Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

In re Madyun

114 Daily Wash. L. Rptr. 2233 (1986)

Case BriefRelatedOptions
From our private database of 35,600+ case briefs...

In re Madyun

District of Columbia Superior Court

114 Daily Wash. L. Rptr. 2233 (1986)

Facts

On July 25, 1986, Ayesha Madyun (defendant) was admitted into D.C. General Hospital (hospital) (plaintiff) to deliver a baby. Madyun’s water broke 48 hours prior, and she remained at seven centimeters dilated throughout the day. Madyun and her husband were informed by the delivery physician that she would need a cesarean delivery because prolonged labor increases the risk of fetal sepsis, which can lead to brain damage or death to the baby. Madyun and her husband refused to consent to the procedure, citing Madyun’s religious beliefs as a Muslim and explaining that they did not feel it was necessary. The hospital filed a petition for a court order authorizing the cesarean section. A hearing took place at the hospital. During the hearing, Madyun testified that she understood that prolonged labor could lead to health risks for the baby but that she preferred to have a natural birth and reiterated her beliefs that a cesarean section was not necessary. She stated that she had a right to decline the cesarean section because it was her choice to decide whether she wanted to risk her own health for an undelivered fetus. Her husband testified that he also believed a cesarean section was not necessary because the hospital had not given Madyun an opportunity to deliver naturally and that it was Madyun’s choice whether to undergo the procedure. The physician testified that with each hour Madyun did not deliver, the risk of fetal sepsis increased. The physician also explained that fetal sepsis is often detected too late to save the baby and that, given Madyun had been in labor for about 60 to 70 hours, the risk of fetal sepsis was 50 to 75 percent but the risk of Madyun experiencing adverse effects from the cesarean section was 0.25 percent. The court granted the hospital’s order and denied Madyun’s motion to stay. Madyun and her husband appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Levie, 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 618,000 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 618,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 35,600 briefs, keyed to 984 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 618,000 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
  • 35,600 briefs - keyed to 984 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