{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.015670910871694418, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0039177277179236044, 'mean_word_length': 5.119760479041916, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Cesarean delivery for fetal distress without maternal consent.

There have been infrequent reports in the literature discussing maternal versus fetal rights. Such questions generally arise in circumstances in which the mother, for some reason, chooses to refuse a method of therapy which is deemed necessary to benefit or save the fetus. Previous reports have usually involved time periods of 12 to 24 hours, which provided sufficient time to solicit legal intervention. In the case presented here, the time limitation was believed to be within minutes. At issue was the opinion that immediate intervention was mandated in order to salvage a previously normal, full-term infant. This case report presents a dramatic confrontation and an illustration of a dilemma within the arena of contemporary obstetric care. The case in point involves the medical, ethical, and legal prospectives that must be considered when a mother refuses to undergo cesarean delivery in the case of acute and apparently definitive fetal distress.