Woman charged with murder for refusing C-section

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Guy, make me proud... argue AGAINST it, but say you are PRO-CHOICE. You'll either piss off everyone or gain the respect of everyone .

I don't see many pro-choice people who are against Roe like myself, though .

Sadly, due to a not-entirely-unsuspected but nonetheless ill-timed family emergency, I was unable to attend class this afternoon. I was REALLY looking forward to it, too.

[Ben Kenobi]

Everyone okay guynemer?

[Dis]

Originally posted by Stuie


The woman obviously didn't want her incredible good looks ruined...

I'd hit it

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

To put matters into perspective, BC just went ahead and allowed C-sections for elective purposes because they are that safe.

So I find the argument that the surgery would have consequences for the mother that would justify her declining the medical treatment untenable.

Have you genuinely forgotten about psychological consequences, or do you just consider them to be irrelevant when balanced against the precious, precious foetus?

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

A reasonably balanced link about the operative risks.

http://www.compleatmother.com/factsheet.htm

For the benefit of the inexperienced, I have first-hand experience of what can happen when cesaereans don't go to plan. There are risks involved with what is, after all, intrusive surgery on internal organs. They have a vital role in medicine, but not as forcible impositions. I imagine the lawsuits resulting would be impressive, to say the least.

[Dis]

the thing is she's ignorant white trash. She didn't even consider the risks of an operation. All she cared about was the scar.

Wait a minute, why am I arguing in favour of prosecuting her . I'm actually taking her side- even though I don't agree with her morally. But muder? come on.

[Az]

Holy ****, Diss. She looks stoned out of her ****ing brains.

[Proteus_MST]

It should rather be negligence than Murder.

I wonder what had happened if the woman had refused the C-Section for religious Reasons (as some religious Groups, such as Jehovas Witnesses have harsh Restrictions on Medical Treatments which are allowed)

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Dissident
the thing is she's ignorant white trash. She didn't even consider the risks of an operation. All she cared about was the scar.

I see. So objecting to surgery must only be restricted to the middle and upper classes who know about good skin care?

Was the objection to the residual scar, or to having a surgical scalpel cut through the skin, muscle walls and uterus? The two concepts are rather different, after all.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Proteus_MST
It should rather be negligence than Murder.

OK. How would you deal with mothers who work through their pregnancy and subject themselves to workplace stress?

2nd point- if you equip doctors with a right, and even a legal obligation to operate against the mother's will, and place the fear of charges on the mothers, what do you think will happen?

Do you think, as I do, that mothers with a fear of surgery will be less inclined to go to see their doctors at all? Do you think that the rates of home births will rise or fall?

Do you think that, by passing a law designed to protect the precious, precious foetus, that the number of foetal deaths might actually rise as a result?

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Azazel
Holy ****, Diss. She looks stoned out of her ****ing brains.

That's normal for parents of young babies.

[The Mad Monk]

Laz, even our most liberal abortion laws recognize the third trimester as a strict boundary; I'm not even sure it's still called a fetus when a child is as close to term as the one that died. It was't a matter of surviving birth -- they were already dying, and if she hadn't given birth when she had, both would have died.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
OK. How would you deal with mothers who work through their pregnancy and subject themselves to workplace stress?

2nd point- if you equip doctors with a right, and even a legal obligation to operate against the mother's will, and place the fear of charges on the mothers, what do you think will happen?

Do you think, as I do, that mothers with a fear of surgery will be less inclined to go to see their doctors at all? Do you think that the rates of home births will rise or fall?

Do you think that, by passing a law designed to protect the precious, precious foetus, that the number of foetal deaths might actually rise as a result?

I don´t think that Mothers who work through their Pregnancy should be punished, as the risk to loose the child this way is much lower.

But I place some Trust in the Doctors, that, if they say that their children are in a critical Condition (after all they detected slowing Heartbeats) and probably they might die without a C-Section, this will be true.
So I think that the woman refused to undergo a medical Treatment to safe the life of their children.
If she had any doubt that her Doctor was right and the C-Section was indeed necessary to safe the Life of her child(s), she might have consulted another Doctor to hear his Opinion.
And either the same day or at least the next day, as slowing Heartbeats indicate a sevrere medical Condition for the unborn children.
But after all I read in the first Posting of this Thread she went to another Doctor, but just a week later, when one of the children already was dead.

And after all I think a C-Section is nothing, which puts the Mother at an extreme risk, as it is a standard medical Procedure, which is very regularly administered (and there is no indication that Miss Rowland faced a higher risk than other mothers who underwent this procedure).

So, yes, as it was just a few days till birth and she had decided to bear those Children, I think she also accepted a certain responsibility for them, which she neglected in the full knowledge, that with refusing the medical treatment, there would be a high Probability of losing one or both of the children.
(but of course she didn´t murder one her children )

I would see similarities between this case and a couple of cases involving Jehovas Witnesses and Blood Transfusions. For example the case of Perrot, where we had a 3 year old girl which should get a Blood Transfusion. But her Father denied this medical Procedure as they were Jehovas Witnesses (and their Faith denies them Blood Transfusions) with the fuill knowledge,that with this Decision their daughter would very probably die (very probably influenced by the Presence of an Elder). The Medics accepted this Decision and the daughter died.

As für similarities between this case and the right for Abortion:
I think there are great differences. If you decide to abort you do it while the children is still a Lump of undifferentiated Cells and doesn´t possess a real neural Network (yes, I am one of those guys who think that conscious Life begins with the development of a nervous System and not already at Conception ). And, after all, you decide not to bear the children.
As for the children of Rowland, it is different.
It was close to birth, so you can assume that Rowland had decided to bear those children and to accept the responsibility for them. And, although the Children were still in the womb, they were already fully developed, as it was very close to birth.

So I think she neglected her responsibility (by not accepting the medical treatment or at least consulting Another Doctor) whereas mothers who decide to abort don´t .

But I agree with you that any conviction of Rowland (be it murder or be it negligence) could lead to pregnant women shying away from visiting their doctors.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
Laz, even our most liberal abortion laws recognize the third trimester as a strict boundary; I'm not even sure it's still called a fetus when a child is as close to term as the one that died. It was't a matter of surviving birth -- they were already dying, and if she hadn't given birth when she had, both would have died.

Call it a foetus. Call it a baby. Call it a precious unborn angel. It's just semantics.

I didn't recall reading in the link how close the delivery was to the expected due date. In any event, one did survive- so where does the cast-iron certainty that both would have died come from?

It's a clear message to expectant mothers- if you fear cesarean sections, stay away from doctors and give birth at home. That way they won't be acting against medical advice and would presumably avoid any charge. Is that an outcome to be desired?

Unless, of course, you make medical attendance compulsory and charge mothers who attempt to give birth at home? Just how far are you willing to go?

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Proteus_MST

And after all I think a C-Section is nothing, which puts the Mother at an extreme risk, as it is a standard medical Procedure, which is very regularly administered

Your opinion is noted and duly dismissed. As I stated several inches higher, are you forgetting about psychological damage or are you merely ignoring it?

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp

Your opinion is noted and duly dismissed. As I stated several inches higher, are you forgetting about psychological damage or are you merely ignoring it?

If you think about the psychological Damage the Mother already had.
I found it very difficult to assess, therefore I deliberately left it out.
This could be one of the things where the Hospital probably failed.
If she really thought that she would be cut from Brestbone to Belly, it coulöd probably be a negligience of the Hospital, to properly and gently inform her about the procedure they wanted to perform on her and to adress all of her fears.

Sadly the psychological side is grossly neglected by many Doctors and they treat their Patients more like a broken machine which has to be fixed, than like a human beings with feelings and fears.

So, the psychological side of the case could indeed be a reason fo an Exoneration.

[DinoDoc]

The woman didn't fear surgery. She feared the cosmetic damage surgery would do and considered the life of her children secondary to her looks. That warrants looking into if she is a fit mother or not even if the charges end up being dropped.

[The Mad Monk]

Here you go, Laz:

An autopsy found 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 other baby is alive, but authorities had no further information.

According to the documents, Rowland went to LDS Hospital in Salt Lake City in December to seek advice after she hadn’t felt her babies move. A nurse, Regina Davis, told police she instructed Rowland to go immediately to one of two other hospitals, but that Rowland said she would rather have both babies die before going to either place.

On Jan. 2, a doctor at LDS Hospital examined Rowland and recommended an immediate C-section based on an ultrasound and the babies’ slowing heart rates. Rowland left, the doctor told police.

A week later, Rowland allegedly went to a third hospital to verify whether her babies were alive. A nurse there told police she could not detect a heartbeat from one twin and advised Rowland to remain in the hospital, but Rowland allegedly ignored the advice.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

That doesn't answer my query. We're told what the delivery date was, but not the expected due date. In addition, it makes no reference to the level of danger faced where the surviving child was concerned.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
The woman didn't fear surgery. She feared the cosmetic damage surgery would do and considered the life of her children secondary to her looks.

Can you back that up with anything more convincing than an assumption made by a prosecuting lawyer?

[DinoDoc]

Would it make a difference to you if I were able to?

[Ming]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
In any event, one did survive- so where does the cast-iron certainty that both would have died come from?

Exactly... it's not a science, and doctors were stating opinions... yeah, they are in the best position to have SOLID opinions, but in this case they were wrong... one baby did survive.

The woman didn't fear surgery. She feared the cosmetic damage surgery would do and considered the life of her children secondary to her looks. That warrants looking into if she is a fit mother or not even if the charges end up being dropped.

The sole basis of this is a SINGLE comment she made to a nurse.
Do you people realize what emotions and mood swings a women goes through during the birthing process. As many men know who have been there for the birth of their children, we've all heard comments like I'm never having another baby again... I'll cut "it" off if you get near me again with it in the future... strange and weird stuff. To claim she is an unfit mother because of single comment made to a nurse (which nobody else heard) while she was in emotional turmoil is absurd at best.

Did the lady make the right choice... we are all assuming no. Could the lady have died if she had the surgery... YES... Could one or both kids have died even if she had had the surgery... maybe... Nobody knows for sure...

[Ned]

Gimp, on second thought, I don't see a lot of harsh ramifications to a conclusion that this woman may have murdered her unborn infant. I think the law could allow a prosecution for murder without forcing the doctors into a situation that if they did not operate against the will of the woman they too would be guilty of aiding and abetting a crime. I think the proper procedure in such a case would be for the doctors to notify the local district attorney of the circumstances led to take their case. The district attorney could then seek a court order requiring a guardian be appointed to protect the interests of the unborn infant and the seek guardianship over woman herself so that the guardian could sign a consent form for the surgery. This procedure would allow the woman to stay their case before court to test whether or position was reasonable. Among the factors to court could take in consideration would be the viability of the fetus, the health risks to the woman, and the health risks to the fetus.

One thing to consider in the Utah case is that "mens rea" includes something to the effect that the action was taken with a perverse disregard for the likelihood that the action would result in the death of a fetus. The particular statute does not exclude a prosecution against the mother, although it was originally intended to protect the fetus from an attack by a third-party.

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Everyone okay guynemer?

Grandma had a bowel obstruction, surgeons decided yesterday was the day or there could be serious problems...

luckily, she came through the surgery a-ok, didn't even need an ileostomy or anything.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Would it make a difference to you if I were able to?

Yes. It would get you re-admittance on my list of "People unlikely to feature in a lynchmob entirely made up of braying yokels".

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by Proteus_MST
I wonder what had happened if the woman had refused the C-Section for religious Reasons (as some religious Groups, such as Jehovas Witnesses have harsh Restrictions on Medical Treatments which are allowed)

Some Mormon sects, as well, have harsh restrictions on medical treatments... namely:

Surgery is absolutely forbidden unless it is to save your life.

I have no idea if this applies to this woman, but something to ponder nonetheless.

[The Mad Monk]

Laz, none of the news sources I've looked at mention a separate due date; that, and the fact that the surviving twin had no reported complications (apparently not a premie), and the fact that the doctor wanted to do the c-section more than a week earlier, leads me to believe that the due date was on or before the delivery date.

That's the best I can do with the information I have.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Ming
Do you people realize what emotions and mood swings a women goes through during the birthing process.

Yes. And it was her statement combined with her previous actions that led me to the conclusion I did.

[The Mad Monk]

In other news, she's saying that her two other children were both c-sectioned.

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
Laz, none of the news sources I've looked at mention a separate due date; that, and the fact that the surviving twin had no reported complications (apparently not a premie), and the fact that the doctor wanted to do the c-section more than a week earlier, leads me to believe that the due date was on or before the delivery date.

You are assuming an awful lot.

There is simply no way to know, at all, from the current news accounts, what the due date was. A baby can be "premature" are not have any major complications; and we don't know if there are any or not, to be perfectly honest.