: //www.mzcr.cz/wp-content/uploads/wepub/8527/36184/V%C 4%9Bstn%C3%Adk%20MZ%20%C4%8CR%208-2013.pdf.
19. Pojatina v. Chorvátsko. Sťažnosť č. 18568/12, rozsudok z 4. 10. 2018. 2023 [online]. Dostupné z: eslp.justice.cz.
20. Dosedla E. Moderný cisársky rez. Martin, SK: Osveta 2022: 7–10.
21. White C, Tarrant M, Hodges R et al. A pathway to establish a publicly funded home birth program in Australia. Women Birth 2020; 33 (5): e420–e428. doi: 10.1016/j.wombi.2019.09.007.
22. Holten L, Miranda E. Women‘s motivations for having unassisted childbirth or high-risk homebirth: an exploration of the literature on ‘birthing outside the system’. Midwifery 2016; 38: 55–62. doi: 10.1016/j.midw.2016.03.010.
23. Galera-Barbero TM, Aguilera-Manrique G. Planned home birth in low-risk pregnancies in spain: a descriptive study. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2021; 18 (7): 3784. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18073784.
24. ACOG Committee on Obstetric Practice. Planned home birth. Number 697, 2017 reaffirmed 2020. 2017 [online]. Available from: https: //www.acog.org/clinical/clinical-guidance/committee-opinion/articles/2017/04/planned-home-birth.
25. Grünebaum A, McCullough LB, Orosz B et al. Neonatal mortality in the United States is related to location of birth (hospital versus home) rather than the type of birth attendant. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2020; 223 (2): 254.e1–254.e8. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2020.01.045.
26. Brocklehurst P, Hardy P, Hollowell J et al. Perinatal and maternal outcomes by planned place of birth for healthy women with low risk pregnancies: the Birthplace in England national prospective cohort study. BMJ 2011; 343: d7400. doi: 10.1136/bmj.d7400.
27. Law SA. Childbirth: an opportunity for choice that should be supported. New York: N.Y.U. REV. L. & SOC. CHANGE 2008; 32: 345–352.
28. Babiaková K, Debrecéniová J, Hlinčíková M et al. Ženy – matky – telá. Ľudské práva žien pri pôrodnej starostlivosti v zdravotníckych zariadeniach na Slovensku. Bratislava: Občan, demokracia a zodpovednosť 2015: 17.
29. Rozsudek Nejvyššího soudu České republiky ze dne 29. dubna 2015, sp. zn. 25 Cdo 1381/2013. 2015 [online]. Dostupné z: kraken.slv.cz/25Cdo1381/2013.
Labels
Paediatric gynaecology Gynaecology and obstetrics Reproduction medicineArticle was published in
Czech Gynaecology
2023 Issue 5
Most read in this issue
- Early treatment of vulvar synechiae in childhood – prevention of late complications
- Relugolix combination therapy and symptoms of uterine myomatosis – selected case reports of indication spectrum and treatment outcomes
- Implementation of the ERAS protocol in gynecology and oncogynecology – evaluation of a pilot study
- Nascent myoma as a cause of urinary retention