In re A.C.

573 A.2d 1235 (1990)

From our private database of 46,000+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

In re A.C.

District of Columbia Court of Appeals
573 A.2d 1235 (1990)

Play video

Facts

AC (defendant) had completed treatment for leukemia and was in remission when she became pregnant. When AC was 25 weeks pregnant, her physicians found a cancerous tumor in her lung. AC was given a terminal prognosis. AC was admitted into the George Washington University Hospital (hospital) (plaintiff) the following week. AC informed the physicians that if her gestational period reached the 28-week mark, the physicians should do everything possible to save the fetus, even at the expense of AC’s life. However, there was no discussion regarding whether AC consented to the physicians taking all possible measures to save the fetus before the 28-week mark. When AC’s pregnancy reached 26 weeks, she had to be heavily sedated and the fetus was suffering oxygen deprivation. The hospital filed a petition in superior court, seeking a declaratory order from the court as to whether the hospital could perform a cesarean section to save the life of the fetus without AC’s direct consent. The court held a hearing at the hospital. Some physicians testified that AC would not have wanted to deliver the baby before 28 weeks because the baby was at an increased risk for certain handicaps, but other physicians believed AC would have consented to the cesarean section. The court authorized the procedure on the ground that the fetus was viable and the state had an interest in protecting the potential life. Shortly after the decision, AC had a period of lucidity, during which she first consented to the cesarean section but then changed her mind and withdrew consent. The court declined to stay the order authorizing the cesarean, and the surgery was performed. Both AC and the baby died. A few months later, the court heard the case en banc. The court 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, AC’s personal representative sued the hospital. The representative argued that the state should not have subordinated AC’s right to bodily integrity to the state’s interest in preserving the potential life of a viable fetus. Though AC’s specific case was moot, the court agreed to hear the appeal because similar situations were likely to occur in the future.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Terry, J.)

Concurrence/Dissent (Belson, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 742,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 742,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,000 briefs, keyed to 986 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 742,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,000 briefs - keyed to 986 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership