A Woman's Body - Who Owns It?

A recent court case highlights the need for discussion about how women and their bodies are treated and not just in view to impending motherhood. We have all heard of pro-life activists who feel that an unborn child has the right to life even if the expectant mother does not wish to continue with her pregnancy. Whilst this subject is very sensitive and both sides of this argument has very valid points, my question is 'Who owns a woman's body?'

Would the fact that a pregnant woman has a diagnosed mental health condition allow decisions to be made on her behalf without her consent? How much should a woman be involved in her own body and how it is treated? What protections are in place to determine perceived rights to women on how they live their lives? Is the fact that a woman is pregnant eliminate her right to choose what happens with her body? This article is not about pro-life but the right for a woman to choose how her body is treated. This article is not about pregnant women but the right for women to choose how their bodies are treated. Getting stuck on pro-life would only serve as background noise and can serve as a distraction.

Everyone (of appropriate age) has the right to deny treatment of any sort and everyone has the right for all procedures to be fully explained to him or her. There will instances whereby others will have to make a decision on someone's behalf but these should be exceptional circumstances and the law covering these instances ensuring congruence and integrity. Everyone has the right to take part in activities deemed risky and everyone has the right to the most appropriate medical intervention. It is the 'most appropriate intervention' that I want to explore.

In the ongoing court case, decisions were made on behalf of a woman using a particular method that felt that she would not have agreed to. When would the need for someone else to make a decision displacing an individual? Was there more emphasis placed upon the fact that the kind of intervention was based upon her being a woman? How far should we go to allow a person to be fully informed of treatment and what this treatment should look like? Is the situation of removal of consent more likely to occur if a woman is pregnant, is she then viewed separate from the life growing inside her? I repeat, this article is not about pro-life issues; we must stay focused on the subject at hand, the woman; although pregnant women are being discussed. The term 'pregnant' is only used to describe the position a woman may find herself in and to explore whether consent challenges only exist in these circumstances.

I also understand that the emotions evoked when discussing pregnant women and the 'right' for women to choose how things are done. However, how much of a woman's right to choose is applied to her everyday life? Are there many instances whereby a woman is encouraged to undergo a procedure for the benefit of her unborn baby but more importantly have we considered how would this make a woman feel about her own body?

What about a woman who is not pregnant, should she have any form of intervention against her knowledge and agreement? An example could be women who are living with either physical or emotional disabilities. Have there been any instances that these women have had treatment or intervention without their consent or knowledge? Does the decision to remove consentual agreement determined by a woman being deemed 'unfit'? Who determines levels of 'fitness'?

As a nation, are we able to fully satisfy ourselves that any form of intervention without consent is in the best interests of an individual? Are the current specific guidelines in establishing what acts as demarcation for the removal of consent without fault and can a person or persons act without proper counsel? The implementation and proper use of legislation will serve as proper channels that will safeguard women from having their bodies treated in a way that they would not necessarily agree to. There have been many paths trodden on to allow women to be seen as worthy recipients to life and to have the ability to make their own decisions. The removal of consent should not be taken lightly nor should it be used a tool to manage women medically.

Attitudes to women have come a very long way from the rallies of Women's Rights but undoubtedly, there continues to be areas for improvement. It is worrying when we have to start to explore deeper whenever an issue has been raised concerning a woman. If we find ourselves in positions of asking many questions then that should highlight our ignorance on topics such as this. Our voices are now recognised as being in existence if not always heard. It is precisely this area of concern for me regarding the ongoing court case. How much importance did the rights of this particular woman have, what did her own voice look like? Was she deemed 'fit' enough to warrant a voice?

There continues to be areas in life that a woman may feel like she is not whole and complete as an individual and reliant upon the decisions others make. An international stance of women's level of acceptance is prioritised over the individual woman's own level of acceptance. There is more emphasis on what a woman should look like, how she presents self and how she is able to live her life. Women's presence in life can appear to be of magniloquence and being more about intent than the actual. We must not stop at this juncture of women's revolution until we can be sure that a woman is indeed seen and treated as a whole person in her own right.