# Mother of stillborn accused of murder



## AmyB (Nov 21, 2001)

http://www.sltrib.com/2004/Mar/03122004/utah/147031.asp

Well, I thought this was a theoretical problem with giving a fetus equal rights to a pregnant woman, but now it has actually happened.

A woman in Utah is being tried for murder because her fetus died after she refused the advice of a doctor to have ceasarean surgery.

I just have to rant a little. Can you immagine being threatened by hopital bullies that you must accept all medical interventions or else you will be prosecuted as a murderer? It is obvious to me that our right to choose how we give birth and our right to reject medical technology is part of the same continuum that allows women to chose abortion. There is no way to separate the the whole process of pregnancy and birth.

The prosecuting attorney in the article is quoted as saying "What we're trying to send is the message that someone has to stand up for a child who could have been alive."

That's the classic anti-abortion argument, but I simply cannot accept the morality of any world view that would turn this woman into a murderer for refusing to have surgery.

--AmyB


----------



## merpk (Dec 19, 2001)

The whole story is a convoluted moral mishmash.









I mean, so much about her (from the link) seems to point to her not being a good baseline to judge this sort of issue ... does that make sense? Have only a minute to type this, so not being that clear ...

Agreed that it's frightening precedent ... but so much of this particular situation is screwy and unique that I can't see how it can be carried over into putting any mother who refuses a ceasarean and G!d forbid loses the child in legal jeapordy ...

Though this case's mental illness component should knock it out of the legal realm, too ...








:


----------



## JessicaS (Nov 18, 2001)

Woa, that all sounds really scary. I understand there is menal illness and drug use involved but it really freaks me out that they want to try a woman with murder for refusing a c-section.

Ugh!!!

I didn't see why they thought a c-section was necessary.


----------



## mollyeilis (Mar 6, 2004)

I hadn't realized, when I first heard about this, that she had such a history with mental illness. That does change things, and makes it hard to imagine they would want to prosecute her as though she had full capacity.

But my feelings are still strong: I think it's really sad that medical thinking is so wrapped up in the law. The other way of saying it is that the law is incredibly medically biased. If she HAD had the c-section and one of them had died, she wouldn't be prosecuted like this. Neither would the medical personnel that delivered the babies. But b/c she refuses a medical procedure, she's viewed as a criminal.

Sad sad sad.


----------



## Clarity (Nov 19, 2001)

http://www.mothering.com/discussions...hreadid=123396


----------



## Dragonfly (Nov 27, 2001)

I agree with Amy - I can't see this particular case setting precedent for all other women.


----------



## chicagomom (Dec 24, 2002)

This is not the first time a woman has been prosecuted for not having a c-section. So actually I do see a disturbing trend here. This is one important tactic of some pro-life organizations who see this as a means to overturn Roe v Wade. It's not going to stop until abortion is outlawed.

In another recent case in January a Pennsylvania hospital was *granted guardianship* of an unborn child after a woman refused a c-section there. She went to another hospital and delivered the child vaginally without complication. (She had a healthy pregnancy, it wasn't her first child.)

I think this is just outrageous.


----------



## gardeningmom (Mar 4, 2004)

I find it odd that people are defending a woman who after several medical assements let her infant die rather than have a c-cection. This woman is negligent IMO. If she had had only one medical opinion then I think it would be a different story. I think there is probably more here than what is being reported.


----------



## BeeandOwlsMum (Jul 11, 2002)

Hmmm...I think that might be a little harsh.

I don't think negligent. I don't think she knew the outcome. I think any one of us could be in the same situation. I would try and refuse a c/s if at all possible. Would I be prosecuted for murder as well?

I mean then where do you draw the line? Does a woman who has an elective c/s and their baby dies get prosecuted? How about a woman who has a homebirth and their baby dies? How about a woman who ends up birthing quickly and has the baby in the back of a car and the baby dies?

Plenty of women who are told that they will NEED a c/s or the baby will die or the baby can't be born without it, prove docs wrong by having healthy babies vaginallly.

There are other issues that I am sure that are not being brought to light. But we all do what we think is best - and sometimes we are wrong. She has suffered enough by losing her child. Does she need to go to jail for making the wrong ultimately tragic decision?

I also think that this opens up a huge can of worms in terms of a doctor being able to force a procedure on a woman for "her own benefit" though. Especially with the precedent of this case. And it might allow women to be bullied more eaily just knowing that someone might be able to press charges if their decision turns out to be wrong.


----------



## Leonor (Dec 25, 2001)

The more I think about these issues the more I think it's too much of a complicated world for my head.


----------



## 5796 (Oct 19, 2002)

I heard her being interviewed. I strongly, strongly believe she is not full IQ.
Which if that is the case, I think she would have benefited by having a court awarded guardian. I believe there is more to t his whole story. But it is without a doubt one of the saddest stories I heard in an already sad story week.


----------



## mamaofthree (Jun 5, 2002)

We got a little tid bit in our local paper about this. What it said in our paper was she refused the c-sec because she didn't want a scar, it would ruin her life. (What it said in the paper). I am not sure how true that is, but it freaked me out. I am not one to jump on the c-sec band wagon by any means, but there are cases where it is nessesary. I mean a 30% rate, but WHO says something like 5%? I mean it does happen. I don't know, I am torn. If she was just being selfish about her bodily apperance, then that is just messed up.

H


----------



## Clarity (Nov 19, 2001)

If you read some of the links in the other thread, this is a very troubled woman with a lot of unusual circumstances. The woman herself points out that she had two prior c-sec's the the hospital's claim about her not wanting a scar is bogus...she's already scarred. She has psychiatric and addiction problems however. So read some more about the case, but don't assume she did what she did over physical vanity.


----------



## JessicaS (Nov 18, 2001)

I am not exactly defending her but I would like to know WHY they felt the c-section was necessary.

Like previous posters stated plenty of women who MUST have a c-section go on to have vaginal births. So I was curious why they thought hers was necessary.


----------



## Clarity (Nov 19, 2001)

looks like they saw fetal heartrate distress on one twin. She visited the three hospitals in a period of a few days. Low amniotic fluid also. I would guess IUGR or Twin to twin transfusion symdrome. Both of which are serious even if she'd agreed the first day it was suggested. They were eventually delivered by c-section. She's been in jail since then (about January 13.) She was also giving up her child for adoption. Previous children live with relatives.


----------



## Mommy StormRaven (Jan 21, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by gardeningmom_
*I find it odd that people are defending a woman who after several medical assements let her infant die rather than have a c-cection. This woman is negligent IMO. If she had had only one medical opinion then I think it would be a different story. I think there is probably more here than what is being reported.*
She CANNOT be negligent if she is mentally ill. SHe is incapable of rationalization with the disorders she has been diagnosed with.

I think if it does go through as is then it will set a VERY dangerous precedent.

With the birth of my last DD at home if I had gone into the hospital at any time more than 24 hours after my water broke they would ahve c/s'd me based soley on supposed infection risk - even though I had had no vaginal exams or anythign up to that point. This coudl just end up REALLY bad for EVERY woman.


----------



## dado (Dec 31, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by gardeningmom_
*I find it odd that people are defending a woman who after several medical assements let her infant die rather than have a c-cection.*
i find it odd that so many people are so eager to rush to judgement on somebody they don't even know. instead of demonizing a total stranger, why not try and figure out exactly what went wrong so maybe it can be prevented in the future?


----------



## Mommy StormRaven (Jan 21, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by AmyB_
*The prosecuting attorney in the article is quoted as saying "What we're trying to send is the message that someone has to stand up for a child who could have been alive."
*
Ok - this thing - IF persued HAS to go both ways. If a mother's chidl is stillborn becuase of the doctors mistake int eh c/s can she press charges for felony murder too?

Quote:

why not try and figure out exactly what went wrong so maybe it can be prevented in the future?
Exactly mu thoughts too!

Stormraven


----------



## hotmamacita (Sep 25, 2002)




----------



## Els' 3 Ones (Nov 19, 2001)

Quote:

*
I mean then where do you draw the line? Does a woman who has an elective c/s and their baby dies get prosecuted? How about a woman who has a homebirth and their baby dies? How about a woman who ends up birthing quickly and has the baby in the back of a car and the baby dies?

*

This is exactly the heart of this case. "They" are coming after us to force us to birth our children "their way".

Seriously.

Do some googling. Go to the Midwives forum here.

Many women cannot find a Dr who will let them *try* to VBAC.

Many have been prosecuted for unassisted birth.

Here in IL there is a case of a lay-mw being prosecuted after a baby was stillborn. The parents are not prosecuting, the county is!!! That is bs. The parents are at peace with what happened and were made to go thru it again and again bcuz of a witchunt trial.

The gov't should stay the hell out of my body! And my children's body.

Just are much are you all willing to give up?

El


----------



## Leonor (Dec 25, 2001)

I'm inclined to agree with El.


----------



## hotmamacita (Sep 25, 2002)

I TOTALLY AGREE WITH EL!!!!!!

Have you seen this....


----------



## hotmamacita (Sep 25, 2002)

National Advocates for Pregnant Women

NAPW Commentary on Murder Arrest of Pregnant Woman Who Refused a C-Section

An arrest in Utah yesterday of 28 year old Melissa Rowland who allegedly committed murder by refusing a recommended C-section represents a shocking abuse of state authority and a dangerous disregard for medical ethics.

In this case prosecutors claim that a woman pregnant with twins rejected advice of her physicians to have a cesarean section. Prosecutors assert that the stillbirth of one of the twins was caused by her refusal to undergo this surgery. According to the law, however, pregnant women, like other Americans have the right to decide whether or not to undergo surgery. The American Medical Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists as well other leading medical groups similarly conclude that the final decision must be the womanâ€™s.

These legal and medical â€"ethical principles make sense for both women and children. Doctors are not infallible and their advice is just that, advice. Recently a woman went to a hospital in Pennsylvania ready to deliver her seventh child. For reasons that remain far from clear, the hospital decided she needed a c-section and when she refused they went to court. They asked for and won an order giving the hospital custody of the fetus before during and after delivery and the right to take custody of the pregnant woman and forcer to have the cesarean surgery. She and her husband fled the hospital and delivered a perfectly health baby without surgery. Similar cases abound. In Georgia doctors got a court order claiming that without a c-section the baby had a 99% chance of dying and the woman a 50% chance of dying. The court granted the order, she fled and delivered a healthy baby vaginally. Neither women nor children are protected by a system that makes women flee from hospitals or subjects them to unnecessary surgery.

Angela Carder was not as lucky. Critically ill with a recurrence of cancer and 25 weeks pregnant, she, her family and attending physicians agreed to focus on prolonging her young life for as long as possible. The Hospital however sought a court order forcing her to have a c-section. Despite testimony that the surgery could kill her, the court concluded that the fetus had a right to life and ordered her to be cut open against her will. The surgery was performed: the fetus died within two hours and Angela died within two days with the c-section listed as a contributing factor. No one suggested arresting the doctor or hospital officials for murder, in that case arguably a double homicide.

Ayesha Madyun survived. She was forced to have a c-section based on the claim that she had been in labor too long and that her baby was at risk of dying from an infection. Her request to be allowed to wait longer before having the surgery so she could try natural delivery was portrayed to the court as an irrational religious objection to surgery. The court granted the order and after Ms. Madyun had been forcibly cut open they found that there was in fact no infection.

The ability to get a court order or threaten pregnant women with arrest has many negative consequences beyond denying pregnant women rights and performing unnecessary surgery that poses health risks to both the pregnant woman and fetus. In another Illinois case, doctors sought a court order for a forced c-section claiming the pregnant woman and her husband held irrational religious beliefs opposing all surgery. The doctors ran to the court instead of spending time with the patient. The court refused the order, the baby was delivered naturally, and it turned out that if the doctors had spent the time communicating with the patient and her family rather than judging them and rushing to court, they would have learned that it was misunderstanding not an absolute objection to surgery that made it appear that this couple was refusing a recommended (but unnecessary) c-section.

Today both the law and medicine agree that coerced medical interventions on pregnant women are an abuse of medical and state authority and that while pregnant women do not always make the right decision, in America, it is the person on whom the surgery is to be performed who gets to decide. In spite of this, Utah prosecutors apparently think that a pregnant woman who exercises her constitutional and common-law right to refuse medical advice can be arrested for murder. This is not only a clear misuse of the law, it is dangerous to children and fundamentally dehumanizing to pregnant women and their families.

Lynn M. Paltrow
Executive Director
National Advocates for Pregnant Women
153 Waverly Place, 6th Floor
New York, New York 10014
212-255-9252
917-921-7421
212-254-9679 (fax)
[email protected]
www.advocatesforpregnantwomen.org


----------



## Leonor (Dec 25, 2001)

From http://www.advocatesforpregnantwomen.org/

"By identifying the common features of the war on reproductive rights-including the right to safe, legal abortion"

What does abortion has to do with reproduction?

I would defend women that have their own beliefs in what is safer for their children - for instance, I believe UC is safer than C-Sections.

But women that use abortion as contraception? I don't think I want to support those.


----------



## hotmamacita (Sep 25, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Leonor_
*From http://www.advocatesforpregnantwomen.org/

"By identifying the common features of the war on reproductive rights-including the right to safe, legal abortion"

What does abortion has to do with reproduction?

I would defend women that have their own beliefs in what is safer for their children - for instance, I believe UC is safer than C-Sections.

But women that use abortion as contraception? I don't think I want to support those.*
I do not know what you are referring to but I believe you found something at that particular website?

Anyway, LEO. Could you tell me more what you mean here? I am confused by your posting this in this thread.


----------



## Els' 3 Ones (Nov 19, 2001)

There sure are alot of threads going on about this case.

Let me tell you about the other side of a trajedy like this. This is a woman I know and I know her son. We met in LLL years ago.

Pregnant with her 5th. Had some HB and some hosp birth prior. Was doing HB this time.

A few weeks b4 due date babe was breech. She went to Dr for turning. As she was leaving a nurse just happened to say, do you know what to do if you ever have cord prolapse? Friend says no and hears from nurse that you are to drop to hands and knees for the least amount of pressure on cord and transport for C- section immediately. 3 days later she had cord prolapse. Did exactly as she was told. So happens that the ambulance driver (she rode on her hands and knees!) had just learned about this also and was getting a good cord pulse all the way into the hosp.

It was 4am in the ER...............no OB's around..................she was on her hands and knees screaming that the baby was moving and she wanted the section.......................they were trying to find a) a f-ng ultrasound machine and b) an ob.........................nurses kept telling her that the babe was dead and that all mothers feel their dead babies move.........................after a few *hours* she was sectioned and her son is almost a complete vegetable.

He will be 8yo soon. Tube fed. Very little brain activity. Blind.

She now has to pay atty's fee up the ying yang to prove hosp negligence.....................and, let me tell you, all the classics are in play "lost" records, changing testimonies, constant continuances.

So, there you have it.

Do it "our" way or the gov't will charge you with murder.

If "we" f-up you had better get a crack lawyer bcuz we will do our damndest to take no responsibility.

Ever feel like you're being screwed? I sure do.

El

PS - I'm of the opinion that we are already on the slippery slope and moving downhill fast.......................


----------



## hotmamacita (Sep 25, 2002)

well said, El. Again. ITA.


----------



## Leonor (Dec 25, 2001)

Quote:

_Originally posted by hotmamacita_
Anyway, LEO. Could you tell me more what you mean here? I am confused by your posting this in this thread. [/B]
Sorry for the confusion. The phrase bettween the commas was from the website, and I didn't like to see abortion mixed in their cause. That's all. I think it's a differente issue. Nevermind.

El,

What a tragic story.


----------



## hjohnson (Mar 2, 2004)

You know this country amazes me. Abortion = not murder. Refusing C-section, baby born stillborn = murder. Can someone make up their fricking mind?

I have heard of cases where a pregnant mom got in a car accident and her baby died and the driver of the other car is charged with murder.

There is a definitely gray line when it comes to whether your fetus is technically a person or not. Tis an ugly situation.

I think it is sick to charge the mother with murder.


----------



## aussiemum (Dec 20, 2001)

Oh, this is sad, sad, sad.....

Why does the medical establishment pump up this mind set that you are guaranteed a healthy baby if you do everything 'right'? It's birth- there are no guarantees, just like in life & death. Any one of us could lose one of our babies tomorrow to some horrible accident, or set of circumstances, or whatever...... There are no guarantees that everything will work out the way we planned, all we can do is hold onto them for as long as we are blessed to do so. really am crying now.


----------



## Unreal (Dec 15, 2002)

and just think...even if a doctor is charged with malpractice for something like this--there is no guarantee that it will affect his/her life at all.
They have lawyers and insurance to take care of these things.
They can turn around the next day and continue on with their lives.
While a woman sits in jail for delaying a c-section????

double standards, anyone?
wtf??

Each passing day this makes me more and more ANGRY


----------



## gardeningmom (Mar 4, 2004)

Here is an update on this woman. c-section mom I had a feeling there was more to the story than a woman simply refusing a c-section. Children who are born to women like this just make me want to cry.


----------



## mamaofthree (Jun 5, 2002)

After some suggested reading from earlier in the post, because my local paper just had a little tidbit and it was really onesided and pretty much untrue to the facts, I am still torn.

I am not sure how to feel about this. If a hospital was neglagent lets say, and a baby or mother died, then the family would rightly sue for the loss of the baby or mother. The doctors may or maynot lose their licence (not 100% but some do... not enough of them though), and in some areas like someone posted if lets say you are hit by a drunk drive and your unborn child dies they can be charged with manslaughter, and if you are beat up or something and loose a baby the person doing it can also be charged. But what I am wondering is this.... when is it OK to do nothing? Or when is the baby considered alive? or a person? Only when the person carrying it thinks so? I am not trying to pick a fight, (and suprisingly I am pro-choice) but I wonder, when do "we" consider it a life?
I mean, does the mother hold no responsiblity to the death of her child? I mean if a c-sec would have saved the child, then what?? I don't know. I mean once a baby is outside it's mother and you treat it like crap then you get into trouble right? I guess I just don't know what to think or feel.
I feel angry that the baby died, when it is possible that it could have lived. YET, I don't think that this kind of scare tactic is good, I mean our c-sec rate is already so unbelievably high, and I would hate for it to get even higher for women fearing jail time if they choose to hold off on a section. BUT, their is a place for c-sec. just like in all things, there is a place fro modern medicine, it isn't all evil. So what do we do? I mean, I have had the great fortune to not have gone to a hospital to have any of my children and I am planning another homebirth with this baby too. So I can't speak from experience of the pressure of having "modern" medicine shoved down my throat while in labor.
Part of me is angry with the mom, I feel it was selfish of her, yet I feel bad for her too, I mean she did loose a baby and is now facing serious charges. I don't know what I would have done in her place.
I don't know, I feel I am just rambling, but I feel so torn inside on how to feel about this, maybe it is because I am pregnant, I feel this way.

H


----------



## zeldah (Mar 29, 2003)

This particular woman is not an easy one to support in her choice (previously lost custody of another child, history of drug use, surviving baby was adopted ...) but I think as women, as mothers, we have to. Otherwise we are giving up our rights to accept or reject medical treatment as we see fit, for ourselves and for our children.

Say it with me ladies: I AM THE BEST MOTHER FOR MY CHILD! And NOBODY makes medical decisions for my children without MY authority! (Including DH







)


----------



## jdelilah (Aug 12, 2003)

I'm sayin' it, Zeldah!


----------



## aussiemum (Dec 20, 2001)

No, she sure isn't an easy one to support! But, ITA with you Zeldah, we should be mindful of what could happen if any of us were in that position.

gardening mom, it makes me sad when children are born into families where they are not wanted. But none of us have walked in this woman's shoes, so IMO it's not really right to make a judgement about her drug use during pregnancy, etc. It makes me sad also that this is obviously an example of a totally unsupported pregnancy. Why can't we help women in this sort of situation before it gets to this point? I mean, in my ideal world poverty, lack of education opportunities, & social inequality would not exist. Eliminating these sorts of pressures from people's lives would go a long way towards 'fixing' the lives of people like this woman. IMO. With respect.


----------



## Mommy StormRaven (Jan 21, 2002)

Aussiemum - I agree it IS sad.

I think the im,portant thing to remember is taht this woamn - though not in full mental capacity is ahving her reproduuctive rights stolen.

It is no one's job (or authority) but the woman carryign the child(ren) to decide what is best for her and/or the child(ren).

IF this were to go through it could set a VERY VERY dangerous precedent.


----------



## mammastar (Nov 5, 2002)

Thanks for the article, hotmamacita! It really provided some interesting and important context.

No time to post a lengthy comment - it's all so complicated. No, this woman is not a poster child, and she's hard to support. So many failures of the system, all piled on top of each other - but hey, let's iron them out nice and smooth, and chalk it all up to her bad 'choices'...

One quick thought - a number of posters who have been troubled by this woman's actions have said that she was clearly negligent. Do keep in mind that she has not been charged with criminal negligence, or anything similar. She has been charged with first degree murder. Different characterization of what happened, by far, and different consequences.


----------



## mamaofthree (Jun 5, 2002)

Ok, I have a question...
When do your bad choices as a parent come with some kind of consiqence? I mean a person died. I am really torn about this, like I said, but if this same woman had say taken her new born twins and smothered one of them, would everyone still be on her side, saying she had no support? We all seem to be very supportive of childrens right (look at some of the circ topics, and one on ear piercing, some are VERY much that babies and small children are people) yet do the rights of the mother always out weigh that of the child? I mean when we are talking injury or death? From what I have read so far on this thread, is everyone is sad the baby died, but no one holds the mother even the littlest bit responsible. Like she doesn't deserve somekind of reprocution (sp) for her actions.
My DH has a brother who has had a drug problem for decades, he is married to a woman who has had 5 children (they have been taken from them many times. ) Two of their boys choose at this time not to even live with their parents do to the crap they went thru when they were little. My SIL has also admitted to having at least 4 abortions due to the fact that they were doing some many drugs at the time she wasn't sure whose baby she was carrying. They have stolen from the family and used up everyones good will. They are adults, and even with drug and ETOH problems they need to be responsible at some point for their actions. I mean come on, is everyone a victom? Is no one the least bit responsible for the stuff they do?
The reason I wrote about my BIL and SIL is because they could be that woman. They told may stories of their friends who accidently killed a child (one was so drug and was sleeping with the child on the sofa and smooshed the baby in the crack of the sofa and their body... they told the cops they found it died in it's crib!) Yet everyone feels sad for the parents, no one seems to care about the child or children.
Is it so bad that someone who can not, apparently, care for her children, not have them? And shouldn't there be some way to get her help BUT keep her from having more children until she can get her act together? Just because you can physically have a child doesn't mean you should. And I am not talking because you are poor or can't afford health care or anything like that, I am talking if you are on drugs, have abused your other children... why do you get the right to continue to have kids? T o treat more kids like crap?
When do we as a society say that that is not right?
Do I think she should go to jail for murder? NO. But she should HAVE to go for treatment, and she shouldn't be allowed to have her kids until she has her crap together. And yes, I guess I have decided that she was wrong, with the whole c-sec thing. Like I said before I am NOT a pro c-sec person. I think the fact that our rate is up in the what... high 20% or low 30% is outragious! BUT, there are cases where women actually need them. That it saves their life and that of the child. It is rare, but it is there. Ithink that the medical community sees it the other way, that all women need a c-sec and only a few can have babies "regularly". So maybe in my happy world we reform the medical community to see the "light" and know that birth isn't a disease, but something natural. AND then the c-sec rate will be where it should REALLY low and only when it is 100% nessesary.
I am not even sure where I am going with this. I am just so sad. And like I said before maybe it is because I am pregnant, that I feel differently about this. But I do feel that we need to have adults accept responsiblity for their actions. I mean don't most of you have logical consiquences with your kids? Like you go outside without your coat and you get cold. Next time they remember their coat. That sort of thing? So shouldn't she be responsible at some point for something in what happened to her baby? Why is it the hospital is always the bad guy? There are stories right on this thread of the hospital NOT doing something and bad stuff happened, and when the hopsital does something then they are wrong. Either no one is ever responsible for the death of a child during birth or someone is. You can't have it both ways.

H


----------



## Britishmum (Dec 25, 2001)

"I think the fact that our rate is up in the what... high 20% or low 30% is outragious! BUT, there are cases where women actually need them. That it saves their life and that of the child. It is rare, but it is there."

Trouble is that about 99.9% of that 30% of women who have c sections are made to _believe_ that it saved their life and/or their baby's. Maybe this woman was just like one of us, who questions that line. And this leaves each and every one of us thinking women in a very vulnerable position.

I'm sure my 1st OB would have liked to have threatened me with the law for refusing to let her manage my birth 2 weeks early for the 'risk' to my baby, who was born 2 weeks late in perfect health.







:


----------



## mamaofthree (Jun 5, 2002)

So where is the line? Or is there none. And if there is none then we also can't blame hospitals if something bad happens to the babies also. Right? I mean if we want to leave all birthing decisions up to the mother (which they should be) then if a baby dies that is just life. But then on the same line, a hospital can't be held accountable for anything that goes wrong. Is that OK too?
And if what you say is true that 99.9% of women who have c-sec are made to feel that they just svaed their babies lives, then I guess we will never really know what the true % is that actually need them.
But back on topic... I think the fact that one of the twins did dies does mean it MAY have been one of those cases. I mean is that the only time you know for sure it was "one of those times" After the baby dies? Then you go "Oh, I should have..."
I feel for the mom, but then she lived, her child didn't. Doesn't anyone else think that that is crappy?

H


----------



## aussiemum (Dec 20, 2001)

My DS ended up being born at home unassisted. A midwife friend made it at the last minute, as he was being born. To make a long story short, I was holding out as long as possible before going into hospital, basically being forced there by the med system against my will. Thats why I was waiting for the midwife to accompany me there & I left it too late. Should I have gone to hospital as soon as I started retching everywhere & losing the plot? Cuz I was pretty out of it, as you are when you give birth. What if something had happened during the birth? I was prepared for those consequences in my mind, so how is that different to refusing a C-sec that you feel coerced into? I don't know if that makes any sense, but I'm just trying to think about the where do you draw the line issue.

Just as an aside there's a movie called "Angel Baby" out there somewhere. It's about a mentally ill woman who refuses a C-section. I watched it a long time ago (1996 maybe), from memory its pretty good, but very depressing. FWIW.


----------



## MirandaW (Apr 22, 2002)

I think that fully formed fetuses are an ethical grey area, hence the strong feelings voiced here. There is no doubt in my mind that the outcome of this case will have repercussions to women's reproductive options for years to come.

I think to charge her with murder after the fact is terrible. There are already procedures in place to seek medical procedures to be performed on a child/fetus without parental consent. Why didn't the hospital staffs seek out those avenues? There was nearly a month between the alleged first recommendation of the C-Section and the actual procedure.


----------



## dallaschildren (Jun 14, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by dado_
*i find it odd that so many people are so eager to rush to judgement on somebody they don't even know. instead of demonizing a total stranger, why not try and figure out exactly what went wrong so maybe it can be prevented in the future?*

Based on what I have read:
I agree..however I also find it odd that many here are talking about the doctors like they were a bunch of looney tunes who were FORCING her to have a dreaded C Section. I am guessing THREE different hospitals were privy to substantiated data that one or both of this womans twins were in danger, hence the C section advice. And not all of the doctors at the THREE hospitals she visited recommended an immediate C section...two out of three asked her to be admitted so they could monitor the situation. Most here are losing sight of the fact that this woman ignored medical advice on at least three separate occasions and as a result one of those babies DIED. A wonderful beautiful human baby who unfortuantely had the worst luck possible, and was to be born to a woman like this. It was her choice to ignore medical advice for whatever crazy reason and now she should pay for that choice. Women like this should be sterile.


----------



## InfoisPower (Nov 21, 2001)

Fact is you have the right to informed consent.
You also have the right to refuse medical treatment on your person.

This woman may have chosen badly, as we don't know ALL the details and only what the media has reported we can't know.

Consider too that if those babies or one of them had died due to medical misadventure during the surgery you'd never hear about it.


----------



## mamaofthree (Jun 5, 2002)

You are right if it had been medical neglagence the public at large wouldn't have heard of it... BUT she would probably have sued. What I am having a problem with personally is just that... if "we" are going to say it is OK to refuse treatment when it isn't just you (ie mother and unborn baby) and something happens, then if you can't be liable, then shouldn't the medical establishment also be unliable for a simular thing? I mean if she was like one of the stories told here earier someone begging for a c-sec and the hospital kept putting it off and one of the twins died, then I am assuming everyone seems to be OK with sueing the hospital, yet she refuses treatment a baby dies and now it is like she did nothing wrong.
What I am not liking is this "gray line" when you have a viable baby. I feel like everyone is OK with the parents saying OK do nothing, but if a hospital does the same thing they are up in arms about it.
I guess that is what I am not getting.


----------



## Mommy StormRaven (Jan 21, 2002)

Ok - here is my problem that everyone seems to be either ignoring or overlooking. This woman has been diagnosed (at least at one point) with Oppositional Defiant Disorder. In her position of being "at the will" of the medical establishment she is truely NOT CAPABLE of rational thought in regard to an informed decision. She was under duress at the time she went to each hospital, in a stressful, ultimatum situation anyoen with ODD is not ABLE to make a rational decision. When faced with even the smallest ultimatum (think "you will have fries with that big mac or you wont' eat" kind of simple) that person will see the authority figure as giving her no choice and so will leave rather than "submit", in that person's eyes the person in authority (ie the doctor) is always "out to get her".

No that doesnt' make it right but I have an issue with putting a woman on trial for Murder that is not capable or rational thought in this regard.


----------



## Pynki (Aug 19, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by dallaschildren_
*Based on what I have read:
I agree..however I also find it odd that many here are talking about the doctors like they were a bunch of looney tunes who were FORCING her to have a dreaded C Section. I am guessing THREE different hospitals were privy to substantiated data that one or both of this womans twins were in danger, hence the C section advice. And not all of the doctors at the THREE hospitals she visited recommended an immediate C section...two out of three asked her to be admitted so they could monitor the situation. Most here are losing sight of the fact that this woman ignored medical advice on at least three separate occasions and as a result one of those babies DIED. A wonderful beautiful human baby who unfortuantely had the worst luck possible, and was to be born to a woman like this. It was her choice to ignore medical advice for whatever crazy reason and now she should pay for that choice. Women like this should be sterile.*
Not taking medical advice is NOT against the law.. You have the RIGHT to REFUSE medication.. Even pg women have the same rights they had BEFORE THEY WERE PG.. Being a pregnancy carrier does NOT make you less of a citizen.. Being unborn does.. As harsh and hard, and unyeilding as that sounds, it is none the less true.. She did not commit murder.. She declined medical services..

Should men not be allowed any number of things that may deform their sperm perhaps causing a miscarraige.. Should women??

This woman was chosen for this persecution because she is an unlikable person.. She has issues.. She is an unfit mother.. They chose her to prosecute because no one is going to cry if she get convicted.. Or so theythought..

Hospitals DO have ways to keep you in them if they believe you are unstable.. They can get a psych. evaluation, and a court order.. None of these 3 hospitals did this.. Doesn't that make them neligent if this woman is being tried for murder.. All of the hospitals and staff at them have made scathing remarks about her..

It's not murder even if it's abomidable to us as mothers..

Warmly..

Dyan


----------



## Clarity (Nov 19, 2001)

Hey my singleton died, then one of my twins died and I did follow all my medical advice. Perhaps I should have sued? Or why weren't there criminal charges? Because we can never forsee what will happen in these cases. And even if a jury would have me awarded me $$$ -- possible in the case of singleton...in principle I never would have sued because I was a partner in every medical decision we made. I knew we were making the best decisions we could with the knowledge we had. I took responsibility, my doctors were competent enough to listen and consult with me. It did not end well, but it was not for lack of trying. But if we have to believe it's always someone's fault - then who should we hold responsible? I can list dozens of medical staff that were involved, perhaps I should have selected a few and sued some of them for being wrong.

That extra month that cost one twin it's life might have meant life for the other. Even 34 weekers die sometimes from complications of prematurity. It's ridiculous on all sides to assume we're in control of all this.


----------



## RachelGS (Sep 29, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Mommy StormRaven_
*Ok - here is my problem that everyone seems to be either ignoring or overlooking. This woman has been diagnosed (at least at one point) with Oppositional Defiant Disorder. In her position of being "at the will" of the medical establishment she is truely NOT CAPABLE of rational thought in regard to an informed decision. She was under duress at the time she went to each hospital, in a stressful, ultimatum situation anyoen with ODD is not ABLE to make a rational decision.*
Yikes, that's a heck of a strong statement. I have a doctorate in clinical psychology, and the term "oppositional defiant disorder" doesn't impress me in the slightest. I find that it's handed out often when clinicians are scratching their heads about what's going on and need something to report to the insurance agency so they can get paid. I've seen a bunch of people who have this diagnosis somewhere in their paperwork, and not one of them was incapable of rational thought. It's very easy to get labeled as disordered. If you've ever been to a therapist and had your insurance billed, for any reason, you've been labeled as disordered in one way or another. Yes, there are people who really can't make rational decisions. But be careful how you toss around diagnoses. They're just names, and they may or may not have been applied by someone who really knows the DSM very well, and they may or may not have anything to do with the person's current state of functioning.


----------



## dallaschildren (Jun 14, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Pynki_
*
Should men not be allowed any number of things that may deform their sperm perhaps causing a miscarraige.. Should women?? [B/]

This woman was chosen for this persecution because she is an unlikable person.. She has issues.. She is an unfit mother.. They chose her to prosecute because no one is going to cry if she get convicted.. Or so theythought..*
*
*
*
May, might, possibly..there are so many what ifs in a scenario such as what you described above with a males sperm, that with all due respect, in my opinion it has nothing to do with this case. A baby died due to the decision or lack thereof, of its mother. There's no maybe there.
The woman wasn't pegged for prosecution because no one liked her...she put herself in that position when she killed her own twin baby.
I hope she is convicted. She needs to take responsibility for her actions...if she is found to be mentally deficient, fine, give her some counseling or rehab in prison.*


----------



## Leonor (Dec 25, 2001)

I think the lack of respect for this woman is clear by the picture they posted of her....


----------



## dallaschildren (Jun 14, 2003)

RachelGS...being educated in the field of psychology, would you mind sharing your views on using mental deficiencies or disorders as defense against criminal acts in a court of law?


----------



## RachelGS (Sep 29, 2002)

Oh, geez. I'm in hot water now!







Sigh. I don't know that my views are fully formed enough to share them in full, and I _certainly_ don't speak for the whole field of psychology. I've struggled with this question myself. Okay, let me type while I think here. This is long, but if you're interested, keep reading.

First, here's my bias: diagnosis is only so useful. The DSM, which is the manual used by psychologists and psychiatrists and insurance companies, was developed in part to give people a common language to talk about emotional difficulties. That is definitely useful at times. At other times, it's utter crap. I haven't done the math lately, but here's an example: to be diagnosed with major depression, you need to have five or more of about eleven symptoms within a two week period. Now, if you figure out all the possible ways that five of eleven symptoms could be combined, you come out with eighty-something different presentations for major depression. And that's a disorder that everybody knows and can recognize reasonably easily. So the diagnosis is useful in that it kind of put a framework on what's going on, but not useful in that calling someone depressed doesn't actually tell you how they're presenting or what they're struggling with. It also definitely doesn't tell you why they're depressed, or how best to help them through it.

And the DSM is the _Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental DISORDERS_. And I take issue with the thought that every time you struggle with something in your life, it means you're abnormal or disordered. If I see a new mom in my practice, for example, and she's having trouble in her marriage and finding that adjusting to parenthood is harder than they say in the books, and if she wants her insurance to pay for her therapy, I have to report that she has a disorder of some kind. I have an ethical quibble with that. I think that in all likelihood, this mom is having a pretty predictable response to the stresses that come with an incredible change in her life. I think she's courageous for seeking a supportive place to talk about that and to work through her experience. I don't think there's anything abnormal about her, and I certainly don't think she has a "disorder." I believe in her pain and take it very seriously, but I don't think that the fact that she feels pain makes her abnormal.

Third: diagnostic labels hang on. If someone runs into trouble and they've ever been diagnosed with something, the papers are going to report that that person has "a history of mental illness." Now, yes, some people struggle with really difficult things, including stuff that really does impair functioning, rational thought, the ability to perceive the world as others do, the ability to recognize right from wrong. That's a big deal, and I'm not minimizing it in the slightest. But I think that most people who ever have a diagnosis pinned on them do not fall into that category.

So I feel really conflicted about the "insanity' defense in court. It's worth knowing that insanity is a legal term, not a psychiatric one. But basically when that defense is used and mental illness is mentioned, it's as a suggestion that the person is not responsible for their actions. I guess that part of me really WANTS people to be responsible for their actions. When I think about the guy in California who raped his own children and then slaughtered his family, I think, yes, here is a disordered individual. Doing that is just crazy. It's not normal, it's disgusting and horrifying and not at all the kind of thing you'd do if you were thinking clearly. Should he get off, though, because of that? Personally, I think that of course he should be locked up forever. Maybe he is mentally ill, but he is also incredibly dangerous and horrifying. So using a defense like that leaves me cold.

That said, I haven't ironed it all out for myself, because I know I struggle when thinking about somebody like Andrea Yates. I simply cannot imagine the horror of what she did. I can't relate at all to the way she was living, and I can't for a second put myself in the mindset she must have been in. But it's also abundantly clear to me that she suffered from outrageous postpartum depression and that she was psychotic, and that her care was terribly mismanaged. Once I started reading about her mental health history (especially the month or two before she killed her children), I thought, well, you could see this one coming a mile away. And I don't personally view her with the same lens as I view somebody who is a calculated, repetitive killer. I think her doctors are accountable, too, and her family-- who knew she was psychotic and depressed and left her alone with five small children anyway.

I don't know if I'm answering your question at all. I do think that mental illness exists. I do think it's over-diagnosed and inappropriately diagnosed. I do think that it can be a cause of some criminal acts, in the sense that it can legitimately explain why someone would do something utterly counter to their usual nature or experience. And I think it can be used inappropriately, as a way to try to explain away stuff that's just vicious and unexplainable.

There's no right answer to this, I guess. I wish the jury system worked better in sorting it out, but unfortunately, I think "mental illness" is something that most people don't understand. If you say someone is mentally ill, it conjures an image of someone raving, foaming at the mouth, etc. If the defendant doesn't look like that, the defense is likely to be rejected. If he / she does, then that's distasteful enough to make people want to put them away. We don't like having scary ugly people in our midst.

I haven't provided answers, but this has gotten me thinking. If it has gotten you thinking, too, I'd be curious to hear back.


----------



## Mommy StormRaven (Jan 21, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by RachelGS_
*Yikes, that's a heck of a strong statement. I have a doctorate in clinical psychology, and the term "oppositional defiant disorder" doesn't impress me in the slightest. I find that it's handed out often when clinicians are scratching their heads about what's going on and need something to report to the insurance agency so they can get paid. I've seen a bunch of people who have this diagnosis somewhere in their paperwork, and not one of them was incapable of rational thought. It's very easy to get labeled as disordered. If you've ever been to a therapist and had your insurance billed, for any reason, you've been labeled as disordered in one way or another. Yes, there are people who really can't make rational decisions. But be careful how you toss around diagnoses. They're just names, and they may or may not have been applied by someone who really knows the DSM very well, and they may or may not have anything to do with the person's current state of functioning.*
I'm jsut goign on what my DH has experienced - he is a teacher and the kids he deals with that have this problem are more irrational than not.

Even so, she has been diagnosed with more than just ODD, not to mention that she is a drug user - I dont' know many Coke fiends that are capable of rational thought.

Edited to add:

Ok going on your opinions of diagnosign disorders.. I've seen a therapist since October - a good one even. Now after months of therapy I've been "diagnosed" with Clinical depression. Does tha tmean that Dx is jsut a label to you? Sorry but it's very real to me, real enough to need medication.


----------



## RachelGS (Sep 29, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Mommy StormRaven_
*Does tha tmean that Dx is jsut a label to you?*
Oh, gosh, absolutely not. But what's more real to me is your struggle. What we call it doesn't tell me all that much. I've worked with many, many people who were clinically depressed, and I've diagnosed them as such. But what REALLY mattered to me was what was going on in their lives, what I could do to be supportive to them, what they might explore that would help move them to a happier place, etc. When I think about the diagnosis "major depression," I think, "Okay. NOW what?" Because I know people can heal, and I want to keep them company in that hard work. My problem is not with the label itself, it's with how it is used. I'd hate for people to talk about you in twenty years as someone who has "a history of mental illness" if you've overcome this difficult time and are living a joyful life. It would seem terribly unfair. Does that make sense?

I love being a therapist. It's a privilege and an honor. My lens is that life involves some struggles and some suffering, and that we need to share that as much as we need to share joy. I don't want to think of people as abnormal for experiencing hard times. It perpetuates the myth that we should all be happy every minute, and that we're impolite or inconvenient or broken if we're not. It doesn't mean I take the pain less seriously. Do you think that because someone hears that you are depressed they therefore understand the complexities of your personal experience and your everyday life? Would you want them making assumptions about your thinking and your functioning just based on that label? I wouldn't. What a disservice that would be, both to the depths of your strugles and to your capacity for healing and joy. Depression is real. The diagnostic name for it is just shorthand.


----------



## Elphaba (Nov 19, 2001)

Did you see this column on CNN.com? ?

She's writing about the legal implications of this case. Just thought ya'll would be interested.


----------



## Mommy StormRaven (Jan 21, 2002)

Thanks for tha tclarification Rachel - I wasnt' sure I understood what yoru meanign was.

I'm still nto at the point where I have re-discovered my joy (only jsut started medication) but I understand your previous statement much better. Thanks for the clarification


----------



## RachelGS (Sep 29, 2002)

I'm so sorry I wasn't more clear to start with. I'd never want to suggest that I take human suffering lightly. I just don't think that the fact that we suffer means we should be branded as abnormal.

Hang in there. You're courageous and smart to seek therapy, and the fact that you're not feeling joyful yet doesn't mean that it won't happen. You're working to help it happen. As members of the human race, we're able to suffer and hurt terribly, and we're able to heal. The human psyche is a total miracle. I'm sorry you're on the harder end of things right now. I wish you lots of strength (which means willingness to acknowledge your hurt) and







as you work. This too shall pass. I believe in you.


----------



## Mommy StormRaven (Jan 21, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Elphaba_
*Did you see this column on CNN.com? ?

She's writing about the legal implications of this case. Just thought ya'll would be interested.*
EXCELLENT ARTICLE!

and I have to say that I agree completely with everythign the writer stated in the article.


----------



## dallaschildren (Jun 14, 2003)

RachelGS...I pm'd you.....


----------



## Alegria (Jul 21, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by dallaschildren_
*she put herself in that position when she killed her own twin baby.
I hope she is convicted.*
Dallaschildren

How can you be so sure? Do you know that the baby would have lived if she had had the Cesarian when it was first suggested? Of course you don't know that, no one could prove that. The baby could have already been dead, or could have died after birth as well.

Electing not to undergo surgery is a valid choice and is NOT MURDER.


----------



## Alegria (Jul 21, 2002)

from one of the links

"Furthermore, as it turns out, the risk of maternal death is between twice and four times greater when a woman has a C-section than when she undergoes a vaginal delivery.

But doesn't the U.S. offer the best obstetrical care in the world? No. If we look at comparative C-section rates across industrialized nations, the U.S. rates -- as of 1995 -- were higher than those of at least ten other countries, including England, France, and Spain, where infant mortality rates were also lower.

C-sections are thus risky not only to pregnant women but to their babies as well -- a fact that certainly has some bearing on whether doctors who recommend surgery are necessarily practicing good medicine.

Specific court cases bear out this concern about C-section recommendations as well. In three of the first five cases in which providers sought court ordered C-sections in the U.S., for example, the women delivered vaginally without a problem. In two of the three cases, moreover, the doctors predicted that both the woman and her offspring would die, though the women went on to deliver healthy babies without surgery.
"
Sherry F. Colb CNN


----------



## dallaschildren (Jun 14, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Alegria_
*Dallaschildren

How can you be so sure? Do you know that the baby would have lived if she had had the Cesarian when it was first suggested? Of course you don't know that, no one could prove that. The baby could have already been dead, or could have died after birth as well.

Electing not to undergo surgery is a valid choice and is NOT MURDER.*
Hopefully all of the facts of this case will come out and I am sure the media has put its own spin on it. One thing that cannot be refuted or held open for speculation is that the baby was not already dead and secondly would have had a better chance at life had she acted; would the baby have had a guarantee to live...who knows? She erased all chance of that when she skipped through THREE different hospitals and ignored their advice. She was negligent and did not give any thought to the well being of the children she was carrying. Fine, that was HER right....where's the kid's rights in this? She did not necessarily have to have a C section but could have checked herself into the hospital where she could have received care whether refusing some or all of it.
As a mom of two, I unequivocably believe that the children are the ones we need to protect. They shouldn't be made pawns with their lives in the hands of a woman who could care less. I am so sick of people screaming "rights. rights, rights...where are my rights...it's her/his right....
I have just one question....who the heck is protecting the kids?


----------



## Pynki (Aug 19, 2002)

THe fact is... That as long as a child is inside of it's mother's womb, her rights supercede it's rights. .As it well should be..

I am more than a vessel for my children.. I have the right to chose or not chose surgery regardless of whether or not a child with in my body will be in danger.. It is my right to have sovereinty over my own body.. And your right to have the same over yours, and her right to have the same rights over hers..

If all we are as mothers is vessels for our children then shhould we be made to give them our organs if we are a match and that is what they need.. We may or may not die in the operation, but with out them they certainly will.. It's a seemingly OT ?? but think about it..

We have the right to refuse surgery or any other medical procedure regardless of how it affects another person..

Disregarding that right for any reason is very serious..

Warmly..

Dyan


----------



## Alegria (Jul 21, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by dallaschildren_
*I unequivocably believe that the children are the ones we need to protect. They shouldn't be made pawns with their lives in the hands of a woman who could care less. I am so sick of people screaming "rights. rights, rights...where are my rights...it's her/his right....
I have just one question....who the heck is protecting the kids?*
This is the point

most of the time doctors try to coerce pregnant women into surgery they cause more damage to the mother and child then if whe were left to birth naturally. Doctors cause more complications in childbirth than are necessary. Have you read anything on the history of childbirth in this country? Pregnant woman are treated as sick and uncapable of delivering their babies. It is wrong to give the business of medical profession the power.


----------



## Mamid (Nov 7, 2002)

The way North American birth politics are going, women are going to be nothing more than incubators with the product - the unborn baby - having more rights than its mother.

If you smoke, you'll have your child taken away from you. If you drink... if you don't follow doctor's orders... if you do anything against what your doctor says or even hints at or if he believes you have or haven't done something "required' for the care of your unborn...

and if you dare to refuse a c-section????

G was forced to undergo drug treatment in Canada. Of two mothers in the states, one mother was threatened with a forced section and loss of custody if she stepped through the hospital doors again. This new case is just an extension of that.

If they were so worried about her babies' health, why the frak didn't they admit her to the antenatal unit for monitoring? Because she was poor and a drug user. So she wasn't worth the time to care for. But now they can charge her with murder because "she let one die" when she refused a section several times.

She wasn't anything but an incubator who had to obey the allmighty doctors or else.

Well.. she disobeyed. Doesn't matter why. One baby is dead, the other one will never know its mother and she's rotting in jail instead of getting the treatment and counscelling she needs.

Gotta love a place where the unborn have more rights than mom.


----------



## mamaofthree (Jun 5, 2002)

Well, just a little side note.. just as she can refuse a section, she can also refuse any prenatal care or antenatal care.

The reason this bothers me so much is this... if she wasn't going to follow any medical advice or stop her drug use (ok doing drugs IS bad during pregnancy) she has already had one or some of her other children taken away... maybe she should have had an abortion? I mean if you are choosing to NOT care for yourself while pregnant or even before and you get pregnant, then someone tells you what you are doing may infact harm your unborn child, but you go ahead and do the stuff anyway... why not end the pregnancy? And if in the end you cont on with the pregnancy but you have no interest in caring at all for the children then put them up for adoption. But while your pregnant get some help. I think when you become pregnant you DO have a responsiblity to take some care of your self and seek help if you can't do it on your own. I mean even if you are against abortion is purposefully not taking care of yourself and not even considering listening to a doctor (or heck try a midwife or something) just about the same? If you are going to go out of your way to harm your unborn child then why stay pregnant?
I have worked in L&D and seen the sick crack babies. It is terrible. These poor little things so strung out, screaming crying, mothers not caring. It is sick! No child should have to suffer like that. And if these mom's don't care enough while the baby is inside, when do they care? How many chances should you get to mess up someone? I think that if the mothers want help they should NOT be given over to CPS, but they do need cousneling and drug rehab.
In the movie "Parenthood" with Steve Martin, Reeves charcter said something really profound... "You have to have a lisence to own a dog, catch a fish, drive a car. But anyone can be a parent." (Ok I paraphrased) And that is true. You can be a flaming a-hole on drugs, beat your kids and still be allowed to take home a baby. I don't believe that your income should have to do with the care you recieve. But come on, if you are doing drugs.... that is different!
If she was your mom... what would you want for you? Some of you have been raised by crappy parents (not everyone, maybe not even anyone who has responded to this thread), but I know for a fact that having paents who care more about their drugs then you SUCKS! Parents to strung out to even think before they smack you.
Yes drug use is a disease, people need help. But I wouldn't want them raising and abusing kids while they are getting it.
All that said I don't think she should go to jail... but she should have to get some freaking help. AND some birth control!

H


----------



## dallaschildren (Jun 14, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Pynki_
*THe fact is... That as long as a child is inside of it's mother's womb, her rights supercede it's rights. .As it well should be..

I am more than a vessel for my children.. I have the right to chose or not chose surgery regardless of whether or not a child with in my body will be in danger.. It is my right to have sovereinty over my own body.. And your right to have the same over yours, and her right to have the same rights over hers..

If all we are as mothers is vessels for our children then shhould we be made to give them our organs if we are a match and that is what they need.. We may or may not die in the operation, but with out them they certainly will.. It's a seemingly OT ?? but think about it..

We have the right to refuse surgery or any other medical procedure regardless of how it affects another person..

Disregarding that right for any reason is very serious..

Warmly..

Dyan







*

I understand your hypothetical organ transplant scenario, however that has nothing to do with an unborn child. The example you illustrate is for a child once it is born, separate of it's mother. Of coarse you have a choice to donate an organ or not whether it's for your flesh and blood or it isn't. A woman makes the choice to have sex, get pregnant, and keep it or not. If you choose to keep it, you have a responsibility albeit moral and I feel legal as well to treat that person within you exactly as you'd treat yourself and care for it as best as you are able. You don't have to look far to know that it is detrimental to smoke, do drugs, or drink alcohol when pregnant. Everyone knows these basic principles....you ingest something toxic, your baby suffers..plain and simple.
Once a child is born does it then have some rights? How much and to what degree? Because it is in utero does not give it any less rights than once it is born separate from it's mother. This is just another classic case of the "me" syndrome that plagues our society. Me, me, me.....rights rights rights. It makes me sick.
Woman like this need to put their vessel on birth control or better yet abstain.


----------



## dallaschildren (Jun 14, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Mamid_
*The way North American birth politics are going, women are going to be nothing more than incubators with the product - the unborn baby - having more rights than its mother.

If you smoke, you'll have your child taken away from you. If you drink... if you don't follow doctor's orders... if you do anything against what your doctor says or even hints at or if he believes you have or haven't done something "required' for the care of your unborn...

and if you dare to refuse a c-section????

G was forced to undergo drug treatment in Canada. Of two mothers in the states, one mother was threatened with a forced section and loss of custody if she stepped through the hospital doors again. This new case is just an extension of that.

If they were so worried about her babies' health, why the frak didn't they admit her to the antenatal unit for monitoring?

Because she was poor and a drug user. So she wasn't worth the time to care for. But now they can charge her with murder because "she let one die" when she refused a section several times.

She wasn't anything but an incubator who had to obey the allmighty doctors or else.

Well.. she disobeyed. Doesn't matter why. One baby is dead, the other one will never know its mother and she's rotting in jail instead of getting the treatment and counscelling she needs.

Gotta love a place where the unborn have more rights than mom.*

I read and noted a hint of bitterness with the medical community in your post. You obviously have every right to feel this way and I am guessing something happened to you to make you feel this way. I myself question my doctors weekly about my health choices and those I make for my children and quite often diasagree...but I always get other opinions when disagreeing and then act. I am blessed with some educated, compassionate doctors...some people aren't and I am sorry. There is a lot of doctors out there that have no business being doctors. And doctors make mistakes as they are human. But all unborn kids shouldn't have to suffer for the mistakes of those few. When you get pregnant you give up some of your rights temporarily as it should be.

And the simple fact that drug addicted, alcohol poisioned newborns are born daily to woman who don't give a rats ass about anyone but themselves, is proof positive to me that we have a long way to go to protect and enhance a babies rights in utero.
There are far too many orphanages overflowing with neglected, unwanted, unloved, and sick kids for woman to demand they have all the rights.


----------



## EFmom (Mar 16, 2002)

Quote:

I understand your hypothetical organ transplant scenario, however that has nothing to do with an unborn child.
But according to your own logic, the duty to the mother should be identical, so this is a perfect example. You are saying the unborn fetus has identical rights as does a birthed child. If this pregnant woman has an obligation to undergo major surgery, with all its attendant risks for the benefit of the fetus, then why does the mother not have an identical obligation to donate organs, with all its attendant risks for the benefit of a born child? Why wouldn't you support forcing mothers to legally donate organs for their children?


----------



## mamaofthree (Jun 5, 2002)

Come on. First off organ transplant is NOT a sure thing when it comes to family memebers. ie they are not compatable all the time, or even most of the time. You actually have a better chance with a sibling than you do a parent.
This whole debate is becoming silly if you want to bring in forced transplant/ donation.
Also, if you as a parent don't feel any obligation to your unborn child, why be pregnant? I feel that if you do go to the trouble of keeping a pregnancy (ie NOT having an abortion) then yes you do have an obligation to care for yourself, and treat the baby inside you as a living being. NO you should not be forced to have any medical procedures, but you do need to realize the riskes of refusing things. Make all the excuses you want for this woman, but IMO she was an unfit parent. And that had NOTHING to do with her money situation and yes all to do with her drug habit and ETOH. And also the fact that she lost other children due to her behavior.
If she did infact go to three hospitals and got the same info, then she had three opions. And you know what.... SOMETIMES a c-sec is nessecary. NOT all the time, but sometimes. AND also NOT all hospitals are out to get you and hurt you or deny you service. A lot of doctors out there hava a true calling and really wish to care for people. They are not all "the man".
Like I have said before, I don't feel that she should be charged with murder, but she needs to get her act toget get some help and STOP having babies if she can't even care for herself.

H


----------



## EFmom (Mar 16, 2002)

Quote:

First off organ transplant is NOT a sure thing when it comes to family memebers.
And neither are c-sections. The Sherry Colb column Alegria quotes makes that very clear. The column is well written and worth reading. Having a c-section does not make for a better statistical outcome.

You can limit the forced organ donation to cases where the mother is tissue typed to be compatible with the child, and the example is still right on the mark. Let's put all women in jail for murder whose children have died from need of an organ transplant only if they are compatible. The rest are off the hook.

I actually don't disagree with you that untreated drug-addicted women should not be allowed to inflict damage on an unlimited number of children. I also agree with you that prosecution is not the answer. Personally, I wouldn't have a problem with requiring women with a track record of this to be on some type of long term birth control. Prosecution of this woman for murder is what this thread is about, though.


----------



## mamaofthree (Jun 5, 2002)

No a c-sec. isn't a sure thing. But I still can not go with the organ donation example. it's like apples and oranges. I read the article. It doesn't fly sorry. You just can't compare the two.
I get a sence here often that there is a HUGE contempt for medical science, and although I don't back every advance in medicine there are some good one that have helped people. Is everyone here saying that there should be no c-sec. at all. That that shouldn't be an option. I mean if there is no real reason to have one, they it should never be allowed. Like I have been trying to say, there is a place for modern medicine. NOTHING is 100%.
And considering that we don't have access to the medical records of this woman it is a hard call for any of us to make, really. I mean we are all going pretty much on hear say. But it could very well be that she was one of those woman that a section may have helped.

H


----------



## RachelGS (Sep 29, 2002)

My huge contempt is not for medical science, it's for MISUSED medical science. There is no science in existence that justifies the cesarean rate in the US. Doctors are practicing in opposition to the evidence, and especially in the face of that, women MUST have the right to disregard their advice.


----------



## aussiemum (Dec 20, 2001)

I think sometimes there is a good reason to distrust the medical system with reagrds to childbirth. A few months before my second child was born the c-section rate hit 60%, yes that's right folks- 60%!!! at one of the local hospitals. I fought like hell to have a homebirth under those sorts of conditions. How is that sort of rate building trust with women, anywhere? Or maybe we're all just incapable of giving birth naturally here in North Queensland......







:


----------



## dallaschildren (Jun 14, 2003)

I re-read some of my last posts and admit I sound like a very judgemental witch. All of us have our hot bed topics and this is one of mine. It hurts me to see so many kids out there who are simply byproducts of an adults unwillingness to do the right and responsible thing. The kids are the ones that suffer and do not have any rights or anyone looking out for their best interests. I have read quite a bit more on this particular case and it appears that the state of Utah is legally justified in pursuing criminal charges against this woman. She is charged with Criminal Homicide, murder, a first degree felony. Utah has a fetal homicide statute that states, " A person commits criminal homicide if he intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, with criminal negligence, or acting with a mental state otherwise specified in the statute defining the offense, causes the death of another human being, including an unborn child at any stage of its development. (section 2 of this law says there isn't any cause of action for one who chooses an abortion which is exempt)
She ignored the fact that monitoring showed her babies suffered repeated heart decelerations, and the results of the ultrasounds done showed very low amniotic fluid and undergrowth.

This woman also has two other children who were taken from her and put into the custody of their grandmother. Both were birthed by PRIOR C SECTIONS.

Furthermore, she is also charged with endangerment of child or an elder adult which is in reference to her pot use and cocaine abuse. She tested positive for coke and pot BTW.

One more thought.. where is the father of these kids?

As for C Section rates...the C section rates reported do not specify whether the section was an emergency, a patient request, or doctor scheduled. I don't think it is accurate to conclude that the high section rate is as a result of doctor convenience or related reason. Furthermore, there is a trend within the past 5 years for woman to delay childbearing, thus older woman are sometime relegated to invitro or other similar procedures to have a baby, consequently increasing her chance of a multiple birth (most times equaling an automatic C section).


----------



## RachelGS (Sep 29, 2002)

The World Health Organization states that there is no medical justification for the current cesarean rates and mentions a maximum acceptable rate of 10%. Assuming that we perform the MAXIMUM number of medically-justified cesareans in the US, a full half of the current surgical births are completely medically unnecessary. It's wise to be skeptical of that, especially because women and babies die in surgical births much more often than in vaginal births. And there are a myriad of complications that occur that are completely avoidable with normal birth. As for multiples, there's no literature that suggests they should all equal automatic cesareans, either. Some need to have cesarean births, but certainly not all. And older women are not less able to give birth than younger women.

If you read the research on this stuff, it's unequivocal and freaking scary. I reserve the right to educate myself and to act in accordance with that education, not to rely on the opinion of a medical professional who may or may not have my (or my baby's) best interests in mind-- and who may not have read the literature him / herself. (Teaching hospitals don't tend to teach evidence-based care, either.)


----------



## aussiemum (Dec 20, 2001)

Just wanted to let you know that the 60% c-section rate figure came from the local Midwives group (tho I'm not sure they're were supposed to give that info to the public!). They are not exactly a disinterested party, but they were very concerned about such a high rate.

And just for the record, I'm not anti-c section, I just didn't want one for me.

And this:

Quote:

As for multiples, there's no literature that suggests they should all equal automatic cesareans, either.
is hospital policy in North Queensland, & possibly more parts of Australia. You have no choice, if you have twins you will be heavily pressured to have an automatic c-section. Not forced, but no doctor will take you on. Full stop. And if a midwife attends a homebirth, she will be fired from her hospital job. I know of only one person in the last 3 years, at least, who had a natural twin delivery, & it only happened because she found an overseas trained doctor who agreed to be her provider. AArrrrrrgggh! Birth politics!


----------



## applejuice (Oct 8, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by dallaschildren_
*As for C Section rates... I don't think it is accurate to conclude that the high section rate is as a result of doctor convenience or related reason.*
If the high Caesarean section rate is not related to "doctor convenience" what is it related to?

If you think pregnant women are demanding Caesarean sections from obstetricians and these wimpy guys are simply caving in to these very powerful women, then why don't these same women run to their doctors and demand that they make house calls, do home births, not do episiotomies, not shave pubic hair, stop doing hysterectomies, stop giving routine vaccinations, stop doing routine ultrasound scans on all pregnant women, give better information about breastfeeding, and give nutritional information and prescribe vitamins and herbs instead of the latest psychotropic drug for which the doctor gets a kickback from the pharmaceutical company.

Do not think for a minute that any woman is that powerful. You are not. The AMA and the pharmaceutical firms are the most powerful monopoly in the world.

Doctors are very powerful people.

How many other people in this world can tell you to take your clothes off and then send you a huge bill for it?


----------



## dallaschildren (Jun 14, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by applejuice_
*If the high Caesarean section rate is not related to "doctor convenience" what is it related to?

If you think pregnant women are demanding Caesarean sections from obstetricians and these wimpy guys are simply caving in to these very powerful women, then why don't these same women run to their doctors and demand that they make house calls, do home births, not do episiotomies, not shave pubic hair, stop doing hysterectomies, stop giving routine vaccinations, stop doing routine ultrasound scans on all pregnant women, give better information about breastfeeding, and give nutritional information and prescribe vitamins and herbs instead of the latest psychotropic drug for which the doctor gets a kickback from the pharmaceutical company.

Do not think for a minute that any woman is that powerful. You are not. The AMA and the pharmaceutical firms are the most powerful monopoly in the world.

Doctors are very powerful people.

How many other people in this world can tell you to take your clothes off and then send you a huge bill for it?*
We have a choice to stay with a doctor or move on to someone else. They are not powerful people until we make them. And quite frankly, it is somewhat beyond our control to do much of anything except switch doctors if need be. It's not saying much about our intelligence as woman, and I don't know about you, but yes...I have $ therefore I do have power. I see doctors as mini businesses...if I don't like the service, there are 10 other doctors that would love my money.
I don't understand why there is such an underlying mistrust and dislike for the medical community. I'm trying to understand.
Part of my prior post was left out when you quoted me and it should answer your question. I mentioned patient choice, emergency sections, as well as doctor convenience as the reasons for the current section rates. There isn't any data I am aware of, that breaks down the rate into specifics which in my opinion will shed true light on why it's so high. Only with exact data can one begin to make a change. The C section rate rose 20% from 1999-2001 directly as a result of patient choice. I find this contradictory to the logic that the doctors are pressuring us into sections.

I've had two C sections and think unless you've experienced one, you really have no clue.


----------



## lotusdebi (Aug 29, 2002)

*


----------



## JessicaS (Nov 18, 2001)

Drs **DO** pressure patients into induction which will increase the chance of a c-section. Many also insist on repeat c-sections.

How many women here have heard the words "I don't do VBACS" I certainly have.

I don't know what you mean by the "have no clue" thing...I had a c-section and have no intention of having another.

But you HAVE to be educated ahead of time so you can make choices which will help you prevent that.


----------



## Mamid (Nov 7, 2002)

And why is it when they agree to do vbacs, they always do the one thing that will certainly bring on another c-section? Inducing a woman with a scar on her uterus is a recipe for disaster.

These "gods in men's clothing" are also experimenting with us by using Cytotec and other drugs off label for birth. And they justify having to use a section on the mother's lack of progress or anything else BUT their ineptitude.

I'm pretty sure than in another 10 years, sections are the only way babies will be allowed to be born because vaginal delivery will somehow be found to be too risky even for a perfectly healthy mom and baby.


----------



## Leonor (Dec 25, 2001)

I think the world is at risk of yet another fascist time and as always the majority of people will not notice or will just submit to it.


----------



## root*children (Mar 22, 2004)

here's a ll' story related to this, thought ya'll might be intersted. My SIL just recently had an awesome labor in Greensville, MS (cotton farmers). But went to the hospital way too soon and (you know the rest) ended up having a c-sect birth. The f*cked up thing is that every other mother there that day had one, too, (i think there were 6 total), except 1. And all the nurses had had one too. AAGH! So the only person who didn't have one was a 13-year-old black girl who came in with her entire family, who delivered an hour after admitting in. The nurses all made a fuss that she had had such an easy labor/del. and the other moms would be so jealous. She said, "yay right! are you kidding? I've been laboring all day and all last night, my family made me stay home!"
So there's still hope! sorry this may be off topic, but i just had to tell someone!


----------



## dallaschildren (Jun 14, 2003)

I meant if you have never had a C section, you don't understand the physical and emotional ramifications and quite frankly shouldn't voice an opinion unless you've been there. It's kind of like giving advice on parenting and you have no kids. As I mentioned I had two C sections BOTH necessary and in no way did my doctor pressure me to have the first or the second. As a matter of fact he gave me written resources and spoke to me at length about having a VBAC the second time around and did not mention a repeat C until I asked about it. Both of my C sections are a part of my birth story and I am extremely proud to say I birthed them in that way. My children are healthy and beautiful and that is all that matters. Logically for those woman who fear being "pressured " into a section, a hospital is not really a place for you to labor then. A birthing center or an at home birth is obviously a more likely choice. When you are admitted to a hospital, you obviously realize there is a chance that you will be shaved, have a C section, have an IV put in, have pitocin or similar drug in, etc.
I hear on one hand the evil pharmaceutical industry and the doctors are out to get us and on the other many of us will take a drug or go to a doctor to help us at some point in our lives It's all very hypocritical IMO. Every situation is so different as is every woman's labor and birth experience. You simply can't lump all woman into the category of "my doctor made me do it". It's just not reasonable. Where's the empowerment? Where's the activism?

I also have a very supportive, educated, and informed DH who was with me EVERY step of the way. I can gurantee he wouldn't have let anyone "pressure" me into having a C section. That is ridiculous logic coming from woman who are supposedly empowered.

Back to the OP's original post...."mother of stillborn accused of murder"...it was not to debate the merits of C sections or discuss the medical community.


----------



## lotusdebi (Aug 29, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by dallaschildren_
*I meant if you have never had a C section, you don't understand the physical and emotional ramifications and quite frankly shouldn't voice an opinion unless you've been there. It's kind of like giving advice on parenting and you have no kids.*
And having an opinion on abortion, though you've never had one?
Having an opinion on gay marriage when you're straight?
Having an opinion on war when you've never been in one?

Wow! If we all follow this line of thinking, we wouldn't need an Activism forum!

Opinions can be based on research, facts, knowledge. They do not have to be based on personal experiences.


----------



## Mamid (Nov 7, 2002)

I was threatened with a hysterotomy (mini c-section as it was described to me) to end my pregnancy when I was 18. So, imo, I can voice my opinions about them.

I was 18 and young and stupid and I was still smart enough to refuse something that would have destroyed any chance of having my next two babies vaginally. I still lost that baby, but the way he was meant to be lost. But by saying no, I preserved my uterus for all my children.


----------



## RachelGS (Sep 29, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by applejuice_
*
Do not think for a minute that any woman is that powerful. You are not. The AMA and the pharmaceutical firms are the most powerful monopoly in the world.

*
Women as a group ARE that powerful. We simply need to choose to stick together and exercise that power. If more of us let our doctors know we were educated about birth and unwilling to submit to unnecessary medical interventions, the rate at which we're needlessly operated on would fall in a hurry. Too bad more of us aren't doing this.


----------



## Mamid (Nov 7, 2002)

We are powerful if we stick together.

But 99% of us are brainwashed from birth to obey doctors because "doctors know best."

Tv shows like ER, Chicago Hope, General Hospital...

The news media...

Science and health classes in school...

Our parents...

The doctors we have visited at well kid and er visits...

And that brainwashing makes women stupid. It takes guts to speak out against stuff. And more guts to stick with it.


----------



## dallaschildren (Jun 14, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by lotusdebi_
*And having an opinion on abortion, though you've never had one?
Having an opinion on gay marriage when you're straight?
Having an opinion on war when you've never been in one?

Wow! If we all follow this line of thinking, we wouldn't need an Activism forum!

Opinions can be based on research, facts, knowledge. They do not have to be based on personal experiences.*
By all means many of us have opinions...but that is all I see....very few people put their money where there mouth is and I will not take someone that seriously if they haven't experienced what they speak of, that is my opinion of coarse. You can research and read a bunch of books all day long, but it will never be the same. Heck yeah...I have a bunch of opinions...but we're not talking about gay marriage, war, or anything else in this thread. We were discussing the OP's topic which was not C sections but as usual here at MDC, things veer off and everyones "opinions" get in the way.
We were discussing prosecution of a woman who killed one of her children.
Activism is simply not sitting at a computer and chatting with people you don't know...it's actually doing something concrete when you believe in a cause. Sometimes I see those here which impress the heck out of me because they are setting up rallies, making calls, staging sit-ins etc.
I am extremely perturbed at the notion that all woman who have had sections "were caused damage" or were forced, coerced, or pressured, or didn't really "birth" or didn't birth the right way, or missed out on the experience blah blah blah.
From where I'm sitting I've truly got it all. Nope didn't miss out on anything and came through both C's with flying colors.


----------



## kama'aina mama (Nov 19, 2001)

Quote:

_Originally posted by dallaschildren_
*Nope didn't miss out on anything*
But you did. You missed out on a vaginal birth. Now, if you don't care at all about that, fine. But by your own logic if you haven't done it you really can't comment on it, now can you?


----------



## dallaschildren (Jun 14, 2003)

That's exactly my point. You hit the nail on the head...you can't "miss out on" what you haven't experienced. And if you can point out where on earth I discussed vaginal birth and my opinion on that, I'll eat this post.


----------



## kama'aina mama (Nov 19, 2001)

Actually the definition of missing out on something is to not have done it. The ONLY way you can miss out on something is not to do it. That is different from not feeling as though it was any great loss not to experience it... which is clearly where you are coming from.


----------



## dallaschildren (Jun 14, 2003)

Say what?


----------



## kama'aina mama (Nov 19, 2001)

It's like the old joke.

Boss: Mr Jones, you've been missing a lot of work lately.
Mr Jones: Well sir, I wouldn't say I've been _missing_ it!









There are multiple definitions for the word "miss".


----------



## dallaschildren (Jun 14, 2003)

Can ya still have pregnancy brain after giving birth 6 months ago?


----------



## RachelGS (Sep 29, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by dallaschildren_
*We were discussing prosecution of a woman who killed one of her children.
*
Uh, no, that's not what I was discussing at all.


----------



## dallaschildren (Jun 14, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Alegria_
*from one of the links

"Furthermore, as it turns out, the risk of maternal death is between twice and four times greater when a woman has a C-section than when she undergoes a vaginal delivery.

But doesn't the U.S. offer the best obstetrical care in the world? No. If we look at comparative C-section rates across industrialized nations, the U.S. rates -- as of 1995 -- were higher than those of at least ten other countries, including England, France, and Spain, where infant mortality rates were also lower.

C-sections are thus risky not only to pregnant women but to their babies as well -- a fact that certainly has some bearing on whether doctors who recommend surgery are necessarily practicing good medicine.

Specific court cases bear out this concern about C-section recommendations as well. In three of the first five cases in which providers sought court ordered C-sections in the U.S., for example, the women delivered vaginally without a problem. In two of the three cases, moreover, the doctors predicted that both the woman and her offspring would die, though the women went on to deliver healthy babies without surgery.
"
Sherry F. Colb CNN*
RachelGS...right about here is where we started to debate merits of C sections instead of the prosecution of the woman who refused a C and is charged with murder. I don't know what you are referring to when you quoted me?????
I also apologize for never writing you back..........


----------



## RachelGS (Sep 29, 2002)

I disagree with characterizing this as a discussion about a "woman who killed her child." I don't think that's fair at all. Even if you take the most conservative view possible, you still have to allow for her to have a trial with the presumption of innocence.

Also, inherent in this discussion is what happens if a woman is prosecuted for not following her doctor's orders. And the fact that at least 50% of the cesareans in this country are medically unnecessary is a really important factor of that discussion. Doctors CLEARLY are recommending major surgery quite often when it isn't needed at all, and it's a decidedly important issue for me that a woman may lose the right to decide for herself whether she is willing to undergo surgery.

Dallaschildren, I don't see anyone faulting you for having a surgical birth. I really don't. And if you're comfortable with it, that's truly great. But to suggest that ALL surgical births are okay just because doctors want to do them is fallacy, and it's dangerous. So for me, this conversation goes way beyond this one woman's actions.

But again, even if we stuck with just this one woman, presuming that she maliciously "killed her child" is not something I can get on board with.


----------



## Leonor (Dec 25, 2001)

Quote:

_Originally posted by RachelGS_
*Uh, no, that's not what I was discussing at all.*
Yes I noticed dallas already sentenced the woman. Oh well, this thread is going sort of crazy any way.


----------



## dallaschildren (Jun 14, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Leonor_
*Yes I noticed dallas already sentenced the woman. Oh well, this thread is going sort of crazy any way.







*

Uh, yeah...my "opinion" counts just like everyone else's does even if you don't agree with it. I'm sure you have never judged anyone right?


----------



## dallaschildren (Jun 14, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by RachelGS_
*

Also, inherent in this discussion is what happens if a woman is prosecuted for not following her doctor's orders. And the fact that at least 50% of the cesareans in this country are medically unnecessary is a really important factor of that discussion.
Dallaschildren, I don't see anyone faulting you for having a surgical birth. I really don't. And if you're comfortable with it, that's truly great. But to suggest that ALL surgical births are okay just because doctors want to do them is fallacy, and it's dangerous. So for me, this conversation goes way beyond this one woman's actions.

*
Where do you get the 50 % rate on unnecessary C sections? Just curious.
And I opened the door with my honesty that I have had two C sections, but as a reminder this is NOT about me. And at no point in my prior posts do I suggest that ALL surgical births are ok because doctors want to do them. That may be your interpretation of my comments. I distinctly remember asking if anyone has any reliable data on a breakdown of reasons for the C section rate in our country and I can't find anything and apparently no one else can either; so what appears to be a truth is that just as I can not assume more doctors are not at fault, one can not assume that the high section rate is as a result of the doctor. Furthermore, this is not about "faulting" anyone who has a C. There is not a "fault" with any woman who has a C.
I do however find fault with others suggestions in this post that C sections are as a direct result of doctor's convenience or laziness. I refuse to believe that the woman plays no part in what happens to her and the birthing decisions she makes once she hits the hospital are just handed over to her doctor. Also, nature will inevitably takes it's coarse no matter what the doctor or mother wanted or planned for. The best laid plans often don't run their coarse.


----------



## aussiemum (Dec 20, 2001)

Quote:

Where do you get the 50 % rate on unnecessary C sections?
From the World Health Organisation, I'd say. (hope that's okay to answer, I know that question is not directed at me). If the estimated 'necessary' C-section rate globally is around 10%, if your rate is 20%, half of that is unnecessary. There's a bit of adjustment for mothers who have elective ceasareans, & there will always be a certain number of those cases (which I have no prob with BTW, it's just not my choice).

Quote:

Logically for those woman who fear being "pressured " into a section, a hospital is not really a place for you to labor then. A birthing center or an at home birth is obviously a more likely choice.
dallaschildren, I just picked up on this statement. If only, oh if only, we all had those sorts of options. But that is not reality for many, many women.


----------



## Mamid (Nov 7, 2002)

I wanted a home birth this time around. The midwives here refuse to attend me saying that they're booked up. Which is gentle speak for "no effing way."

So... either I do an unnassited, get an unregulated midwife or use the hospital.

And I don't want to use a hospital this time because they almost killed me last time when we caught them about to put a drug I am allergic to into my IV....


----------



## aussiemum (Dec 20, 2001)

It's a tough choice to make, isn't it Mamid? And the sort of situation you're in (& I have been in) is the reason why it is so important (IMO) that women not be prosecuted for choices they make during pregnancy & childbirth.....


----------



## dallaschildren (Jun 14, 2003)

It's one thing to want to do something and seeing a need to do something, but quite another to actually act on it. What do we do? I've said it once and I'll say it agin, I totally believe that there are sections out there that didn't need to be done, and there are doctors out there with God like complexes (not a majority however). But if there's even one than it needs to be reviewed and protocol should change. So what does one do to help? Can we write letters....is there a governing body of sorts to mass e-mail too...can we get more factual information and from someone who is reliable? Where do we go?


----------



## Raven (Dec 15, 2001)

I just wanted to add my two cents: I am also one of those mamas who dont trust OBs - heres one reason why.

My best friend was pregnant 3 years ago. I had told her about homebirth and about the innate ability women have when it comes to birth. While she agreed with the natural birth thing she felt more comfortable seeing an OB and having her baby in hospital.

She was induced (she says she still doesnt quite know why) and went into labor at the hospital - a private clinic here in CT that costs a fortune. She had a female OB whom she saw throughout her pregnancy.

She was laboring painfully for a few hours when the OB approached her andsaid she had to have an emergency c-section. My friend told me that she felt that her baby was fine and that she didnt feel a c-section to be necessary. She asked the OB if she could go on for a while longer and the OB reluctantly agreed. In the end she had a vaginal delivery with NO complications...

About 6 months later my friends mother came to her and said she had something she needed to tell her. Her mother told her that the OB had come to her first and SUGGESTED a c-section because my friend was a single mother and she thought it was best that a c-section was performed to keep her tight down there....









Now I know this isnt the case for all OB's but for goodness sake - I'd rather not stick around and find out that my OB is one of the ones that are!


----------



## Mamid (Nov 7, 2002)

Mother pleads guilty

Who the







is her lawyer??? She should have pleaded not guilty and had a kick ass lawyer defend her. ACLU maybe.


----------



## kama'aina mama (Nov 19, 2001)

I don't have a big problem with this. Women who use drugs during pregnancy and whose babies test positive for drugs are charged with endangerment pretty routinely. They have dropped the issue of the C-section altogether.


----------



## greymama (May 30, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Mamid_
*Mother pleads guilty

Who the







is her lawyer??? She should have pleaded not guilty and had a kick ass lawyer defend her. ACLU maybe.







*
Why would the ACLU have defended her? It's not a civil right to use cocaine and alcohol when you are pregnant. If she hadn't of plead guilty she would have been probably received a much harsher sentence if this had went to trial. Do you think a jury would look favorably on a mentally-ill mother whose children have all been taken from her custody, who was using cocaine and alcohol during pregnancy and refused medical treatment resulting in the death of one of her unborn children. Pleading guilty was probably the first smart thing she has done in a while.


----------



## aussiemum (Dec 20, 2001)

"The National Organization for Women, Planned Parenthood and the American Civil Liberties Union and others have said prosecutors went too far, calling the case a back-door effort to undermine abortion rights and an attack on a poor, possibly mentally ill person." from CNN.com

THis statement, however, still holds true. And I'd agree that pleading to the lesser charge was a smart move. And as for possibly mentally ill..... try obviously.


----------

