CYIL vol. 11 (2020)

PETR ŠUSTEK CYIL 11 (2020) the regulation of midwives’ assistance in home births 41 . 42 The ECtHR apparently engaged in balancing the interests of the woman in labour and those of her child, 43 acknowledging that in some cases, the latter can override the former. Both the decisions of the Czech Constitutional Court and the ECtHR implicitly reflect the gradualist approach to the protection of foetus’ interests. The judicial bodies based their decisions on the premise that the life of the child that is just a few hours or minutes before birth has a somewhat similar value to the life of an already-born person. It can be safely assumed that in early stages of pregnancy, such careful and (almost?) equal balancing of the mother’s and foetus’ interests would not take place. 5. Balancing legal consequences? In practice, the providers of health services, as well as health professionals, are understandably interested in the legal consequences of the choices they make. We believe that balancing of these legal consequences leads to the same conclusion as the balancing of the woman’s and her child’s interests, i.e. to the recommendation to carry out the procedure that is necessary to save the child. If the provider of health services carried out an intervention against the woman’s wishes, she could sue them for intrusion in her right to physical integrity (as protected in Section 81 in connection with Section 91 and following of the Civil Code). 44 On the other hand, if the wishes of the woman in labour are respected, there might arise more serious legal consequences. One day, the child could sue the provider for personal injury. Should the child die as a result of the omission to perform the relevant medical intervention, it is also conceivable that the parents themselves would sue for secondary (reflective) damages, 45 claiming that the mother was in fact not capable of granting a valid informed consent (and therefore also not capable of validly rejecting necessary care) at the relevant time. 46 41 See ibid., para. 75. 42 See also a brief analysis of the ECtHR judgment in the case Dubská and Krejzová v. the Czech Republic in ŠIROKÁ, Lucie, POVOLNÁ, Michaela. Právo rodící ženy odmítnout péči versus právo dítěte na život a zdraví ve světle judikatury Ústavního soudu a Evropského soudu pro lidská práva [The Right of a Woman in Labour to Refuse Treatment versus the Child’s Right to Life and Health in the Light of the Case-Law of the Czech Constitutional Court and the ECtHR]. Jurisprudence. (2017, Vol. 26, No. 5), p. 25, or ŠUSTEK, Petr. Právní aspekty domácích porodů [Legal Aspects of Home Births]. In GERLOCH, Aleš, KRZYŽANKOVÁ, Katarzyna (eds.). Soukromé a veřejné v kontextu institucionálních a normativních proměn práva [The Public and the Private in the Context of Institutional and Normative Changes of Law]. Aleš Čeněk, Plzeň 2017, pp. 271-273. 43 See MALÍŘ, Jan, DOLEŽAL, Tomáš. Evropská úmluva o ochraně lidských práv a základních svobod a zdravotnictví: současný stav a perspektivy [European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and Health Care: the Current Status and Perspectives]. Wolters Kluwer, Praha 2016, p. 94. 44 For a more detailed discussion see HOLČAPEK, Tomáš. Convention on Biomedicine and Liability Resulting fromDeficiency in Informed Consent. In ŠTURMA, Pavel (ed.). Czech Yearbook of Public & Private International Law. Česká ročenka mezinárodního práva veřejného a soukromého. Vol. 9. Česká společnost pro mezinárodní právo, Praha 2018, pp. 270-279. 45 For a closer analysis of secondary (reflective) damages in Czech law, see ŠUSTEK, Petr. The Concept of Secondary (Reflective) Damage: Peculiar Situation in the Czech Republic. In ŠTURMA, Pavel (ed.). Czech Yearbook of Public & Private International Law. Česká ročenka mezinárodního práva veřejného a soukromého. Vol. 10. Česká společnost pro mezinárodní právo, Praha 2019, pp. 321-334. 46 For tort law aspects of the analysed situation, see ŠIROKÁ, Lucie, POVOLNÁ, Michaela. Právo rodící ženy odmítnout péči versus právo dítěte na život a zdraví ve světle judikatury Ústavního soudu a Evropského soudu pro lidská práva [The Right of a Woman in Labour to Refuse Treatment versus the Child’s Right to Life and

386