A pregnant woman in the United States attended a virtual court hearing from her hospital bed while in active labor after declining a medically advised caesarean section (C-section). The incident occurred in September 2024 at a University of Florida Health hospital in Jacksonville, Florida, and has drawn attention to the intersection of obstetric care and legal processes. The incident occurred in September 2024 but gained wider attention after investigative reporting in 2025 and 2026.
The patient, Cherise Doyley, a mother of three and a doula, was admitted in labour with a history of prior cesarean delivery. She communicated her birth plan to the medical team, stating her preference to attempt a vaginal delivery.
Doctors recommended a repeat C-section due to concerns associated with vaginal birth after caesarean (VBAC), including the possibility of uterine rupture.
According to a ProPublica report, Doyley stated that she was aware the risk was below 2% and informed doctors of her decision to attempt a vaginal delivery before considering a C-section.
She also noted that her previous C-sections were followed by a difficult recovery, including complications such as a hemorrhage that required a week-long hospital stay. She further expressed concern that postoperative recovery could limit her ability to care for her newborn as well as her other three children.
The events took place at a University of Florida Health facility in Jacksonville. During the course of labor, the hospital initiated legal action to obtain judicial approval for a C-section, citing potential risks to the fetus.
In a recording of the court hearing obtained by ProPublica, Doyley described it “the craziest thing I’ve ever seen.”
A virtual hearing was arranged while the patient remained in her hospital bed. The proceeding involved a judge, hospital representatives, and state authorities. As reported by People, Doyley had no legal representation.
According to People, during the hearing, Judge Michael Kalil told Doyley that, at the hospital’s request, the state had submitted an emergency petition seeking approval for a C-section in the interest of the unborn child.
During the hearing, hospital physicians outlined concerns regarding the baby’s condition and the potential risks associated with a vaginal delivery. Doyley stated in her testimony that she felt her own health considerations were not being given equal attention.
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.
Cherise Doyley
Doyley said she cared very much about her unborn child but believed her case was not an emergency necessitating surgery. She wanted to at least try having a vaginal delivery.
They’re going to tie me up and go give me a C-section against my will?
Cherise Doyley
As reported by People, she made the statement in a clip from her testimony.
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. I have other children out here in the world that need me. And that is my right because at the end of the day, if I die from a C-section, nobody on this call is going to take care of my children.
Cherise Doyley
The judge did not immediately mandate the surgery but ruled that doctors could perform the procedure without consent if a medical emergency developed.
Subsequently, fetal distress was observed, including a drop in fetal heart rate. Based on this change in clinical status, the medical team proceeded with a C-section.
Following delivery, the newborn was admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) for monitoring and care. Details regarding long-term outcomes have not been specified in the reports.
As reported by NDTV, the following morning, Doyley appeared before the court for a final hearing, where she stated that she had not yet been taken to the neonatal intensive care unit to see her daughter.
Over the year after the incident, Doyley stated that she continues to feel her autonomy was compromised by the hospital proceeding with the surgery.
When we use the courts to basically strong-arm, bully someone into an unnecessary medical procedure against their will, it’s akin to torture, in my eyes.
Cherise Doyley
In standard medical practice, informed consent allows patients to accept or refuse treatment. However, in certain cases involving pregnancy, healthcare providers may seek legal intervention if they believe refusal of treatment could pose a significant risk to the fetus.
Such cases remain rare but have been documented in the United States, particularly when physicians seek court orders citing fetal risk.
(Rh/SS/MSM)
