Woman Delivers Stillborn, Charged with Murder

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

comments?

(KSL News) -- Murder charges are filed today in a case that may have significant ethical and legal ramifications.

A woman, who delivered a stillborn child after refusing advice from doctors to deliver the child days earlier by caesarian section, is now accused of murdering the baby.

The Salt Lake District Attorneys Office filed first degree homicide charges today against 28-year-old Melissa Ann Rowland in the death of the child, who was a twin.

The sibling survived.

http://tv.ksl.com/index.php?nid=5&sid=80472

And what if all three died from complication arising from the C section?

And if it was her choice to make, how can she be held for murder?Didn't she have the legal right to choose how to deliver her baby?

Somehow I don't see how it's murder by opting out of surgery. Is it also murder if you opt not to donate your live organs to someone who needs them?

their sib all the time. Are they guilty of murder when the person requiring the transplant dies?

that's been happening a lot, lately.

C-sections are not without risk. Forcing anyone to have surgery would be a horible consequence. Will we now start prosecuting Christian Science practitioners?

I could see charging her with a lesser crime even though that would still be questionable, but charging her with premeditated murder is extreme

indeed, been prosecuted for things like failure to allow their children to be treated for cancer. In those cases, I would agree with the prosecution, but sure as hell not in this one.

n/t

the depth of fear this woman may have had of the scalpel. I, for one, would never cast the first stone. Perhaps she believes vaginal delivery is "G_d's way." Her "vanity" angle is the one being splashed all over, just to whip up the self-righteous frenzy. It REALLY is NOT our business and she should not be "charged" with anything. It's all such an invasive and unseemly discussion. Why has this woman been targeted for publicity? My heart goes out to her and her family.

Amis got dey noses stuck SO FAR up wimmen's crotches... and then dare to get dey knickers in a twist about those Ay-rabs' customs. :eyes:

During one of my c-sections, the anesthesia didn't work properly and I felt my uterus being cut. Stuff like that happens more often than physicians will tell you and it's rather traumatizing to say the least.

n/t

I had to agree like crazy with doctors trying to force me to have a repeat c-section. I ultimately did, but I had a (really long) trial of labor first. I brought in mountains of research, but their opinions weren't changed. Ultimately though, I had a CHOICE and was able to decide what I felt was best.
I'd hate for any women to have to face legal prosecution for excersising rights over their own body (and for what they feel is best for their unborn child as well). That's a damn dangerous precident to send.

...for ignoring the expert advice of her doctors, resulting in the death of her baby, if it was within her rights to do so then public humiliation is as far as this should go. If not, then prosecute to farthest extend of the law. Anyone that would so callously gamble with their health (or their baby's in this case) is unfit to be a parent. God help the surviving twin...

they just happen, and not necessarily to the actions of the mother. im not saying that is specifically the case here but to assume that the mother is purely at fault denies biology. miscarriages and stillbirth and SIDS are tragedies, but they arent crimes.

and multiples generally are premature any meaning you take a "high-risk" pregnancy to a higher risker by birthing a child before its "fully cooked" as my midwife says. if you look at the prescribed CS date and when they were actually delivered (and the story doesnt say how, vaginally or by CS) three weeks later that in the case of a preterm birth, can make a big difference.

patients to have Caesarians for no other reason than that it was more
convenient for the doctor. After this was brought to light doctors cleaned
up their act, at least somewhat, but I'm sure this still goes on. I would
not necessarily believe a doctor who insisted I needed one.

When my cousin was in labor, a doctor crashed into her room insisting her child be delivered by C-section. He told her her child would die if they did not perform this surgery right away.

She refused based on research she had done during her pregnancy.

She delivered a healthy girl and later found out that they wanted to perform this surgery on her so they could free up her room for another patient.

I don't think this woman has anything to be ashamed of.

she didn't want surgery. it's her body. they were her fetuses. not the governments.

This woman should be down-right proud.

Proud that she stood up to the doctors and the entire medical establsihment of Utah.

Proud that it was her decision.

Proud that she showed everyone just who has the real power here.

Proud that she was concerned about her own body (at least the part of it that would remain her after the pregnancy was over.

That's right, Proud.

I weep for Ms. Rowland. And for us all.

understatement. Actually, I can't think of a word that would really fit, and I'm a writer!!!!!!!!! This leaves me practically speechless.

the WHY part. WHY did the woman refuse to have the c-section? i refuse to comment either way until i get the why.

According to the article she didn't want the C-section scars.

I believe that, I think that's just being used to whip people up into a frenzy against her.

but her words could also reflect a fear of surgery (as in... I am not letting anyone cut into me...) - without any context I am not sure it is a vanity statement per not wanting scars.

Have just seen far too many things lately written by excerpt that while technically correct (the words) convey a meaning different than what was said in person.

on edit: read a longer version - definitely a cosmetic concern.

The going to three different hospitals... over time... there is still more to this story in terms of context for the mother. Something just seems off.

she is still 100% within her rights.

No government has the right to force any person to undergo major surgery. That is a violation of the most basic of human rights.

WTF? WTF? WTF? WTF? You have got to be FUCKING KIDDING ME!!!!! This goes right along with my thread about my wingnut gynecologist last night, WHAT THE FUCK IS HAPPENING HERE?

So what, now it's illegal to not take the advice of the almighty doctor? What if they'd done the C-section and one or both of the babies had died, would they have charged the doc with the same stupid fucking idiotic murder charge? Something tells me the answer would be no. And they "ordered" her to have the C-Section? They fucking ORDERED HER TO HAVE THE C-SECTION? Since when do docs "order" women to have c-sections or anything else, for that matter? I thought we were in charge of our own bodies and our own health decisions?

And it figures that this would happen in fucking Utah. If I were that prosecutor's paralegal, I'd resign immediately in protest.

Folks, this really is a major cultural, religious, and political war we're in here. Look at what's happening with gay marriage, pharmacists refusing to fill birth control and morning after pill prescriptions, wingnut ob-gyns telling their patients that "we're being punished for Roe v. Wade", etc., etc.

Am I in the right country here? Do I or do I not have the right to make my own health care decisions, since when do I have to follow the "orders" of a doc to have a c-section or anything else for that matter? If the wingnuts and fundies win this war, people, I really don't think I want to live in this country.

force a Christian Scientist to give blood?

Naturally, in Salt Lake - very little is secular there. Talk about a seriously slipperly slope. Refusing medical treatment should be a basic right; a c-section is just as (sometimes more so) dangerous as any other major surgery. And just WHAT were the "medical reasons"? Poor (or unaffordable) pre-natal care? Lack of insurance to regularly visit an obstetrician?

These people make me sick.

This woman could be the most shallow and unlikable person on the planet (judging by her alleged comments about the scar). However, the fact that this woman was charged should scare the hell out of all of us because this case sets a very dangerous precedent. If this woman is convicted and the courts uphold her conviction, parents and guardians will have lost the right to make medical decisions for their loved ones.

Just the thought of my future wife going to life in prison for something like this is scary.

if we lose this culture war we're in now with the wingnuts, I really believe it won't be long before every pregnant woman will be assigned a "pregnancy bodyguard" to be with her 24/7 to ensure she doesn't do anything at all the wingnut government doesn't think she should do, including maybe indulging in a glass of wine, driving too fast, not eating what they think she should, etc., etc. Mark my words, it may sound like science fiction now, but it won't be if the wingnuts get in total control.

WE MUST WIN THE CULTURE WAR WITH THE WINGNUTS, or I simply will NOT want to live in this country!

they'll probably be monitoring a lot of other stuff too like what she says because "leftist, subversive politics are detrimental to fetal health." I can just imagine it.

Shrubya's 'Murika, and not with wingnuts and fundies in charge of the medical and legal system!

And you wanna know something that REALLY frosts my cookies? When I was in labor with my son and my water broke, the nurses and doctors noted merconium staining, an indication that the baby had a bowel movement in the womb. This means that the baby must be delivered soon, since that can very well be poisonous to it.

You wanna know when my son was finally delivered? TWELVE HOURS LATER! And that was only because I had a C-section since my labor wasn't progressing the way it should have. Which means he breathed in that shit (literally) for TWELVE HOURS MORE THAN HE SHOULD HAVE, and that could have really been dangerous.

You wanna know why they didn't do the c-section right away? Because I was on Medicaid at the time, which means it would have cost both the doc and the hospital more money. As it turned out, it cost them even more money than usual, since he and I were both there longer than normal due to complications for both of us. If they'd done the fucking c-section right when my water broke, that wouldn't have happened.

So, if something had happened to my son, would the damn greedy doc have been charged with murder or negligence? And what about all the medical mistakes that cost so many thousands of lives every year, do you ever hear about a doctor being charged with murder or criminal negligence for ANY of them? VERY VERY rarely!

Jesus, this makes me so angry I can barely see straight! I don't want to live in a country where this happens all the time, where we're punished for not following the orders of the almighty docs, and for taking control of our own bodies and health care decisions. If the wingnuts win this culture war, I don't want to live here!

I agree that it is rare that you hear about a doctor being charged with murder or negligence. If these prosecutors are willing to prosecute this woman for murder because she did not get the C-section, they should also prosecute doctors who refuse to perform a necessary operation on a patient with murder if that patient dies.

silence on my above post is deafening and VERY telling! I thought you were supposed to be pro-life? Where's your moral outrage at the doctors who let my son breathe in and stew in all that filth for twelve hours because they didn't want to do a c-section since I was on Medicaid and they and the hospital wouldn't get as much money? As far as I'm concerned, if you're going to charge this woman with murder, then you should charge my and similar doctors as well.

I am truly sorry, liberlahistorian, that I was not able to respond to your post concerning your own experience.

I am even more sorry that you and your child had to endure what you endured at the hands of physicians who lacked a caring and sympathetic and compassionate approach to you.

It seems to me that one does not need to be pro-life in order to look at the situation you describe and to say that what happened to you and your child was just plain wrong.

In the case in Utah, a baby has died. Perhaps I missed it in your description of what happened to you and your child, but I don't see that anyone lost his or her life.

I don't believe that I have said anywhere on this thread that I think that the woman in Utah should in fact be charged with murder. I have asked a few questions, and pointed out some differences between the case in Utah and another case that someone else alluded to.

So I really do not understand why you would say that if I was going to charge this woman with murder, I should charge your doctors and similar docs as well.

If any doctor fails to provide his or her patient with care that meets medical standards -- as appears to have been the case when you delivered your child -- then that doctor, in my view, should be charged with negliglence or malfeasance. And, if the doctor did it for criminal reasons, then the doctor should be charged with a crime. I'm not really sure how that relates to the woman in Utah, though. In that case, I don't see the doctors failing to provide their patients with the best care possible.

...our kids have not been immunized...to get around this we have to lie and sign a document swearing that it is for religious reasons.
Understand this...I am an atheist, it pisses me off that my only choice is to hide behind a non-existent religious belief. Even with the document in hand, I've had doctors threaten me and my spouse...as in you are irresponsible parents and someone should report you, etc.
I'm not at all surprised it's coming to this, that they're willing to decide whether someone should be forced to have surgery....

vaccinations, I have to disagree. Other children are put in danger by a child in their school or a playmate who has not been vaccinated. At my son's school, a child with the flu was sent to school in January when his parents KNEW he was ill and he ended up making a lot of the other kids sick, including my son. That is being incredibly irresponsible, not to mention unfair to your child.

...it's a voluntary measure. Basically our kids don't get sick...they've had fevers maybe twice..ages 10 and 16. We've immunized them naturally by exposing them to various ailments....chickenpox, mumps etc. The herd population is already immunized, so we're no danger to them. Our kids technically would only be dangerous to other NON-IMMUNIZED children, not yours.

Sorry, I don't see your point.

enough from this article to make any judgement against this woman. We don't know what data she was given to base the decision on, what kind of health she herself was in, or any other pertinent info. Besides, this is extreme IMO, the woman's baby is dead, what else do we need to do to her? Parents make mistakes people, and doctors do too....are we gonna start charging everyone who makes a mistake this way? AAAAUGH!!

However, I'd guess(hope) this won't stand. They can't guarantee survival of both according to what little info was there.
This was just sad.

Won't hold up.

hope not!

But prosecutors allege the woman refused to accept doctors' orders to undergo a c-section in order to guarantee the survival of one or both of the twins.

In other words, even the doctors could only be sure that at least one of the twins would survive. And one did, without a C-section. She has the right to refuse any surgery. She gambled, and lost. But that isn't any reason to prosecute; which won't bring the child back. Unfortunately I'm getting used to seeing women being punished for their choices. Can't wait to see a woman prosecuted for poor eating habits.

a matter of time before that happens. There'll be an established weight and level of health women will need to maintain, and if we don't, see ya in handcuffs!

*looks for police at the elevators*

but seriously this is truly a midwife's tale of a world we are living it.

wingnuts win this culture war, the day will come when we will literally have "pregnancy bodyguards", people assigned to pregnant women 24/7 to ensure they don't eat, drink, or do anything at all that could possibly endanger the baby, or that the wingnuts think could endanger the baby. Believe me, it will happen if we lose this war.

"See ya later, kid!"
"Don't expect US to help pay for your upbringing!"
"Don't expect US to help pay for your education!"
"Don't expect US to help pay for your health care!"

don't expect US to fund county child services or foster families, and expect US to be the first to demand the death penalty against you!

i am the worst mother ever!!!!! /sarcasm

SALT LAKE CITY - A pregnant woman who allegedly ignored her doctors' warnings to have a Caesarean section to save her twins was charged Thursday with murder after one of the babies was stillborn.

http://start.earthlink.net/newsarticle?cat=6&aid=D818CGNO0_story

Seattle PostIntelligencer
<snip> autopsy found that the baby died two days before its Jan. 13 delivery and that it would have survived if Rowland had had a C-section when her doctors urged her to, between Christmas and Jan. 9.


In Newsday,
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sns-ap-mother-charged,0,3586614.story?coll=sns-ap-nation-headlines

<snip>
a pregnant woman who allegedly ignored her doctors' warnings to have a Caesarean section to save her twins was charged Thursday with murder after one of the babies was stillborn.

Melissa Ann Rowland, 28, exhibited a "depraved indifference to human life" that caused the baby's death, prosecutors said.

An autopsy found that the baby died two days before its Jan. 13 delivery and that it would have survived if Rowland had had a C-section when her doctors urged her to, between Christmas and Jan. 9.

The doctors had warned that without a C-section, the twins would probably die, authorities said. A nurse told police that Rowland said a Caesarean would "ruin her life" and she would rather "lose one of the babies than be cut like that."


How utterly sad, how cruel. SHOW ME WHERE SHE RECEIVED ADEQUATE PRENATAL CARE, DAMMIT. (Sorry for the flames, I am pissed.)

pro-lifers that are always screaming about the sanctity of human life (while applauding the blood and gore of war and gun violence and shooting abortion doctors, etc.) never seem to give the time of day to pregnant women needing pre-natal care, they don't give a damn. Only when something happens and they can make an example out of it (look how these evil women nowadays treat their babies, this is the consequence of legalized abortion, etc., etc., blahblahblah) do their tiny little mean-spirited ignorant minds spring into action.

How many of the doctors treating this woman treat poor pregnant women who can't afford their services for free or reduced prices?

from article

The same day, Rowland allegedly saw a nurse at another hospital, saying she had left LDS Hospital because the doctor wanted to cut her "from breast bone to pubic bone," a procedure that would "ruin her life." The nurse also told investigators that Rowland said she would rather "lose one of her babies than be cut like that."

this is what she was either told, or assumed, was the procedure for c-section. i wouldnt want to be "cut like that" either. if this was her thought process for a CS her fears are founded.

also, that lateral cut is generally not used anymore. doctors will go for a hip bone to hip bone incision which allows for VBAC.

Roe V. Wade says that states may prohibit third-trimester abortions, as long as they allow abortions when neceesary to perserve the health or save the life of the mother.

Are you saying that, even if the unborn child is in perfect health, and even if the medical opinion of the doctor is that there is not risk to the mother's life or health if she has a c-sectio, she should nevertheless be allowed to abort a perfectly healthy baby because she does not want to have a c-section?

And, if she did not want to have a c-section, how else could sherid her body of the fetus?

Roe V. Wade says that states may prohibit third-trimester abortions, as long as they allow abortions when neceesary to perserve the health or save the life of the mother.

Actually no, this is not right. Roe said the state has an interest in the fetus after "viability" or in the third trimester and that states may regulate abortion after that point as long as they do not do so to the point of endangering a woman's health - yet it never clearly stated exactly what that supposed interest was. If Roe is ever re-argued the establishment of that mythical interest will be more aggressively pursued than in the original case and if the state fails to establish such an interest then abortion law as a whole may fall. Just a gentle nudge to anti-choice zealots to be careful what they wish for - it might happen.

Are you saying that, even if the unborn child is in perfect health, and even if the medical opinion of the doctor is that there is not risk to the mother's life or health if she has a c-sectio, she should nevertheless be allowed to abort a perfectly healthy baby because she does not want to have a c-section?

When we strip what you are trying to say of its emotional baggage we wind up with:
Even if the fetus is considered perfectly healthy the woman's physician, who must seek her consent before any surgical procedure is performed, must get that consent before proceeding. It is the absolute decision of the woman as to which method of delivery she wants to use and both vaginal and Caesarian deliveries carry a mortality risk.

And, if she did not want to have a c-section, how else could she rid her body of the fetus?

Women have used vaginal delivery as long as they have had vaginas.

- Eileen`s always in process page -


Eileen

She chose to deliver vaginally in spite of a doctor's recommendation. Trying to frame her indifference to the risks posed by a method of delivery as an intent to abort is baloney.

for this reminder, charlie.

and that of other anti-woman fanatics. i know there is more to this story...it's too tailor-made for the "women too frivilous and fickle to make important decisions" crowd.

for my c-section nearly thirteen years ago, hip bone to hip bone, it leaves barely a scar after several years unlike the way they cut my mom when she had me, the lateral cut. 39 years later and she still has one helluvan ugly scar, lol!

recommended C-Section and one or both of the twins died, he must be prosecuted for murder. If acquitted, then medical malpractice and revocation of his medical license.

and therefore avoid being proscecuted for poor eating habits.

Man, this country has gone wack-o!

I won't judge this woman until I know a lot more information.

First, I don't think anyone should be forced into having major surgery without consent. The hospital should have procedures in place to go to the courts and have a patient found incompetent, if necessary.

Second, there's a thread with a different article in LBN and the woman said the c-section would "ruin her life." Why did she feel this way? I want to know if she had medical insurance. She could have been scared that thousands of dollars in hospital bills would destroy the family. That she would have no way to maintain her living conditions with an extra huge bill. Surgery could be against her religion. Maybe she had other children at home and was afraid they'd be taken away if she spent extra time in the hospital.

I hope the prosecution knows what they're doing here. I can't imagine that this wouldn't be manslaughter, considering her state of mind at the time of the decision.

it shouldn't be ANY CHARGE AT ALL, PERIOD!

More information is clearly needed here.

As at least one other person has suggested, the question would be "Why?"

Roe v. Wade, as I understand it, allows stetes ot prohibit abortions in the final trimester, so long as there is an exception for the life or health of the mother.

The news item from KSL-TV makes no mention of any threat to the mother's life or to her health. In fact, it appears as though the doctors thought it best that she deliver the child. And it would appear that the baby was perfectly healthy.

and not the business of the rest of the self-righteous womb police. this is a clear case of legalized misogyny, based on little except the belief that woman are too frivolous to make decisions about their own bodies...and yes, that includes EVERYTHING inside those bodies.

This is about a woman being prosecuted because her pregnancy didn't end with a live birth, because she didn't follow her doctor's orders. Ignoring doctors orders is something we are all free to do. I may not agree with her decision, but pregnancies, particularly high risk ones like hers, are very fragile. Women don't become vessels with no rights just because they become pregnant. They should not be forced to undergo surgery, for any reason, pregnant or not. I don't even want to imagine what kind of precedence this sets, to prosecute someone in this manner.

If you thought personal autonomy was under attak in 1994 then you would be right to see them as being eliminated quickly ten years later.

Between the judicial abuse of - Regina McKnight -

And http://www.skepticfiles.org/aclu/siegel_d.htm">- Angela Carder: -

Mandated caesarians may have been ended by a lawsuit, instituted by a family with access to the necessary resources. (In re A.C. 1990) It involved Angela Carder, a woman who had had cancer during her teens. The cancer went into remission, but years later, after she became pregnant, it was reactivated. When she was 26 weeks pregnant, it became clear that she was not going to survive until the end of her pregnancy. Georgetown Hospital in Washington, D.C., where she was receiving her obstetric care, insisted that she undergo a caesarian section so as to try to save the fetus. Initially, Carder agreed, but then changed her mind. Despite her refusal and the fact that Carder's parents, her husband, and the medical specialist who was treating her cancer supported her decision, attorneys for the hospital obtained a court order and a staff obstetrician performed the caesarian. The baby died within two hours of surgery, Carder herself two days later. Her hospital records state that the surgery probably hastened her death. The Federal Appeals Court in the District of Columbia agreed to review the court order under which the surgery took place and in 1990 handed down a very strong opinion against forcing women to undergo caesarian sections against their will. In addition, the family filed a civil suit and Georgetown Hospital had to pay considerable damages. -The Politics of Fetal/Maternal Conflict- Source -

And now this current case - it should at last be clear to even those who have not been watching that the war on women's rights has gone into "take no prisoners" mode.

- Eileen`s always in process page -


Eileen

Isn't this case different from the one in Utah?

In the DC case, the mother's life was in danger. Indeed, the medical report showed that her death -- which doctors had already said was imminent -- was hastened by the C-Section.

But in the Utah case, where was the threat to the woman's life or health that would have justified destroying the unborn child? I see nothing which indicates that any physician ever suggested that an unborn child would have to be destroyed in order to protect the life or health of the mother. It appears that the doctors in this case felt that a C-Section was perfectly safe and posed no danger to the mother's health or life.

In fact the Regina McKnight prosecution is also based on a stillbirth.

In the DC case, the mother's life was in danger. Indeed, the medical report showed that her death -- which doctors had already said was imminent -- was hastened by the C-Section.

There are no guarantees in medicine and the actual outcome of each surgical procedure is not ever certain. While a statistical probability of successful outcome can be determined that is not applicable to the individual woman or man undergoing the surgery where there is always a 100% risk of death. That is precisely why no democratic society can force its citizens to undergo a surgery without the citizen's consent - no matter how altruistic the motives of the state.

But in the Utah case, where was the threat to the woman's life or health that would have justified destroying the unborn child?

It was a fetus. "Unborn child" is an oxymoronic term used to manipulate emotions and cover fascism frequently. Furthermore since physicians can not provide a 100% guarantee of outcome the call was not yours, or the physician's, or the AG's, but was the woman's.

When the physician is the patient s/he can make the call. Hir duty to hir patient is to provide sufficient information that hir patient can make an informed decision; and if the patient opts for surgery to use hir surgical skill to produce, to the best of hir ability, a successful outcome. We are not in Dachau and we may nor force any patient to have a surgery s/he does not want.

I would suggest you read some of the arguments in the Carder and McKnight cases.

- Eileen`s always in process page -


Eileen

Insisting that a baby or child or whatever term you want to use is somehow less of a baby or child because it's still in the mother's womb is ridiculous IMO.

However scientifically or logically accurate your use of these terms may be, it is silly to expect people to believe that a perfectly viable baby or child is less than what it is simply because it's called by another name by the scientific community. A rose by any other name?

One of the better known gurus of the Anti Abortion Propaganda Industry (AAPI), Dr.? Bernie Willke, says in one of his gospels (which I will never link):

What grows within? An "unborn baby or child," or perhaps "preborn baby" is better. "Developing baby" is also scientifically and professionally accurate. Sometimes other humanizing terms fit, such as "this little guy." Avoid referring to the unborn child as "it"; use "he" or "she." The terms "the fetus" and "the embryo," fall on the listening ear as "non-human glob." Never use them. If you can't avoid it, speak of "the living human fetus." Remember that the stage of "fertilized egg" lasts less than 24 hours. What implants one week later is not a fertilized egg, is not a "pre-embryo"(there is no such thing), but rather is a baby.

You're quite at liberty to consider my accurate representation "ridiculous". I consider the use of appropriate terminology rather than the spin of the AAPI to be counter propaganda. To paraphrase the message of Augustine in his "City Of God" "When my enemy appropriates my words I can no longer speak!"
- Eileen`s always in process page -

Eileen

doctors and hospitals have to FORCE women, or anyone else for that matter, to undergo procedures for which they've refused consent and which they have the right to do so? Had I been Cardner at Georgetown, I would have simply packed up and left that fucking fascist hospital and gone somewhere where I was respected and treated as a human being, and where my life was considered just as important as my baby's life. I'm so glad they had to pay through the nose for that, they deserved to lose every damn penny!

Your posts seem to at the very least imply that you believe a C-section poses absolutely no risk for the mother, when that is simply not the case. It is a major surgery with potentially fatal complications, and it isn't a decision which can or should be entered into lightly. As someone who is 8 and 1/2 months pregnant and has recently been informed by my doctor of the risks, etc. of a C-section (just in case), I can tell you that it is a very scary procedure to contemplate. As has been noted by others, we really don't know why she refused the surgery, but there are plenty of risks associated with the procedure which could justify her decision.

Further, as much as a few of them like to think otherwise, doctors are not all knowing gods. Her doctors did not KNOW that continuing the pregnancy would endanger the lives of the fetuses any more than they KNEW that the surgery posed no risk to the mother. There is no guarantee that both fetuses would have survived the surgery had she opted to have the C-section, and even the doctors must concede that fact.


Without more information, it is hard to know exactly what happened here. But it IS frightening to think that the government would dare to prosecute an individual for refusing to allow major surgery to be performed on her.

to have my baby sister. she suffered a massive pulmonary (sp?) embolism (blood clot traveled to her lungs) and went into arrest 3 times on the operating table. luckily they managed to bring her back, but she was a long time in recovery and her health has never been the same. i absolutely refuse to judge this woman.

thats just absolutely insane. there is very little chance that it would survive. the fetus is barely over a foot long and weighs barely over a pounds. the lungs just starting to function. technically it can survive it it lives for the next three month in the NICU and there is still a 50% of severe and permanant damage.

stupid stupid stupid.

And before I get flamed here, I myself had a stillborn baby in 1977. Not a year goes by on his birthday without me remembering him and wondering how he would have turned out. And if I'd been given that news before his birth, I would have raced them down to the OR to have the section, as it was, he was dead before I went into labor.

This woman was warned several times by nurses and doctors that her babies were at risk. She knew she hadn't felt them move in a while. She told people she'd rather have one of them die than be cut like that.

Maybe she's retarded, or has some kind of emotional or mental health issues, but I believe she bears some responsibility for what happened.

Charging her with murder is stupid, however. It sounds like she needs psychiatry.

she has some responsibility here. Don't think it is "Murder". Find the pressing of charges at that level (not even manslaughter) just as frightening as I find the story of her indifference... albiet a different kind of frightening.

She has responsbility - no question. But what that means - without information - I am not quite so sure/confident.

And yet I feel that something is missing in the story. And the pyschiatric angle - in absense of more information - seems to resonate.

perhaps have no idea of how closely the mom and baby are monitored. I was made very aware of the risks, and came very close to opting out (it was offered to me).

To know the fetuses are at extreme risk and refuse TWICE to get medical attention is showing depraved indifference.

I'll get flamed, I'm sure, but seriously, this woman is sick.

pregnant. Something is awry with her thinking or the circumstances of her life. Most women who have babies end up with some scarring, not to mention all of the other lovely things that happen to our bodies while pregnant. Afterall, she was having twins. She was bound to have some deep stretch marks. What did an incision matter?

If married, didn't her spouse have something to say about this? Yes, it is her body... but how utterly selfish if she made this decision alone to avoid scarring or pain. Welcome to childbirth!

But the inappropriately severe charge shows there is probably cause for concern. It dosen't seem farfetched to me to imagine someone just waiting for a case like this.

nt

So this is what it comes down to?!

Insane. Pure insanity. They've gone utterly crackers!

was getting at least a degree of prenatal care).

Read my post below--she's no murderer, but she sure as hell is no hero.

I had a high risk pregnancy and was planned for a vaginal delivery. When the nurses noticed the fetal heartbeat being irregular and fading, they called the docs and were ready for my delivery.

Finally I was advised to have the C, and did. The result can be seen in every one of my posts.

She already had a risky pregnancy, I've got a real problem with her refusal. I DON'T buy the "vanity made her do it" rap, but I do think she was simply selfish for whatever unknown reasons.

But to charge her of murder is wrong, too. This is a grey area, and the legal ramifications are chilling for us, but to have a high risk pregnancy and deliberately ignore medical advice is terribly disturbing to me.

I'll add that I bear some bitterness towards those who still think I should have had a vaginal delivery like it's a kind of sacrament. My boy's alive--that's what matters.

and i opted for drugs.............and didnt tough it out. go figure. not indicitive of my parenting ir loving skills to my boys i assure you, grinnin

I had to have a c-section with my first.

I also find this story extremely distrubing. I also agree, this is a slippery slope.

Off topic. The second time I had a vaginal birth. Don't let anybody make you feel less than a woman/mother whathaveyou because you had a c-section. It doesn't matter how our babies come in to this world, as long as they are healthy!!

Your child will not judge you on how he was brought in to this world. As far as I am concerned, the only judges of me as a mother are my children. I hope in when they are adults the positives outweigh the negatives and we have a respectful,loving relationship.

Of those that think prosecution of this woman is nuts, how many think that charging Scott Peterson with the murder of his baby is OK? Please elaborate on why you think one is justified and the other not?

The main difference between these two cases is that Peterson allegedly deliberately murdered his wife thus ending life of his baby. If he committed this crime, then he knew she was pregnant and knew that killing her would kill the baby.

This woman did not actively set out to hurt anyone so she is not guilty of murder. She simply decided not to get a procedure recommended by her doctors. First, there was no guarantee that the child would have survived the procedure. Second, doctors are not infallible so it is possible that they could have given her the wrong advice. Third, we have the right to have a voice in our own medical care.

If this woman is convicted of murder and the courts uphold her conviction, this could have a chilling effect on our rights as patients and care givers. Imagine you have an elderly relative who is slowly dying. Her doctor wants your consent to perform surgery on her. Once you are told that the surgery will only prolong her life for 2-3 weeks, you decide that you do not want to put her through any more operations. Your doctor gets angry at you and decides to report you to the police. Should you be charged with attempted murder?

The thought of criminal justice officials and the government having the power to force people to get invasive medical procedures should terrify the hell out of us. Even if the "experts" think that these procedures are necessary to save the lives of others, do we really want them to have the ability to force us to get these procedures? Do we really want the government to have the power to force people with rare blood types to donate blood against their will or to force people to donate their organs even if they do not want to donate their organs?

but is there any defense for her action?

She should either have had an abortion, or allowed the babies to be born. To let the fetus develop knowing it was going to die is irresponsible. Who knows how much pain the fetus had to go through because of her selfishness.

She has the G-ddamn human right to have her baby delivered however the hell she wants. C-sections have risks, and you can't force someone to go through that.

This is a ploy to give to please the doctors and medical interests in this country who are the biggest leeches outside of Wall Street.

undergo major surgery.

These are bogus charges and she should immediately file suit for wrongful prosecution.

Nobody has the right to force anybody to undergo surgery.

Would the DOCTOR be charged with Murder?
I think not.
Let me guess, the Prosecutor is up for re-election and his opponent charges that he's "Soft on Crime", right?

This is insane. I suppose the DA will ask for burning at the stake?

Did the doctors discusse early induction? Was surgery the only option presented? If so, why? Why couldn't they try for an early induction and allow her to give birth vaginally?

The Doctor (I'm assuming here, I know, thin ice) presented treament options, the mother, exercising "informed consent" picked one,rejected the Doctor's reccomendation, it went wrong, now she's being prosecuted for Murder.

I still wonder, if she had picked the C-section and the baby had died anyway, would the DOCTOR be charged with Murder?

Would possession of Trojans constitute attempted murder? Ashcroft wants PP records, does Justice plan to charge women who take Depo-Provera with attempted murder?

How long before you get arrested for buying Kotex, because if you weren't "murdering your unborn" by refusing to let them be fertilized, you wouldn't NEED kotex?

King George and Rumsferatu need Soldiers, people. Shut up and get pregnant!

including method of delivery. Some hospitals and doctors now refuse to do VBAC's (vaginal birth after cesarean) for fear of uterine rupture during labor, although, from what I've read, that is only more risky if they are augmenting labor with pitocin. She might would be faced with only C-S for all her future deliveries.

How dare they pretend to know what the outcome would have been if she had followed "doctor's orders". SOunds to me like the baby might have already been dead if she hadn't felt it move. I feel so badly for this woman. If she isn't acquitted, women need to stop having babies until they can get control over their bodies again. This is obscene. Every bit as much as what you say, Liberal Historian.

(I know women where I live that will refuse to go to either hospital here as well. We have an ungodly C-S rate around 35%.)

And what if she had the C-S and the baby still died? These outcomes aren't always that easy to predict.

happened, I don't think we are getting the whole truth here. I can't believe any newspaper would publish a picture of a man like the one they did of the mother unless it was in Utah. I really don't like to say things about certain cultures except that Utah is the only theocracy that I ever had to spend time in in the USA. I think this woman should be rescued like every Afghani woman who had to take abuse from the Taliban. Then maybe one could find out what the truth was.

This woman is a jackass. Sounds like a personality disorder to me, either borderline or anti-social. I mean why the hell did she go to the hospital concerned about the babies not moving but then refuse the cesarian? And then going to 3 different hospitals in one week and not going along with the recommended treatment plan. A cesarian is a routine procedure, required in about 20% of pregnancies and much, much higher for twins. She should have been aware as soon as she knew she was carrying twins that she'd probably need a ceasarian. Give me a break, if 20% of all women can go through a ceasarian then I think she could too. Many people have no access to health care. This woman was given the opportunity for the best possible outcome and rejected it because of stubborness and what I would guess is a personality disorder, not insanity. I hope they do a wellfare check on the child she has at home and make sure that child is in a safe environment.

That being said, prosecution for murder is fucking insane. This lady has the right, no matter how misguided she is to refuse surgery. Its her uterus and if she doesn't want it cut into that's her right. Actually any child would probably be better off born dead than to be born to such an illogical, self-centered woman.

that can only be contained by penis removal should agree to do so because 20% of them already agreed to.

it's women who have to endure pain, risky procedures, and so on as a punishment for sex, but men are exempted because sex is their divine right. i'm sure you know this :hi:

I am disgustipated at this. It's just asinine.

What is this nation coming to??

This is misogynist and plain Fascist. I am at a loss for words.

F**k!!!!!

This is mothers rights taken too far. This is just egregious abuse of rights. Its as if she refused to have a Cesarean for cosmetic purposes.

This just makes me sick. I never thought I would see a case in which I would not side with the mother.

I don't know where to start or end with this - there are so many things wrong with this on so many levels. Where is this womans value system where a scar is more important than a human life or her child?

Look at her face and her expression - there is something wrong here?? She is perhaps mentally ill??

There is no way this should be allowed to happen. The system should be able to prevent this.

This is murder.

In our western USA, patriarchal pockets of culture, women are very abused. We need the facts.

"i don't want to be cut like that." this story is designed to elicit a certain response. it seems more about the right to refuse risky medical procedures, but...maybe that's just my intepretation. and, of course, there is absolutely no mention of whether or not the babies would have survived even with the c-section.
and that picture...looks like the mug shot.
i'll wait for the facts also.

I don't see any excuse for allowing a fetus to suffer for weeks, much less die, after so much medical advice to the contrary.

Where is the women's abuse coming from? I don't see ANY indication of that apparent in this article.

I have never taken a position against pro-choice before this in my entire life. I don't think it helps the cause to justify cases that are beyond the justifiable just for the sake of being pro-choice.

Given the facts of the article given, this is clearly a case of choice taken too far and a case of murder in my estimation. I can see a case being made for diminshished capacity just by looking at the picture of the woman, but there is no excuse for any rational person to deny urgent pleas for medical intervention to deliver this baby for several weeks like this.

This baby was murdered - I don't care how you slice it.

so :wtf: are you talking about?!?! there is not enough information in that article to draw any conclusion...there is very little information about the woman...her psychological stability, for example. doncha think you might be jumping the gun by concluding it was murder?
is rejecting medical advice a CRIME? if so, there are probably a lot of us who can be prosecuted. like it or not...rejecting the advice of doctors is not illegal (yet)...even for pregnant women.

I never said she had an abortion. She exercised her CHOICE to refuse medical advice, at one point seemingly for cosmetic reasons as opposed to any other rational reason!


It started on Christmas Day at LDS hospital. Rowland--carrying twins--told a nurse that she hadn't felt them move. The nurse advised her to go to either Jordan Valley or Pioneer Valley Hospital. According to the charging documents, Rowland replied: "she'd rather have both her babies die before she'd go to those hospitals..."

January 2nd, she saw a doctor at LDS Hospital. (A WEEK LATER!! Kent Morgan, District Attorney's Office: “She went and saw a doctor and he indicated that there were very severe medical problems at that time, and that she should immediately have a Cesarean section.”

"She refused to have the c-section and left." This despite being warned that lack of treatment could result in the death or severe injury of her babies.

A few blocks away she told a nurse at Salt Lake Regional Hospital that a doctor wanted to cut her "from breast bone to pubic bone", and that would "ruin her life". The nurse says Rowland made a comment to the effect that she'd rather "lose one of the babies than be cut like that."

January 9th,(15 DAYS AFTER INITIAL WARNING THAT HER BABIES WERE IN DANGER!) Rowland went to Pioneer Valley Hospital to verify that her babies were still alive. Once again she left and refused treatment after warnings that her babies are in danger.


What do you mean there is not enough information in the article to draw a conclusion??? There is enough there to be CLEAR it was MURDER!

Now, as far as her psychological stability, that is beside the point as to whether it was MURDER or not. I AM inclined to believe this woman was psychologically unstable - I can see it in the damn picture for God's sakes! I can see it between the lines in this article!

Why would a ready to deliver twins woman say she would rather her babies die before she would go to "those hospitals"??? This is NOT NORMAL! This woman is mentally ill!!

If refusing to allow medical care, including delivery, numerous times, for a baby near term, is NOT a crime, then it should be. There is NO good reason why this baby should be dead.

Democrats need to stand for the unborn rights just as much as they need to stand for choice. This was a stupid and egregious choice, and possibly one made out of mental illness.

This is NOT a case to make a Democratic cause out of. It is a poor choice made by a likely very ill woman.

This baby was MURDERED.

funny how some of you folks believe EVERY FUCKING THING YOU READ. the governor of south dakota says he will sign a law banning abortion. this happened in UTAH. frankly, in this climate, i am willing to WAIT FOR THE FULL STORY. if it turns out that she was negligent, then she should be prosecuted. until then, i will reserve judgement because clearly the RW is ramping up its war against choice. so excuse me if, like you, i am not willing to convict this woman of murder before i have verified that THIS VERSION of the story is accurate, and before i learn more about her, but you go right ahead.
finally, given that one child survived: should she be charged with attempted murder too?

She has every right in the world to refuse a surgical procedure.

If not, you're a murderer if you do not immediately undergo surgery to remove one of your kidneys. I guarantee you, somebody will die if you do not.

This is mothers rights taken too far.

I guess they must be something different from human rights.

Human rights, last I looked, were the things that protected human beings against being forced to submit to surgery they did not choose to have.

I guess "mothers' rights" aren't quite the same thing.

And there Pithlet just was, saying how women don't become non-people when they get pregnant. Plainly, she was wrong.

.

We become breeding vessels, nothing more.

for sure. It is also possible that she may have been suffering mentally due to hormonal imbalances. Too many times (take the sad, sad, case of andrea yates) pregnancy or post partum related mental illnesses are TOTALLY discounted in this country. They are very real - I saw a friend of mine undergo RADICAL changes in the days right before delivery.

I propose to you two seperate, nearly identical news stories, both of which are to be posted on DU:

Story one: Parents who are members of a religious sect which shuns modern medicine allow their child to die of a fever when medical treatment could easily have saved the child.

Story two: Woman refuses a c-section which could have saved her baby's life (i.e. this story).

Anyone want to wager that one of those posts would have people caling for prosecution?

Two points here.

Point One: Much is made of the fact that C-Section carries a risk with it. But so does any medical procedure or even medication. How might we feel if a parent were to allow one of his/her own children to die from say, a strep infection, when doctors strongly recommended a course of antibiotic treatment, if the parents were to say, "I know atnibiotics could cure my child, but there is a risk associated with antibiotics, and I would rather have my child die than take the risk that my child might suffer side-effects from an antibiotic.

Point Two: The issue of trusting doctors. There never seems to be any issue at all when it comes to trustying doctors who say that third-trimester abortions are necessary to save the life or preserve the health of a mother. None at all. But let a doctor say that a particular proceudre is necesaary to save the life of an unborn child, and let the doctor also say that the procedure is safe, and suddenly a number of people are up-in-arms about how doctors are only in it to make money.

Strange, is it not, how one's viewpoints change depending upon where one stands?

No truly pro-choice person favors forcing a woman to get an abortion under any circumstances. We do favor allowing women to make their own decisions about what type of procedures they get. In the case of a doctor advocating a third-trimester abortion, it is up to the patient to decide whether or not to follow her doctor's advice.

Each patient must have the right decide how much he or she trusts doctors. Some people love them and other people cannot stand them. Many people's feelings toward their doctors are shaped by past experiences. Some people have great experiences with their doctors. Other people have terrible experiences. Since we do not know the woman in this article, we do not know what sort of experiences she has had with doctors. It is possible that she has gotten bad advice in the past from doctors and no longer trusts them.

Now patients have very little recourse if their doctors screw up. At most, they can sue their doctors. However, many states have decided to limit how much patients can sue for, which will not doubt make it harder for to get rid of bad doctors. It is certainly unlikely that they will be sent to jail if they kill or harm a patient even if they show a blatant disregard for that patient's life (for example: they hesitate to perform a necessary medical procedure on a poor patient because they are worried about getting paid). Since patients have to live with the consequences of their doctors' mistakes, they must have the right to decide what medical procedures they are going to get.

a parent's child?

We do not permit, in this country, children to assess the risks of a particular medical procedure, or even of a medication.

We leave those assessments of risk up to their parents.

We have, I think, an understanding in this country that children are not quite capapble of making decisions about their medical treatments.

And I think we also have in this country an expectation that parents will make the right choice for their children. I think most people in the US would look with horror upon a parent or parents who, in the face of competant medical advice, choose to ignore the competant medical advice, and, as a result, bring about serious medical harm, or even death, to their own children.

This is because, I think, that most Americans trul;y feel that children are among the most vulnerable members of our society, and that they therefore are entitled, by virtue to that vulnerability, to their parents' protection. When that protection is lacking, or when parents make decisions which cost children their lives, I do think that most of us recoil in horror at the choice the parent has made.

... most Americans trul;y feel that children are among the most vulnerable members of our society, and that they therefore are entitled, by virtue to that vulnerability, to their parents' protection. When that protection is lacking, or when parents make decisions which cost children their lives, I do think that most of us recoil in horror at the choice the parent has made.

Funny how some don't recoil in horror at the idea of the same thing being done to women, isn't it? The idea that some third party could strip a woman of the protection that her right to make decisions about things that affect her body grants her by calling those decisions "murder" ... ew; makes *me* recoil.

Any woman who doesn't want to be charged with murder will have the option of submitting to surgery that could cost her her life.

Can I see some recoiling, please?

.

The choice should be made by the woman. Should a doctor force a woman to undergo an abortion to save her life? Could she be prosecuted for not following the doctors orders, if she survived?

(Somebody else may have to ask him, since he says he doesn't read my posts)

Much is made of the fact that C-Section carries a risk with it. But so does any medical procedure or even medication. How might we feel if a parent were to allow one of his/her own children to die from say, a strep infection, when doctors strongly recommended a course of antibiotic treatment, if the parents were to say, "I know atnibiotics could cure my child, but there is a risk associated with antibiotics, and I would rather have my child die than take the risk that my child might suffer side-effects from an antibiotic.

So, let's ask him how he managed to, um, miss the point that the risk that a Caesarian section carries with it, the risk in issue in this case, is a risk to the person deciding whether or not to have it -- not a risk to some third party, not a risk that that the decision-maker in question is not assuming or affected by.

Surely it should be obvious to a child that an individual's entitlement to choose his/her own risks is a completely separate matter from an individual's entitlement to choose someone else's risks.

The issue in the case at hand was the risk to the person advised to undergo the procedure. She, and she alone, and in her absolute discretion unless someone can come up with justification for interfering in her exercise of discretion, gets to decide what risks she wishes to assume.

That's what we call a "right".

No one has the same kind of right to decide what risks other people will assume. Not even parents, for children. Nope. No analogy. Ding. Maybe outinforce can explain why he thought there was an analogy ... or why he decided to pretend there was one.

The analogy is actually this: the second-guessing of the woman's decision as to what risks to assume is the same as permitting those parents to deny their child life-saving surgery.

Permitting parents to do that amounts to treating children like chattel. Surprise -- just as preventing women from choosing their own risks amounts to treating women like chattel.

Women are not the means to someone else's end.


Now let's ask outinforce (or anybody thinking along his lines) this:

You are in a hospital emergency room, minding your own business.

A doctor rushes out of an examining room and says: "My patient is going to die unless s/he receives a transfusion of a very rare type of blood. You -- I know you! You have just the type of blood I need! Step over here, roll up your sleeve and prepare to lose a couple of pints of it."

Yowie. You weren't expecting that to happen, were you?!

Hmm, you think, there are risks in giving blood: infection, for instance. And apart from that, I'm due at the golf course in half an hour, and I just don't have time for this nonsense.

So, MAY you refuse to roll up your sleeve? Or may that doctor just grab hold of you, have security strap you down, and stick a needle in your arm?

I don't thiiiink so.

But I'd watch out. If women who refuse to have Caesarian sections -- which women are entitled to do for any reason that comes into their head -- are being charged with murder, then any one of us might be the next one strapped to that table in an emergency room with a needle in our arm ... or being charged with murder if we manage to escape.

Either individuals have the right to make choices about the risks they will assume to their own lives and bodily integrity, or they don't.

And individual is entitled to decide whether s/he will be cut open or not. How bloody obvious and simple is this concept?

If pregnant women are denied that right -- and charging someone with a criminal offence for exercising a right, that no law justifiably limits their right to exercise, does just that -- then we may all be denied the same right.

That's just kinda how rights work. Everybody's got 'em, or nobody has any claim to 'em.

.

Actually, more than one.

In the first story, it is a child. Treating the child and saving its life does not force a procedure on a non-consenting adult. Children are not property of the parents, and parents do not have the right to withold life saving care from their child, who cannot make that decision for themselves.

In the second case, it is forcing a woman to undergo a surgery. We have the right as consenting adults to tell our doctors we do not consent. That does not change just because we got pregnant. My life does not become any less valuable. Pregnant women are not merely breeding vessels.

I'm not saying that what the woman did in the second scenario is right. I would do whatever it takes to ensure that my baby survives. But, I will not advocate forcing those decisions on anyone.

Story one: Parents who are members of a religious sect which shuns modern medicine allow their child to die of a fever when medical treatment could easily have saved the child.


This is not a good analogy. A better one would be if the child required a bone marrow transplant and the mother refused to donate her marrow.

The CNN medical ethics expert says that the patients reason for refusing the treatment is irrelevent. She has the right to refuse a medical procedure, whether its for cosmetic reasons, religious reasons, or any other reason she can come up with. I personally think the woman is nuts. Why carry twins to term and then not bother to go through the trouble of having a c-section at the last minute? It doesn't make any sense. It was a totally illogical decision. C-sections are an everyday experience that millions of women go through.

Women have been charged with delivering substances to minors when their children are born with drugs in their systems but this too is a different issue. The child is born live and the mother delivered the substance to them in utero the same as if she delivered it in breast milk or even in a baby bottle. There you have a living child with equal rights who has illegal substance in his blood that was delivered by the mother.

I'm happy to see the outrage on this thread by fellow DU members. The woman made a choice to go with the natural birth option.

It was a choice that worked well for one of the twins. The other one died possibly because of this choice. However the C-section may have resulted in all three being dead, as was astutely pointed out above.

Let me give you an analogy. A car swerves out of control in the other lane and comes into your lane. You slam on the brakes. However the car still hits you and one of the 2 passengers inside dies from the accident.

You are charged with that passengers murder????? Possibly there was a better decision, possibly this was the best of all outcomes. You did not break any rational laws though. Only crazy american laws that are out of control. Designed to make prison companies a little bit richer I'm sure.


Let me add something that is controversial. I haven't made up my mind on this its just more of a philosophical type thought. I am a man and I believe that until the child is born it is part of the woman's body. And I believe women can choose to do whatever they want with their body as long as it doesn't hurt other people. For example taking cocaine I have no problem with, however force injecting cocaine into someone else I do. Taking cocaine while pregnant hmm there I'm in trouble aren't I;(.

As I said though I like to debate things to learn. One thing I was thinking about was if you have to be having children by c-section, is it really a good idea to be having children at all?

I mean those children will have your same genetics. And they too will have trouble having children. There is a lot of problems with c-sections like terrible health problems and infertility, I believe it should be a last last resort.

Now I also am aware we are making astounding progress on genetic engineering and I believe the real results of that will come sooner then we think. Within 40 years. So your children for their own children will likely choose to heavily modify their dna. I know I would for my children if I had the choice. I'd want my children to be extremely healthy and beautiful. Assuming low risks of course. And I believe that I should be the one choosing that.

However what do you guys think on the philosphical point that maybe women who need c-sections shouldn't really be having to many kids. Maybe they should opt for adoption.

The ninth month of pregnancy is a bit late to consider adoption.

We definitely need more facts on this case. Apparently the doctors had been suggesting C-section for some time. Did the woman have limited mental capacity? Do the doctors have no legal recourses in cases like this?

Can it be absolutely proven that the baby would have lived with a C-section? If the woman is at fault, is the charge of "murder" really the best option?

hearing. She was obviously not competent to make any decisions. She was probably undergoing some kind of peri-natal psychosis.

The hospitals, doctors and nurses are as much to blame as she is. They have ethics boards and competency hearings. She could have been found not competent and become a ward of the court.

Hasn't this woman been through enough? One of her children is dead. She's been through a traumatic and risky pregnancy. What benefit could possibly come from prosecuting her?

And what about the surviving baby and the woman's family? Where are the family values?

I swear, it's only a matter of time before the damned uterus inspectors come knocking on the door.

This is extreme. Most C-sections are much less sever than this. Would this be because she was carrying twins?

If this statement is true at all, then this is scarey indeed. Some people believe she should have allowed herself to be literally cut in half in order to save someone's life.

That said, I have my doubts that this surgery would have been that extreme, but still am uncomfortable with someone being prosecuted for making her own medical decisions.

I think it is possible that a vertical versus transverse incision might be made in some cases because of the position of the twins, the placenta, etc. But i can't say for sure because it's been awhile since read about the incidence of one vs the other.

She has denied making that statement about it "will ruin my life", etc.

If this was a real emergency, why didn't they seek to have her declared incompetent and legally force the C-section? Because the hospital and doctors don't want a civil liability case on their hands for assault and battery and false imprisonment, so you could say the hospital put it''s finances ahead of the baby's well-being. (But if it was that much of an emergency, that might would have some protection under the law in protecting the almost full-term babies.)

I'm not convinced everyone is in the clear on this, and maybe the doctors are trying to cover their own butts.

If the other twin had also lived , shouldn't they have forged ahead with a charge of 1st Degree Attempted Murder?

All things being equal(her doctors advice as well as her attitude and statements), I think so.

For other women who ignore or show indifference to any part of their Dr.'s advice and make any seemingly shallow or indifferent remarks about the outcome of their pregnancy, there are the lesser charges of 2nd and 3rd Degree Attempted Murder, on down to Attempted Manslaughter and Reckless Endangerment.

That is, if we're serious about it.

There must a galaxy of ways to criminalize the behavior of the hundred's of thousands of pregnant women in this country who, in various ways, are putting their unborn chidren in peril everyday, if only we put our minds to it.

And face it, the prisons necessary for all this would be far from the Maximum Security class.

maybe all pregnant women should be rounded up and placed in protective custody and given guardians to approve procedures and make sure the don't drink or smoke, and that they eat right until birth. After that, we can throw them out onto the street to fend for themselves.

I can't believe there are people here advocating forced surgery. How about a law gets passed that anyone can be forced to have surgery, especially if someone else would be saved or kept alive by that surgery. Maybe you have a rare blood type and someone needs part of your liver to survive. Someone else needs one of your kidneys or he will die. Perhaps someone else might need your heart and that person is much more important than you are. If you refuse the surgery, you are deemed to have caused the other person's death, and therefore can be charged with murder. There is no difference.

The only difference here is that we feel that since this is a woman and this was her offspring, she is somehow more at fault because she "should" have put her child first, because that's just how mothers should be.

In my opinion, this woman was selfish. Also, in my opinion, if you refuse to give your kidney to your brother to save his life, you are selfish. In the case of the woman, this might or might not have resulted in the death. In the case of your brother, it would definitively have resulted in his death. Which is worse? I don't know, but I have a feeling that most people feel the woman is worse. Is it because women should be nurturing by nature and caregivers?

A person who jumps in front of a car to save a child is a hero. Is the person who doesn't a murderer?

I think I might be agreeing with you here, FlaGranny.

I think what I hear you saying is that one person's own body is hers/his and hers/his alone, and that no one should ever be compelled to give up part of that body in order to save another person.

I happen to think that is much of the debate about stem cells and human cloning. I think that it is just wrong to purposely create people in a laboratory for the express purpose of harvesting their organs -- even if harvesting their organs means that someone else's life is saved.

If someome, with full knowledge and consent, wishes to donate his or her organs, then fine. But to clone a human being -- and therby to create another human being (which is what, after all, a clone would be) and then to extract from the clone part of his or her body without his or her consent, would be terrible.

I wasn't referring to cloning. I HAD thought of the cloning issue, and believe it would be much more likely that in cloning, only individual organs would be cloned, and not a complete replicant of the entire person. I would not object to that. Organs would be living, but not "beings."

It took a second read for me to catch it.

WHO REFUSE TO TREAT LOW-INCOME PREGNANT WOMEN BECAUSE THEIR MEDICAID DOESN'T PAY ENOUGH OR THEY DON'T HAVE MUCH MONEY? Are we going to charge THEM with murder if something goes wrong with one of the pregnancies? And why isn't THAT considered "depraved indifference to human life?"

refuse to treat patients who are in emergency situations should be prosecuted, in my estimation.

Doctors who perform abortions but who refuse to perform them for free on women who cannot afford them, Medicaid or no Medicaid, should be prosecuted, in my view.

Doctors who lie about the conditions of their patients in order to make money on the procedures they perform should be prosecuted, in my view.

Because to some people (I'd love to call them out, but DU rules prevent me from doing so), women are merely incubators to churn out either men, or more incubators. If they don't have much money, they're lower class, and might even be of an inferior race... you wouldn't want them to continue breeding. Why, that'd get in the way of the eugenics!

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/9118/mike2.html

That's the kind of crap that happens when the government starts forcing surgery without informed consent.

...in modern society. I hope Democrats realize the fundies won't stop until all our Constitutional/common laws are replaced with biblical law.

You remember Wayward Puritans? They're obviously alive and well, in Jerry Springer's audience and right here at DU.

There's just nothing like a good witchhunt to make ya feel all warm and righteous, is there?

.

... for anyone who ever considered joining NARAL to contact them NOW and become a member! Go to: http://www.naral.org for information regarding issues and memberships. This bit from one of their pages gives us just a glimpse of the slippery slope ahead of us all.

http://www.NARAL.org/Issues/pregnantwomen/index.cfm

The Rights of Pregnant Women
Special restrictions on pregnant women create a dangerous precedent for wide-ranging government intrusion into the lives of all women.

Women, due to their ability to become pregnant, have faced inappropriate treatment by judges and prison officials. Courts and prisons have imposed harsher sentences and have interfered with women's reproductive choices.

Pregnant women have been forced to undergo unwanted cesareans; ordered to have their cervixes sewn up to prevent miscarriage; incarcerated for consuming alcohol.

There is a racist element in many of these cases. Although drug use crosses all racial and class lines, poor women of color have overwhelmingly been the ones targeted and arrested for using drugs while pregnant.

Punitive measures do not promote healthy childbearing; instead, they deter women from seeking necessary treatment and prenatal care.

"Fetal protection laws" such as the proposed "Unborn Victims of Violence Act" could create a cage of restrictive rules on women fashioned to "protect," the fetus, turning back the clock to the days women — but not men — were forbidden from working in industrial settings because their employers were afraid to incur liability for harm to their fertility.

Additionally, the current Administration has demonstrated a lack of concern for the rights and well being of pregnant women in the name of anti-choice politics by proposing insuring the fetus as a separate individual. The classification of a fetus as individual separate from the woman has a potential to create barriers to health care for pregnant women with illnesses. For instance, would a pregnant woman with cancer be able to access potentially life-saving radiation treatment or chemotherapy, since such treatment could harm the pregnancy?


Women's reproductive choices are being stripped away in state after state, not to mention by our evangelical-sucking resident in the WH. The time for action is NOW.

If they knew there was a danger to the baby, and they did nothing because they thought they would get sued for assault, battery, false imprisonment, etc, then tough. They chose to let the baby die versus intervening and saving the baby's life. They should be charged also. Now let's see where this debate goes if the criminality attaches to the medical profession...

They can't have it both ways.