The main factor of great changes in health issues is a relationship between medical & jurisprudence. One of the major issues is referring of women for caesarean in spite of good powers for natural delivery. Although it seems that no more changes in this policy is based upon jurisprudent ideas and/ or mothers’ attitude for prevention from any pains. But regarding current statistics and numbers in medical resources about any charges of this method and permanent damages to mother and child, this is the first step for any changes of this policy through a revising of primary order from jurisprudent viewpoint. The purpose of this study was to investigate the legitimacy and mandate to Caesarean section in a condition, there is the possibility of giving birth the normal delivery (vaginal delivery) and cesarean section delivery methods is not as the only method of delivery.This study was conducted to analytical documents and in two parts: The first one is methodology, citing the results of qualitative research and medical sciences evaluation was compared with creative and natural method, Based on the results, cesarean section compared with vaginal delivery than as a with many complications and high risk method was introduced.In the second part, we will evaluate and analyzing the proponent and opponent jurisprudent ideas, about medical science findings as expert opinion to identify the subject, finally, the lack of licenses in the inferred sentence. So, Based on medical research and licenses number of the need for action to non-elective cesarean section is detected.Furthermore, considering the mentioned primary order that is not allowed (elective cesarean), naturally, physician practice in referring patients to unnecessary legal ruling, will the prohibition. As for guarantee (civil liability of doctor), in the event of an accident to the applicant, this problem can be investigated.