Login
They Didn’t Want to Have C-Sections. A Judge Would Decide How They Gave Birth.
On the afternoon of Sept. 9, 2024, Cherise Doyley was in her 12th hour of contractions at University of Florida Health in downtown Jacksonville when a nurse came in with a bedsheet and told her to cover up. A supervisor brought a tablet to Doyley’s bedside. Gathered on the screen were a judge in a black robe and several lawyers, doctors and hospital staff.
“It’s a real judge in there?” Doyley asked the nurse at the beginning of what would be a three-hour hearing. “Now this is the craziest thing I’ve ever seen.” Doyley hadn’t asked for the hearing. The hospital had sought it. Doyley had mere minutes to prepare. She had no lawyer and no advocate — no one to explain to her what, exactly, was going on.
Judge Michael Kalil informed her that the state had filed an emergency petition at the hospital’s behest — not out of concern for Doyley, per se, but in the interest of her unborn child. He described the circumstances as “extraordinary.”
The hospital and state attorney’s office wanted to force Doyley to undergo a cesarean section. Doyley, a professional birthing doula, didn’t want that and had been firm about it. She’d had three prior C-sections, one that resulted in a hemorrhage, and hoped to avoid another serious complication and lengthy recovery.
What COVID Policy Did to Doctors Who Refused to Stay Silent
The sound I remember most from the early days of Covid-19 is not the alarms. It was the silence between them. Intensive care units became Covid wards. Monitors glowed in dark rooms while ventilators pushed air into failing lungs. Nurses, shrouded in protective gear, moved quietly. Families were absent — barred from being with loved ones in their final hours.
One night at 3 am, I stood by a patient whose oxygen levels were steadily falling. Outside the room, another patient crashed. Down the hall, a third awaited intubation. For months, this was every night. For 715 consecutive days, I worked in that environment without taking a single day off. In moments like that, medicine becomes very simple. There are no politics in an ICU at 3 am. There is only a physician and a patient, and the responsibility to do everything possible to keep that patient alive.
That philosophy has guided physicians for generations. It is the foundation of clinical medicine: when a patient is dying, you explore every reasonable option that might help.
Yet during Covid, something extraordinary happened. What made the shift so jarring was not simply the presence of disagreement. Physicians have always disagreed. In fact, disagreement is the normal language of medicine. Grand rounds exist for that reason. Journal clubs exist for that reason. The entire structure of scientific publication — from peer review to replication — exists because medicine advances through argument, not obedience.
During the pandemic, however, the culture of medicine changed almost overnight. Instead of asking whether a treatment might work, institutions began asking whether discussing that treatment might create the wrong public message. The priority quietly shifted from discovery to control.
Remember When the Media Told Us Not to Even Question COVID Policies?
Masks do not work. They do not stop respiratory viruses. They do prevent infections, protect individuals, or slow onward transmission. Masks don’t work. Which is why the most heavily masked countries on earth saw tremendous increases in infections, regardless of their level of compliance. South Korea, for example, has the highest confirmed cumulative COVID case rate on earth.
One rolling survey from the University of Maryland conducted during the pandemic found that 99% of respondents had been wearing masks, a few short weeks before cases exploded to record highs. It’s much the same story in Japan, or even in heavily masked US jurisdictions like Los Angeles, New York City, or Chicago. Beyond the obvious results clearly demonstrating the failure of masking, it’s worth and was worth asking questions of the “experts” like Anthony Fauci and politicians like former President Joe Biden who either demanded mandates or enacted them.
Well, unless you’re on the Editorial Board of one of the country’s largest and most important newspapers. Then, you shouldn’t question or trust anything that doesn’t support or uphold what their preferred ideology believes.
UAE News: New Draft Law Proposes Fines of up to Dh20,000 for Parents Who Refuse Child Vaccinations
Parents or guardians in the UAE who fail to ensure their children receive mandatory vaccinations could face fines of up to Dh20,000, under a new draft law approved by the Federal National Council (FNC). The proposal is part of broader efforts to strengthen the country’s legal framework for preventing and controlling infectious diseases, according to reports by Khaleej Times.
During a session held in Abu Dhabi on Tuesday, the Federal National Council approved amendments to the UAE’s infectious disease law, a move designed to reinforce the country’s preparedness against communicable diseases and future health threats.
Under the proposed amendments, parents or guardians who refuse or neglect to vaccinate a child under the national immunisation programme may face fines ranging from Dh5,000 to Dh20,000.
However, it is not yet clear how authorities will enforce the penalties or what specific circumstances could trigger action against families.
