{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.022792022792022793, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.570093457943925, '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}}
The patient, the doctor, the fetus, and the court-compelled Cesarean: why courts should address the question through a bioethical lens.

Court-ordered Cesarean sections are a relatively recent phenomenon in the intersection of law and medicine. Existing jurisprudence utilizes a legal balancing test when addressing conflicts that arise between physicians and patients regarding obstetrical treatment and care. The authors contend that courts' analyses lack a fundamental element--a bioethical framework. Therefore, the authors believe that in order to better assess such conflicts, courts should incorporate a bioethical framework such as the Georgetown mantra to help complement their legal analyses.