van der Pijl et al 1 argue that if ‘stakes are high’ and there is ‘clear conviction by the care provider’ that it is ‘necessary’, episiotomy may be given after ‘opt-out consent’. Here I caution against the applicability of their approach to vaginal examination (VE): another routine intervention in birth to which they suggest their discussion may apply. I highlight three concerns: first, the subjective and unjustified nature of assessments of ‘necessity’; second, the inadequacy of current consent practices in relation (...) to VE; and third, the significant risk of perpetuating under-recognised harms associated with unwanted or unconsented VE. I argue that opt-out consent cannot be ethically justified for VE. Its use would result in further weakening of consent practices, circumvention of individuals’ autonomy, and greater harm for women and birthing people. At the outset, it is important to recognise that the authors do not claim that their approach should be applied to VE, merely that their discussion may have relevance to consent for other interventions beyond episiotomy ‘where consent is also frequently lacking, and which are under-researched’, including VE.1 Nonetheless, it is easy to assume that episiotomy and VE are sufficiently similar that their analysis might be transferred wholesale. I disagree. There are similarities: both interventions are performed on ‘the most intimate and socially sensitive body parts’1; …. (shrink)

Approaches to supporting autonomy in medicine need to be able to support complex and sensitive decision-making, incorporating reflection on the patient's values and goals. This should involve deliberation in partnership between physician and patient, allowing the patient to take responsibility for her decision. Nowhere is this truer than in decisions around pregnancy and Caesarean section where maternal autonomy can seem to directly conflict with foetal interests. Medical and societal expectations and norms such as the expectations of a ‘mother’, constraints of (...) making decisions in an emergency, and the role of technology in viewing the foetus as a separate patient and surgery as a guarantor of results can all act to limit a woman's autonomy. In considering decisions about Caesarean section, maternal interests in bodily integrity can be dismissed as being less important than the foetus's own interests and the mother's duties to it, despite the inherent risks and impacts of such a major surgical procedure... (shrink)

UK maternity policy makes great fanfare about providing person-centered care, built around what the pregnant woman or birthing person needs. Maternity Voices Partnerships involving healthcare professionals and women are supposed to guide policy and practice at the local level. UK consent law prioritizes the pregnant person's own conception of the risks and factors that are material to her care. The COVID-19 pandemic has shown how tenuous a hold these laudable principles actually have when the going gets tough.

Th is chapter outlines the experiences of non-consented vaginal examinations that women have shared with Birthrights and the Association for Improvements in the Maternity Services (AIMS). It gives a flavour of the issues that arise in cases brought to our attention, the impact on women who have to live with these experiences, and the lack of opportunity for proper redress faced by women. This chapter uses case studies to illustrate the experiences which lead women to seek support from AIMS and (...) Birthrights. These are real case studies: real women. They are almost certainly the tip of the iceberg. As this chapter will show, one issue with vaginal examinations is that women oft en do not know that they can decline consent, and/or do not feel confident in doing so. Th ere are no statistics held on the number of women who experience non-consented vaginal examinations but, with a system that includes vaginal examinations within standard maternity care, Birthrights and AIMS are certain that many more cases exist than those which have come to our attention. (shrink)