Burton v. State - 49 So. 3d 263 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

Rule:

The test to overcome a woman's right to refuse medical intervention in her pregnancy is whether the State's compelling state interest is sufficient to override the pregnant woman's constitutional right to the control of her person, including her right to refuse medical treatment. In addition, where the State does establish a compelling state interest and the court has found the State's interest sufficient to override a pregnant patient's right to determine her course of medical treatment, the State must then show that the method for pursuing that compelling state interest is narrowly tailored in the least intrusive manner possible to safeguard the rights of the individual. 

Facts:

This is an appeal of a circuit court order compelling Burton, a pregnant woman, to submit to any medical treatment deemed necessary by the attending obstetrician, including detention in the hospital for enforcement of bed rest, administration of intra-venous medications, and anticipated surgical delivery of the fetus. The action was initiated in the circuit court by the State Attorney under the procedure described in In re Dubreuil, 629 So. 2d 819 (Fla. 1994). As provided in Dubreuil, after the State Attorney received notification from a health care provider that a patient refused medical treatment, the State Attorney exercised his discretion to determine that a sufficient state interest was at stake to justify legal action.

Issue:

Did the trial court err in its ruling that "as between parent and child, the ultimate welfare of the child is the controlling factor," and in concluding that the State's interests in the matter override Burton’s privacy interests?

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The court noted that the appeal was moot with regard to Burton because she had submitted to treatment as ordered. Mootness did not preclude appellate review here, however, as the issue was capable of repetition yet evading review. The court held that the legal test recited by the trial court was a misapplication of the law. The case relied upon by the trial court did not involve the privacy rights of a pregnant woman. The test to overcome a woman's right to refuse medical intervention in her pregnancy was whether the State's compelling state interest was sufficient to override the pregnant woman's constitutional right to the control of her person, including her right to refuse medical treatment, under Art. I, § 23, Fla. Const. In addition, where the State did establish a compelling state interest and the trial court had found the State's interest sufficient to override a pregnant patient's right to determine her course of medical treatment, the State had to then show that the method for pursuing that compelling state interest was narrowly tailored in the least intrusive manner possible to safeguard the rights of the individual.