# Woman charged with murder after refusing C-section



## Nemmer (Sep 30, 2002)

http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/040311/w031170.html

Quote:

Prosecutors said Melissa Ann Rowland, 28, didn't want the scars that accompany the surgery. An autopsy found that the baby died two days before its Jan. 13 delivery and that it would have survived if Rowland had had a C-section when her doctors urged her to, between Christmas and Jan. 9. The other baby is alive, but authorities had no further information.


----------



## GoodWillHunter (Mar 14, 2003)

Need more info to make sense of this... Her body before her children? Hmmmm.... I just don't know.


----------



## AnnMarie (May 21, 2002)

Quote:

A nurse told police that Rowland said a caesarean would "ruin her life" and she would rather "lose one of the babies than be cut like that."
I don't know what to say other than she didn't deserve those babies, or she's one messed up woman.


----------



## Elphaba (Nov 19, 2001)

wow. That is just.......... I don't have words here.

If her only concern was a scar, then she's a pretty messed up woman. As in, I would have recommended a psych eval.

But I don't necessarily believe the words of a hospital representative who may just be vengeful.

And murder charges seem excessive. I think they'll reduce it to negligent homicide or something.

The mom sounds like she might be a little


----------



## GoodWillHunter (Mar 14, 2003)

I agree with you on that on Elphaba... I'm just wondering what the WHOLE story is...


----------



## veganmamma (Sep 10, 2002)

Here's my local new link. http://beta.kpix.com/news/ap/APTV/Na...harged-aa.html
I came on to post this. I seriously doubt her only objection was the scar. It makes me ill that it is possible for them to do this to her. Now women who have good reasons to refuse cesarean will be terrified to do so. This woman may have had a good reason too. I can't say what I would do in her situation, but it's possible I would have refused a c/s myself.

The precedent has now been set for court ordered cesarean, now it is set for prosecution for women who refuse cesareans. It makes me so afraid of how they will try to take over our births and our bodies next.

So now if this woman goes to jail her other baby loses its mother. Can't see how it is helping anyone.


----------



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

Wow. What an incredibly sad story.


----------



## GoodWillHunter (Mar 14, 2003)

There's still gotta be more to the story than what is being said.


----------



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

I read the story three times and finally found what was bugging me.

Quote:

An autopsy found the baby died two days before its Jan. 13 delivery and that *it would have survived if* Rowland had had a C-section when her doctors urged her to, between Christmas and Jan. 9.
They can't prove that. Not by a long shot. Sometimes the drugs they give for surgery can be enough to kill a weak baby. And sometimes the baby is simply to sick to save. Even if they know what the baby died of (which they don't say one way or another) they can't prove they could have saved him/her.


----------



## dado (Dec 31, 2002)

i'm sorry, but you simply cannot legitimately force a human being to have their body cut open. that's just insane.


----------



## AnnMarie (May 21, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by veganmamma_
*
The precedent has now been set for court ordered cesarean, now it is set for prosecution for women who refuse cesareans. It makes me so afraid of how they will try to take over our births and our bodies next.*
That's what I was thinking. I don't like what she did.....if that's the whole story.....but now they will try to control everyone and that is NOT good.


----------



## Nemmer (Sep 30, 2002)

veganmama and AnnMarie. That's my fear too. I just saw a clip on the local news commercial. They'll talk more about it in a couple hours. So I poked around and found that news article.


----------



## gurumama (Oct 6, 2002)

I read about this on another board. What none of the news story say is WHAT the medical concerns were at the time that the fetus was still alive. What did the doctors say to her? There's a huge difference between saying, "You need a c-section because:

--the babies are too big to deliver vaginally

--one is breech

--you have preeclampsia

--there's a leak in the amniotic fluid

--we're finding very low heart tones on twin B

and so on.

Although the news stories make it sound like she was being vain and didn't want the scars, if you read exactly what they quote, it sounds like she was more terrified than anything of being cut open.

She's clearly unstable and obviously didn't have any support--unless a homebirth or other type of midwife was part of her birthing plans but wasn't mentioned. We don't know the whole story and I, for one, don't like how this has been approached in the media. Too much sensation, too few facts.

I'm so sad for that dead baby, though, and I worry for the little one who lived.


----------



## Viola (Feb 1, 2002)

_A pregnant woman who allegedly ignored medical warnings to have a Caesarean section to save her twins was charged Thursday with murder after one of the babies was stillborn._

This is what bugs me. How often do doctors play the dead baby card, trying to convince moms they need caesareans. If the mom refuses and has a healthy baby, do they rethink their recommendations? No, the mom is just foolish and lucky. My OB told me that the only reasons that so many homebirths turn out OK is because they would have been OK anyway.







: If OBs stopped crying wolf, maybe people would take it more seriously, but often it seems like a lawsuit protection, so maybe the doctors are between a rock and a hard place.

Now in this case it sounds like a c-section would have been her best option, but the idea that all medical warnings for c-sections should be heeded is ludicrous.

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

It sounds like her fears were more than cosmetic, but it is still sad.


----------



## Rebecca (Dec 4, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by veganmamma_
*Here's my local new link. http://beta.kpix.com/news/ap/APTV/Na...harged-aa.html
I came on to post this. I seriously doubt her only objection was the scar. It makes me ill that it is possible for them to do this to her. Now women who have good reasons to refuse cesarean will be terrified to do so. This woman may have had a good reason too. I can't say what I would do in her situation, but it's possible I would have refused a c/s myself.

The precedent has now been set for court ordered cesarean, now it is set for prosecution for women who refuse cesareans. It makes me so afraid of how they will try to take over our births and our bodies next.

So now if this woman goes to jail her other baby loses its mother. Can't see how it is helping anyone.*
My thoughts exactly. This isn't a court issue IMO. They don't know for sure that the baby would have lived had it been delivered earlier. Anything could happen (I didn't read the article, so forgive me if I make no sense).

I could go on and on about the law, courts, and insurance companies, but this isn't the place. It's so so sad.


----------



## Carolinamidwife (Dec 18, 2001)

Um, can anyone say for sure what her reasons were? I am not likely to believe the prosecution when they say it was about the scars. I don't like it that people are judging her based on that. Think about all of the women we know and respect who refuse doctor advised C-sections because they believe strongly in natural birth; in some people's minds that seems just as irresponsible as not wanting a scar. Like PPs have said, maybe the doctors were advising for reasons none of us would have accepted. I know if someone had told me to have a section with my baby I would have refused.

I don't like this for many reasons not the least of which is the fact that I am pro-choice and by choice I mean ALL choices. What is next? Under that state's laws fetuses at all stages of development are protected under law. Does that mean women who undergo first trimester terminations are to be prosectuted?

I would like to hear it from the mother's mouth before I judge her decision.


----------



## dado (Dec 31, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Sheena_
*Um, can anyone say for sure what her reasons were?*
is that really the issue here? we're talking about massively invasive surgery. i don't see what difference her reason makes, civilized societies simply do not cut open the bodies of their citizens without willing consent.


----------



## hotmamacita (Sep 25, 2002)

SHE SHOULD NOT BE CHARGED WITH MURDER!

This is insane.

If anyone finds anymore information on this will you let me know. I cannot sit at home on this one. I will go to Salt Lake City and protest with my twins if I have to.

Anyone up for a protest with me? Letter writing? Bombarding with phone calls?

This is INSANITY!


----------



## cat_astrophe (Sep 22, 2003)

I agree that this is insane. I am sure the mother is allready feeling horrible over her decision, whether she should be or not. I'd really like to see a doctor guarantee that that baby would have lived. Sick. Just SICK!


----------



## hmpc2 (Jul 1, 2003)

I would REALLY hope it was not for cosmetic reasons...I would be very concerned if it was.

Speaking as a mother as a stillborn baby, I cannot imagine the pain and agony of losing a child and then being charged for it...I mean if you get too crazy with that line of thought...I could be charged because I started off with a homebirth and Adia was gone by the time the dr in the hospital got to us







So if one was super medically minded I am sure you can do a correlation of neglience on our side...which is bs in my opinion....

Yet on the other hand....if it was ALL because she didn't want to have a scar and the news reports are factual and not exagerrated....I am furious with the mother....why would you put a child at risk vs having a scar. Believe you me...I would have loved to have had a c-section if that meant my daughter would have survived, and the whole reason why I decided I wanted a homebirth was because I didn't want any dr to cut me open just because it was more convient...

Well I'll get off my soapbox









I am looking forward to more information...hopefully someone who really knows the truth.


----------



## hotmamacita (Sep 25, 2002)

And what if one of my twins would have died? WOuld I now be faced with MURDER CHARGES b/c I trusted my gut?

They were both breech. Soren had serious comlplications and didn't breath for a long while. The midwives were amazing and there is NO guarantee that he would have lived in a hospital.

God is the author of life and death not the friggin' AMA.

I AM REALLY MAD about this.

REALLY FRIGGIN' MAD.

I have to go put the kids to bed. Someone PLEASE e-mail me more info and/or thoughts if you are so inclined. I am seriously getting involved in this but want to 1) COOL OFF and 2) do some research.


----------



## urklemama (May 4, 2003)

Is this woman in jail?

It sounds like she is. It sounds like they have taken the living baby's mama away to punish her for not obeying the almighty medical profession.

I am sick.


----------



## GoodWillHunter (Mar 14, 2003)

Like previous posters have said, it is impossible to say whether the babe would've lived, even if born at the "critical" time. I just don't know. Go hotmamacita...


----------



## urklemama (May 4, 2003)

It looks like she is in jail. I'm reading multiple sources that say bail has been posted at $250,000.

I don't care if she's a friggin' nutcase, her living baby needs her.

Can we set up a paypal account for her bail?


----------



## cat_astrophe (Sep 22, 2003)

Is it really neccessary to charge the woman with murder even if it was over a scar? I think that is a frivolous reason not to want a c/sec, but I am pretty sure the woman is feeling badly enough over it as it is. Jail I'm sure can not compare to the pain she is feeling right now.

I'm not one for slippery slope theories, but I have to agree that this sets a dangerous precedent.

Can anyone find whether or not she has been bailed yet??


----------



## Carolinamidwife (Dec 18, 2001)

Quote:

is that really the issue here? we're talking about massively invasive surgery. i don't see what difference her reason makes, civilized societies simply do not cut open the bodies of their citizens without willing consent.
That was kind of my point... did you read the rest of my post? Obviously I do not agree with forced surgery. My point was that it is most likely the prosecution is claiming that was her reason because it is obviously something that will rile up the general public.


----------



## Dragonfly (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

_Originally posted by cat_astrophe_
*Is it really neccessary to charge the woman with murder even if it was over a scar? I think that is a frivolous reason not to want a c/sec, but I am pretty sure the woman is feeling badly enough over it as it is. [b/]*
*
*
*
So what? If she chose avoiding a scar over her baby's life (it was the autopsy that said that the baby had been alive 2 days before), why shouldn't she be punished? Is the degree of remorse the new standard for determining punishment of a person who causes another person's death?

I know there has to be more to this story... which is why I'm not willing to pass judgment on this woman. What it sounds like to me is that she was mentally disturbed and incapable of understanding that a c-section doesn't involve gutting a patient. And I'm also worried about the precedent that it would set.... but both ways. It would seriously disturb me if someone was able to have the option of ordering her baby's death 2 days before delivery for something so superficial as a scar.*


----------



## dado (Dec 31, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Dragonfly_
*It would seriously disturb me if someone was able to have the option of ordering her baby's death 2 days before delivery for something so superficial as a scar.*
yes, it would be disturbing. what would you suggest as a course of action? would you advocate a court-ordered surgery?


----------



## youngnhappymamma (Feb 3, 2002)

woa...what a tough issue...and of course it's even harder to decifer my opinion because news reports (especially short blerbs) are so sensationalized and leave so many questions!!!!!! From reading that article, it sounds like at all three hospitals she was advised three different times from three different sources that her twins were in jeopardy and needed to be delivered ASAP. That's not to say that the one twin who died would'nt have just lived for a few days and died....it's just one of those things no one knows. I wish they had said wether or not the twins were finally delivered via c-section or vaginal birth and wonder why (or if) she was offered an emergency induction to get the twins born, etc. I also wonder why they did not (or if they did) offer her couseling services, etc. It's strange because it appears that she did care about the health of her babies (she did go to three different hospitals, etc) but they did just keep saying in the article that she just didn't want to be cut....and if she did truly believe, as a pp said, that she was going to be cut from breast bone to pubic bone it sounds like she had some mental issues to deal with.
I am with you guys about the scare of if they do convict her that would set a precident for being prosecuted anytime you refuse a c-section your almighty doctor recomends...SCARY!!


----------



## veganmamma (Sep 10, 2002)

Dragonfly, she didn't order her baby's death. From what I've read, they already couldn't get the heartbeat on the monitor for one, and for two, ceasareans are very traumatic for babies and a baby on the brink of death may have died during the cesarean anyway. Regardless, women have the right to make medical decisions for themselves and their children, sometimes they make good decisions and sometimes bad. It could be that this child would have died anyway, and that may not be the case. Truthfully, they can't prove either way. I don't think anyone has the right to sit in judgement of this woman. I honestly cannot say that I would have chosen a c/s in her shoes. I would bet I am probably more educated than she is, but maybe not. Some nurse giving an anecdote is not grounds for criminal prosecution or conviction by the public.

This woman's living child needs her and I don't see how prosecuting hef helps anyone. It just spends tax dollars taking a mother away from her baby. If she had a BFing relationship with this child, I'm betting it will be over if she stays in jail much longer.

I wish I lived nearby, I'd have a vigil outside the county jail for this woman, even if it was over a scar.


----------



## wende (Oct 4, 2003)

Edited because Veganmama may be right


----------



## candiland (Jan 27, 2002)

Holy cow! I don't know; where does one draw the line?

Ideally, our society would realize that putting sick people in jail doesn't do anything except waste valuable tax dollars to line the pockets of very wealthy judges and lawyers. If this woman *did* know that her baby would die if she didn't get him out ASAP, but she decided not to have a c/section, then she needs help, not jail time.

But like other posters have said, I need to hear the whole story. Who knows..... maybe they were playing the "dead baby" card and were actually right? So now they are charging her with manslaughter? I'd love to hear more. It's just so hard to form a real opinion with only these sensationalistic "news" stories to go by, ya know?

Oh, btw, Nemmer, I'm Zippy Apple Lips.

:LOL


----------



## veganmamma (Sep 10, 2002)

Quote:

_edited because I may be right_
I don't know if this is true or not, but regardless, the state is still setting an incredibly dangerous precedent. I know you are trying to offer information, but you might want to delete this, and I will delete it from my post. If this woman's lawyers find this link they may go after your friend for spreading rumors or giving up confidential info.

From what you say, if it is true, she may be nuts, but she doesn't deserve jail time in that case, but psychiatric help.


----------



## urklemama (May 4, 2003)

Wende, I just feel sorrier for her than I did before... what a terrible position she must have felt herself to be in. And I'm not going to judge the words and actions of a freshly postpartum mother sitting in jail. The more I hear about this, the more it sounds like the woman needs help.


----------



## Dragonfly (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

_Originally posted by dado_
*yes, it would be disturbing. what would you suggest as a course of action? would you advocate a court-ordered surgery?*
I honestly don't know. I'd be inclined to say yes, but that's a simple gut reaction. I'd have to think a lot more about the constitutional implications of it before being able to say for sure...


----------



## Evergreen (Nov 6, 2002)

If you issue a court ordered cbirth here, it could spiral out of control and doctors would be able to threaten lawsuits to any mama who 'didnt progress'. It is sad and horrible, and this woman may be very disturbed, but I think the risks of court ordered cesereans are just too great.


----------



## Dragonfly (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

_Originally posted by veganmamma_
*I don't know if this is true or not, but regardless, the state is still setting an incredibly dangerous precedent.*
After thinking more, I'm not so sure that if her decision *was* over a scar, that prosecuting her *is* actually setting a dangerous precedent. We're not talking entry into wholly unchartered territory. The state has a right (under Roe v. Wade) to regulate abortion past the point of viability. This is different in that it's forcing a medical procedure (whereas regulating late-term abortion is forcing absence of a medical procedure), but the concern is the same - potential life.

Hmmm... have to think more about that.


----------



## Dragonfly (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Gr8flmom_
*If you issue a court ordered cbirth here, it could spiral out of control and doctors would be able to threaten lawsuits to any mama who 'didnt progress'. It is sad and horrible, and this woman may be very disturbed, but I think the risks of court ordered cesereans are just too great.*
I think this is a valid concern - though I'm not particularly fond of "slippery slope" arguments. I tend to think that people's heads are a bit more level than that.... but, then, in these times, who knows?


----------



## wende (Oct 4, 2003)

Veganmamma, you may be right and thanks for pointing that out to me. I don't know if what I said was right either, it was second hand info on my part. I just think that if it is true, she obviously didn't care about those babies to begin with and I think if that is the case than she showed gross negligence with full intent and knowlege of what would happen. I feel the same way about people who refuse to get their child medical attention in the name of religion and the child dies when they could have been saved. I also believe that if someone kills a pregnant woman that he or she should be charged with both deaths. I am extremely pro-choice, but I think that there has to be a line. If I decide 2 days after my child is born that I don't want to be a mother and suffocate him with a pillow I would be charged with murder, why is it any different 2 days before he's born? I know I'm in the minority here on this, but I think that baby deserved much more respect than what it was shown.


----------



## veganmamma (Sep 10, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Gr8flmom_
*If you issue a court ordered cbirth here, it could spiral out of control and doctors would be able to threaten lawsuits to any mama who 'didnt progress'. It is sad and horrible, and this woman may be very disturbed, but I think the risks of court ordered cesereans are just too great.*
There has already been a court ordered cesarean.
http://www.ican-online.org/news/011604.htm


----------



## isleta (Nov 25, 2002)




----------



## Arduinna (May 30, 2002)

I'd like to know the whole story too, both sides of it. Not just the medical staffs side.


----------



## RAF (Aug 13, 2002)

I don't think this woman should be charged period. It should be every woman's right to refuse any kind of hospital procedure while in labor and giving birth, regardless of what the outcome of the decision is. The ultimate decision should be with the woman and God, not hospital personnel.


----------



## hotmamacita (Sep 25, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Arduinna_
*I'd like to know the whole story too, both sides of it. Not just the medical staffs side.*
ITA









Thanks for those that sent me e-mails.


----------



## hotmamacita (Sep 25, 2002)

Okay, here is another link. She looks like she'd been crying and through a lot. The story is a little more informative.

http://tv.ksl.com/index.php?sid=80598&nid=5


----------



## Unreal (Dec 15, 2002)

If she was being negligent..why did she go to another hospital after the first one told her she needed a c-section?

That is definitely something I would do if I were in that position--concerned about my babes, but not wanting a c-section (for whatever reason).

Poor mama. To loose one baby and then to be taken away from the other.
Were it me...even if I had been sane when making the decision to not have a c-section, I would be completely bonkers by the time they evaluated me


----------



## hotmamacita (Sep 25, 2002)

I am going to make some calls in the morning and see whst else I find out.


----------



## hmpc2 (Jul 1, 2003)

Thank you hotmama for that new link...I feel it has a different twist.... I get SO mad at the medical establishment.

I am with you...life and death are not really in our hands....so she had a c-section on the day she first went in, whose to say the same child would not have died 2 days later...Whose to say the drs' would have saved the child even the same day.

I just get mad b/c with my situation...it took the hosp. 45 mins to assess me, determine Adia was dead and tell my husband....with the last 15 mins or additional (it all runs together)...with me laying on the operating table waiting for the anestisologist to get to the hosp...My husband was told about Adia while I was still laying on the table waiting. Since she was already gone DH and Dr. decided that c-section wasn't worth the risk...so I did get to deliver her vaginally. Why isn't the hosp. being charged for murder???? Because everyone can point the finger at somebody else... Never mind the MW and EMT's told the hosp. I needed a crash section as soon as I arrived!!!!!Ugh... I do believe in fate, so Adia would still have died even if I did have a section...my point/rant is that when the medical community is at fault we can turn around and not look back, but if we do something not according to their liking, we can be charged with murder!!!

Since this is so close to home I am also ralled up...let me know what you need assistance with and I will do what I can.


----------



## hotmamacita (Sep 25, 2002)

mama. I feel for you. I have two close friends with similar stories and much of my passion about this is with them in mind.

Thank you for sharing your precious story.
















Off to PM you.


----------



## alexisyael (Oct 23, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by hotmamacita_
*

http://tv.ksl.com/index.php?sid=80598&nid=5*
This is weird. I found this quote:

"But Rowland is adamant, she was never told she needed a c-section. "I didn't refuse a c-section, they were born by c-section."

And yet she signed a waiver, she had to, right?

I am very worried about the prosecution of this myself (THIS SHOULD NOT BE PROSECUTED!) and would write a letter and pritest this being prosecuted. *However* this case just gives me weird vibes. It sounds a little like she might be suffering from some schizophrenic delusions. I'm not sure, but that's the vibe I get. She doesn't seem like a UCer to me.

However, the media is really prone to getting things wrong, so I am reserving judgement. But...wow. If I were the defending attorney, I would get her a psych eval. To not remember being told she needed an immediate C-section? That's odd.

Poor mama. Poor babies.


----------



## Peppamint (Oct 19, 2002)

This really bothers me!:

Quote:

In January, the state Supreme Court ruled that unborn children at all stages of development are covered under the state's criminal homicide statute. The law exempts the death of a fetus during an abortion.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/West/03/1....ap/index.html

So she could have had an abortion or a partial birth abortion AND THAT'S LEGAL, but it's not legal to refuse major abdominal surgery.









Surely I am missing something, or maybe the state of affairs is just really sick.







:

This puts me to the point where I am afraid that if I ever need to go to the hospital for a serious reason that I will be badly mistreated.


----------



## dado (Dec 31, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Dragonfly_
*I'd have to think a lot more about the constitutional implications of it before being able to say for sure...*
also make a list of societies over the past, say, 100 years, that would actually do such a thing. then ask yourself if you want your country to be in the same category.


----------



## Clarity (Nov 19, 2001)

there has been a trend toward changing laws to allow crminal charges for harm to a fetus. (didn't congress pass that federally?) Do you remember a month or so ago with the woman in PA? Some posted from Spain and said the legal status of ther fetus was such that if a mother refused to follow medical recommendations (like a c-sec) she could be charged criminally.

I continue to believe, for good or bad, that while a child in on the inside, the mother takes precedence as the patient (mothers life first unless she says otherwise!) and in decision making. Cases of drug abuse worry me. I lean against that, too, on principle - but since drugs are illegal I think that makes a clearer case. Drinking too much is back in hazy territory.

I am so furious...when I saw this on CNN last night I couldn't bring myself to come post...


----------



## cat_astrophe (Sep 22, 2003)

This woman did not kill her baby, at least not from what I have read. She didn't go out and OD on cocaine to kill her child, she just refused to have surgery.

Honestly, if she can be chaged with murder for this, why can't an anti-vax mother be charged if her child dies of pertussis? It's the same deal. A risky/invasive medical procedure _may_ have saved the child, or it may have killed the chid sooner.

If she had had the surgery, who's to say the other baby would not have died as well? Could she charge the doctor with murder then?


----------



## Austin'smom (Jul 16, 2003)

Very Very Sad!!!


----------



## wombat (Nov 3, 2002)

Quote:

"I've never refused a C-section. I've already had two prior C-sections. Why would I say something like that?" Ms Rowland said.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3504720.stm

I'm not sure I believe the cosmetic reason. She was already scarred. I can imagine being in that situation and just mouthing off about ALL the reasons I didn't want another c/s. It wouldn't necessarily mean that ANY ONE particular reason I spouted off about, was THE reason. If there even has to be ONE reason why someone wouldn't want a c/s. It sounds more like a woman suffering some post traumatic stress disorder as a result of the first 2 c/s's.

This is really unfortunate but the implications of charging a woman for refusing surgery are scary. After reading this story, I feel like I better take a lawyer with me to the next birth.

If the doctors really believed she needed an emergency c/s the first and second times she went to the hospital then why didn't they get a court order. You know like child protection can get when parents refuse medical treatment and the child is in imminent danger. If the doctors felt so strongly about it, why didn't they do something about it then? I think it's possible for anyone to make a case for negligence against the mother AND the doctors in this case, if they so desire.


----------



## cat_astrophe (Sep 22, 2003)

Quote:

I think it's possible for anyone to make a case for negligence against the mother AND the doctors in this case, if they so desire.
Medical negligence and murder are 2 very different things, though.


----------



## wombat (Nov 3, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by cat_astrophe_
*Medical negligence and murder are 2 very different things, though.*
Yep that's right. I'd forgotten it was a murder charge. I just find that unbelievable. I can't see what good could come of charging this mother with murder.

Actually I just heard on CNN that the mother had a history of psychiatric problems. It's even more of a wonder that the doctors didn't recognize this, try and get a court order and force her to have a c/s IF they really were so sure the babies had to come out right then. They can't be so sure, much easier to wait for that baby to die then jump and down and blame the mother.


----------



## christymama (Feb 21, 2003)

i just dont really know what to think about this whole story!
I mean ok so she didnt want to have a scar?? If there were many drs telling me over and over that I needed to get these babies out or one or both will die I think I would get them out! I mean ok so you dont really want a c-section who really does.. I understand the bodys way of doing whats natural and wanting to have a natural childbirth .. But if it came down to having a c-section and having a dead baby then I would have that damn c-section.. In the end what really matters is the baby in your arms not how it got there right.. Maybe its just me and being very pregnant right now.. But it just all makes me sick to my stomach.. I can see how they would want to charge her with something.. Murder might be extreme i dont know.. But if the child was taken when they said it could of lived right? So isnt that Neglet or something.. Where a sick child or baby needed medical attention and you didnt seek it? very strange story!


----------



## cat_astrophe (Sep 22, 2003)

The woman had 2 prior c-sections, so I'm not really understanding this at all. I know that there are 2 types of incisions that can be made for a c/section, so it seems possible that the doctor wanted to perform the more dangerous one...?

Perhaps the scar she was worried about was the scarring on her uterus that might affect her future ability to carry and birth another child??

I'd really like to know the whole story on this, because something doesn't fit.


----------



## sohj (Jan 14, 2003)

My knee jerk reaction is that the medical profession, all of it, is full of itself and is a sadistic corporate money maker set up for the torturing of anyone they can.

And I think that anyone who claims that court ordered c-sections are the right thing to do are in cahoots with them.

The Life-at-any-cost school of thought is a totalitarian mentality.

"The first thing a principle does is go out and kill someone." --Dorothy Sayers


----------



## Ravin (Mar 19, 2002)

I just saw a news report about it on CNN. They're using the "breastbone to pelvis" quote, and reporting that she has a long history of mental illness.

The alarming thing is that they said this could set a precedent for charging mothers who smoke or who don't follow their doctor's recommended diet!!!









I'm starting to think I should move to Australia. I'd go to Canada, but it's too cold.


----------



## cat_astrophe (Sep 22, 2003)

Australia or New Zealand would work, but I say we all pool our resources and buy a private island and build our own community.


----------



## Ravin (Mar 19, 2002)

Woo-hoo! We can have trained midwives and one well-behaved OB just in case, and all pregnant women arriving on our shores will be considered political refugees and given asylum, no questions asked.


----------



## mraven721 (Mar 10, 2004)

I can't beleive that they have taken this mother from her newborn baby. They have no way of knowing what would have happend. I am sure the woman made some sort of off hand comment about a scar or something. I feel sorry for her and her loss.


----------



## Nemmer (Sep 30, 2002)

Thanks, hotmamacita and wombat for the additional links.


----------



## hotmamacita (Sep 25, 2002)

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/1%2C1...8573%2C00.html


----------



## DreamerMama (Feb 2, 2003)

Ok, that link put an entire new spin on this situation.

I still think it is wrong, with a capital W, to charge this woman with murder.

I just can't even phathom this sort of invasion of privacy. It makes me very afraid, and very glad I am not having anymore babies.

What a flippin mess.


----------



## Ravin (Mar 19, 2002)

She was giving the babies up for adoption, so the separation from the mother would have happened anyway.

It's interesting how she's reportely quoted as saying she feared she would be sliced open from breast bone to pelvis, but at least one person on the prosecuting side has interpreted this as concern for cosmetic appearance reasons.

Sounds more like she was terrified that they'd do a classic C-section or a T-cut because they were treating it as an emergency. Also, it seems the best light anyone is willing to put her in is that she's crazy, which I suppose is better than being vain to the point of murder.

It is phenomenally arrogant of the doctors, the prosecutors...grrrr









Just because someone signs a piece of paper doesn't necessarily mean they truly understand all the implications spelled out in the legalese of the form, such as the AMA release form.


----------



## hotmamacita (Sep 25, 2002)

I have her mailing addy for those of you who would like to write to her letters of encouragement. Please e-mail me.

I have a full day today and it is something I cannot cancel or I would. So be patient with me. Go ahead and write her a letter and I will get the addy to y'all late tonight.

Also, I am looking into how people can help post bail for this woman. If anyone gets any more information or a contact person for this woman then please e-mail me too.

I gotta go. I check back in late tonight.

Peace mamas....


----------



## pamamidwife (May 7, 2003)

Ok, I just read something that said she was on cocaine. Did anyone else read this? I'll find the link.

OK, here it is: http://www.sltrib.com/2004/Mar/03122004/utah/147031.asp

Quote:

*The boy was stillborn and the girl was in respiratory distress, the nurse said. A doctor reported that the girl also tested positive for cocaine and alcohol in her blood.
*

I just don't think we're dealing with someone who is refusing a cesarean based on the risk of a cesarean. I think this is a story about someone who has major emotional and substance abuse issues.

Still, for anyone, major surgery would be scary. I mean, this is a woman that went to the hospital in labor and when told that one of her babies was dead and the other was in serious distress, she went out to smoke.

I wonder where the full truth is?


----------



## Hannah's Mom (Jan 5, 2003)

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

This article makes me think there's a whole lot more to these charges than the prosecutors thinking she was just vain. The twin born alive apparently tested positive for drugs in her system. I do think this woman is mentally ill and that murder charges could set a dangerous precedent, but once again, it seems as if irresponsible media reporting designed to sensationalize to the highest possible level is going on.


----------



## RachelGS (Sep 29, 2002)

I will never plan to have a baby in a hospital. How incredibly dangerous.


----------



## OnTheFence (Feb 15, 2003)

:::de lurking:::

Based on everything I have read this woman a)suffers from mental illness of some sort b) was using drugs and alcohol and c) sought medical care not once but on three different times to see if the twins were alive.

Now having read everything, I do believe she should be charged with a crime, not just for killing her child, and yes I believe she is completely responsible for his death, but negligent in the fact she most likely refused to have a surgical birth because she was friggin high and drunk.

Some people say that the surgical birth alone could have killed her babies, well, had she had the csection the day she was told she needed it, there is not a doubt in my mind they would have lived. It doesnt take that long to pull them out and begin resusitatoin measures. Even on weak, fragile babies. I doubt she refused a csection for a scar, but because she was on coke. She probably knew that their were risks and that they would find out and probably charge her with a crime. She even went to an additional place to see if the babies were alive. Umm, ok, well why would she do that? Because she had been snorting coke all night or smoking crack -- this would definitely effect fetal movement.

As a mother of a child, whose birthmother was reckless, I really dont have a problem with her tail end sitting in a jail cell. Why write letters of support to a woman who is not parenting any of her children, doesnt use birthcontrol, acts negligent in medical care, and is doing illicit drugs while pregnant. Sorry, but no way can I write letters of encouragement to this woman. She should be locked up in a jail cell or a mental institution with her reproductive organs gone. The living child is going to be messed up for life.

While I am not for court ordered surgeries, I do think that if you go to a hospital and are told your full term, viable fetus is going to die if not born soon, whether by induction, surgical birth, etc -- and you choose to do NOTHING, and that child dies, well I think you committed a crime. You make a choice to rather have your baby die to avoid having a surgical proceedure, well that is pretty messed up to start with, so face the music -- even if that means a jail cell, losing your child or other children, or being sent to the mental institution. I just have no empathy or compassion for her wreckless, negligent behavior.


----------



## pamamidwife (May 7, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by RachelGS_
*I will never plan to have a baby in a hospital. How incredibly dangerous.







*

yeah, especially if you're doing cocaine, drinking alcohol and smoking cigarettes during your labor.


----------



## lotusdebi (Aug 29, 2002)

*


----------



## OnTheFence (Feb 15, 2003)

My son has early onset bipolar disorder, and I know many people that are bipolar. I dont think anyone here is saying people with bipolar cnat make rational decisions. However I think that unmedicated, untreated mentally ill people do often make irrationall, dangerous decisions.

If this woman was on drugs, she chose to do them. If she was drinking, she chose to do it. Why because of mental illness or addiction should we not hold her repsonsible for the decision that lead to the death of her child?


----------



## hotmamacita (Sep 25, 2002)

INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.

Thanks for the additional links regarding drugs and such. I'll read them and continue to do more research this weekend.

I feel free to write her an encouraging letter, OTF. Your reasons do not compel me to do otherwise. If you don't want to write her, then I suggest you follow your heart.

Peace,


----------



## lotusdebi (Aug 29, 2002)

*


----------



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

Quote:

I do think that if you go to a hospital and *are told your full term, viable fetus is going to die if not born soon,* whether by induction, surgical birth, etc...
Well a huge part of the problem is that medical personel tell pregnant women this all the damn time when it simply isn't true. So now they get to cry "wolf" as often as they like and on the rare ocasion they are sadly proven to be correct the WOMAN is prosecuted? Just a couple months ago in New Jersey a hospital told a woman teh exact same thing. She left and they got a court order giving them the right to section her. Because otherwise "the baby would die"! Well, no one told the baby that because she was born just fine vaginally a few days later at another hospital.

Quote:

Asked about a woman's right to make choices during pregnancies, prosecutor Kent Morgan said: "She didn't choose among alternative treatments available. She chose to get no treatment whatsoever."
Which is also a valid choice. Rush told us that years ago and it's still true!

Her public defender said:

Quote:

"This is major surgery," Sikora said of the Caesarian. "It would come as no surprise that a woman with major mental illness would fear it."
Oh man. I have no mental illness and teh idea of any major surgery (section included) scares the tar out of me!


----------



## coleslaw (Nov 11, 2002)

One of the many versions of the story mentioned that it mostly seems like a breakdown between physician and patient. I totally agree. If she thought that she was getting a T cut and didn't want it and siad so, the doctor could have tried to get down to her reasons. If she didnt' want that cut, h/esh/e should have discussed other options (ie. horizontal cut) or discussed why it was necessary (had that cut before or whatever). I have no knowledge on the dos and don'ts of c-sections, but I know that the doctor, if he/she cared about his patient and his patient's babies, he/she would have had more info on her decision than a questionable concern for her vaniety. He/she would have suspected drug abuse, mental illness, etc. and done something about that or put that into perspective.

Maybe I am expecting too much of an ob/gyn, but if they are going to throw their scare tactics and possibly throw every woman's ability to make sound judgements about their own body, then I am going to have to hold them to a higher standard!


----------



## XM (Apr 16, 2002)

Wow.

I have read most all of the posts but none of the links (just can't go there this week) and I cannot begin to tell you all how disturbing this is to me.

My daughter died during the 10 minutes it took me to push her out. Her birth was in the hospital but completely unmedicated (we did Bradley). I was stuck in transition for almost 4 hours because I had .5 lip of cervix and was being told not to push till the lip was gone, my doctor was asleep down the hall. When she finally woke up and came in to check me, she held back the lip, and Xiola was in her hands minutes later. When I started pushing, she had a heartbeat. When she emerged, she was blue and still.

I have actually had people lay the blame on me, saying, "that's why natural birth is so dangerous, dear!". Mind you, I was in a HOSPITAL and we were monitoring FHT with a doppler. My care was ludicrous. My nurses left out FHTs that looked suspect (read-incriminating) and they complained that they were having trouble getting FHTs because of my size. Mind you, my midwife with ds had NO problems getting FHTs with her wood pinard (fetoscope) and I was the same size. The nurses also never told me that I had a cervix that easily stretched up to 1cm, which would have meant that I could have pushed through that last half centimeter easily (I pushed through more then that with ds).

My ability to make sound decisions for my daughter was comprimised by the arrogance and lack of skill of the staff that was supposed to help me birth my child. Even as I insisted that something was wrong, they kept telling me she was fine... which, as I can see in her file, was a lie. If I would have been given all of the information about what was going on instead of just what the nurses chose to share with me, perhaps she would be with us now. My doulas were worse then useless, they were hired to keep the nurses honest, and were too busy playing midwife-wannabee while my doctor slept (this position! no, this position!).

We had over three hours that my body so badly wanted to birth my child, and I was told to wait? Nothing hurts worse then trying to not push when your body knows it needs to. But I was trusting my caregivers to be honest with me and so I didn't push. It is so hard to live with the knowledge that I should have trusted my gut and pushed anyway. Would my daughter be here right now if I would have had a c-section? Maybe. Would my daughter be here had I been disclosed al the details I needed to make a good choice? Would my daughter be here had I told the nurses and doulas to f&*% off and started pushing anyway? I feel certain of it.

With my son's birth (a homebirth, understandably I wanted to stay out of a hospital), the last my midwife checked me I was at 8 1/2 and verrrry stretchy, so a few moments later when I felt the urge to push, I went for it and he was born 23 minutes later. I probably wasn't complete, but I certainly didn't tear my cervix (which is the threat the nurses were using to get me to not push). Since ds was my second, I knew my body better and to trust what it was telling me above all else. If there is only one lesson I have learned from my daughter's death and my son's birth, it is to trust myself and my body.

I guess the points I am trying to make are that hospitals are neither the most knowledgeable, nor the most honest, about birth. Anything that this hospital says I will take with a block of salt because their insurance company is telling them to cover their asses. This may even have been preemptive anyway so that the blame would be on the woman and not the hospital. Also, if this woman was giving her babies up for adoption, did the prospective parents being pissed that they are only getting one baby now (when they may well have paid more in fees to adopt twins) instead of two have anything to do with this? Seems pretty vengeful to me either way.

Wether or not this woman was keeping her babies, she needs to be at home, healing and grieving (the death as well as the adoption) and not in jail. Making an example of this woman like this is only going to make women who are already on the edge (mental illness, addiction, etc) even less likely to seek care for their pregnancies and even more babies will suffer for it. This is a terrifying precedent for women everywhere. In my state, you can get an abortion up to 24 weeks. So, I can choose to kill my baby when it is viable, but I can't have a choice in how my baby is born (I had a hell of a time finding a HB midwife after losing my dd)? Get real. When women fought for reproductive freedom, they failed to realize how crucial it is to have the freedom of choice in when and how we birth our babies.

It makes my blood run cold to think that some zealot who wants to teach pregnant women a lesson about questioning a hospital's 'authority' would send this woman to jail. Hospitals are proving their lack of honesty and compassion every day. They NEED their authority questioned. A vaginal birth in the hospital with no meds at all is $3,000. A casarean birth is ten times that much, not even counting any time in the NICU (which it seems c/s babies get more often then v/b babies). Hospitals make so much more money when women are not given choices in birth. There has been a revival of interest in the art of midwifery and hospitals are scared.

Convicting this poor woman (who should have been supported better by society instead of persecuted by it, IMO) is only going to set a precedent (combined with the moronic new ruling from the AMA about elective c/s) that stands to make hospitals MILLIONS of dollars more then they already do on birth. How frightening, and sickening, to think that in the midst of my deepest grief the police could have dragged me off to jail because I did not choose a c/s and my daughter died... nevermind the fact that I was never offered one... hell, I was never even told she was in trouble. This is just so wrong on so many levels.

Hotmamacita, I am also interested in giving this poor woman my support as well... let's talk about it more after next week, when I am a little more myself again.

Xiola's (and Ezra's) Mama


----------



## XM (Apr 16, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by kama'aina mama_
*Well a huge part of the problem is that medical personel tell pregnant women this all the damn time when it simply isn't true. So now they get to cry "wolf" as often as they like and on the rare ocasion they are sadly proven to be correct the WOMAN is prosecuted? Just a couple months ago in New Jersey a hospital told a woman teh exact same thing. She left and they got a court order giving them the right to section her. Because otherwise "the baby would die"! Well, no one told the baby that because she was born just fine vaginally a few days later at another hospital.*
Yes, and there are also cases like mine when they don't bother telling you that there is anything wrong. Hospitals do not have the highest integrity, nor the most comprehensive knowledge and understanding of birth. This double standard is ridiculous... so if they're wrong it's my fault, and if they're right and I think they're wrong it's still my fault? Please!

Coleslaw, I think you _are_ expecting too much of an OB/GYN, but I'm glad for you that your experiences have been good enough that your expectations are that high!

Also remember, folks, that for a woman on pregnancy medicaid (read, most low income pregnant women) that the medicare only pays a portion of the total bill. So the hospitals have a financial interest in making the most expensive care decisions for their lower-income patients. My doctor gave me soooo many NSTs and U/Ss with Xiola... I later talked to a mama who had P/E and she ad maybe 3 NSTs and one U/S, but she had private insurance. My doc was not making as much per proceedure, so she did more proceedures to make up for it... all in the name of safety. When I questioned it, she would invoke fear (well, we just need to make sure she's doing all right) and of course I would give in, out of fear for my sweet dd.

With Ezra's pregnancy, I had one U/S at 18 weeks for my mental health and no doppler ever. But I also had a midwife who was more concerned with supporting my pregnancy with nutrition and love then with watching me like a bug in a jar, waiting to find something wrong. As a UCer would point out, when you are looking for trouble, it tends to find you.


----------



## cat_astrophe (Sep 22, 2003)

XM, thank you for sharing Xiola's story. ((Hugs))


----------



## Clarity (Nov 19, 2001)

Contact info for the DA's office involved in the case. Includes phone and fax numbers.

http://www.districtattorney.slco.org...s/justice.html

Kent Morgan is the one quoted in the Deseret News article. In their online system, her earlier child endagerment charge is listed, but her murder charge throws an error. (irony, yes?) It looks like the birth was Jan 13, she was jailed and charge with endangerment at that time...they only just added the murder charge. She's been in jail 2 months.

http://www.slco.org/DADaily/DaActiveCase
Rowland, Melissa Anne
two charges
4000843 (child endangerment)
4004311 (murder...if you type it in by case number you'll see it.)


----------



## applejuice (Oct 8, 2002)

I imagine that...

...the day is coming in which the state will monitor all women of childbearing age...

...when a woman is identified as pregnant, she will be put into a special state institution and monitored for diet, nutrients, health, habits, and exercise. All interactions will be videotaped....

...that all pregnant women will stay in this place and be monitored continuously for blood pressure, glucose levels, weight, iron levels, exercise, sleep, reading material, musical appreciation, and anything else that can impact the well-being of the embryo/fetus/newborn. Parenting classes are mandatory and failure to complete them will be detrimental to the woman taking her child home after delivery...

...that all women will be forced to deliver there on the terms of the state and released only after the birth of the child...

...the state ob will determine the method of delivery...

...all babies will receive vitamin K, silver nitrate, vaxes, formula, sugar water...

...the state will decided if the woman is to take the baby home or leave the baby there to be adopted into the general population...

NOt to stir up trouble, but the irony for me is that she could probably have decided to have a late term abortion and everything would have been fine.

This is really worse than Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, in which babies are cultured in vitro and gestated in bottles with nutrients to determine their station in life. How very sad that our society sees women and women's responsibilities in this light...


----------



## Cathi (Mar 19, 2002)

I'm so confused.









So a fetus is not separate from the mother if she chooses to kill it intentionally via abortion, but is considered an entirely separate person if it dies naturally while in the womb? A mother is responsible for a stillborn but not an abortion?

And I thought I was risking a lot by fighting for my HBAC. Thank goodness I wasn't charged with child endangerment.


----------



## Clarity (Nov 19, 2001)

To understan more about this trend regarding criminal charges and fetal rights -

national right to life org resource page on fetal rights legislation
http://www.nrlc.org/Unborn_victims/index.html

two quick pro-choice oriented sites...not as well organized but I was in a googling hurry:

http://www.aclu.org/ReproductiveRigh...ID=15115&c=144
http://www.reproductiverights.org/hill_pri_uvva.html


----------



## sadie_sabot (Dec 17, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by dado_
*is that really the issue here? we're talking about massively invasive surgery. i don't see what difference her reason makes, civilized societies simply do not cut open the bodies of their citizens without willing consent.*
thank you.


----------



## urklemama (May 4, 2003)

Applejuice, I have the same nightmare.

XM, thank you so much for sharing your story.

If you say, she's being charged with murder because she did drugs, or because she was bipolar, then I bet you believe you could never be charged with murder for refusing a c-section because you don't do dugs and you're not bipolar.

Everybody know the famous saying, they came for the Jews and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew?

They're coming for the mamas first who no one will speak up for.


----------



## DreamerMama (Feb 2, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by XM_
*Wether or not this woman was keeping her babies, she needs to be at home, healing and grieving (the death as well as the adoption) and not in jail. Making an example of this woman like this is only going to make women who are already on the edge (mental illness, addiction, etc) even less likely to seek care for their pregnancies and even more babies will suffer for it. This is a terrifying precedent for women everywhere. In my state, you can get an abortion up to 24 weeks. So, I can choose to kill my baby when it is viable, but I can't have a choice in how my baby is born (I had a hell of a time finding a HB midwife after losing my dd)? Get real. When women fought for reproductive freedom, they failed to realize how crucial it is to have the freedom of choice in when and how we birth our babies.

It makes my blood run cold to think that some zealot who wants to teach pregnant women a lesson about questioning a hospital's 'authority' would send this woman to jail. Hospitals are proving their lack of honesty and compassion every day. They NEED their authority questioned. A vaginal birth in the hospital with no meds at all is $3,000. A casarean birth is ten times that much, not even counting any time in the NICU (which it seems c/s babies get more often then v/b babies). Hospitals make so much more money when women are not given choices in birth. There has been a revival of interest in the art of midwifery and hospitals are scared.

Convicting this poor woman (who should have been supported better by society instead of persecuted by it, IMO) is only going to set a precedent (combined with the moronic new ruling from the AMA about elective c/s) that stands to make hospitals MILLIONS of dollars more then they already do on birth. How frightening, and sickening, to think that in the midst of my deepest grief the police could have dragged me off to jail because I did not choose a c/s and my daughter died... nevermind the fact that I was never offered one... hell, I was never even told she was in trouble. This is just so wrong on so many levels.*
XM~That was so very well said, I couldn't have said it better.









Your story touched me so deeply I send you peace and love to your family. No one should ever have to go through a death of a child. Certainly, no one should EVER be persecuted after the fact.

It is a dangerous dangerous time to be having babies. My midwife is so scared of losing a baby and being sued, she has to be overly cautious to the point of being overly medical. It makes me nuts to think that women can be jailed for not having a c-sec. Who does that help? I am sure it helps the doctors, nurses and hospital.







:


----------



## pamamidwife (May 7, 2003)

Granted, there is a fine line here. Do we fear that the law will not see the difference between the woman who recently refused a c-section and went on to birth a large baby and this woman?

Clearly, a woman who is turning down medical care because of her substance abuse or inability to make rational decisions is different.

I'm just wondering if people are eager to support her because of the fear that it will set a precedent that will create laws over our right to turn down medical care?

I have a hard time supporting someone who clearly went to the hospital three times before labor started, who did cocaine and alcohol, who sought out no second opinions, and when she found out her baby had died, she went out to smoke a cigarette.

I'm just really confused as to why what this woman did was ok. We can be clear about this woman's actions and our agreement that the law should not dictate care for us.

As someone who wants to fight to keep medical care a choice, I have a hard time aligning myself with actions like this. I think it's irresponsible, based on the coverage, and that she clearly was not aware of what was happening.


----------



## urklemama (May 4, 2003)

Pamamidwife, I don't think what she did was okay. I think she sounds like a right piece of work, to be honest.

But I don't think she should be charged with murder.

I am absolutely terrified about the precedent that this could set.


----------



## DreamerMama (Feb 2, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by pamamidwife_
*

I have a hard time supporting someone who clearly went to the hospital three times before labor started, who did cocaine and alcohol, who sought out no second opinions, and when she found out her baby had died, she went out to smoke a cigarette.*
I certainly hope that you never lose a baby and be judged for what you did or didn't do.

If I smoked, and I had just lost a baby, I might light up after the fact. Remember, people with addictions have them because they don't have the resources to cope with trauma in their life. They don't physicaly have the wherewithall to cope with terrible things.

So, what would you do if you found out your baby just died? Would you wail, cry or pound your fists? What if someone thought you mentally unstable because you did those things, they decided to pass judgement on you.

I don't have a hard time supporting people who are obviously sick and being railroaded by the system. She was addicted to drugs, she was not making good sound decisions, she was in a bad place in her life. It is sad reflection upon our society. It is not MURDER!

So, do we only love or support people who make decisions we agree with? I guess if my son had died because I had refused to check my blood sugar, I should be in jail, right?

Slippery moral slope.

It's so sad.


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

What do doctors expect when they have been telling us for years that we need surgery to give birth and then we find out we don't? If an OB told me I needed a section or the baby would die, there is no way I would believe him until I got a second opinion from a midwife.

Maybe if doctors reserved the dead baby card for cases where the baby truly would have died, instead of those where the baby merely weighed 9 lbs, more women would believe doctors.

And like others have said, we don't know if the baby would have lived. When doctors do elective c/s at 38 weeks and then the babies die of hyaline membrane disease, why aren't they charged with murder? Those deaths could have been avoided if babies were permitted to pick their own birthdates. What about mothers who have elective surgery which results in fetal lacerations? Should they be charged with assault?

I will not birth at a hospital unless I can fully accept the possibility of surgery. There have been several court-ordered sections; check "Open Season."


----------



## XM (Apr 16, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by pamamidwife_
*...and when she found out her baby had died, she went out to smoke a cigarette.*
FWIW, once I realized that Xiola had died, my first thought was, 'damn, I need a cigarette'... and I had quit smoking 4 years before. I seriously almost sent one of my doulas to get me a pack of Camel Lights...

It seems pointless to me to point out her vices, not because they were wrong or harmful, but because woment get steamrolled in hospitals like this _every day_ wether or not they took good care of themselves during their pregnancies. Her vices are the reason that she was singled out for persecution, yes, but once the precedent is set no one will be safe. Whose standard would we judge by? Would I report Lauren for creulty to fetuses because she is vegan? I wouldn't, but some might... especially if this woman gets what the hospital thinks she has coming to her.

This is a slippery, slippery slope.


----------



## Clarity (Nov 19, 2001)

many average americans would consider unassisted childbirth irrational. In the case of IUGR or twin to twin transfusion syndrome, emergency c is no guarantee of good outcome. If they can charge that she committed murder, we should be able to charge every doc with murder that did not save our little ones, if c-secs are such guarantees for babies with serious problems.


----------



## veganmamma (Sep 10, 2002)

Parents make decisions every day. I choose not to vaccinate my child. If she gets polio and dies, will I be charged with murder? Do the mothers who vaccinate and end up with autistic children get prosecuted for child abuse? Do I get to file a civil suit against my mother because of my hearing impairment because I was a forceps birth and was vaccinated?

Regardless of what this mother was doing to her body and her babies, the state has no right to force her to have surgery she doesn't want. I don't stand by drug or cigarette use in pregnancy, but I have to stand behind her right as a human being not to be forced to be cut open, and I have to stand by the right of every birthing woman in America not to be threatened with a murder conviction for not having what their OB may say is a necessary c/s.

XM~ Not one week goes by that I don't think of Xiola, not one month goes by that I don't share her story with at least one friend. She and her story will live on because you have the courage to tell it over and over again, and because you tell it so eloquently. I have cried more tears for Xiola and you and Mike than you will ever know. Thank you for teaching me so much about this delicate process of birth and death.

Hotmamcita- email me to let me know what you're doing as well so I can help.

Quote:

Everybody know the famous saying, they came for the Jews and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew?

They're coming for the mamas first who no one will speak up for.
I agree.

Where was the state when this woman got pregnant? Where was the state BEFORE this woman got pregnant? Now they want to come in and do something after a baby has died, and a woman has been suffering what I can only guess to be years with a mentla illness. People are so quick to judge women with mental illness and drug addiction, forgetting that both are diseases. Like cancer. They are brain diseases and need to be treated as such. When we make judgement calls instead of offering help, we make the porblem worse. Look at my state. Ronnie Reagan closed all the nuthouses and by golly do we have a lot of sick mentally ill, addicted people out on our streets. Now our solution is to throw them in jail because we don't like the smell of them.

We abandoned this woman to mental illness and drug addiction and now that there are reprocussions to the tune of a dead baby, all of a sudden we want to do something about it. How much money will it cost to prosecute and jail this woman? I'd bet the farm it's a helluva lot more than it would have been to get her decent help before this happened. So yeah, I guess I do support her, bad chioces and all. Someone has to because apparently no one has before.


----------



## veganmamma (Sep 10, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by XM_
*Whose standard would we judge by? Would I report Lauren for creulty to fetuses because she is vegan? I wouldn't, but some might... especially if this woman gets what the hospital thinks she has coming to her.*








:


----------



## StarMama (Jun 25, 2002)

Yes maybe if women could TRUST doctors when they made statements about their unborn babies being in danger the slippery slope this situation may bring on wouldn't be so scary.

I do wonder why the hospitals didn't try to get a court order if they really thought the section was neccisary or if they thought the mom wasn't capable of making a decision because of drugs/mental instablity.

I personally had a hospital birth (and almost a c-section) when I had planned a homebirth because I was lied to as well. I was told I had pre-eclampsia due to elevated blood pressure (that had been elevated for 2+ months prior, monitored daily and was still in the ok range according to both my midwives and kaiser who I called DAILY with the results) and +3 protein in my urine. I have VIDEO of the nurse AFTER Orion's birth saying "Well she didn't have pre-eclampsia, it was just the bloody show affecting the protein levels."







But no one said a thing about this PRIOR to his birth. EVEN my midwives who I called asking for their opinion (ok totally different topic to rant about there so I'll stop on how my midwives were unhelpful and damned me to my hospital birth now). I was even told, when the doctor said I needed to be admitted *now* that he "wouldn't be responsible" if I went home to gather my things. So what would have happened to me, if my midwives DID THEIR FREAKING JOB and told me I didn't have preeclampsia, or at least to get a catheder of urine to test (which would have proved I wasn't preeclamptic) and refused induction if anything would have gone wrong with a homebirth?

I don't know the full story of this woman, so I can't judge what she did. But changing the laws so we aren't the ones who make our own choices for our own bodies? NO WAY.

XM







I've been thinking about you and Xiola, and I hope your doing ok.


----------



## pamamidwife (May 7, 2003)

Did you miss the whole other part of the story? It wasn't necessarily the cigarettes - it was the COCAINE and ALCOHOL.

Let's just drop the whole cigarette issue.

The issue of cocaine and alcohol is problematic to me. To me, it clearly is an issue of someone who isn't necessarily making the best choices for her babies. It's not like a typical MDC mama choosing the best course of care for her body and her baby. THAT is what I'm taking issue with - not the fact that she had vices, or possibly a horrific childhood, couldn't support herself, got caught up in drugs, or whatever her history is. The fact is that we are saying that women should be able to make choices - but what about women who aren't making INFORMED CHOICES about care or even making the BEST choice for them? C'mon. It's very, very different in this case. Very different.

Mamas, this is very different.

However, I WILL agree that it is a slippery slope. I just want to be cautious about defending this woman's actions simply because I believe in birth choices.


----------



## dado (Dec 31, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by pamamidwife_
*
I'm just really confused as to why what this woman did was ok.*
i don't believe anyone said it was. the question is whether or not the state has a right to cut a person open against their will based on the whim of a doctor.


----------



## pamamidwife (May 7, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by dado_
*i don't believe anyone said it was. the question is whether or not the state has a right to make cut a person open against their will based on the whim of a doctor.*
How do you define "whim"? If three different docs said that the baby was in serious distress and dying, then the baby did die, while the other was in distress - are those "whims"? Are all doctors lying then?

Gawd, I cannot even believe I typed the above paragraph. Never thought I'd live to defend doctors. Lol

Surely the lines are blurred here. Surely we're all in agreement about this being horrific as a precedent.


----------



## dado (Dec 31, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by veganmamma_
*
Where was the state when this woman got pregnant?*
come to think of it, where is the genetic father in all this? does he have no culpability?


----------



## dado (Dec 31, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by pamamidwife_
*How do you define "whim"?*
i don't, when i'm not directly involved in the situation. nor do i believe i have a right to. i can only define it in relation to myself.


----------



## veganmamma (Sep 10, 2002)

There is a poll here. 59% are in favor of her prosecution as I type this.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4509692/

I rechecked the link and there may be some technical issues, but it should be resolved soon.


----------



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

pam, I am all over this case because of the precedent. Yes, clearly this woman was not making rational decisions... at least if what the doctors who spoke with her are reporting is true. She insists she never refused a section. Innocent til proven at the very least. As someone else has noted, I don't usually play the slippery slope card and usually get annoyed when others do but this feels to me like the time to make an exception. If they push through the idea of prosecuting her because she is such a stunning example of bad judgement the door is then open for them to use this as added pressure on all the rest of us.


----------



## XM (Apr 16, 2002)

I'll bite... to me, in this context, a 'whim' is a statement based more on opinion then reason or facts... happens a lot with doctors.


----------



## OnTheFence (Feb 15, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by coleslaw_
*One of the many versions of the story mentioned that it mostly seems like a breakdown between physician and patient. I totally agree. If she thought that she was getting a T cut and didn't want it and siad so, the doctor could have tried to get down to her reasons. If she didnt' want that cut, h/esh/e should have discussed other options*
First I want to say this woman is a drug addict (her other baby tested positive for coke) her word can't be trusted. She may have had to get a classical incision or not. With twins, it sometimes depends on their size and position. My sister was an L&D nurse and she has told many stories about trying to discuss things with drugged out patience. Its like talking to the wall. Sometimes they leave AMA. I think it is really sad that this thread has turned into bash the medical establishment when this woman was a drug addict and was negligent.


----------



## OnTheFence (Feb 15, 2003)

> _Originally posted by pamamidwife_
> *Granted, there is a fine line here. Do we fear that the law will not see the difference between the woman who recently refused a c-section and went on to birth a large baby and this woman?[b/]
> 
> I do!!!! There is a big difference. The other woman was parenting her children, not an addict, had birthed other large babies, knew she could birth the large baby. Sought medical care elsewhere and followed through. The other woman was an addict, had a highrisk pregnancy in my opinion since she was an addict, was told not once but multiple times there were problems with these babies, not by one facility but others. Her living child was born with coke in her system, and is probably on all kinds of drugs being detoxed.
> ...


----------



## XmasEve (Jun 18, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by dado_
*i'm sorry, but you simply cannot legitimately force a human being to have their body cut open. that's just insane.*
I agree.


----------



## DreamerMama (Feb 2, 2003)

What good does it do to charge her with murder?

What message does it send to women who are addicts?

I think it says "if your using don't come here we will make you have surgery then procecute you for neglegence if you don't agree."

At least she was at a place for medical care. Why in God's name didn't someone admit her against her will when they realised she was on drugs and get her help then? Why couldn't they have taken their resources and cleaned her up for the rest of her pregnancy. Where was the court order then?

What about mandatory rehabilitation, making her get clean and addressing her mental illness?

But murder? Oh, come on. Even if she was on heroin she doesn't deserve that. She was and still is sick. This is the biggest case of penis envy-doctor crowing I have ever ever seen.

This makes my head hurt.


----------



## somemama (Sep 25, 2002)

I haven't read all the responses, so I apologize if someone already said this. But the irony of this situation is that if the woman had never gone to a doctor, she wouldn't have been charged with murder. I'm afraid this will drive more pregnant women underground.


----------



## OnTheFence (Feb 15, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Zaq001_
*If I smoked, and I had just lost a baby, I might light up after the fact. Remember, people with addictions have them because they don't have the resources to cope with trauma in their life. They don't physicaly have the wherewithall to cope with terrible things.

So, what would you do if you found out your baby just died? Would you wail, cry or pound your fists? What if someone thought you mentally unstable because you did those things, they decided to pass judgement on you.

I*
This is bull crap. There are resources for women like her. Had she gone to a legitimate adoption agency or a womens center she could have gotten them. Sorry I am not buying it. Terrible things have happened to me in my life, but I dont drug myself out and shirk responsibility for my actions.

My Mother in law lost two babies. One stillborn, one that lived a day. She sure didnt go out and smoke or snort coke. I know several people who have lost infants but they didnt act like this woman.


----------



## OnTheFence (Feb 15, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by dado_
*i don't believe anyone said it was. the question is whether or not the state has a right to cut a person open against their will based on the whim of a doctor.*
Looks like it wasnt a whim. Three different people told her the same thing at three different facilities. This whole thread is blame the medical establishment. This woman killed her baby and has another one addicted to coke. She is a real winner. Not the person I would chose to be the model for birth choices.

And lets note she had 2 other csections. So what was the big deal?


----------



## DreamerMama (Feb 2, 2003)

*


----------



## OnTheFence (Feb 15, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by pamamidwife_
*How do you define "whim"? If three different docs said that the baby was in serious distress and dying, then the baby did die, while the other was in distress - are those "whims"? Are all doctors lying then?

Gawd, I cannot even believe I typed the above paragraph. Never thought I'd live to defend doctors. Lol

Surely the lines are blurred here. Surely we're all in agreement about this being horrific as a precedent.*
::







assing out::::

sitting on the couch with Pam on this one.


----------



## OnTheFence (Feb 15, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Zaq001_
*What good does it do to charge her with murder?

What message does it send to women who are addicts?

I think it says "if your using don't come here we will make you have surgery then procecute you for neglegence if you don't agree."

At least she was at a place for medical care. Why in God's name didn't someone admit her against her will when they realised she was on drugs and get her help then? Why couldn't they have taken their resources and cleaned her up for the rest of her pregnancy. Where was the court order then?

What about mandatory rehabilitation, making her get clean and addressing her mental illness?

But murder? Oh, come on. Even if she was on heroin she doesn't deserve that. She was and still is sick. This is the biggest case of penis envy-doctor crowing I have ever ever seen.

This makes my head hurt.*
I think she should be charged with neglect and manslaughter. Her actions resulted in her babies death. I don't care that she is sick actually. She made a choice to take drugs. She made a choice to go to three different places, got the same opinion and did nothing.
I'm a prochoice, feminist, tree hugging liberal but I think this woman should be made an example of. I'm parenting a child with FAE because of someone elses carelessness. What happen to his rights? He had none.


----------



## OnTheFence (Feb 15, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Zaq001_
*OTF~ Don't start with me. I know you hate all people that can't just be as wonderful as you are.

Get a grip. Some people have real problems and are not able to handle them in correct ways.

I bow to your wonderful angelic way you live your life. YOU are queen of right choices! Brava to you!!!

I am bowing to you as I speak. Go on, I think you need to replace Mother Teresa. Your compassion astounds me







: .*








:

This is not about me vs her or anyone else. This woman did not take proper care of herself and gave no reguard to her children. She had no intention of parenting them at all. I've had real problems too, are you suggesting I dont? or havent? What happen to taking personal responsibility?
I feel no compassion for this woman. She has a history of problems and has not stepped up to the plate to take responsibility for her actions. And now she has a bunch of people here supporting her irresponsibility. Had she not been irresponsible to begin with, using drugs, and failing to get proper care, this would be a non issue. If people loose birth choices, its because of her. Not the medical establishment. This is why these things happen and the medical establishment has all those CYA rules -- for messed up people like this.


----------



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

No one is nominating her for mother of the year. We are saying that a charge of murder in the first degree ( also know as premeditated murder) is so far over the top it is mind blowing. And we worry that once this becomes a legal precedent the prosecuters will be less careful about sorting the real screw ups like this woman from the very educated, highly opinionated women here. Now if you refuse doctors advice they can threaten you with a dead baby and an arrest. Not what I call progress.


----------



## wende (Oct 4, 2003)

pamamidwife and OTF both stated perfectly how I feel in this matter.


----------



## OnTheFence (Feb 15, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by kama'aina mama_
*No one is nominating her for mother of the year. We are saying that a charge of murder in the first degree ( also know as premeditated murder) is so far over the top it is mind blowing. And we worry that once this becomes a legal precedent the prosecuters will be less careful about sorting the real screw ups like this woman from the very educated, highly opinionated women here. Now if you refuse doctors advice they can threaten you with a dead baby and an arrest. Not what I call progress.*
It was premeditated though. Think about this:
Drug addict mother goes to the hospital because she knows something is wrong with the babies. The advise her after examination, heart tones, etc that she needs to deliver them right away or they die. She leaves. Goes somewhere else. Hears the same thing. Waits. Does more drugs. Knows something is still wrong woth the babies, goes to another facility. They tell her the same thing. Three times she has been told that her babies need to be delivered because their lives are at stake. THREE TIMES. She leaves again.
One baby dies, the other is born addicted to coke.

While I dont want my rights to make choices for myself or children taken away, I also feel something has to be done to protect these babies. I dont agree with first degree murder (even though I think they could have a case) I do think she should be charged with crimes and locked in jail. (and I hope she never reproduces again)


----------



## somemama (Sep 25, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by urklemama_
*

I don't care if she's a friggin' nutcase, her living baby needs her.

*
Her living baby has already been adopted. And she has a history of mental illness, which makes the story even more complicated.


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

Lots of women use some form of drug when pregnant, and when the babies have problems the women don't always get blamed. I think this was more about her disobeying the doctor.

And if women should be held responsible for drugs' affect on babies, why should they be permitted to use pain relief in an uncomplicated birth? Those drugs have never been proven safe for babies.


----------



## DreamerMama (Feb 2, 2003)

*


----------



## Peppamint (Oct 19, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by kama'aina mama_
*No one is nominating her for mother of the year. We are saying that a charge of murder in the first degree ( also know as premeditated murder) is so far over the top it is mind blowing. And we worry that once this becomes a legal precedent the prosecuters will be less careful about sorting the real screw ups like this woman from the very educated, highly opinionated women here. Now if you refuse doctors advice they can threaten you with a dead baby and an arrest. Not what I call progress.*
I agree. I think she definitely needs physical, psychological and spiritual help. She did consult 3 different Dr and got the same info. She was using street drugs. I'm not inclined to stasnd up for her right now.

I am *however*, concerned about hospitals and doctors having too much power. If it starts with laboring mothers, then the elderly, the poor, then everyone. If my MIL and dh hadn't removed his dad from our local hospital and taken him to a hospital 1.5 hr away, he would have died from Guillain-Barré Syndrome... they were treating him for a heart attack!! What if he hadn't had the right to leave?


----------



## OnTheFence (Feb 15, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Zaq001_
*WOW OTF, I can't believe you know all of the specifics! How absolutly intuitive of you to know all of the ins and outs of her situation. You really do have the inside track on this AND all of the facts.

Tell me, how do you get all of your info? Who is your inside person on this?*
I can read the articles. I dont believe drug addicts.
Don't send threats to my PM box. That is a violatoin of Mothering policy.


----------



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

Innocent til proven guilty


----------



## Journey (Jun 12, 2002)

I'm sure most people here have seen a picture of the woman involved here. She looks quite upset, but also first impression of a photograph of her is that she isn't quite the sharpest tack. Look at how all the articles portray her:

She was born to a mentally retarded mother.
She suffered from ODD, and possibly bipolar disorder most likely as a result of how she was raised.
She's had many tragedies in her life.
She's had multiple partners, has had several kids and has custody of none.
She's very low income.
She refused a cesarean citing vanity reasons.
She claims nobody talked to her about getting a cesarean.
She was planning on giving the twins up for adoption, and they implied she neglected the health of the babies because she wasn't going to keep them anyways.
She had a cigarette when she was told one of the twins died.
The baby(ies) tested positive for cocaine and alcohol.

How many of these things taken separately would make you feel she was a victim of circumstance? A victim of society, social class, etc.? How many things could be seen as he said/she said? How many things could have been exaggerated to make a point for prosecution? How many of these descriptions above could you see being used to describe YOU?

My mother is mentally ill. I've been treated for depression and PTSD so I could easily have that "mentally ill" label. I've had many tragedies occur in my life. I'm sure you could find plenty of evidence against my character if you really looked. I'm low income. I'd refuse a cesarean if I didn't deem it necessary. However, I have more knowledge and would be able to articulate my reasons better than just not wanting to be cut from stem to stern. I don't smoke, but I am an ex smoker, and I can sooooo see going outside for a smoke if I just discovered one of my babies died.

However, all these labels worked against this woman. When the baby(ies) tested positive for cocaine and alcohol, that was another nail in the coffin... but as you guys all know I'm sure... TESTS CAN BE WRONG! When I gave birth to my first child, I was 17 years old, unmarried (engaged but that didn't matter to them), still in high school, and scared. When my baby tested positive for drugs, they treated me like crap and never even told me the lab results until 2 weeks later. I called the lab, horrified and confused. I didn't even take Tylenol my entire pregnancy, let alone these drugs my baby tested positive for! Turns out they knew they made a mistake but didn't put it in the chart.

Everybody jumped to the conclusion based on my history and the way they perceived me that these tests were accurate. When they discovered a mistake had been made, they never apologized.

Based on this woman's parents, her teenage years (how many teenagers do you know who could possibly be diagnosed with ODD!!!), her financial and relationship status, and her mental abilities the media has immediately portrayed her as being guilty. Was there ever any repeated drug/alcohol tests?

If they knew she was abusing drugs and alcohol during the pregnancy, why didn't they help her?

I can see them acting negatively towards this woman based on their perceptions of her, and her with her defiance towards authority figures, behaving irrationally and thus not hearing what the doctors were saying. She may not have truly heard what the doctors were suggesting, because she thought they were attacking her. She may have picked up on their prejudices against her. Sometimes people with disorders like that shut down when they feel like the world is against them. She may not have realized the severity of the situation.

Should she be charged? If they verify that she was indeed abusing drugs and alcohol during the pregnancy, then yes she should be charged for that. But, it should be an independant laboratory that does the tests... not a laboratory for the hospital.

Should they charge her for not getting a cesarean? No. What about a parent who doesn't seek chemotherapy for their cancer stricken child (wasn't that in the same state?)? What about the future, and gene therapy? What if a family refuses treatments using gene therapy and the child dies? What if a parent refuses vaccines and the child gets sick? What if...?


----------



## OnTheFence (Feb 15, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by somemama_
*Her living baby has already been adopted. And she has a history of mental illness, which makes the story even more complicated.*
This baby also had coke in her system when she was born. Her baby doesnt need her. I know what the adoptive parents are going through if they have her in their home. Drug babies cry and are often cant be comforted. They have these high pitch screaming cries that last for hours. These babies feel pain and withdrawal from the drugs. They sometimes shake and have feeding problems. Have difficult attaching to their care givers and making eye contact.
The real woman who needs support is that adoptive mother. To relieve her from the constant screaming baby and all the medical visits and social worker visits she is going to have for the next few years. Someone needs to buy her a sling, and get her every Dr. Sears book on kids to be able to cope. Having a drug baby puts a whole new spin on "High Needs".


----------



## OnTheFence (Feb 15, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Greaseball_
*Lots of women use some form of drug when pregnant, and when the babies have problems the women don't always get blamed. I think this was more about her disobeying the doctor.

And if women should be held responsible for drugs' affect on babies, why should they be permitted to use pain relief in an uncomplicated birth? Those drugs have never been proven safe for babies.*
She didnt see her doctor. She saw a dr on call.


----------



## OnTheFence (Feb 15, 2003)

Journey there is a big difference between you and this woman.

IMO


----------



## veganmamma (Sep 10, 2002)

Quote:

I feel no compassion for this woman. She has a history of problems and has not stepped up to the plate to take responsibility for her actions. And now she has a bunch of people here supporting her irresponsibility. Had she not been irresponsible to begin with, using drugs, and failing to get proper care, this would be a non issue.
Why is it so hard for you to feel compassion for this woman?

Quote:

She was born to a mentally retarded mother.
She suffered from ODD, and possibly bipolar disorder most likely as a result of how she was raised.
She's had many tragedies in her life.
She's had multiple partners, has had several kids and has custody of none.
She's very low income.
She refused a cesarean citing vanity reasons.
She claims nobody talked to her about getting a cesarean.
She was planning on giving the twins up for abortion, and they implied she neglected the health of the babies because she wasn't going to keep them anyways.
She had a cigarette when she was told one of the twins died.
The baby(ies) tested positive for cocaine and alcohol.
OTF, I'm sorry, but your harsh mentality towards the mentally ill and drug addicted is what leads to these cases in the first place. I don't mean that as an attack. This harsh way of thinking, no compassion for drug addicts scares me so much. My father died of alcoholism. His disease was no different from hers, except his life circumstances were a lot better than hers. I have a lot of compassion for my dad. His disease alienated him from his only child, he died a horrible, horrible death. He made bad decisions like driving me places while he was drunk- even getting a DUI with me in the car, he was not the father he wanted to be, not the man he wanted to be. The last two were the worst punishments for him I think. I forgive him for having a disease. I forgive him for having depression, a mental illness. I forgive all of his bad choices that put me in terrible positions. I forgive him because knowing that he had a problem, and wanting to change weren't enough to dig him out of his hole. This woman is no different from him in many ways.

I have compassion for her. Where were all of us when she needed help? Where were we with her first two cesareans? Where were we when she was born to a mentally disabled woman? Where have we been all her life to help her heal from her diseases BEFORE she had children who would be injured as a result?

Now we want to sit in judgement of her actions? It is disgusting, IMO. It is a sickness of our society. We weren't compassionate before this happened and we didn't help prevent this baby's death by helping this woman, and now we aren't compassionate to her now that her diseases have hurt even more people in her life that she may love very much, or woul dhave loved were she not mentally ill.


----------



## Journey (Jun 12, 2002)

Uhhh... I'm quite sure I said they should have helped her prior to this tragedy. That list was based on peoples preconceived notions about a person with the things on the list. I was defending parts of it...

I still think she should be charged if she actually was abusing alcohol and cocaine, even if it's a disease. What if your father was driving drunk and killed somebody. Should he not be charged because he has a disease? Should we be compassionate of him? What if it were your child killed by a drunk driver. Same difference.


----------



## DreamerMama (Feb 2, 2003)

Lauren, I think I love you







. You said everything I wanted to say with grace and humility. Thank you. May peace and love surround you. Your father knew you loved him and it took a lot of love to forgive him. You will be blessed.


----------



## veganmamma (Sep 10, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Journey_
*I still think she should be charged if she actually was abusing alcohol and cocaine, even if it's a disease. What if your father was driving drunk and killed somebody. Should he not be charged because he has a disease? Should we be compassionate of him? What if it were your child killed by a drunk driver. Same difference.*
I think she should be charged for using the cocaine and alcohol. Being compassionate doesn't mean completely disregarding other people's safety.

I didn't say my dad shouldn't have been charged with a DUI because he had a disease. One of my good friends and father of a 6 year old, a 3 year old and an 8 month old was killed by a drunk driver when my dd was 2 months old. It happened to be a 21 year old kid, but I still had compassion for him. Had he been an alcoholic, I would also have compassion for him. I don't think the 21 year old should do life in jail, even though he knew that if he got behind the wheel he could kill someone. If my child were killed by a drunk driver I wouldn't think that person should spend their life behind bars either.

I still believe that the first degree murder charges are crazy. Maybe they should file charges for accessory for the people who should have helped her but didn't. Like the medical staff who knew she was using and didn't do anything about it, or any state workers who had an opportunity to intervene beforehand and didn't. Do those people have any responsibility in this? I think they do. If they do, and this woman is being charged, then those who had an obligation to intervene BEFORE this happened are culpable too.


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

It's hard to believe, but there are some people who are so completely ignorant about drug use and pregnancy. They are told things like "My sister smoked and her baby was fine" or "The placenta is a barrier."

For some people, the information is not available to them. It could be this woman knew drug use was wrong and dangerous, but many women don't know. They know it's illegal, but they have no idea what kind of harm it can cause.


----------



## Journey (Jun 12, 2002)

I agree the hospital workers should be held liable, too. If a teacher suspects abuse and doesn't report it, they can and do get in trouble for it... especially if something happens to the child. That's why there's so many false reports of abuse made to CPS... teachers covering their own asses.

I never said there shouldn't be compassion for her. I don't believe she should be charged with everything they are charging her with. But, I stick by my original point which you and I both agree on... if she truly was abusing alcohol and cocaine she should be charged with something.

We're saying basically the same thing I think. I don't see any point in arguing whether the boards are periwinkle or pale purplish blue.


----------



## fizzymom (Nov 20, 2001)

Quote:

She had no intention of parenting them at all.
OnTheFence-- Perhaps, in deciding to give the babies up for adoption, she was making the best parenting decision that she was able. Could we at least give her credit for that?


----------



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

Question for those of you that support this prosecution. Let's look at the list of contributing factors and you tell me which ones justify a charge of Murder One, so that in the future we know who should be prosecuted for having a stillbirth.

Quote:

She was born to a mentally retarded mother.
She suffered from ODD, and possibly bipolar disorder most likely as a result of how she was raised.
She's had many tragedies in her life.
She's had multiple partners, has had several kids and has custody of none.
She's very low income.
She refused a cesarean citing vanity reasons.
She claims nobody talked to her about getting a cesarean.
She was planning on giving the twins up for adoption, and they implied she neglected the health of the babies because she wasn't going to keep them anyways.
She had a cigarette when she was told one of the twins died.
The baby(ies) tested positive for cocaine and alcohol.
So... are we going to prosecute all drug using mothers or only those whose babies die? Should we prosecute the ones with live births for attempted murder?

What about the mentally ill? Is that a prosecutable offense or only if you use drugs also?

What if she hasn't got any of those strikes... mentally sound, no drugs... just refuses doctors advice and her baby dies? Jail or no?

And no, I am not being facetious. I don't like a single thing about this precedence and i have said why. You support it, so I am curious... exactly what precedence do you support?


----------



## veganmamma (Sep 10, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Journey_
*I agree the hospital workers should be held liable, too. If a teacher suspects abuse and doesn't report it, they can and do get in trouble for it... especially if something happens to the child. That's why there's so many false reports of abuse made to CPS... teachers covering their own asses.

I never said there shouldn't be compassion for her. I don't believe she should be charged with everything they are charging her with. But, I stick by my original point which you and I both agree on... if she truly was abusing alcohol and cocaine she should be charged with something.

We're saying basically the same thing I think. I don't see any point in arguing whether the boards are periwinkle or pale purplish blue.*
Yeah, I used your quote to argue with OTF anyway. :LOL

Someone should have known she was using, someone should have made sure she knew it was dangerous, someone should have gotten her help before this happened-- I mean-- this is what basic prenatal care is all about for goodness' sake!


----------



## Journey (Jun 12, 2002)

Drug abuse... charge her.

Mental illness with drug abuse... charge her (ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law)

Even if baby doesn't die... charge her

Refusing cesarean, or medical treatment... don't charge her.

Edited to add when I said ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law... I meant those who are mentally ill and aren't aware of the dangers their actions post should not be exempt from the laws that we all are supposed to obey. At least in the United States it states that not being aware of the law or the consequences of your action is not an excuse that can hold up in court. All should be held accountable regardless of their mental status.


----------



## veganmamma (Sep 10, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by kama'aina mama_
*Question for those of you that support this prosecution. Let's look at the list of contributing factors and you tell me which ones justify a charge of Murder One, so that in the future we know who should be prosecuted for having a stillbirth.

So... are we going to prosecute all drug using mothers or only those whose babies die? Should we prosecute the ones with live births for attempted murder?

What about the mentally ill? Is that a prosecutable offense or only if you use drugs also?

What if she hasn't got any of those strikes... mentally sound, no drugs... just refuses doctors advice and her baby dies? Jail or no?

And no, I am not being facetious. I don't like a single thing about this precedence and i have said why. You support it, so I am curious... exactly what precedence do you support?*
Thank you ma'am, you are well spoken and brilliant.


----------



## Journey (Jun 12, 2002)

ITA, veganmama!


----------



## OnTheFence (Feb 15, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by veganmamma_
*
OTF, I'm sorry, but your harsh mentality towards the mentally ill and drug addicted is what leads to these cases in the first place. I don't mean that as an attack. This harsh way of thinking, no compassion for drug addicts scares me so much. My father died of alcoholism. His disease was no different from hers, except his life circumstances were a lot better than hers. I have a lot of compassion for my dad. His disease alienated him from his only child, he died a horrible, horrible death. He made bad decisions like driving me places while he was drunk- even getting a DUI with me in the car, he was not the father he wanted to be, not the man he wanted to be. The last two were the worst punishments for him I think. I forgive him for having a disease. I forgive him for having depression, a mental illness. I forgive all of his bad choices that put me in terrible positions. I forgive him because knowing that he had a problem, and wanting to change weren't enough to dig him out of his hole. This woman is no different from him in many ways.

I have compassion for her. Where were all of us when she needed help? Where were we with her first two cesareans? Where were we when she was born to a mentally disabled woman? Where have we been all her life to help her heal from her diseases BEFORE she had children who would be injured as a result?

Now we want to sit in judgement of her actions? It is disgusting, IMO. It is a sickness of our society. We weren't compassionate before this happened and we didn't help prevent this baby's death by helping this woman, and now we aren't compassionate to her now that her diseases have hurt even more people in her life that she may love very much, or woul dhave loved were she not mentally ill.*
I have a son who has early onset bipolar disorder and has FAE because of his birth mother. Harsh mentality? Do you live with me? Are you parenting or living with a drug affected, alcohol affected, mentally ill child? I am.
I dont have compassion for HER. Don't lump her in with everyone else. Don't put words in my mouth or try to assume how I treat people with mental illness or addictions. You really have no clue.
I have no compassion for people who do not take responsibility for their actions, keep repeating the cycle, and then take their irresponsibility and place it on their children (unborn ones too)


----------



## veganmamma (Sep 10, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Journey_
*Mental illness with drug abuse... charge her (ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law)*
Meantal illness doesn't mean she didn't know drug use is illegal, what it means is that she may not have had the capacity to understand the reprocussions of her drug use or any other risky behavior. That is why I think mental illness is a good reason to think about not charging her for risky behavior.


----------



## OnTheFence (Feb 15, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Greaseball_
*It's hard to believe, but there are some people who are so completely ignorant about drug use and pregnancy. They are told things like "My sister smoked and her baby was fine" or "The placenta is a barrier."

For some people, the information is not available to them. It could be this woman knew drug use was wrong and dangerous, but many women don't know. They know it's illegal, but they have no idea what kind of harm it can cause.*
I would have to say that if people are not aware of this they are either completely stupid or cant read. I have driven up and down the countryside and see signs about drugs, alcohol and smoking and the effects on pregnancy. March of Dimes has signs everywhere, including health departments, WIC office, food stamp office, etc. There are even commercials on TV. ITs even printed on the alchohol and cig labels.


----------



## Journey (Jun 12, 2002)

I edited my post while you were posting this, veganmama!


----------



## Breathless Wonder (Jan 25, 2004)

Quote:

Where was the state BEFORE this woman got pregnant?
And what about treatment? Should it be forced?

Is is okay to medicate someone against their will? In some states, if you are mentally ill, and on psychiatric drugs, you can be legally forced back on them- even if you think you no longer need them.

Is it okay to force someone into therapy? Does therapy work under these conditions?

Is it okay to admit someone/ detain someone against their will?

How do mandatory reporters fit into driving "at risk" women underground?

How do we decide who has done enough research to make an "informed" decision? Where does intuition, and gut feelings come into play?

I'm not attacking anyone...I'm just asking questions that occurred to me, that I have no answer for.


----------



## LynnE73 (Oct 18, 2002)

Jumping in here a bit late, however, I've read it all... articles and posts.
My main thought, like another post stated: Medical treatment should be a choice.


----------



## veganmamma (Sep 10, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by OnTheFence_
*I have a son who has early onset bipolar disorder and has FAE because of his birth mother. Harsh mentality? Do you live with me? Are you parenting or living with a drug affected, alcohol affected, mentally ill child? I am.
I dont have compassion for HER. Don't lump her in with everyone else. Don't put words in my mouth or try to assume how I treat people with mental illness or addictions. You really have no clue.
I have no compassion for people who do not take responsibility for their actions, keep repeating the cycle, and then take their irresponsibility and place it on their children (unborn ones too)*
People who are mentally ill may not be able to take responsibility for their actions. Mentall illness is just like cancer. Do you think cancer patients should be blamed for their pain or vision loss? Should my father be blamed for his cirrhosis? What about mother's with post partum psychosis, should they be blamed for their inability to distinguish delusions from reality?

If a woman with post partum psychosis injures her baby because of her disease, do we string her up too? Just wondering where we draw the line.

Being angry that the actions of the mentally ill have harmed us or the people we love is okay, forgetting that their actions were caused by a disease and throwing them to the wolves is another.

I am very sorry your son has FAE. As the child of an alcoholic I spent a lot of time obsessing over FAS and related problems during my time studying human development. I can't imagine how hard day to day life can be and I am so glad your son has had the incredible fortune to find himself in the arms of a loving, AP mamma. I do feel compassion for his bio mother though. What a horrible thing to know that you have done such grievous harm to your own child. What a horrible ting to be so desperate in your life that you would do such harm.

I know that you and I clash over c/s and apparently this issue too, but I do think your son is lucky, I think all your kids are lucky to have a mom who is passionate and cares.

I still think that we should all have compassion for this woman.


----------



## Dragonfly (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

_Originally posted by veganmamma_
*Where was the state when this woman got pregnant? Where was the state BEFORE this woman got pregnant?*
I'm sorry... but what? We know nothing of what sort of aid this woman did or did not have... whether she even sought it out. She may have been given aid and fallen off the wagon (as do many addicts). She may have never even sought help, because with help comes responsibility (and from the little we know of her, it sounds like she's not much for responsibility).



*Quote:*

We abandoned this woman to mental illness and drug addiction and now that there are reprocussions to the tune of a dead baby, all of a sudden we want to do something about it.

I think I better stop reading this thread... I just can't get the mentality that a person's choices are somehow all the state's fault, so they shouldn't be penalized when the cost of one of their lousy decisions is another person's life.


----------



## veganmamma (Sep 10, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Breathless Wonder_
*And what about treatment? Should it be forced?

Is is okay to medicate someone against their will? In some states, if you are mentally ill, and on psychiatric drugs, you can be legally forced back on them- even if you think you no longer need them.

Is it okay to force someone into therapy? Does therapy work under these conditions?

Is it okay to admit someone/ detain someone against their will?

How do mandatory reporters fit into driving "at risk" women underground?

How do we decide who has done enough research to make an "informed" decision? Where does intuition, and gut feelings come into play?

I'm not attacking anyone...I'm just asking questions that occurred to me, that I have no answer for.*
Medical treatment shouldn't be forced. That is the bottom line. Psychiatric treatment is medical treatment. However, if people had been positively intervening in thsi woman's life from the time they were able, like her childhood, I doubt she would have made it this far. Society is so quick to point fingers, but so slow to decide that another's problem is their own.

Intervening doesn't mean detaining or forcing. It may have meant listening and offering counselng. When I was a very at risk youth, my nurse practitioner (GYN NP) ended an exam with a hug. I fell into her arms crying. One person made a difference. I ran away from home many times. Once I got caught by UC berkeley campus police. My dad was too drunk to pick me up for a few hours. This cop sat me down in his office and talked to me for 4 hours, from 11 pm to 3 am. I never spent another night on the streets. No matter how many times I ever ran away, I was always safe because of him. He had an obligation to intervene because of the law, he had discretion to do it his own way and he made a positive intervention. Had he thrown me in a holding cell and chastised me and treated me roughly, I'd have been back the next night. He knew that my problems were his problems.


----------



## veganmamma (Sep 10, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Dragonfly_
*I'm sorry. I really don't get what this has to do with anything. We know nothing of what sort of aid this woma may or may not have had - or whether she would have even sought it out. So now it's the



I'm sorry... but what? We know nothing of what sort of aid this woman did or did not have... whether she even sought it out.

I think I better stop reading this thread... I just can't get the mentality that a person's choices are somehow all the state's fault, so they shouldn't be penalized when the cost of one of their lousy decisions is another person's life.life.*
*
*
*
She had some sort of prenatal care with the hospital, she had two previous c/s. She has been in the system before. She most likely attended public school at some point in her life. Teachers and medical workers have an obligation to intervene.

And if she fell off the wagon-- that is a NORMAL part of recovery for addiction. Almost every addict relapses- it doesn't mean they aren't serious about recovery, it is a part of the disease and a part of the recovery. Should cancer patients be blamed for relapse?*


----------



## fizzymom (Nov 20, 2001)

Quote:

How do we decide who has done enough research to make an "informed" decision? Where does intuition, and gut feelings come into play?
I discovered while I was pregnant with DS that my right to make informed decisions with a living will/ advanced directives is, by law, null and void while pregnant.

edited to add: I guess that is part of the reason I am so disturbed by this case. I am really concerned about the door opening just a little further toward women being nothing more than vessels of conception.


----------



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

Quote:

_Originally posted by fizzymom_
*I discovered while I was pregnant with DS that my right to make informed decisions with a living will/ advanced directives is, by law, null and void while pregnant.*








Tell me more! Did it invalidate prior directives or where you prohibited from executing one at that time? I am agog. How? State law? Mental incapacity? Help me here.. I'm totally dumbquizzeled by this!


----------



## Dragonfly (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

_Originally posted by veganmamma_
*And if she fell off the wagon-- that is a NORMAL part of recovery for addiction. Almost every addict relapses- it doesn't mean they aren't serious about recovery, it is a part of the disease and a part of the recovery. Should cancer patients be blamed for relapse?*
Of course it's normal - but it's still not an excuse for putting others at risk. The law doesn't provide an alcoholic or drug addict exemption to laws for good reason. Because there is personal choice involved. Yes, it's hard to resist, but it's still a *choice* to continue. I am a recovering addict (though not drugs or alcohol... my addiction lies elsewhere) so I know this firsthand.

And for that very reason, I can't believe that we're comparing cancer to alcoholism or drug addiction. There's no personal choice involved in cancer relapse.

Anyway..... bowing out now. My blood pressure is going up.


----------



## candiland (Jan 27, 2002)

It's too much, reading through this thread.......

on one hand, I agree with the idea that we all need to be responsible for our actions.

OTOH, from spiritual point of view, judgement - ie, punishment, verbal lashing out, etc. - doesn't help anything. There's a dead baby. No amount of anger is going to bring it back, and no amount of punishing will change a sick person who does not/can not make rational decisions. And punishment will not "set an example" for anyone sick enough to abuse hard drugs and deny themselves emergency medical care..... people do what they do, ya know?


----------



## veganmamma (Sep 10, 2002)

Well, drug and alcohol addictions are a lot different than sex or gambling, overeating or other addictions. They are chemical dependencies. Every cell in your body believes that it cannot survive without the chemical it is dependent on. If you have never experienced a chemical addiction, I think it's easy to sit there and say it's a matter of chioce. Soem alcoholics die from withdrawal. Their body doesn't know how to live without the alcohol. My father was one of those people. Even though every sip he took was killing his liver more and more, to stop would kill him entirely.

I'm not saying that a drug addicted pregnant mother shouldn't seek out help for her addictions, I'm saying a mentally ill woman is incapable of making good decisions and adding drug addiction to that is perilous. Can we not have compassion for this woman?


----------



## fizzymom (Nov 20, 2001)

Pregnant women are not allowed to have them. If you have one, it isn't valid while pregnant.

I don't know all of the details off the top of my head (at the time I didn't have one) but I received a document about it and was really shocked.

I guess I really do need to follow up on this.

edited to add: state law, all pregnant women.

also adding : sorry i'm a little disjointed-- low blood sugar and sleeping baby in lap







:


----------



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

sorry







T fizzymom, please PM me if you find more info. I am really very interested in this.


----------



## fizzymom (Nov 20, 2001)

ok, it might be a little while. I have to dig through some records, but I'm sure it is a document that I kept.








I think you just lit a fire under my butt!!


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

Quote:

Is is okay to medicate someone against their will? In some states, if you are mentally ill, and on psychiatric drugs, you can be legally forced back on them- even if you think you no longer need them.
And many of these drugs are not safe for pregnant women, according to the Physician's Desk Reference.









The message seems to be that it's OK for doctors to endanger babies, but not for mothers to do so.

And I still don't see how the baby would have lived if the c/s was done.


----------



## Katana (Nov 16, 2002)

Is there a past, documented history that she uses/used cocaine?

Some drugs given in labor, are in the same family as cocaine. It would be very easy to 'mix up' the results in a hospital lab. But then, I"m suspcious of absolutely everything any obgyn or doctor dealing with pregnant women would do or say.

Who knows what they did to this woman, or what they did to her records, or what they told her.


----------



## lollaleeloo (Jan 29, 2003)

Quote:

Some people say that the surgical birth alone could have killed her babies, well, had she had the csection the day she was told she needed it, there is not a doubt in my mind they would have lived.
Of all the places on the web to read a statement like this.

Nobody knows when the baby died. Nobody knows how the baby died. Nobody knows why the baby died. Nobody that is, except those who would presume to call the mother of a stillborn infant a criminal (if not an outright killer) based solely upon the one and only thing that *is* known about the death at this time: where it occured, which was, tragically, inside her body.

In light of the complete LACK OF ANY EVIDENCE to the contrary, the cruel judgements and pure speculation about her illicit drug, alcohol & tobacco use causing the death of her child remain just that: cruel judgements and pure speculation. The fact that her surviving twin tested positive for the aforementioned substances in no way indicates whether their use contributed to the death of her other twin, anymore than it indicates whether or not an earlier c-section would have saved him. Bottom line is, _without knowing what killed him,_ there is absolutely no basis for claiming that had he been cut out sooner, he'd be alive today. None whatsoever.

Not the hospital, not the coroner, not even the prosecutors are claiming that drug/alcohol/tobacco use played any part in the death of her child. Her lifestyle, her troubled past, her illnesses, and even uncorroborated reports of her personal vanity -- are all being used for the purpose of demonizing her in the eyes of the public, and whaddya know: it's working. Make no mistake, people. This woman mourning her dead baby sits in jail tonight for the sole crime of defying doctors' orders, and there but for the grace of God go any one of us. I'm not only shocked and horrified to read some of the comments I've read in this thread, I'm heartbroken. That so many here would unashamedly indulge in this 'Serves her right' mentality just floors me.


----------



## Unreal (Dec 15, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by lollaleeloo_
*
Not the hospital, not the coroner, not even the prosecutors are claiming that drug/alcohol/tobacco use played any part in the death of her child.*
I never even noticed that!








I mean they really really have made this into a case about a woman's right to reject the opinion of a medical 'professional'

It isn't about her care of the babies at all, because if it were, they would be placing more emphasis on the drug use or the other things that are being used to villify her. The news reports (I've only seen the ones posted here) all bring up these things...But the charge is based on her mudering the baby by NOT HAVING THE C-SECTION as advised by the doctor.

and that frightens me
a lot


----------



## LynnE73 (Oct 18, 2002)

Lollaleeloo, you are my idol! How amazingly articulate. I wanted to say that only I'm not even remotely as articulate and would have wound up cursing and argueing with a few folks here!
Thanks for a GREAT post!
-Lynn


----------



## veganmamma (Sep 10, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by lollaleeloo_
*Of all the places on the web to read a statement like this.

Nobody knows when the baby died. Nobody knows how the baby died. Nobody knows why the baby died. Nobody that is, except those who would presume to call the mother of a stillborn infant a criminal (if not an outright killer) based solely upon the one and only thing that *is* known about the death at this time: where it occured, which was, tragically, inside her body.

In light of the complete LACK OF ANY EVIDENCE to the contrary, the cruel judgements and pure speculation about her illicit drug, alcohol & tobacco use causing the death of her child remain just that: cruel judgements and pure speculation. The fact that her surviving twin tested positive for the aforementioned substances in no way indicates whether their use contributed to the death of her other twin, anymore than it indicates whether or not an earlier c-section would have saved him. Bottom line is, without knowing what killed him, there is absolutely no basis for claiming that had he been cut out sooner, he'd be alive today. None whatsoever.

Not the hospital, not the coroner, not even the prosecutors are claiming that drug/alcohol/tobacco use played any part in the death of her child. Her lifestyle, her troubled past, her illnesses, and even uncorroborated reports of her personal vanity -- are all being used for the purpose of demonizing her in the eyes of the public, and whaddya know: it's working. Make no mistake, people. This woman mourning her dead baby sits in jail tonight for the sole crime of defying doctors' orders, and there but for the grace of God go any one of us. I'm not only shocked and horrified to read some of the comments I've read in this thread, I'm heartbroken. That so many here would unashamedly indulge in this 'Serves her right' mentality just floors me.*








You rock.


----------



## OnTheFence (Feb 15, 2003)

<<People who are mentally ill may not be able to take responsibility for their actions. Mentall illness is just like cancer. Do you think cancer patients should be blamed for their pain or vision loss? Should my father be blamed for his cirrhosis? What about mother's with post partum psychosis, should they be blamed for their inability to distinguish delusions from reality? >>

As a mother to a child with a "mental" illness I work hard to teach my som empathy and right from wrong. I try to teach him, even though it is difficult and he is young, that he has to take responsibility for his actions -- even if they were impulsive, even if he didnt mean to hurt someone, even if he broke something in a rage. When he is an adult he will face a society that will expect more of him than I do. If he can't comform to those norms, he may end up in prison or a mental institution. I can only empower him so much before sending him into the world. Once he is an adult -- he must take responsibility for those actions, even if he doesnt not fully understand or his intent was not to harm.
It is hard for me to reconcile that this 28 year old woman has gone her whole life without any help. Programs are everywhere. She is not parenting two other children. She was making an adoptoin plan for the twins.
I am sorry she had a bad life. But how long must we allow people to use their bad upbringings to cripple them. My husband comes from a very abusive family -- how ever he is successful, never done drugs, smoked, etc. He is a good father and husband and human being. No one helped him. He actually ate out of garbage cans and slept in cars in college. He knows poverty and abuse, so what happened? he just lucked out?
I think if you smoke and get lung cancer, well who else is there to blame but yourself. Drink like a fish and die of liver disease? Well who else are we to blame.
You mentioned PPD/S. I had it. Not only with my daughter but with the son I adopted (I believe brought on by inducing lactation). The first time around no one helped me. For nine months I suffered, sometimes on the brink of death. With Dylan, I lived next door to a woman I could not stand and thought I had nothing in common with, who literally saved me. I will not get into the emotional and psychological turmoil I was in, but I will say there was something inside of me that prevented me from harming my children. Had I harmed them, even while ill, I still would bear the responsibility.
I have a real problem with shifting blame and not taking responsibility, and this women -- whether mentally ill or addicitons or both -- should have to take responsibility for the death of her child.

<<Being angry that the actions of the mentally ill have harmed us or the people we love is okay, forgetting that their actions were caused by a disease and throwing them to the wolves is another. >>

I am not for throwing this woman to the wolves. Charging her with a crime, having her take responsibility for her negligence and death of her child doesnt have to mean throwing her to the wolves. She needs treatment, and personally I think ordered not to have any more children.

<<I am very sorry your son has FAE. As the child of an alcoholic I spent a lot of time obsessing over FAS and related problems during my time studying human development. I can't imagine how hard day to day life can be and I am so glad your son has had the incredible fortune to find himself in the arms of a loving, AP mamma. I do feel compassion for his bio mother though. What a horrible thing to know that you have done such grievous harm to your own child. What a horrible ting to be so desperate in your life that you would do such harm.>>

Thank you for these kind words. Some days are hard. Dylan has taught me more than anyone in this life has. I also feel compassion for his birthmother, but she knowingly did what she did, knowing she was pregnant. She was already a mother, and knew it was wrong. You can imagine how hard it is to be someone who believes in choice, but at the same time feels a woman should not have the choice or be punished if she makes choices that will seriously damage her child. Of course she has to live with what she did, but really it is Dylan that will suffer more because of her negligence.

Kim


----------



## OnTheFence (Feb 15, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Greaseball_
*And many of these drugs are not safe for pregnant women, according to the Physician's Desk Reference.









The message seems to be that it's OK for doctors to endanger babies, but not for mothers to do so.

And I still don't see how the baby would have lived if the c/s was done.*
The baby was alive all three times they told her she needed to have a csection. It doesnt take that long to do one in emergency situations. The equipment is there to resuscitate and incubate. My friends baby was saved after a prolapse cord because of a csection. My own child was saved due to a csection. Despite popular believe on this forum, csections can be necessary to save lives.
The babies had decreased heart tones and were showing signs of distress ( I imagine some of this could be due to drug use) They must have been alarmingly low and with the decreased movement at that stage of pregnancy, there must have been some other medical problems as well. The one reason I can think of from what I could find tonight on the net is that if there was decreased amniotic fluid and positioning of the babies could have been an indicator for having a classical incision. Also, not sure if this has to do with fraternal twins or not, but one baby may not have been getting enough nutrients and would have faired better outside of the womb if they were running out of room. I know my friend who just had twins had one weighing 1.5lbs larger than the other. The smaller twin also had some breathing problems after delivery.
I don't know enought about twin gestation, but from what I have read, I think this baby could have lived had he been delivered when she was told THREE times on THREE Different occassions that she needed to deliver.


----------



## XM (Apr 16, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by lollaleeloo_
*Her lifestyle, her troubled past, her illnesses, and even uncorroborated reports of her personal vanity -- are all being used for the purpose of demonizing her in the eyes of the public, and whaddya know: it's working. Make no mistake, people. This woman mourning her dead baby sits in jail tonight for the sole crime of defying doctors' orders, and there but for the grace of God go any one of us.*
Exactly.

I think those of us who are getting caught up in the 'addiction' aspect of it are missing the point that lolla made... that if this woman is prosecuted for murder 1, we are all so fu%#ed. OTF and others, I can understand your anger... it makes me want to cry to hear of women hurting their babies while still in the womb. But that is exactly where the prosecuters want you on this case. That way you won't notice that your rights are just as much at risk as hers.

As someone else said, they are starting with the mamas that no one will stand up for. Then they wil come for the rest of us.

Allison74 said- "Some drugs given for pain in labor, like morophine, are in the same family as cocaine. It would be very easy to 'mix up' the results in a hospital lab... Who knows what they did to this woman, or what they did to her records, or what they told her." I would also like to know more about _how_ the labs were done, and by who.

Damn... sure glad I didn't have a c/b with Xiola, because had she tested positive for any-caine, I might have been the one in jail with the righteous masses screaming for my head to roll... and I'm sure you could get enough dirt on me to extrapolate it into something that would make yourself feel good about your judgement. Nevermind that I have never touched cocaine in my life.

Doing drugs while pregnant is negligent and abusive. But the issue here is murder because she went AMA, not because she was getting high. So whatever your opinions regarding drugs and smoking while pregnant, anyone who ever has or ever will go AMA needs to step up and fight this.

Lauren, you rock. Your compassion and common sense will make you an outstanding midwife (wanna come catch #3?







). You gave some excellent examples of how we really do need to take care of each other, and how one person reaching out can make a difference... I am sure this woman was told a million times to get clean, but I can't help but wonder if anyone ever took the time to reach out to her and say, 'get clean... for yourself... _you are worth it, and I care._"


----------



## veganmamma (Sep 10, 2002)

They were boy/girl fraternal twins.

Quote:

As a mother to a child with a "mental" illness I work hard to teach my som empathy and right from wrong. I try to teach him, even though it is difficult and he is young, that he has to take responsibility for his actions -- even if they were impulsive, even if he didnt mean to hurt someone, even if he broke something in a rage. When he is an adult he will face a society that will expect more of him than I do. If he can't comform to those norms, he may end up in prison or a mental institution. I can only empower him so much before sending him into the world. Once he is an adult -- he must take responsibility for those actions, even if he doesnt not fully understand or his intent was not to harm.
But see-- you're doing a good job raising him. Her mother was apparently mentally disabled, i just don't see how she could ahve taught her the empathy you work so hard to teach your son.

There is a disorder called Attachment Disorder-- when a child cannot form an attachment to their primary caregiver in infancy, they have problems with empathy, trust, love-- in every relationship for the rest of their lives-- even with psychiatric help. There is no way to fully overcome it. Particularly Severe Attachment Disorder, where not only are they not able to form an attachment, but the person with whom they are trying to form their attachment is abusive to them. This leads to a complete lack of emotion. The inablility to care for others, complete lack of empathy, no conscience, etc. These people do not even feel sorry for themselves, they don't feel anything at all. They can discuss brutal acts of violence that they have commited, and brutal acts of violence commited against them- often by their families, no emotion whatsoever. Someday, children with attachment disorder grow up. God forbid, they have children of their own and they make horrible, horrible mistakes in raising them. They are incapable of loving their own children. Attachment disorder is linked to many of the mental illnesses that are commonly known, bipolar disorder being one of them.

I know it's hard to, but I think everyone should remember that this woman, cold and ugly now, was once a tiny little girl in a harsh, scary world. From what I gather, she didn't have anyone who was able to love her and treat her right-- ever. This is one of the reasons I have compassion for her. What if I had been born into her world? Who would I be today?

Also, re: your dh who has overcome abuse etc., that is fantastic for him- how empowered he must be to have done that. Often times mental illness is hereditary. Meaning, your dh may have had circumstance against him, but not chemical imbalance of the brain. Imagine he had been in those circumstances and not been in complete control of his thoughts and emotions. Things could spiral out of control, furthering his illness which would cause him to act irrationally which would cause his circumstances to get worse, causeing a negative and irrational reaction and so on. Not everyone is bale to easily overcome such challenges. Maybe her IQ is low- I'm guessing your dh has a high IQ, something that helps very much when circumstance has you eating out of the garbage.


----------



## veganmamma (Sep 10, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by XM_
*Lauren, you rock. Your compassion and common sense will make you an outstanding midwife (wanna come catch #3?







). You gave some excellent examples of how we really do need to take care of each other, and how one person reaching out can make a difference... I am sure this woman was told a million times to get clean, but I can't help but wonder if anyone ever took the time to reach out to her and say, 'get clean... for yourself... you are worth it, and I care."*
Yes!







And I will stay in WA for a month or more to do so! (I'm allowed to attend 2 long distance births a year, per: DP. :LOL)

The last thing you said-- that's the one that matters most-- You are worth it and I care. I don't think anyone said that to her either.


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

Not all drug users can get to a program, if they can't afford it. I know some states have cut funding for residential treatment, and it's so hard to get on state funding anyway...often you can't be covered UNLESS you are also pregnant.

NA and AA are available to everyone for free, but some people need a more structured environment.

We have no way of knowing if this woman had tried to seek help.

I find it interesting that when babies die from mainstream practices like circumcision, formula feeding, or elective inductions/surgery, no one wants to charge anyone with murder; they write it off as bad luck.


----------



## XM (Apr 16, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by OnTheFence_
*The baby was alive all three times they told her she needed to have a csection. It doesnt take that long to do one in emergency situations. The equipment is there to resuscitate and incubate.*
For the record, as I said, my daughter was alive when I started pushing, 10 minutes later she was dead. They had called in a crash team while I was pushing, and spent 15 minutes recusiatating her before my doctor pronounced her. I thought she was just hard to start and was shocked when I was told she was really, truly gone. After all, I had done everything my doctor had advised me to... but as we all need to remember, _there are no garantees in birth, life, and death_.

Casareans do *not* always save lives, and recusitation does *not* always succeed. To beleive otherwise is either naive or arrogant.

My understanding is that even in an emergency, it takes 1 hour to prep the patient and assemble the team for a c/s. If anyone with the facts can verify or correct me, please do. But even 30 minutes is a long time when you can lose a baby in less then 10.

Her babies were comprimised because of her lifestyle, she is in jail for going AMA. Who is to say wether or not a c/s may have saved the baby? Not I. And last I checked, God wasn't a registered member of MDC so I don't think there is a single person here that can say definitively that her baby would have lived had she had a c/s.


----------



## XM (Apr 16, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Greaseball_
*I find it interesting that when babies die from mainstream practices like circumcision, formula feeding, or elective inductions/surgery, no one wants to charge anyone with murder; they write it off as bad luck.*
My thoughts exactly.


----------



## StarMama (Jun 25, 2002)

T Just don't have #3, XM when I have #2! I want you too Lauren!!


----------



## hotmamacita (Sep 25, 2002)

I am home. What a day. I lead a group on Fridays for women who suffered abuse in the childhood and today was our last time together. We met from 1pm-8pm and I am beat.

In reading this thread since I left, I have a lot of things going on in me. I am in horror at some things that have been said. I am confused as to why so many seem so convinced of positions after such limited information from the media--the same media that is attacked in other forums for being deceptive and corrupt. I am delighted at some things that have been said. There are so many good responses where I would have lost my temper.

The most poignant emotion I am feeling right now is awe. I am in awe of XM's posts. XM, you are a courageous, strong, beautiful, tender woman whom I admire deeply. You never cease to amaze me. I thank God for you in my life and for what you offer women.

My heart IS tender towards Melissa Rowland. It just is. I know that my motivation is NOT purely out of some birth choice agenda. I have learned over the years and through much suffering to TRUST my heart. If my heart is tender and I want to encourage someone then I follow my heart.

more tomorrow. I need to go get some sleep.


----------



## pamamidwife (May 7, 2003)

I wanted to add to this discussion that I feel that the murder charge is a bit over the top.

Just so we all know that I'm with you all on that.

OK.









I just don't have the same ability to look at her like she was making a serious choice that she felt was in the best interest of her babies.


----------



## simonee (Nov 21, 2001)

Women of mdc,
many of you know that I spend (too small a part of) my current life lurking







and I'm down to only getting into like 2 threads a day. This is one of them for today.

How do you ever expect me to wean?
You beautiful, compassionate, wise, intelligent, funny, incredible women, you... I'm crying right now, for this woman and her babies and her life, and for knowing there's hope out htere with people like Lauren and XM and Greaseball and the new member whose name sounds like Lollapalooza making a case. Thank you ladies. You rule.
















(and Zaq, there's a pretty long line for Lauren. You get in right in the back, okay honey? :LOL)

Lauren, Willem was unplanned... if it ever happens again, will you come catch if I buy you the ticket? And stay as long as you like...


----------



## OnTheFence (Feb 15, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by XM_
*
My understanding is that even in an emergency, it takes 1 hour to prep the patient and assemble the team for a c/s. If anyone with the facts can verify or correct me, please do. But even 30 minutes is a long time when you can lose a baby in less then 10.

*
Not an hour, not 30 min. In my case with a spinal that didnt work, less than 10. I felt the whole thing, and a team of people were slicing me before I could barely scream I could feel it.
My neighbor has her OP report, from the time they detected the prolapse cord, to the time her baby was out in the OR under GA was less than 7 minutes. She says that going down the hall into the OR was like a dream before she said they got her through the door they were shooting drugs in her IV, masking her, etc. She has a T cut. Her husband said that they actually pushed him out of the room and there was a team of people doing stuff in a matter of minutes and that an alarm was going off. Now some hospitals may not be able to do this, depending on their size or maybe they are in BFE, but I thought now they were required to have people on staff at all times to do stat csections.
My friend who had premie twins said that from the moment she entered the emergency room to the time they were born was less than 20 minutes. She also had GA, classical incision.


----------



## Clarity (Nov 19, 2001)

30 from decision to incision is what most hospitals assume for emergency c...mine was a few minutes more I think...I was bleeding to death in a slow methodical fashion. GA as well.

I have met enough women with babes that died (particularly a twin) with IUGR and TTTS while having constant monitoring that I would not assume the c would have fixed it, even done the first day. And pathology reports for fetal demise are generally worthless. A conviction based on a pathologist's best guess? (these are the same people that call the vast majority of stillbirths "cord accidents" because they really don't know.) In this sort of case the medical examiner will not be able to say with any certainty if immediate delivery would have saved the baby or not.


----------



## DreamerMama (Feb 2, 2003)

I had a good nights sleep, even with a squirmy babe attached and a very large toddler on my side.

I kept thinking over and over about this woman and her sitting in jail right now. I am fortunate I didn't have and nightmares, it has really disturbed me to the bone.

I would like to point out a really moving thing I read this morning.

Posted by lolalleloo is the crux of this case:

"Not the hospital, not the coroner, not even the prosecutors are claiming that drug/alcohol/tobacco use played any part in the death of her child. Her lifestyle, her troubled past, her illnesses, and even uncorroborated reports of her personal vanity -- are all being used for the purpose of demonizing her in the eyes of the public, and whaddya know: it's working. Make no mistake, people. This woman mourning her dead baby sits in jail tonight for the sole crime of defying doctors' orders, and there but for the grace of God go any one of us. I'm not only shocked and horrified to read some of the comments I've read in this thread, I'm heartbroken. That so many here would unashamedly indulge in this 'Serves her right' mentality just floors me."

This is what kept me up last night, this thought. It scares me to the bone.

During my last pregnancy, I had refused many different things my midwife wanted me to do during my pregnancy. We argued and fought over some very important test and proceedures. I ended up giving in to a good portion of them because of scare tatics used by her and the doctors.

It makes me think, because I do have a history of drug abuse, mental illness, and PPD. I wonder how far removed I am from this woman and her situation. How far could we streatch what she did and what I was doing. Not very far.

I tell you, it scares me. I know the media could put a spin on MY life and suddenly here I could be charged with murder. To think of it.

Stand up for this woman without regard to her drug abuse, her mental state, and her lifestyle. Stand up for her because she has no voice, and pretty soon none of you will too.

Stand up for her because it is right and necessary. Give her compassion in your heart.

But for the grace of God go I.


----------



## DreamerMama (Feb 2, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by simonee_
*(and Zaq, there's a pretty long line for Lauren. You get in right in the back, okay honey? :LOL)
*
Simonee, your right. Back of the line I go. But, hurry up and keep it a movin, it's my turn next!:LOL


----------



## PurpleBasil (Jan 28, 2004)

Quote:

_Originally posted by OnTheFence_
*Turns out she was using coke. Has mental illness. The works. I am getting bashed on the Talk Among Yourself board and have got some interesting and threatening IMs. I should have not delurked over there. I get sucked in everytime!







*
On the Fence, I have read alot here but see no one bashing you. Your arguments? Sure. But not you. Don't confuse the two. You had a c-sec, that isn't what we are discussing here and you seem very defensive, imo.


----------



## somemama (Sep 25, 2002)

I think she means that she got threatened via PM.


----------



## ladylee (Nov 20, 2001)

playdoh-Why are you following OTF around?

Clarity-I agree with you, and with XM and others that have said there was no guarantee the baby could have been saved had there been a cesarean.

I just want to say only the higher power knows whether she needs to make restitution.


----------



## PurpleBasil (Jan 28, 2004)

Not following anyone around, Ladylee. Not sure what you're implying.

I believe no one has the right to cut us open without our consent, no matter what the circumstances. I'm with dado. All the way.


----------



## PurpleBasil (Jan 28, 2004)

Quote:

_Originally posted by somemama_
*I think she means that she got threatened via PM.*
Then my bad. I thought she meant that she was 'bashed on TAO'.

Sorry for my confusion!


----------



## nathansmom (Nov 28, 2003)

I live in Utah and last night on the local news they had interviews with several couples who were contacted by Melissa. She was willing to sell her living baby for money to the highest bidder.


----------



## Unreal (Dec 15, 2002)

I think we've already determined that she wouldn't win a mother of the year award...

but should she be in jail for disagreeing with a doctor's recommendation?

That is the real problem here.

Regardless of her personal character (or how the media portrays it...)


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

I read that for a hospital to perform a cesarean _safely_ it takes 30 to 60 minutes, and that is if no one is waiting ahead of you. (There have been stories from women whose babies were born vaginally while they were waiting for their "emergency" c/s!)

In Birth as an American Rite of Passage there is a doctor who is "very respected" because he can do one in 12 minutes. His complication rate is horrendous. Other women in Open Season say that they also had those super quick sections, and they could feel the cutting. They were told "the baby would die" if they took the time to do everything they usually do.

I don't think I could go through surgery without anesthesia and all safety procedures, even if it meant death. And if that makes me a murderer, well, good thing this is my last baby!


----------



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

Greaseball you say that as though you would have a choice. You would have enough drugs to immobilize you... take your legs and such... plus they strap you down. You not being numb is strictly your problem. Won't slow them down a bit. This you know, my friend.


----------



## OnTheFence (Feb 15, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Unreal_
*I think we've already determined that she wouldn't win a mother of the year award...

but should she be in jail for disagreeing with a doctor's recommendation?

That is the real problem here.

Regardless of her personal character (or how the media portrays it...)*
I feel she did more than disagree with one doctors. There is a difference. I left the hospital AMA with my son. Of course after being told my baby would die, I was a horrible mother, etc. I had to sign a document taking responsibility and not holding the dr. responsible. I left after speaking to my attny. The next day I called another dr in town, explained what was going on and said I needed to see someone that morning. My husband and I took my son to this doctor, explained what was going on, what I did, and then he examined my son. He then spoke with another dr. in the practice came back and told me that he thought I had done the right thing and he had a nother course of action for us to take. I took his advice, went to the follow-up appt. mainly to cover my own ass.
This woman however went to the hospital to seek medical advice due to problems she was having. She disreguarded this advice. Ok, fine. But then she went on to go to two additional places that told her the same thing. This is where I think she was negligent in her actions and that this negligence resulted in the death of this child. She had two prior csections, and that also factors into me believing that she was negligent. She was hiding something, drug abuse is what I believe.

If this was remotely similar to the woman who had the big baby and refused a csection I would be on the front row cheering that she should be able to legally refuse this. The woman with the big baby also sought medical care elsewhere, that was a different course of action. This woman did not do that.


----------



## OnTheFence (Feb 15, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Greaseball_
*I read that for a hospital to perform a cesarean safely it takes 30 to 60 minutes, and that is if no one is waiting ahead of you. (There have been stories from women whose babies were born vaginally while they were waiting for their "emergency" c/s!)

In Birth as an American Rite of Passage there is a doctor who is "very respected" because he can do one in 12 minutes. His complication rate is horrendous. Other women in Open Season say that they also had those super quick sections, and they could feel the cutting. They were told "the baby would die" if they took the time to do everything they usually do.

I don't think I could go through surgery without anesthesia and all safety procedures, even if it meant death. And if that makes me a murderer, well, good thing this is my last baby!*
Safely? I would love to read where you get this 30-60 minute time frame.
Also the two books you mention are quite dated. As is the American Way of Birth, that I think talks about this issue as well.

I bet you could go through the surgery if your child was on the line. You arent really focusing on yourself at the time. You really dont care how many safety proceedures are in place. You want your baby to live.


----------



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

Quote:

_Originally posted by OnTheFence_
*The woman with the big baby also sought medical care elsewhere, that was a different course of action. This woman did not do that.*
Well... she went home for several days and checked into a different hospital when she was in active labor. Sought no medical attention in the interem. M Rolands babies were born in the hospital via C-section... so clearly she did that as well.


----------



## Unreal (Dec 15, 2002)

I guess I'm just frightened that 'they' (the ever ambiguous they) aren't going to differentiate between the two cases.

I was 19 when I was pregnant with my first son--and looked even younger. I can't tell you how many people asked if I planned to go back to high school to get my diploma--without even bothering to find out that I had already been in college for a year and was still taking classes!
People make assumptions--especially about pregnant women--I'm sure we've all experienced this through the years.

I do not agree with the choices Mellisa made. I agree that she should have had more support. I







over the fact that there are literally thousands of other women in this country in the same position as her. I







over the idea of selling a baby to the highest bidder. I am







and







that we want to spend $$ on keeping her in jail rather than putting that money towards helping even just a handful of other women and babies from meeting the same fate.

And I am scared that someday someone will look at me--not vaxing, homeschooling, giving my kids herbs rather than sudafed and tylenol....and they will think that they should step in and protect my kids because ____________ (fill in the blank--just about anything goes, these days)
I am scared that with my next babe, I'll want to do a homebirth and a dr may say that is too dangerous and I'll end up giving birth in restraints in a hospital (or worse, jail).

There are so many things in this that upset me--it is hard to separate them...


----------



## Pynki (Aug 19, 2002)

Murder is over the top.. The unfortunate part is that even here.. There are women willing to throw her as a log on the fire in this one..

I too felt my c/s with my ds1.. I felt them sewing me up.. It felt like they were pushing on a very deep bruise or open wound.. Which is exactly what they were doing, and this was NOT an emergency.. This was for breech presentation... Every woman has the RIGHT TO REFUSE medical care.. That hospital has the RESPONSIBLILITY to get a COURT ORDER for care if they believe the patient is incompetent.. THAT is how the system works.. We dont' read anywhere.. (or i haven't maybe i missed it.. ) that any of these hospitals did that..

and FTR..

I DON'T CARE HOW MANY C/S YOU HAVE HAD, YOU ALWAYS HAVE THE RIGHT TO REFUSE THE NEXT ONE!!!

I don't think anyone here is defending this woman as a good mother, BUT she has the same rights that you or I do... She has the right to refuse medical interventions or advice.. If the hospitals and dr's where sooo concerned, they should have obtained that court order..

I do NOT agree with the way this woman lives her life, but i WILL fight for the injustice, and persecution that is being brought against her..

They are NOT charging her with drug use.. They are charging her with murder.. Premediatied murder.. This is a travesty of justice.. They ARE releasing information about her lifestyle to villify her, and get them a guilty verdict in the publics eye before they even have to do anything else.. How hard will it be to find a juror that hasn't heard about this... Or hasn't formed an opinion of this "horrible, irresponsible, evil, baby-killing" woman..







:

Make no mistake this IS about your ability to refuse your dr, or their hospital.. The outcome of this case WILL effect each and every woman in the US...

Warmly..

Dyan


----------



## OnTheFence (Feb 15, 2003)

ACOG reports that a stat csection can be done in less than 10 minutes with GA and a classical or T cut incision. This was in a 200) report. They classify also "emergency" csections in two forms: emergency and stat emergency. Emergency csections are done in case their are problems present but not immediately life threatening and a spinal can be done and non-classical incision is done, time frame is 20-32 minutes. Stat csections is when the mother, baby or both are in a near death state -- prolapse cord is indicated for stat csection, uterine rupture, placental abruption, and excessive bleeding.


----------



## Pynki (Aug 19, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by OnTheFence_
*ACOG reports that a stat csection can be done in less than 10 minutes with GA and a classical or T cut incision. This was in a 200) report. They classify also "emergency" csections in two forms: emergency and stat emergency. Emergency csections are done in case their are problems present but not immediately life threatening and a spinal can be done and non-classical incision is done, time frame is 20-32 minutes. Stat csections is when the mother, baby or both are in a near death state -- prolapse cord is indicated for stat csection, uterine rupture, placental abruption, and excessive bleeding.*
I don't know how far I would trust the ACOG.. These are the same dr's pushing to make VBAC's not a viable option for women who have had a c/s, and have recently said the c/s for no medical reason isn't unethical..

I trust them as a whole about as far as i could throw them..


----------



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

I think I can trust ACOG about how long a section takes. They do enough of them to know.


----------



## Pynki (Aug 19, 2002)

i was thinking more along the lines of why they thought the c/s were neccesary, or even emergent... Guess i should have been more clear on that.. And you are right Kama, they SHOULD know how long it takes.. They do appear c/s happy..

The thing is.. I'm not even anti-c/s.. I think they DO save lives.. I don't think they should be the be all end all in birthing, that many times they are portrayed to be.. If i had the OB who did my c/s for my regular OB.. I would NEVER have had a vbac.. She is the most c/s happy OB in Iowa city.. I am sooo thankful I have a very woman oriented OB.. She is great... Almost mid-wife-ish.. (well it's a word now!!!)

anyway.. OT sorry..

Warm Squishy Feelings..

Dyan


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

Quote:

ACOG reports that a stat csection can be done in less than 10 minutes with GA and a classical or T cut incision.
Yes, we all know how unbiased they are.







:

But if I had to have a section I'd probably want GA anyway. The thought of lying there awake as I'm being cut open just scares me. See, I'm terrified of surgery; you don't have to be on drugs or mentally ill to be afraid!

Although, with GA, what about the anesthesiologist? What if he is not in the hospital at the time? (Smaller hospitals don't have them waiting around.) So he would have to show up first. And doesn't GA require all sorts of pre-op drugs and special equipment?

I only had GA once, when my wisdom teeth were removed, and it took them an hour to set up all the little thingies. And it didn't even take; I woke up in the middle of the surgery screaming about Hell or something despite the 3 different drugs they had given me.







They said if they had given me any more I'd have to be in an OR with a breathing tube.

I think if I were being operated on without anesthesia and I could still move, my self-preservation instinct would take over my mothering instinct. The dentists were able to use physical force to get me to go through the rest of the operation without anesthesia, but having a tooth cut out is nothing like major surgery. I hope I never have to know what that is like.

I don't know why it's thought we are anti-c/s...even I know people whose lives have been saved by them! And I mean for real, not just because they were too big or the mother had been in labor too long.


----------



## OnTheFence (Feb 15, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Pynki_
*I don't know how far I would trust the ACOG.. These are the same dr's pushing to make VBAC's not a viable option for women who have had a c/s, and have recently said the c/s for no medical reason isn't unethical..

I trust them as a whole about as far as i could throw them..*
Actually what I read concurs with other things I have read as well. My planned csection took 30 minutes from the time I got in the OR till the time they rolled me out. My epidural was put in 10 min prior. With my emergency csection, while a longer surgery, I was cut fairly quickly after it was determined the baby needed to come out now. Maybe it depends on the doctor doing the cutting.


----------



## OnTheFence (Feb 15, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Greaseball_
*Yes, we all know how unbiased they are.







:

But if I had to have a section I'd probably want GA anyway. The thought of lying there awake as I'm being cut open just scares me. See, I'm terrified of surgery; you don't have to be on drugs or mentally ill to be afraid!

Although, with GA, what about the anesthesiologist? What if he is not in the hospital at the time? (Smaller hospitals don't have them waiting around.) So he would have to show up first. And doesn't GA require all sorts of pre-op drugs and special equipment?

I only had GA once, when my wisdom teeth were removed, and it took them an hour to set up all the little thingies. And it didn't even take; I woke up in the middle of the surgery screaming about Hell or something despite the 3 different drugs they had given me.







They said if they had given me any more I'd have to be in an OR with a breathing tube.

I think if I were being operated on without anesthesia and I could still move, my self-preservation instinct would take over my mothering instinct. The dentists were able to use physical force to get me to go through the rest of the operation without anesthesia, but having a tooth cut out is nothing like major surgery. I hope I never have to know what that is like.

I don't know why it's thought we are anti-c/s...even I know people whose lives have been saved by them! And I mean for real, not just because they were too big or the mother had been in labor too long.*
Greaseball, I am afraid of surgery too! TERRIFIED. Show me an IV and I want to pass out. But I would not do GA, even though I did consider it for repeat, because it is more dangerous to mother and baby than a spinal or epidural. I don't know what they give as far as pre-op drugs to GA patients. I didn't have any preop drugs with my last but I had an epidural. I know that you did get the tube, oxygen, all that with GA. When my enighbor gets home I will ask her to look on her op report to see what they gave her.

I was still able to move during my first csection. In fact two nurses held my legs down (my arms were strapped down). You do have an over powering urge to leap off the table.







Its pretty horrfic and I wouldnt want anyone to go through that.


----------



## aquarianangela (Apr 25, 2003)

nak
i just heard about this this morning..
as an obgyn i want to comment
1.to be charged with murder is wrong. a person has the right to refuse a csection even if the baby is dying right there on the monitor. even if it makes the doctor ill to see the baby die. it's happened. it is assault and battery to perform surgery without consent.
2. any pt can leave against medical advice at any time. i've had people leave ama at 6 cm, go smoke, and show up again!
3. you can't reason with someone who is floridly psychotic. you just can't. nor can you expect them to think rationally such as"if i leave ama my twins could die." they are literally in a different world.
4.if you feel the mom isn't competent to make the decision to refuse a csection you call the hospital ethics board and try for a psych eval and court order. why didn't anyone do this?
5.on the flip side i have had pts demand csections because of various reasons, even after i tell them there is no indication and tell them the increased risks of major surgery. do they have the right to request as well as refuse csection. i believe that is what generated the acog ethics statement on elective csections.

i have had a psychotic pt with twins refuse all exams and showed up at 22 wks completely dilated.
i have had a woman from a country where the male head of family makes all the decisions refuse csection until he could be reached by phone with the knowledge her baby was dying... it died before we could reach him.
oh the things i have seen.
bottom line is this woman should not be pg in the first place, but again you can't make her use contraception or get sterilized or take psych meds etc- it all is the same issue, once you start where do you stop? if a pg woman doesn't wear her seatbelt after i tell her to, gets in a wreck and ejectedf and baby dies, does she get charged?
oh and i have had several crack users who abrupted and had stillbirths - believe it or not they are very sad usually; the drug just had a hold on them... they didn't set out to kill their babies- they just couldn't stop using.








sorry for typos-typing one handed- i have a lot more thoughts but getting sick of typing.
edited for typos-twice!


----------



## Clarity (Nov 19, 2001)

the time it takes from deciding to do a c until they start the incision, is different from the length of time it takes to do the operation itself (from incison to suturing...) Two different time frames...it just looks like some of us are talking about two different things.


----------



## OnTheFence (Feb 15, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Clarity_
*the time it takes from deciding to do a c until they start the incision, is different from the length of time it takes to do the operation itself (from incison to suturing...) Two different time frames...it just looks like some of us are talking about two different things.*
I was talking about in my ACOG post about the actual cut being done and getting the baby out.

My first csection was an hour and 15min long. My second was 30min from start to finish.


----------



## IslandMamma (Jun 12, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Zaq001_
*Stand up for this woman without regard to her drug abuse, her mental state, and her lifestyle. Stand up for her because she has no voice, and pretty soon none of you will too.

Stand up for her because it is right and necessary. Give her compassion in your heart.

But for the grace of God go I.*
Zaq, I am so moved by your post. I have been following this thread as well, but feel really too emotional to post. I cannot remain calm on this one. It hits home; my little sister's baby died of SIDS after one month, and she was a drug user, smoker, all the other things that some would flay her for. She is not an evil person. But that story is another time and place.... one I can't tell because I am still too broken over it-- for all involved.

Compassion is the key here. Today she-- MR-- is a childless mother, sitting alone in a jail cell, with the weight of her decisions and the ghost of a dead baby hanging over her. And now she is becoming a pawn in what will most certainly be a political spectacle. There is much suffering here mammas, even despite what you read in the paper. She is still human.


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

Yes, I wonder what we all would think if drug use were not a factor.


----------



## veganmamma (Sep 10, 2002)

Simone-- I would be honored to attend the birth of your next possible oops baby! I would be your housekeeper and postpartum doula, too and love every second of it!

I am honored just to know you MDC women, let alone be realistically or jokingly invited to your births.


----------



## hotmamacita (Sep 25, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by IslandMamma_
*

Compassion is the key here. Today she-- MR-- is a childless mother, sitting alone in a jail cell, with the weight of her decisions and the ghost of a dead baby hanging over her. And now she is becoming a pawn in what will most certainly be a political spectacle. There is much suffering here mammas, even despite what you read in the paper. She is still human.*








IM. I grieve for your story.

What you said is so true. Thank you for saying it in the midst of your emotion and anger. I TOTALLY AGREE.


----------



## Potty Diva (Jun 18, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Elphaba_
*

If her only concern was a scar, then she's a pretty messed up woman. As in, I would have recommended a psych eval.

*
But isn't this what society has taught our daughters? That looks precede health? Either our health or that of another? Sounds like she was merely living up to what she has been taught.

Truly sad









And ITA with Islandmama


----------



## wombat (Nov 3, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by aquarianangela_
*nak
i just heard about this this morning..
as an obgyn i want to comment...
4.if you feel the mom isn't competent to make the decision to refuse a csection you call the hospital ethics board and try for a psych eval and court order. why didn't anyone do this?
*
So there are procedures for situations like this. Thanks for clarifying this. I also wondered why the doctors didn't try to get a court order to save that baby earlier if they thought he was in imminent danger.

This whole case just makes a joke of consent though. Consent or face the threat of murder charges? How is it consent if you have threats like this held over your head.


----------



## dado (Dec 31, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by OnTheFence_
*She was hiding something, drug abuse is what I believe.*
if that is true, then instead of using this horrible event to demonize this woman in an election year, let's use her story to change drug politcy and stop wasting tens of billions of dollars burning bushes in colombia so we can spend them on getting addicts into quality rehab here at home. just how many addicts could be helped by the cost of this prosecution _alone_?

i don't know what makes me sadder, the dead babies and broken mother, or yet another example of how quick and willing to judge and destroy our society has become. we have become a truly vengeful people...


----------



## Clarity (Nov 19, 2001)

I have been told it's virtually impossible to find a drug rehab bed for a pregnant woman... don't know why though.


----------



## aquarianangela (Apr 25, 2003)

okay now baby is asleep and i can use 2 hands to type!









wombat yes there are procedures to try to get court orders for csections. it is usually very difficult which it should be because after all you are trying to force unwanted surgery, with all its risks, on an unwilling person,psychotic or not. also given how fast a fetal heart rate can start plummeting and then stop (for instance an abruption caught on the monitor) a lot of the time you simply don't have the luxury of the time needed to find a judge and advocate for the fetus.

i don't know what happened in this case. i do not feel particularly compassionate towards this woman. however, if the doctor who did the ultrasound and noted low fluid and fetal distress did not try to hold her there and seek a court order, i can easily imagine why. 1. he (or she!) was the doctor assigned that night to treat "unreferred patients" i.e. those without an ob or those who come to a hospital where their ob doesn't 2. without an established relationship with her he probably didn't argue when she left ama after he recommended a csection - less trouble for him. however if he really thought she was psychotic then he should have made the effort, no matter what a PITA it is, to get her evaluated by psychiatry etc as mentally incompetent. unfortunately the only way to place a "psych hold" on someone is if they are judged a danger to themselves or others; the fetus is not given the rights of a live person so this wouldn't work. only incompetence to make your own medical decisions would.

this would kill me if this had been my patient. i often joke that i have two patients in the room - the mom and the fetus. however, i would NEVER operate without consent unless the person was unable to give it (ie unconscious, dying etc) and i felt it was necessary. if the person won't give consent, i will do my best to try to convince her. it is still her body and i just can't believe this woman, no matter how unlikeable, is being charged with murder. the next step is outlawing abortion on the same grounds.

i think this case also illustrates the sad state of mentally ill (ie schizophrenic) people who won't take their meds. perhaps if she was stabilized on meds she would have 1. taken birth control or gotten her tubes tied 2. if she had gotten pg obtained regular prenatal care and 3. consented to a csection when problems were noted. of course, this leads back to the question - is it right to force schizophrenics to take meds if they don't want to?

and btw all the drug and alcohol use stuff may have been an attempt by her to self-medicate.

i had a pt once who was about 21 and in college. she was very bright. she had a 2 yr old. she suffered a psychotic break and became manic. it was so sad. i knew her as her "normal" self and to see her psychotic was heartbreaking. that is why i say you can't expect someone who is psychotic to be reasonable or even likeable. they just ...can't. it's not their fault that they are suffering from delusions etc.

i am reminded of that lady in tx who killed her children... evidently now that she is on appropriate meds she suffers greatly from the knowledge that she did this.. however while she was psychotic i doubt you would have been able to convince her that she shouldn't have killed her kids. in her delusion this was the right thing to do....

just some thoughts - sorry so long.


----------



## djs_girl517 (Feb 29, 2004)

Quote:

_Originally posted by OnTheFence_
*While I dont want my rights to make choices for myself or children taken away, I also feel something has to be done to protect these babies.*
Unfortunately, you can't have it both ways. Once you start allowing the government (lawyers and politicians) tocontrol _some_ aspects of _some_ people's lives, you open the door to allowing them to control that aspect of your life as well. Either the mother's rights come first, or the unborn child's, but it MUST be the same in every case. Not one way or the other depending on whether you think the mother made a good or bad choice.


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

Quote:

I have been told it's virtually impossible to find a drug rehab bed for a pregnant woman... don't know why though.
It must depend on the facility. In my hometown there is a center that is mainly for pregnant and parenting women, and it's long-term, around 6 to 9 months, instead of the usual 1 to 3. They accept state aid too. It's harder to get in if you're not pregnant or parenting.

You can also have your children stay with you, but only if you have just one child between the ages of 5 and 8, which leaves out a lot of women.

There is a long-term center in my town where some of the women have been there for over a year, and can have younger children and babies.

Of course, all places are likely to have huge waiting lists.


----------



## veganmamma (Sep 10, 2002)

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

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/doc_o_day/doc_o_day.html


----------



## its_our_family (Sep 8, 2002)

I haven't read all of the responses either but I'm not sure how they can charge her with murder for a couple reasons.

In this country it is legal to have 3rd trimester abortions (I know the big "a" word) and we still have the right to refuse medical intervention. Until those things change I don't see how they can say what she did was wrong in the eyes of the law.

it was and will always be morally wrong but legally I'm not too sure. I would like nothing more than to see this women get in trouble but that is my moral side and the mom in me.


----------



## lotusdebi (Aug 29, 2002)

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/ns/news/...35.htm&sc=1110


----------



## hotmamacita (Sep 25, 2002)

somemama posted this on TAO.

http://www.sltrib.com/2004/Mar/03142004/utah/147639.asp

Look at the last sentence. It looks like she also shows desire to do what is best for her child.


----------



## Tanibani (Nov 8, 2002)

National Advocates for Pregnant Women

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

Dang, I can't find the link, but I need to edit this down. Here ya go:

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

You can read entire statement here. Sadly, the whole statement is not on their page anymore.
http://bbs.babycenter.com/board/baby...096745#8926344


----------



## hotmamacita (Sep 25, 2002)

THANK YOU!


----------



## djs_girl517 (Feb 29, 2004)

As I read these articles, I become more and more convinced that someone in the medical or pro-life community saw these court-ordered c-sections as a way to attack women's birth and reproductive rights in a round-about manner. If that's the case, it appears they couldn't have picked a better "criminal".

While I think most, if not all, of us believe she made poor choices in her use of drugs and alcohol, those choices are not why she is being charged with criminal homicide. The prosecutors and doctors are claiming she caused the death of her child when she refused medical advice....

I know a lot of you have said you don't like or agree with slippery-slope theories. Quite frankly, this precedent scares the crap out of me.


----------



## hotmamacita (Sep 25, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by djs_girl517_
*As I read these articles, I become more and more convinced that someone in the medical or pro-life community saw these court-ordered c-sections as a way to attack women's birth and reproductive rights in a round-about manner. If that's the case, it appears they couldn't have picked a better "criminal".
*
Maybe. But I tend to think it is sheer typical and historical arrogance of the doctors who request and the judges who grant. And it is out of control. THIS IS OUT OF CONTROL.

The DA in SLC has lost his mind. These charges make no sense.

Mamas, I can't sit back on this one. Not only am I writing to Miss Rowland to encourage her but I am going to get involved in other ways.

Tanibani--thank you gain for posting that. If you find any other statements will you post them here?

Peace, love and activism,


----------



## OnTheFence (Feb 15, 2003)

While some of you feel more pity for her, I become even stronger in my stance.

Too bad this woman was not sterilized after she had the last child. Abortion would have been better in this pregnancy. This new baby girl is going to have a horrendous life due to her birthmothers actions. Where is the support for this child? Who is going to be encouraging the new parents of this child when they are faced with the multitude of problems because of this one persons actions?
I dont agree with the first degree murder charge, but I Think she should be charged with something and I hope she gets her tubes tied or her uterus ripped out. If she gets out of jail she will get knocked up again and ruin more children.

After reading that she hit and punched her child over a pack of cigs that she couldnt buy, I wanted to vomit.


----------



## hotmamacita (Sep 25, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by OnTheFence_
*While some of you feel more pity for her, I become even stronger in my stance.

Too bad this woman was not sterilized after she had the last child. Abortion would have been better in this pregnancy. This new baby girl is going to have a horrendous life due to her birthmothers actions. Where is the support for this child? Who is going to be encouraging the new parents of this child when they are faced with the multitude of problems because of this one persons actions?
I dont agree with the first degree murder charge, but I Think she should be charged with something and I hope she gets her tubes tied or her uterus ripped out. If she gets out of jail she will get knocked up again and ruin more children.

After reading that she hit and punched her child over a pack of cigs that she couldnt buy, I wanted to vomit.







*
IF what you read IS, in fact, true. I am angry and grieved for her child. And maybe this is why she felt it better that her children be at their grandparents house.

But I did read your post stating that you want to sterilize a human being and you hope she gets her uterus ripped out.

I am horrified, OTF. You have no idea what is true and what is not true here and yet you are so ready to have another woman's uterus ripped from her body. I am completely horrified. Sterilization? Oh, OTF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--off to Church. +++ I'll check back in tomorrow, mamas.


----------



## Unreal (Dec 15, 2002)

otf--
and what if that is done to her
and she goes to rehab and gets cleaned up
and is a productive member of society
and wants to have kids

and can't

because 'We The People' (hahaha) had "her tubes tied or her uterus ripped out" without her consent










edit cause I was chasing a kid and typing....


----------



## applejuice (Oct 8, 2002)

Thank you Tanibani for that article.


----------



## DreamerMama (Feb 2, 2003)

I will be having a lot more time to help. I have decided to spend my energy elsewhere and not arguing with certain people on MDC. I feel my energy and time could be used in a much better way . It makes me very sad to see some of the heartless things I have read here. It makes me very sad to see some of us so divided on this issue, the one issue, of humanity. She is a human, a mother, a daughter, and a woman. She is a sick person in need of help. End of story.

Jenny


----------



## wombat (Nov 3, 2002)

OMG this woman has some history. I just read veganmama's links.

I was just reading up on Oppositional Defiant Disorder

Quote:

A pattern of negativistic, hostile, and defiant behavior lasting at least six months during which four or more of the following are present:
1. Often loses temper
2. often argues with adults
3. often actively defies or refuses to comply with adults' requests or rules
4. often deliberately annoys people
5. often blames others for his or her mistakes or misbehavior
6. is often touchy or easily annoyed by others
7. is often angry and resentful
8. is often spiteful and vindictive
http://www.klis.com/chandler/pamphlet/oddcd/about.htm

I know this was her childhood diagnosis but doesn't sound like she's changed much. Having a problem like this, among her other problems - it's absolutely obvious why this woman doesn't have custody of any of her other children. So if she can't be trusted with custody of her living children, why was she entrusted as guardian to her living, but yet unborn children? I'm no advocate for the State intervening in pregnant women's medical decisions but this is an obvious case where this woman was not competent to make those decisions. I sympathise with the OB staff that had to deal with her, I can't imagine they would have been so experienced in dealing with a patient like this. I just can't help feeling than some supportive psychiatric care instead of the OBs scare tactics might have resulted in a better outcome. The murder charge is just a last ditch attempt by the legal and medical profession to gain control, when it's far too late for that.

I don't really think there is anyone to blame in this situation. It's a legal and moral minefield. But if the State wants to send a message, providing intensive and more appropriate prenatal care to women in these kinds of situations would be a much better message.


----------



## LynnE73 (Oct 18, 2002)

Quote:

quote:
Originally posted by OnTheFence
While some of you feel more pity for her, I become even stronger in my stance.

Too bad this woman was not sterilized after she had the last child. Abortion would have been better in this pregnancy. This new baby girl is going to have a horrendous life due to her birthmothers actions. Where is the support for this child? Who is going to be encouraging the new parents of this child when they are faced with the multitude of problems because of this one persons actions?
I dont agree with the first degree murder charge, but I Think she should be charged with something and I hope she gets her tubes tied or her uterus ripped out. If she gets out of jail she will get knocked up again and ruin more children.

After reading that she hit and punched her child over a pack of cigs that she couldnt buy, I wanted to vomit.

OTF, you are not consistent... you don't think she should be charged for murder, yet you want her uterus ripped out? Isn't that as brutal as forcing her to have a c-section in the first place? I think your judgement is clouded and quite frankly f'in ridiculous.







:
Is this woman a parenting nightmare? If all the things (previous charges filed against her) that we've read about her are true, then yes, IMO she is a piece of sh*t and she should get in "trouble" for something, like a baby who tested positive for cocaine, an illegal substance. But alcohol is not illegal and shouldn't even come into the equation. The "law" has NO RIGHT to FORCE anyone to have unwanted surgery. Medical treatment should be a choice. Also, what about natural selection? You know, only the strong survive... had she had no medical intervention then maybe both her babies would have died and you wouldn't be posting about how it's "too bad she wasn't sterilized after her last child." Which again would have been unwanted medical intervention.
Although the birth mother won't be taking care of this new baby girl I'm going to venture a guess that the baby is already immensely loved and well cared for. Hell, maybe she was adopted by someone (as yourself) with enough gumption to nurse this baby.
-Lynn


----------



## OnTheFence (Feb 15, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by hotmamacita_
*IF what you read IS, in fact, true. I am angry and grieved for her child. And maybe this is why she felt it better that her children be at their grandparents house.

But I did read your post stating that you want to sterilize a human being and you hope she gets her uterus ripped out.

I am horrified, OTF. You have no idea what is true and what is not true here and yet you are so ready to have another woman's uterus ripped from her body. I am completely horrified. Sterilization? Oh, OTF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--off to Church. +++ I'll check back in tomorrow, mamas.*
I am not going to sit here and act like I think its okay for drug addicts and drunks to breed. And that is what she is doing. She is getting high and drinking and damaging other human beings. I dont think she should be allowed to have children. Sorry. But I do think people like this should be sterilized. She abused her first children, she abused her twins in utero. The baby girl is going to be damaged physically, developmentally and mentally for the rest of her life. Sorry but I dont think women who continue on this way should have children.

I dont think its harsh and evil, trust me its no worse than what the so called gentle mommas here are sending to my email or PM box these days.







:


----------



## dado (Dec 31, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by OnTheFence_
*
Too bad this woman was not sterilized after she had the last child.*
instead of wanting to help someone in dire need, you want to physically destroy them.










res ipsa loquitor.


----------



## Evergreen (Nov 6, 2002)

OTF, though I do not agree with everything you have said regarding this matter. I wanted to offer some support. You obviously care so much about the innocent children of this world (the ones who need advocates the most).

This situation is depressing and upsetting on so many levels. I do find myself hating this woman with great intensity despite not knowing anymore facts than what I have gathered through this thread.

I mentioned the slippery slope theory earlier on in this thread. I do not usually agree with this theory. FOr example, I do not think allowing homosexual marriage will lead to people being able to marry their dogs. I do, however think, that this case will set a standard for allowing forced ceserean births. OTF, you had two justified and nesc. c-births. I had one long yoni-birth. Had I been in a hospital they would have really pushed me to have one. I was at 2 cm for nearly 30 hours, that is considered 'failure to progress' it is a common reason to preform a ceserean. Now that this story is circulating, doctors, social workers, and the general public will have a preconceived notion that any woman who refused a ceserean birth is out to harm her child, whereas most mothers who refuse surgical births are actually advocating for the unborn.

I wish I could be as passionatly supportive as hotmamacita, but I can not. Though, I am saying in my head "innocent until proven guilty" my heart that loves my daughter with the intensity I am sure we all feel toward our innocent children is (to my dismay) screaming "fry her!"

If what I have read is true, I am saddened and shocked and disgusted. I can not imagine living her life and treating my children (both living and yet unborn as she has). The first issue here though, is can someone be proscecuted for refusing cesearen. The answer should be NO. Lets not let the horrible things this woman has done cloud our perceptions of the real issue here.


----------



## dado (Dec 31, 2002)

anybody know the source of this quote?

Quote:

_Whereas the hereditarily healthy families have for the most part adopted a policy of having only one or two children, countless numbers of inferiors and those suffering from hereditary conditions are reproducing unrestrainedly while their sick and asocial offspring burden the community._
grounds for action included, schizophrenia, epilepsy and the catch-all "feeblemindedness". a diagnose from one accredited doctor was enough to carry through the procedure. before this policy, America was the world leader in forced sterilization. looks like some are looking for us to come full circle.


----------



## OnTheFence (Feb 15, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Unreal_
*otf--
and what if that is done to her
and she goes to rehab and gets cleaned up
and is a productive member of society
and wants to have kids

and can't

because 'We The People' (hahaha) had "her tubes tied or her uterus ripped out" without her consent










edit cause I was chasing a kid and typing....*
The likely hood if this happening is slim to none. I spend a lot of time reading, researching this very issue. Due to her history, supposed diagnosis, etc. she is unlikely to possess the skills to be a good mother. She doesnt have a conscience in my opinion. She abused her other children, then went on to get pregnant, and do drugs and drink, and ignore medical advice that could have saved her other child.
If she wants to be a productive member of society later, than great, but I dont think she should have children. EVER AGAIN. I think three times you are out. You beat kids -- you dont get to keep them. Fill your body with drugs and alcohol while pregnant that are not only lethal to the unborn but causes permanent brain damamage and physical damage for the rest of their life -- well you shouldnt have any more kids. EVER AGAIN.
Past behavior predicts future behavior.
I have talked to women like her, I have dealt with women like her -- they do not need to be having children, over and over again. If they do not abuse in one area, the abuse in another. I'm not going to apolgize for caring more about the offspring of these women than the women themselves. I am parenting one of these children from someone who was reckless and irresponsible with their unborn child with full knowledge it was damaging.
I really dont care if she wants to have kids later and is clean, she has had four children, one dead, one damaged for life due to drugs and alcohol, and two others that were abused, one beaten in the face -- sorry but she had her chance at mothering and she blew it. If she wants to take care of something later on-- grow a garden or have some houseplants. If she can take care of that without killing it off maybe she can graduate to a pet.

I will say this, if their is a fund collected to pay her to consent to being sterilized, I will contribute.


----------



## OnTheFence (Feb 15, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by dado_
*instead of wanting to help someone in dire need, you want to physically destroy them.










res ipsa loquitor.*

So you want her to continue to physically destroy other human beings?

Do any of you care that she did permanent damage to her child's brain with drugs and alcohol? That she altered their physical developmental, possibly even the structure of her face, her hearing and eyesight? Or that she will suffer from learning disability and might even be mentally retarded? Does anyone care that she physically destroyed her children? It sure doenst seem that way!


----------



## dado (Dec 31, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by OnTheFence_
*So you want her to continue to physically destroy other human beings?
*
you keep posting statements like that even though NOBODY has said any such thing. it really makes me wonder if you're thinking about what is being posted or even reading it all.

this woman needs help, badly, to reduce the chances of this happening again. she is not the only woman like this in our society: they ALL need help, badly. if you genuinely want to sterilize mentally ill people instead of dealing with the root problem, let's call it for what it is: a policy recycled from the third reich.


----------



## Unreal (Dec 15, 2002)

But there are THOUSANDS of women doing the very same thing right now.

Should we get out the paddy wagons, round them all up, and mass sterilize them?

And what about women smoking cigarettes?
Drinking beer? A glass of wine? A sip of champagne?

What about women working a job that exposes them to toxic chemicals?

What about women who take medication while pregnant?

What about women desperarely trying to break the cycle of abuse, but having bad moments?

What about women just having bad moments because sometimes life isn't nice?

Or should we just target the mentally ill that do these things?

Why not HELP women instead of destroy them?


----------



## OnTheFence (Feb 15, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by dado_
*anybody know the source of this quote?

grounds for action included, schizophrenia, epilepsy and the catch-all "feeblemindedness". a diagnose from one accredited doctor was enough to carry through the procedure. before this policy, America was the world leader in forced sterilization. looks like some are looking for us to come full circle.*
Maybe you see me that way, thats okay. It is not an accurate description of how I feel. I do however think that if you repeatedly have children you abuse, mame, or deform due to whatever reason -- than your right to be a parent and reproduce should be taken away. I'm not talking a one time you fry -- this women repeatedly damaged children.

Do you think its acceptable for Crack addicts to be having crack addicted babies every year? Yes it happens. And then these children grow up -- and they have bad problems, hurt our children, themselves, damage property, repeat the cycle. Have you ever held a crack baby? Have you ever met a foster mother, who has a sibling group of nothing but drug effected children because the mother kept having them? Do you know how much money it costs taxpayers to detox a baby and support them for 18 years or longer? That these children have parts of their brains damaged that often inhibit them from making right and wrong decisions. What do you think the solution is? Drug education-- doest work. Birth Control -- not used or ineffective due to drug abuse. Incarceration?


----------



## OnTheFence (Feb 15, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by dado_
*you keep posting statements like that even though NOBODY has said any such thing. it really makes me wonder if you're thinking about what is being posted or even reading it all.

this woman needs help, badly, to reduce the chances of this happening again. she is not the only woman like this in our society: they ALL need help, badly. if you genuinely want to sterilize mentally ill people instead of dealing with the root problem, let's call it for what it is: a policy recycled from the third reich.*
I dont want her to be sterilized because she is mentally ill. I want her sterilized because she repeatedly abused children and damamged her children due to illicit drug abuse.


----------



## Peppamint (Oct 19, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by OnTheFence_
*While some of you feel more pity for her, I become even stronger in my stance.

Too bad this woman was not sterilized after she had the last child. Abortion would have been better in this pregnancy.*
Omg! I am







here. Better to kill both babies, eh? That baby will probably be adopted to a loving couple who is unable to have babies themselves. Let's kill all unwanted and uncared for babies instead of allowing the childless to have children.









And I ask you this: who is going to decide what is right and wrong during pregnancy. Does not the FDA say that artificial sweeteners are okay during pregnancy despite studies that show it may not be? Who says that government officials can't be bought?

What happens when it's decided that you can't be veggie or vegan while preggers? You can't have a homebirth or waterbirth? You can't give birth in any way but the lithomy/episiotomy position or a c/s?

Do we allow regular visitation by the government into our homes to make sure we're raising our children properly and be "allowed" to keep them?

Where do we draw the line people?







: Not everyone on earth has my best interests or those of my precious children in mind!


----------



## dado (Dec 31, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by OnTheFence_
*I dont want her to be sterilized because she is mentally ill. I want her sterilized because she repeatedly abused children and damamged her children due to illicit drug abuse.*
drug abuse and mental illness are closely related. there is no way to dress this up pretty: what you are advocating is a return to a policy first put into widespread effect by Nazi Germany.


----------



## Peppamint (Oct 19, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by dado_
*drug abuse and mental illness are closely related. there is no way to dress this up pretty: what you are advocating is a return to a policy first put into widespread effect by Nazi Germany.*
Well said, thank you.


----------



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

The evidence of drug abuse is VERY thin. Anyone here who had a C-section would have tested positive for narcotics and so would their baby! That's what THEY GIVE YOU!!!! Without better evidence of prolonged exposure to narcotics that whole line of reasoning is pointless. Besides... the way the DA is talking she isn't being charged with murder for using drugs, but because she allegedly refused the surgery. But that's okay... just keep throwing your own personal issues on her to muddy the water.


----------



## saintmom (Aug 19, 2003)

I'm not going to sit in judgment of this woman,it's all so very sad.I will ask what kind of society we live in that allows so many people to fall through the cracks with disastrous resaults like these. At least years ago people were institutionalised,then it was decided that institutions were bad,so they closed the institutions leaving the most vulnerable among us without help.so I'm asking what kind of a society are we?,and if we don't like what we see,how do we change?


----------



## Plaid (Apr 18, 2002)

I've been following this thread only off & on and haven't had the time to read every post, so excuse me if this has been brought up already:

What about the father? I think any man having unprotected sex with a mentally unstable woman should be considered at least as guilty as she is. More so, if he is mentally competent. She may not be able to make sane choices, but couldn't he? And he admitted to smoking pot with her! As a society, I believe it is our obligation to take care of the mentally ill, especially when other lives are at stake. If he hadn't impregnated her none of this would be an issue.


----------



## Peppamint (Oct 19, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by kama'aina mama_
*The evidence of drug abuse is VERY thin. Anyone here who had a C-section would have tested positive for narcotics and so would their baby! That's what THEY GIVE YOU!!!! Without better evidence of prolonged exposure to narcotics that whole line of reasoning is pointless. Besides... the way the DA is talking she isn't being charged with murder for using drugs, but because she allegedly refused the surgery. But that's okay... just keep throwing your own personal issues on her to muddy the water.*
HOW can that be fair? Abortion is legal. She could have had an abortion and it would have been legal. But, she is being charged with murder because she refused major abdominal surgery!







: I really don't get it.

So maybe she does have mental problems, but it boils down to our rights. Does the government get to determine what we eat and what kind of care we receive when pregnant? Do they decide when to put our lives at risk to "save" a baby when they can't know the outcome? So when did they become gods?


----------



## Peppamint (Oct 19, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Plaid_
*I've been following this thread only off & on and haven't had the time to read every post, so excuse me if this has been brought up already:

What about the father? I think any man having unprotected sex with a mentally unstable woman should be considered at least as guilty as she is. More so, if he is mentally competent. She may not be able to make sane choices, but couldn't he? And he admitted to smoking pot with her! As a society, I believe it is our obligation to take care of the mentally ill, especially when other lives are at stake. If he hadn't impregnated her none of this would be an issue.*
I thought the fathers didn't have any legal say? Does a woman have to have the man's permission to get an abortion?


----------



## melixxa (May 20, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by djs_girl517_
*Unfortunately, you can't have it both ways. Once you start allowing the government (lawyers and politicians) tocontrol some aspects of some people's lives, you open the door to allowing them to control that aspect of your life as well. Either the mother's rights come first, or the unborn child's, but it MUST be the same in every case. Not one way or the other depending on whether you think the mother made a good or bad choice.*
Yes, djs_girl! This, to my mind, is the crux of this case.

My heart goes out to the surviving girl child and I too wish there were some way to protect unborn children at risk without frittering away at *our* rights and someday essentially hog-tying us in every step and decision. Some of the eloquently formulated posts on earlier pages in this thread have said it all: And no, I don't think these dystopian scenarios reminiscent of "The Handmaid's Tale" are that far off the mark, as in "it couldn't happen here!" Unfortunately, I think this is the direction the U.S. is headed in: paring down individual rights - I mean, the right to refuse major surgery is up there at the top of the list of personal freedoms I value - and giving the state (the government, the "authorities," the "experts," the Man, you name it) greater power over us, our bodies, our lives, our futures.

(I mean, if my baby had died, could I have been arrested for insisting on a homebirth, for not vaxing, for gaining 50 lbs. while pregnant, for continuing to follow my vegetarian diet, for having smoked that single cigarette I smoked after I found out I was pregnant, for drinking a few sips of port or wine at night before bed in my second and third trimesters, for not exercising every single day, for not getting amnio although I was 38, for leaving an established OBGYN practice to work with a DEM - in short, for either a) making decisions that don't gel with mainstream attitudes, or b) not being perfect?)

This case breaks my heart, I am both appalled by and feeling compassion for Melissa Ann, I mourn that poor baby boy, ... and I am deeply worried. Worried that this case, and probably others like it, can and will be used to divest me of my rights - of OUR rights. The phrases "dangerous precedent" and "slippery slope" keep going through my mind, and I see the same in many, many posts here.

Sometimes I wonder if this isn't a bad scenario for which there is no solution. I think that enforced sterilization or court-ordered birth control is wrong. I also believe that forcing someone ill to take their meds or get medical treatment is wrong. I also believe that doing egregious things to harm your unborn child is wrong. I believe that taking away a woman's rights over her own body, her own self, is wrong. I cannot reconcile these things in my mind. They cannot be reconciled. And so I believe (unless laws are passed permitting, say, enforced lockdown of pregnant women addicted to drugs or otherwise flouting medical/societal conventions) that cases like this will come up again and again.

That sucks. It's horrific, tragic. But I see no universal "solution" that will do other than further diminish women's rights - our rights to decide about our own bodies in general, and specifically our right to decide how and where and when we want to birth. Melissa Ann may have made all the wrong choices (willfully, or unwillingly as a result of her illness), but I do not want that to affect the choices I make (am allowed to make) in future.


----------



## dado (Dec 31, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by busybusymomma_
*Does a woman have to have the man's permission to get an abortion?*
i read the issue as more along the lines of why does yet another male not have to take responsibility for where and how he dips his wick...

why does all this stuff always have to land on the _women_?


----------



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

Well, like it or not reproduction happens inside _our bodies_. You can talk fairness and equality til the cows come home, but when push comes to shove the buck stops here. (Could I have squeezed another folksy into that one sentence? I don't think so...) Reproduction simply by the nature of it comes down to a woman's responsibility, therefore it must be her right.

The ironic thing about all these cries to have this woman sterilized (or "her uterus ripped out", such a lovely turn of phrase...) is that it is a virtual certainty that had she pursued sterilization exactly a year ago she would have been denied. Most docs will not sterilize a woman who is under 35 or has had fewer than 3 or 4 children. Big Brother is all over this.


----------



## OnTheFence (Feb 15, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by busybusymomma_
*Omg! I am







here. Better to kill both babies, eh? That baby will probably be adopted to a loving couple who is unable to have babies themselves. Let's kill all unwanted and uncared for babies instead of allowing the childless to have children.









*
HELLO??? I am an adoptive mother to one of these babies. Luckily my son's birthmother didnt do crack. You also dont know what kind of home this child is going too. I hope she is going to a loving home but she may very well be going to people who are not equippd to care for this child down the road. You have no idea what this child may live with or live through. Not only will she have disabilities from drug and alcohol effects, adoption issues, but now her birthmothers history all over the media.
I wish the world was peachy but its not.


----------



## OnTheFence (Feb 15, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by kama'aina mama_
*The evidence of drug abuse is VERY thin. Anyone here who had a C-section would have tested positive for narcotics and so would their baby! That's what THEY GIVE YOU!!!! Without better evidence of prolonged exposure to narcotics that whole line of reasoning is pointless. Besides... the way the DA is talking she isn't being charged with murder for using drugs, but because she allegedly refused the surgery. But that's okay... just keep throwing your own personal issues on her to muddy the water.*
I would not have tested positive for narcotics. Nope not at all, especially my last one, I had NONE. You sure dont know much about hospital drug screenings. Or on infants.


----------



## OnTheFence (Feb 15, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Plaid_
*I've been following this thread only off & on and haven't had the time to read every post, so excuse me if this has been brought up already:

What about the father? I think any man having unprotected sex with a mentally unstable woman should be considered at least as guilty as she is. More so, if he is mentally competent. She may not be able to make sane choices, but couldn't he? And he admitted to smoking pot with her! As a society, I believe it is our obligation to take care of the mentally ill, especially when other lives are at stake. If he hadn't impregnated her none of this would be an issue.*
I agree. I wonder where this guy is. Wonder if he sniffing lines with her and drinking booze. He already admits to smoking joints with her. I do think some responsibility lies with him.
Also this woman has been treated for mental illness, and even hospitalized. She can refuse treatment, she is an adult. So then what? Force her on meds? Force her in a home?


----------



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

Quote:

_Originally posted by OnTheFence_
*I would not have tested positive for narcotics. Nope not at all, especially my last one, I had NONE. You sure dont know much about hospital drug screenings. Or on infants.*
So what did they give you? Most women recieve something from either the cocaine family or the opiate family. If you did not you are the exception, not the rule. But that's okay, because obvously what is happening to this woman in Utah is all about you anyway. I know a fair bit about the kinds of tests that give quick results... and many of them are broad enough to give a false positive for a wide variety of reasons. If they had the results in time to arrest her about 24 hours after her section those are the tests they used.


----------



## Pynki (Aug 19, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by OnTheFence_
*HELLO??? I am an adoptive mother to one of these babies. Luckily my son's birthmother didnt do crack. You also dont know what kind of home this child is going too. I hope she is going to a loving home but she may very well be going to people who are not equippd to care for this child down the road. You have no idea what this child may live with or live through. Not only will she have disabilities from drug and alcohol effects, adoption issues, but now her birthmothers history all over the media.
I wish the world was peachy but its not.*
And you do not know as an absolute that this child IS going to be damaged...

There are mothers on this board who have smoked a little pot while pg.. Their children are fine.. I have a friend who smokes through her entire pregnancy, and while she has low birth weight babies.. They too are ok.. I have a drink while pregnant.. More than one, but never more than 1 a week per my OB's instructions.. Should I not be allowed to procreate?? Should anyone else be able to say.. I should not be able to bear children..

My SIL got pg by a boy who has 4 other children.. Got an STD and delivered that child at 26 weeks gestationally.. He was in NICU for 3 months.. He is a joy of a child.. She got pg while her son was in the NICU and now has a daughter.. Both children have been taken away by the state.. She is an unfit mother, but should her right to reproduce be taken from her?? No.. Why?? Because someday she MAY grow up..

We do NOT get to choose this for someone else lest someone gets to choose it for us..

THIS CASE IS ABOUT A WOMAN WHO REFUSED A MEDICAL PROCEDURE!!! It is not about anything else.. That is all they have on her.. It is NOT against the law to get caught with drugs in your system... It is NOT against the law to drink.. Is it morally right.. NO.. Is it a crime against humanity.. Probably... Is she guilty of Murder.. No..

Warm Squishy Feelings..

Dyan


----------



## OnTheFence (Feb 15, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by kama'aina mama_
*Well, like it or not reproduction happens inside our bodies. You can talk fairness and equality til the cows come home, but when push comes to shove the buck stops here. (Could I have squeezed another folksy into that one sentence? I don't think so...) Reproduction simply by the nature of it comes down to a woman's responsibility, therefore it must be her right.

The ironic thing about all these cries to have this woman sterilized (or "her uterus ripped out", such a lovely turn of phrase...) is that it is a virtual certainty that had she pursued sterilization exactly a year ago she would have been denied. Most docs will not sterilize a woman who is under 35 or has had fewer than 3 or 4 children. Big Brother is all over this.*
Actually you are wrong. Its 2 children and over 21. That is the guideline I have read over and over again. Also many doctors who see indiginant patients, readily sterilize them, at least here they do. She had two children and over 21, she could have consented to having her tubes tied. This would not have been an issue, women's choices wouldnt be an issue,there would be no dead baby , and one baby with more problems than you can ever imagine in her future. MR wouldnt be sitting in jail, she could be at home drinking beer and getting high and no one would even know who she is. BUT she was irresponsible, so was her lover, and they are responsible for a huge mess.


----------



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

Quote:

_Originally posted by OnTheFence_
*I would not have tested positive for narcotics. Nope not at all, especially my last one, I had NONE. You sure dont know much about hospital drug screenings. Or on infants.*
Wow... you are quite certain and really condescending. What all drugs did they give you? And did they do a drug test on you and your baby? have you reviewed your records?


----------



## Irishmommy (Nov 19, 2001)

OntheFence, can you please clear out your pm box, I've been trying to pm you and can't.


----------



## OnTheFence (Feb 15, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by kama'aina mama_
Not sure why you quoted that and said nothing. So I want to make it clear to you. I had no pre-op drugs. I had an epidural with no narcotics or any other mild altering drugs whatsoever. I had ephedrine for low BP and that was it.

During the adoption process, I was able to go to several seminars about toxicology and read varying things about drug testing for mothers and babies. Cocaine, crack, meth, and heroine are distinguishable -- its not like having 50mg of demerol during surgery or phenegran for nausea. (standard with csections I might add)


----------



## OnTheFence (Feb 15, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by kama'aina mama_
*Wow... you are quite certain and really condescending. What all drugs did they give you? And did they do a drug test on you and your baby? have you reviewed your records?*
Yes I have reviewed my records. I had a planned csec for my last birth. I had an epidural with no pre-op or post op drugs at all. NOTHING. I was not tied to a table and I was fully aware of everything.
My first csection I had an epidural, given 250mg demerol over the course of 1hour and 30 mintues, phenegran, zofran, and verset. I also had an antibiotic and a PCAP pump.
Not only did I review my records, I have a copy of them for both my births.
Also my middle child was adopted and he and his birthmother were both tested for drugs per our adoptoin agreement. She had a spinal block with a PCAP with morphine. She also had phenegran and zofran for nausea. Antibiotics and drugs for eclampsia. She tested negative for all illicit drugs, as did Dylan.


----------



## OnTheFence (Feb 15, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by kama'aina mama_
*So what did they give you? Most women recieve something from either the cocaine family or the opiate family. If you did not you are the exception, not the rule. But that's okay, because obvously what is happening to this woman in Utah is all about you anyway. I know a fair bit about the kinds of tests that give quick results... and many of them are broad enough to give a false positive for a wide variety of reasons. If they had the results in time to arrest her about 24 hours after her section those are the tests they used.*
Really? Why dont you tell me what drugs they use? I've done a lot of research in this area to prepare for my last csection. What do you think they give you that would make a woman test positive for coke? or say meth?


----------



## OnTheFence (Feb 15, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Irishmommy_
*OntheFence, can you please clear out your pm box, I've been trying to pm you and can't.*
My PM box is not full. There are only a few messages there.


----------



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

My computer hiccuped.

Demerol is a narcotic. It is an opiate. If they given you a urine test after that it is highly likely that the initial result would be positive for opiates. Subsequent tests would have clarified.

What was in the epidural you got the second time?

You have mentioned antibiotics as routine... are you aware that some antibiotics can cause a positive cocaine test? Most notably amoxocylin.


----------



## Pynki (Aug 19, 2002)

I was given morphine in my pump after my c/s delivery.. It made my nose itch something fierce.. Which i hear is a common side effect.. I had over the top pain with my c/s and hope to never have one again.. I take a lot of pain meds to relieve even moderate pain..

I imagine morphine would make a dirty narc test for me if they had done one..

Warmly
Dyan


----------



## its_our_family (Sep 8, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Pynki_
*
THIS CASE IS ABOUT A WOMAN WHO REFUSED A MEDICAL PROCEDURE!!! It is not about anything else.. That is all they have on her.. It is NOT against the law to get caught with drugs in your system... It is NOT against the law to drink.. Is it morally right.. NO.. Is it a crime against humanity.. Probably... Is she guilty of Murder.. No..
*
I agree... most of us have made a bad choice or two. Why did they suggest a c/b anyway? I'm not to clear on this part but I've only heard the news and read one article. If you think about it what is the differfence in a women refusing induction and having her baby die or a women going "post-dates" against the advice of her ob or mw with the same end result.. There isn't.

The only reason this is in the news is because it is c/b related. If it were just some women that smoked her baby to death we'd never hear about it.


----------



## Unreal (Dec 15, 2002)

not to change topics or anything

but I don't see this line of discussion going anywhere fast.

I'm sure there are lots of moms who don't receive narcotics and just as many that do...

we don't know wrt Melissa.
And it still doesn't matter.

She is in jail for murder.
The doctors that let her leave the hospital without a psych consult aren't.
The father isn't.
Just her.

and any one of us could be next time we don't consent to whatever an sOB thinks is best


----------



## Plaid (Apr 18, 2002)

Quote:

i read the issue as more along the lines of why does yet another male not have to take responsibility for where and how he dips his wick...
Yeah, that's what I was thinking. More along the lines of a moral issue than a legal one. The person able to make a responsible decision should be accountable.


----------



## hotmamacita (Sep 25, 2002)

I removed what I originally wrote except what is below b/c I thought about it and decided that I didn't want to get into it right now. I need to take time off from this thread for the day. And like I said earlier, but didn't DO :LOL , I'll check back in tomorrow.

--- OTF, if you are getting threatening PM's and e-mails, I think you should copy them to a mod.


----------



## hotmamacita (Sep 25, 2002)

whoops.


----------



## frolick16 (Feb 10, 2004)

I clipped an article about a lady court ordered to have a c-section after her doctor deemed the babe too big to deliver vaginally...she defied the order and went to a different hospital SAFELY delivered a 13!!!??? lb baby and now is being held in contempt of court...our bodies our choices and being responsible with those decisions...if the outcome of this story would have ended in shoulder dystocia or some other problem would the lady then sue over not being FORCED to deliver c-section....or do we know our bodies well enough to not have to listen to a doctor tell us what we cant do, what would Ina May say???


----------



## lollaleeloo (Jan 29, 2003)

Nobody's nominating Melissa Rowland for Mother of the Year, but I think it's worth mentioning that c-sections carry from 3 to 7 times the risk of maternal death than non-surgical births. The stat c-section Rowland declined (or fled) has up to 16 times the risk of maternal death. Here is an excerpt from the consent form I signed 6 yrs ago highlighting the risks of c-section and I'm assuming hers was similar:

Quote:

Bleeding, infection, injury to uterus, tube, ovaries, bowel, bladder, nerves, blood vessels, _*injury to baby*, need for further procedure such as hysterectomy._

I have also been informed and understand that in the performance of any surgical procedure and in the administration of an anesthetic or sedation/analgesia there are other risks such as severe blood loss, infection, drug reaction, slowing or stopping of breathing, failure of the anesthetic or sedation/analgesia, cardiac arrest, _and even death._ Knowing these risks, I consent to the use of any anesthetic or sedation/analgesia, deemed appropriate by my physicians.

*I also have been informed and understand that the practice of medicine, surgery and dentistry is not an exact science and acknowledge that no guarantees or promises have been or can be made to me concerning the results of the procedures performed.*
Gee. To think she hesitated.

Any woman undergoing a cesarean section to give birth risks her life, which is exactly what Melissa Rowland ultimately chose to do when she delivered her surviving twin daughter and her stillborn son via major abdominal surgery. It was her *3rd c-section* btw, because they're so much fun. Really. Just ask anyone who's had one.

This isn't the slippery slope; this is the thing that lies at the bottom of it. A prosecutor has determined that the life & health of an unborn infant is worth more than that of the pregnant woman who carries him, and so charges the mother of a stillborn infant with _murder_ for daring to disagree with his assessment of her relative worthlessness. Meanwhile, a father cannot legally be compelled to give so much as a drop of blood to save his child, or any child, born or unborn. A coroner -- who cannot even determine what the baby died of, much less the moment death occurred -- nevertheless asserts that a c-section performed at some unspecified earlier point in time would have saved his life, something even the surgeons who ultimately performed the surgery didn't dare claim. As a matter of fact, the same doctors assuring Rowland that her baby would die without her undergoing the surgery, offered no similar assurance that the baby would even _survive_ the surgery, much less be saved by it. Yet they would have her imprisoned for postponing it (because she ultimately went through with it), and with that, effectively rendered her right to a second opinion (or in this case, third opinion) completely null and void.

Make no mistake; it's no accident they chose a case like Rowland's to run up the flag pole. It's my turn to say it: They are starting with the mamas that no one will stand up for; then they will come for the rest of us. Or does anyone else still believe they wouldn't prosecute a pregnant woman for not wearing her seatbelt? For living with a smoker? For not quitting a physically demanding job? For not getting enough folic in her diet, or eating too much tuna? For gaining too much weight, or gaining too little? For refusing an ultrasound? Amniocentesis? Internal fetal monitoring? Watch and learn, parents. You better take the first words out of your doctor's mouth as gospel, hurry up and consent to whatever treatment he says, no questions asked, and pray that he's not making a mistake. Because if anything happens to your child while you're researching advice, confirming diagnoses, verifying test results, getting a second opinion -- in short, exercising your right to *informed consent* -- it'll be _you_ facing criminal charges; _his_ mistake will be covered by insurance.


----------



## Tanibani (Nov 8, 2002)

Letters of Support for Regina McKnight

To support her, contact NAPW: [email protected]

Background on McKnight Case

Media Awareness Project - other articles, links


----------



## Katana (Nov 16, 2002)

I have an adopted second cousin who was born addicted to crack. The mother also drank. He is now in his early 20's.

Yes, raising him has been incredibly hard on his parents. They were not prepared to deal with things like hyperactivity, the inability to concentrate, the inability to finish things, lack of conscience at times, and other wild behavior. There were no classes or really any kind of instruction about this type of thing in the late '70's. They winged it.

But bless them for trying. They have raised him with love and care, and really, that's all any of us can hope for. He is a contributing member to society, he has a job, he has responsibilities. He's still a person.

My sister's best friend was born at 29 weeks to a crack addict and is severely physically handicapped. But she has an amazing brain and an amazing spirit, and she was blessed to be adopted by people who had nothing but love for her. Her adopted mother is truly an angel on earth, and very active in trying to match up damaged babies with parents who are happy to have them.

I believe there are people out there who are ready and willing to parent any kind of baby. Hopefully the surviving twin will be given to a family ready to deal with any type of challenge, whether it presents itself or not. Mostly, I just hope that she will be loved.


----------



## Penalt (Jan 28, 2004)

Okay, I know I'm taking the minority opinion here and *this is not an attempt to start a flame war or trolling but* I do think that the woman should be charged with something. Not murder.

Involuntary manslaughter maybe.

As to the docs. Lets face it, the doctors are not wrong _all_ the time. They do learn _some_ things in the roughly 8-10 years of schooling. This woman made a choice which went against the opinion of a doctor. You make your choices in this life and you live with the consequences.

That mother made a choice. Her choice resulted in the death of one of her unborn children. I do agree that her choice may have been a Hobson's Choice for her, but she did make a choice. Now she has to accept the consequences of that action. One of those consequences is that the authorities intend to hold her criminally responsible.

FWIW, my DL agrees with the majority here and with her being 15 weeks







you know we are talking about this a lot.


----------



## Tanibani (Nov 8, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Penalt_
*As to the docs. Lets face it, the doctors are not wrong all the time. They do learn some things in the roughly 8-10 years of schooling. This woman made a choice which went against the opinion of a doctor. You make your choices in this life and you live with the consequences.*
Dammit, I can't find the link right now. I just read a short blurb about a case... probably on *National Advocates for Pregnant Women* website, the where there woman was ordered by the court to have a Csec. She refused, went somewhere else, delivered a healthy, 13lb baby vaginally and was THEN was held in contempt of court.























Is that the type of consequences new mothers should face? We don't have the right to questions doctors orders???? Or refuse surgery/treatments? Sorry, I don't buy that. I also don't buy that doctors KNOW EVERYTHING.

Regina is already suffering. One baby is dead the other is going to be adopted. Her life looks like it is a mess. She is already suffering the consequences of her actions.

A couple of months ago, the parents of a 7 yr old boy ? in Utah? were told that his son had cancer and needed treatment IMMEDIATELY. The parents were like, OK, let's get a second opinion. THe doctors went RIGHT TO THE COURTS to force the kid to have chemo. The mother took her son underground (for fear of being arrested.) She was interviewed on Good Morning America.







It turned out her son was really OK, and she was just opposed to the rapid rush to get him chemo, without considering another doc, option, whatever.

Have you heard of this story?Jennifer Rufer's story - ABC news

Last year, Jennifer Rufer, age 27, went through aggressive chemotherapy and had a hysterectomy after she was diagnosed with a rare form of cancer. Later, her oncologist told her she had been mistakenly diagnosed!!!!!!!!!!







She and her husband David were awarded $16 million in damages. (Gee thanks.) "It doesn't take away the fact that I'll never have a family. It doesn't make me feel any better about the fact that I'll never feel a baby inside me. It doesn't make the hurt go away."

It's really a big mistake to just accept everything the doctor tells you and without question.


----------



## Mamid (Nov 7, 2002)

The problem with forced treatment on pregnant women is that those who have problems - medical, social or otherwise - who are and have been marginalized by society for generations will have to go into hiding in order to have their children. So instead of coming out for help when they really need it, they and their unborn will have had no medical care and no help. More women and their babies will die.

Cases like this murder case and others where mom is charged with child abuse, neglect, murder etc while the child is in utero, and a court ordered cesearean threatened should she dare step into the same hospital have undermined our health and freedom. Forcing her to get treatment for drug abuse (or anything else) while pregnant because "its for the baby's health" destroys her sanctity. Her unborn child suddenly has more rights than she does and she becomes nothing more than an incubator where the state gets to chose the treatment, birth, and whether or not she will get to raise her children.

At least in Canada, here until a baby is born and is seperate from its mother, the mother's rights still superceede. Although they have tried to force the issue. The "G" case in Manitoba a few years ago. Until the baby is seperate from the mother and breathing on its own, it is not legally a person.

Unfortunately, with the way the court cases are going in the states, once pregnant, women are no longer persons. Only their fetuses are. Only the rights of the fetus are taking into account.

And, within a decade, Canada will start to follow the same trend.


----------



## lena g (Mar 15, 2004)

I am sorry that I have not read all of your posts, but rather skimmed. A friend who posts here often said this forum was discussing really interesting aspects to this case.

I want to through this in, I lost my daughter Mia at 34 5/7 weeks of one of the hardest pregnancies of record at my OB's pratice. They induced and delivered my so, Max, vaginally since he was twin A and head down.

I can tell you all this having birthed twins and having lost one to a "cord accident". Twins are high risk and for that reason you see a doctor every other week with monthly ultrasounds. They tell you from day one that rarely are twins delivered vaginally but in all cases they prefer to deliver vaginally. The number of tests and appointments you have is staggering. As I read the articles, the doctors saw that one twin was in distress, probably twin to twin transfusion as that is what shows over time. If it were a lowered heartrate or a cord twist, they would not have given her weeks to make the decision. Therefore she knew that the twin was in distress and chose to not save its life.

While I agree, that this case sets a dangerous precedent, I find it hard to believe based on my own love for my children that a mother would chose her own over her child's life. Frankly, I thought nothing of being bedridden for my entire pregnancy to give my twins the best chance of survival.

As I read the articles, they claim she was jailed also for endangering the surviving twin. That being given, I agree she should have been sterilized when she delivered, she appears to not be mentally competent. And it is likely she will get pregnant again.

While I agree with much of what is said on this post, let us not forget, that she let a child in her womb die. No matter what the reason. And frankly, then she should have terminated the pregnancy. I promise you the list of dangerous possibilities from having multiples is given to you on day one, and reinforced at every single appointment, there is no way she was not aware of the chance of a c-section.

I think unless you have had a stillborn, or a multiple loss, or the resulting complications that might have left you sterile, the case, while interesting, and indeed groundbreaking, in its legal precedents might not hit home on the same level. A woman who would do this is not of sound mind, and should be in a mental institution, or if she is sane, then she should be in jail.

If she did not want to face the risks, then she should not have proceeded with a multiple pregnancy.


----------



## lena g (Mar 15, 2004)

"If I smoked, and I had just lost a baby, I might light up after the fact. Remember, people with addictions have them because they don't have the resources to cope with trauma in their life. They don't physicaly have the wherewithall to cope with terrible things."

Again, sorry to join so late and have so much to say, but I know over 150 women who were in just that situation. They live around the world, and are from all walks of life. Not ONE of them went out and smoked, drank, drugged. Many lay in hospital beds for months with monitors on, giving up the rest of their lives to ensure that their surviving multiples made it.

Murder it is, and child endangerment it is!

By the way, my mother has spent decades working with recovering addicts and so I do think it is a disease, but in this case, my mothering instinct says she should go to jail.


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

Quote:

As to the docs. Lets face it, the doctors are not wrong all the time. They do learn some things in the roughly 8-10 years of schooling.
Unfortunately, normal natural childbirth is not one of them. Obstetricians are basically practicing midwifery without a license.


----------



## oncewerewise (Feb 14, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by lena g_ *I agree she should have been sterilized when she delivered*
I'm sorry but WHAT?!?!?

Who has the right to decide who should be allowed to procreate and who isn't?

I am against women doing drugs while pregnant. However, I did have a beer during both of my pregnancies. Does that mean that if I had (goddessforbid) been in the states when I went into labour and the doctor recommended a C-Section and I refused and (goddessforbid) something happened to my baby that I could be sitting in jail on a life sentence for murder right now???

That's so wrong for so many reasons and I'm surprised that any woman thinks that it is a good idea. Anyone who thinks that there's enough resources for all the people that need help is sadly mistaken.

Question: I've read what I can find on this case but NOWHERE does it mention induction, just C-Sections. Was the woman in question told that she needed to deliver or that a C/S was her only option?

Also, with my youngest, I was supposed to have a homebirth but went to the hosptial because of bleeding at 41 weeks that was bright red and plentiful and my MW was an hour away. The nurses told me to go home. I insisted on seeing a doctor before I left. He sent me for an U/S in the morning which showed a tear and induced me. If I had listened to the nurses, my dd might not be here today. Would they be liable? No. If I had left, should I be liable? NO!

Women who are pregnant have hard choices to make. For the lucky ones, they don't seem hard because the love they feel for their child/ren is strong enough to make the choices seem easy.

What about mothers of multiples who elect to selectively terminate?

I think what bothers me the most is that 'THE STATE' picks and chooses what choices are free to make. I think 'THE STATE' should first of all SUPPORT choices ~~ single parenthood, education, rehabilitation, pregnancy supports, informed medical care and alternatives before even THINKING about restricting choices.

Some may think there's a difference between this woman sitting in jail and another woman who opts out of a C/S because she believes in natural childbirth, but there's not really. Especially when the next woman (like the one in the link whose doctor said her baby was too large to birth naturally even though she had birthed 6 others, some of whom were larger) who opts out of a C/S and is unfortunate enough to have their baby not make it, is charged with murder.


----------



## OnTheFence (Feb 15, 2003)

Lena, Thanks for sharing your thoughts and situation, and insight.
For me you are the voice of reason and sanity on this thread.

I am also sorry for your loss.

Kim


----------



## StarMama (Jun 25, 2002)

I agree with several other posters who are up in arms because of what this could lead to, if women are now going to be charged with murder for unborn children.

From what I've read (and I don't know if it is all true, but this is what my reactions are if it is) I do think that MR is a horribly sick person who has done VERY wrong things to herself and her children. (yes I do agree that there should have been programs to help her prior to all of this, and I do feel badly for her, especially thinking of what her childhood must have been like). I mentally go "Why in the HELL didn't she have the c-section when she went to THREE places and was told the same thing?!" My gut feeling is to punish her! A beautiful, innocent child is not alive today because of her choices that seem to make no sence.

But it sets a very dangerous precident! We can't let the law take over our bodies like this! We should be free to make our own medical choices for our own bodies! No one should be able to take that from us. If she goes down for not having surgery, who's next?

Quote:

"It's not just the conduct, it's the knowledge, the state of mind," he said
From the Salt Lake County prosecutor. HOW many average Americans would possibly say the same thing about someone wanting a homebirth? I know that the "oh that's DANGEROUS! What if something goes WRONG?!" though comes up, first and foremost, when you tell someone about the plans to homebirth if they don't understand. Or vaxing? I mean what "state of mind" and what "knowledge" to not "protect" your child from all these diseases?

And just as a little extra that has my scratching my head:

Quote:

"What we're trying to send is the message that someone has to stand up for a child who could have been alive," he said.
Ummmm then why is abortion ok? (coming from someone very anti-abortion, emotionally very pro-life, but still feeling like abortion can't be made illegal)


----------



## sadie_sabot (Dec 17, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by lena g_
*
I agree she should have been sterilized when she delivered*

















Quote:

_

I think unless you have had a stillborn, or a multiple loss, or the resulting complications that might have left you sterile, the case, while interesting, and indeed groundbreaking, in its legal precedents might not hit home on the same level.
[/B]_
_
_
_
Lena, my first child was stillborn. and I am horrified by the impications of her being charged with murder. My grief for my son and my emotional response to stories like this don't render my intellect and my commitment to women's control of our own bodies null._


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

I'm sure many of us here have had past or current issues with drugs or mental health problems. If we choose home birth or anything else the "normal people" tell us not to do, we may all be at risk even if our babies don't die.

There have been MDC members who deal with social services over unassisted or home births, and if they have a "past history" of something, they can be seen as not being in a position to make good decisions.


----------



## dado (Dec 31, 2002)

there is only one society in recorded history that had a policy of sterilizing mentally ill people. that was Nazi Germany. i have yet to hear anyone in support of sterilizing this disturbed woman say "yeah, Hitler got that one right".

anybody?


----------



## OnTheFence (Feb 15, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by dado_
*there is only one society in recorded history that had a policy of sterilizing mentally ill people. that was Nazi Germany. i have yet to hear anyone in support of sterilizing this disturbed woman say "yeah, Hitler got that one right".

anybody?*
Actually in the US they sterilized people who were mentally retarded or had mental illness. It just didnt happen in Nazi Germany.

I do not advocate selectively sterilizing women who are mentally ill or MR, what I want to see is policy or even payment to women to get sterilized if they abuse illicit drugs during pregnancy or have a history of child abuse. I wish it could be done for alcohol too but since its a legal substance, you can ingest all of it you want and permamently damage her fetus.

Also, the reason I support manslaughter in this case is because these unborn children were viable. We are not talking about a proceedure at 14 weeks or 10 weeks or even 26 weeks. We are talking about viable unborn human beings. Also the fact she got the same advice all three times doesnt leave me to believe the medical establishment was wrong. I dont see this as a case in which she just refused a csection, it was more than that.


----------



## StarMama (Jun 25, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by OnTheFence_
*I dont see this as a case in which she just refused a csection, it was more than that.*
I do too OTF. This wasn't (probably unless the news is VERY skewed) a homebirthing mama who KNEW she could do it. But how do you punish her actions (again assuming the news is right) without having it possibly affect more than just HER situation (people who are unable to make sound medical choices because of serious mental problems or drug use)? I've really been pondering on this since the thread started and I can't see a way for her to be punished for her stillborn while still keeping the rights and freedoms we all have a right to have (like right to refuse surgery). I can see her in jail for the drug use. But I simply can not think of a way to word a law that would punish her, and NOT punish homebirthers, and people who do not concent to surgery for "real" reasons. But that's just it, who decides what is an "Ok" reason to not have surgery, or concent to any doctor's wishes? I don't want anyone to decide for me what's ok and what's not concerning operating on my body.

Well and actually they do have a way to deal with those who are incapable of making decisions like that. The psych evals and court orders. I really wonder WHY that didn't happen at THREE different hospitals!!


----------



## SamuraiEarthMama (Dec 3, 2002)

according to this Yale Bulletin article, it looks like the Nazis actually ADMIRED the U.S. policies on eugenics, and imitated them!

ewwwwww.

i don't think this woman is guilty of malice or murder. i think she's guilty of bad judgement, mental illness, and lack of access to compassionate, comprehensive, appropriate care for her condition.

and the doctors were just doing what they knew... medical malpractice for OBs is out of control because parents sue for damage from births when cesareans are not performed. they've been very strongly conditioned to believe that c/s is the panacea to pregnancy problems...

there are going to be no winners in this story. none.

k


----------



## christymama (Feb 21, 2003)

I just seen on the news that this lady is being investagated in a baby selling ring! I donthave a link yet but when i seen it i will post it ,,, This lady sounds like a all around nut ball


----------



## OnTheFence (Feb 15, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by christymama_
*I just seen on the news that this lady is being investagated in a baby selling ring! I donthave a link yet but when i seen it i will post it ,,, This lady sounds like a all around nut ball*


----------



## Pynki (Aug 19, 2002)

We know she isn't the sharpest tool in the shed.. She has issues, BUT if she was all about the money should could get out of these babies wouldn't she have wanted BOTH babies out alive??? Right then???

Unfortunately pregnant women have been known to sell their babies to the highest bidder.. I had a friend when iwas in my young 20's who this had happened to.. She was adopted, but when she was older her parents told her the only reason they were able to adopt her is because they had paid her birth mother.. Who was a drug addict.. She is fine.. She is a lovely woman.. She is doesn't try drugs because she is afraid fo the effect they may have on her given her bio-mothers habits..

I have read on adoptive boards that the babies most adversly affect by drugs are the ones who mothers are on LEGAL drugs while pregnant.. The mother on anti-psychotics.. Anti-seizure drugs. NOT the crack or coke babies.. Nothing to back that up personally.. Just what I have read anecdotally from mothers who HAVE been there..

MR did NOT make the best of choices.. Hell.. She made AWFUL, SH!TTY, MORALLY REPREHENSIBLE decisions.. She still has the same rights that we do.. She has the same laws to follow.. Her child died.. A child she may have been looking to sell to the highest bidder.. That is a crime.. Have a stillbirth from refusing a c/s is not..

Warm Squishy Feelings..

Dyan


----------



## OnTheFence (Feb 15, 2003)

Dyan,

It is good your friend has no outward effects of the drugs her mother took.
However, I am very involved in the online adoption community and have been for almost 6 years and locally for over four. Illegal drugs have a major impact on a fetus, I exclude weed because it does not pass through the placenta of have the effects that other illegal drugs, legal drugs, nicotene or alchohol has on a fetus. Crack, coke, herion, meth, speed and alcohol once it passes through the placents alters the cells and cell growth in the brain. It can cause the smallest defect to the greatest defect. Damage is done whether you see it physically or not. Looking at my son you would never think that he had fetal alcohol effects. Even being around him in short spurts, you may think he is normal and brilliant. (he is brilliant but far from normal!)
A friend of mine is parenting a baby whose mother was on meth. Physically he is off the charts in growth and development, however he has neurological damage that severely alters his behavior and learning. I am only commenting on this because I would hate for someone to read this and think that snorting lines or smocking crack is okay. Its not. Alchohol isnt either. Recent findings are showing that even as few as two drinks can do damage to a fetus.
Also, you are right in saying that antipsychotics taken during pregnancy can lead to severe birth defects. Lithium a well. One reason some babies are placed for adoption is because of mental instability, and unfortunately their mothers chose not to discontinue meds for what ever reason. I have a friend who is a birthmother who took Lithium her entire pregnancy. She lucked out that the child she gave birth too did not have the common heart defects associated with Lithium use during pregnancy. Also, some narcotics given for pain relief actually affect the placenta -- demerol is one such drug and it is frequently given to mothers when the have pain in the last trimester or preterm labor. They give in conjuction with terb.

Kim


----------



## Pynki (Aug 19, 2002)

I most certainly DID NOT want to give the impression that any illegal drug was a good idea to take... Just that the prescription drugs some people take are just as bad, and those women are not charged with murder should they have a stillborn child..

Warmly..

Dyan


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

Well, I think drug use during pregnancy is just WRONG, including cigarettes and alcohol. But I think this case is about more than just drug use.

What if the c-section was never a factor? Should she be convicted of murder if she used drugs and a baby died? Or what if there were no drugs involved and it was just the c-section that she didn't have that was said to be the cause of death? Would any of your opinions change?

I started a thread in Activism a while back asking opinions on prosecution of women who use drugs while pregnant, and discovered that I really don't know how I feel about it. Originally I though, yes, they are criminals, they have violated the child's rights. But as I read more of the responses I wasn't sure; it's not like treating these women as criminals will really reduce drug use during pregnancy.

So yes, I think it's wrong, I just don't know if punishment (other than termination of parental rights) is the answer. Look at how often people commit crimes after getting out of prison.


----------



## Clarity (Nov 19, 2001)

I want to point out that there are many antipsychotic drugs that are believed to be quite safe in pregnancy...many practitioners believe they are safer than uncontrolled psychiatric conditions and the harm someone might cause to themselves and others - including the fetus. Many MDC moms have taken similar drugs in pregnancy and their children are developing fine. In many cases one that should be avoided in pregnancy can be replaced with on that's believed to be safer. We need to demand that more psychiatrists take that into consideration when prescribing for women of childbearing age...since conception is often unexpected, or not discovered until well into pregnancy. I encourage pregnant women in similar situations to consult texts on the issue like Hale's and others. Just stopping psychiatric medication while pregnant can be disastrous for some families. As we find out more about biochemical effects of emotional disturbance, perhaps this will be found to be even more certainly true, since we know that in preterm birth emotional stress can be a major factor - let alone a woman that might engage in risky or suicidal behavior with uncontrolled psychiatric issues. Some psychiatric conditions are believed to have a genetic component...so that might be as much an issue as medications or drugs in pregnancy.

One thing that's interesting. We pillory women over drug use, but poor (and in my area affluent) families can have enormous exposures to lead. Which is extermely linked to emotional and behavioral issues, IQ, and future criminal behaviour. Interesting how we tend to kick these things back to the mother when it can be a very multi-faceted problem. Preterm birth also causes a lot of life long complications. Early inductions, fertility-treatment induced multiple pregnancies, undiagnosed infections like urinary or gum disease...we have not decreased our rate of preterm birth in the last decades, that would probably save a lot of children from these negative health effects far more than telling women with psychiatric problems not to take medication. In some cases with sick pregnant woman (physical illnesses too) doctors have to try to treat both the woman and the fetus as best they can...if your choice is delivery at 28 weeks with the inherent medical risks to the child or going longer and using a medication? Tough choices. The long term effects of either can sound very similar...so it's not clear.

One final thought, somewhat unrelated - should HIV positive women, or women who know they have a genetic or infectious condition, but become pregnant, be charged with murder if their child get the disease or defect and dies?


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

Quote:

One final thought, somewhat unrelated - should HIV positive women, or women who know they have a genetic or infectious condition, but become pregnant, be charged with murder if their child get the disease or defect and dies?
Well, I say no...

I have a friend whose son is expected to die before age 20 from a genetic disorder she knew she carried. I don't think she should be charged with murder after dealing with his death. And I support her if she wants to have another child, and in carrying to term if she knows she will pass on the disorder.

I also know several HIV+ women who have chosen to have children (all of whom did not get HIV) and I applaud them as well.

Genetic conditions cannot be controlled, and once HIV is gotten it can't be stopped either. (Incidentally, the WHO estimates that one third of all HIV cases are not preventable by the victim, such as rapes or accidental needle sticks.) Drug use can be stopped, though for some women they will need more help than others.

That's a good point about how we want to spend all this money to lock up women who use drugs and damage their babies, but it's OK if babies are damaged by doctors or by environmental conditions that those in power refuse to change. Or by not enough good food...yes, there is hunger in America, even if you get WIC.


----------



## tiffani (May 17, 2002)

> originally posted by Mamid
> The problem with forced treatment on pregnant women is that those who have problems - medical, social or otherwise - who are and have been marginalized by society for generations will have to go into hiding in order to have their children. So instead of coming out for help when they really need it, they and their unborn will have had no medical care and no help. More women and their babies will die.
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Clarity (Nov 19, 2001)

Quote:

Genetic conditions cannot be controlled, and once HIV is gotten it can't be stopped either.
You can't control it per se...but some would say that if you knew ahead of time that you had a disease or genetic condition, it was your choice to inflict it on a child by conceiving. Having a genetic issue myself, I don't see this as that much of a hypothetical stretch. If I had been in different hospitals or with other physicians with differing philosophies it would have greatly aoffected my and my babies' medical treatment. Just something to consider when we try to distill this down to a black and white issue. Having had to struggle with these issues personally I believe it's critical that I am the primary patient and sole decision maker in this skin. The circumstances where we decide that it's ok for the state to dictate those decisions is very interesting.


----------



## yequanamama (Aug 30, 2002)

As you can see, I'm in Utah and WHOO! is this one infuriating. But, interestingly, the story broke just two days after the list of the most-highly paid professions in Utah came out. Guess who topped the list - OBs. This is a bit of a tangent, but this Rowland case has highlighted my general and deep frustration with obstetrics here in Utah (I'm sure many of you feel the same about OB in your communities.)

OBs (especially in ultra-conventional communities like Utah) take the attitude of, "Don't you worry about a thing, sweetheart. I'm going to take care of everything." So the women who see them (the majority of women in the community) don't "worry about a thing." They don't take childbirth classes, they don't learn about their options, they don't learn about the variety of things that can happen during pregnancy, labor and birth.

So, when something goes wrong in one of those three cases (P, L or B) they blame the doctor - of course! He/she was supposed to take care of everything. He/she communicates that he/she is in control of everything, has superpowers and won't let anything "happen" to woman or baby. So, instead of understanding that things sometimes happen beyond anyone's control, they think the doctor who was supposed to "take care of everything" obviously failed them.

Hence, malpractice rates for OBs are astronomical because they lead their patients to believe that they will take care of everything. They give the impression that it's the doctors responsibility to make decisions regarding the care of a baby, and the parents don't realize it's actually THEIR responsibility, with the doctor as their advisor. So something goes wrong, and of course it's the doctors fault.

Women who see midwives, by and large, take far more responsibility, and so don't tend to blame a midwive when something goes wrong.

So, back to the woman charged with murder. Apparently she's mentally ill, so that puts a curve-ball into the ball game, but let's assume the same happened to a mentally competent woman. Of course, the doctors are used to women not questioning their advice, so they have the inclination to go after someone who questions their all-powerful authority on matters obstetrical, when choosing not to follow their advice leads to a bad outcome. (There's no guarantee that a C/S would have had good outcomes for all parties involved.)

I wouldn't have chosen Rowland's course of action, but I probably WOULD have sought a second opinion. And the first doctor would probably be outraged because I wasn't taking his/her word as God's final decision. Anyway, my point is, the same attitudes that make them go after a women who's baby dies after refusing a C/S give them their crazy malpratice rates.

Thanks for letting me vent!


----------



## PurpleBasil (Jan 28, 2004)

On The Fence, your recommendations for sterilization are incredibly offensive. You also said these babies should have been aborted. How about now one is dead? So you must be happy with that given that you thought they both should have been terminated long ago.

What's next? Charging babies with murder when their mom dies in childbirth?

She should not be sterilized and I'm sickened that I'm reading this here at MDC. Disgusting.


----------



## lena g (Mar 15, 2004)

This actually is too personal for me having lost my twin daughter, and while I find the discussion fascinating, I do think we are losing sight of the basic facts since the precedent scares us so much. And this is my question to each of you, as mothers. In your heart if you were told your child might die if we don't do an emergency c-section would you chose not to have the c-section? Scars and all. This debate is not about the US and it's high rate of c-sections, it is not even about drug addiction or mental illness. At least it is not for me.

I cannot fathom how she could have made that choice. Maybe that is because I worked so hard to keep my twins safe that I cannot imagine how one could choose anything over their lives. Inherently, I feel becoming a mother means losing a part of yourself, but I happily do so for my son, and angel daughter in heaven or wherever she is.

Doing hard core drugs, is not having a beer or two during pregnancy. It is making a concious choice of your own needs over those of your child's, and endangering a life that you have chosen to bring into this world. While this is a fine choice to make (drugs not beer), and yours to choose, I think perhaps then childbearing and rearing are not the best choices for you. And if you are mentally unstable and unable to use birth control, then perhaps as a society we should consider how to protect our children.

But would you as mothers make the choice of no surgery over c-section?

Perhaps I am blessed with a wonderful OB who cares for my family as people, but I worked hard to find her, and they are out there. And I am sorry so many of you are angry at the medical community, I don't feel that, the surgeons saved my son's life when he was five days old.

As for those who believe this woman has the right to continue breeding at will, spend a day or two in the NICU (my son was there for five weeks) and see the 1 pound babies fighting addiction while they fight for their lives, suffering seizures, surgeries, breathing tubes, and brain bleeds.

And lastly, before I sign off, I am Jewish and spent several years studying the holocaust, working with survivors as well as German students on an exchange program to try and heal the past scars. Please do not go there if you do not know what you are speaking of. Sterilizing crack mothers who continue to put their children, living or unborn, at risk IS NOT what Hitler was proposing. It is not wiping out entire races (do not forget the gypsies that he all but destroyed) for purity reasons, that is not what is at issue here.

And not to sound too much like I am creating fiction, but as a child of abuse under the hands of addicts, yes on this one I am speaking first hand as well.

So yes, this case is dangerous, dangerous in that it could create laws that we are not looking to create, but let us not lose sight of the fact that this woman chose not to save her child's life, and endangered her other child, had both up for adoption before they were born (so the remaining one does not need his mother nor is it suffering for her absence), and has already had two other children that as I understand it she is not caring for. This woman, not the case law, this woman, should be stopped from having more children, and perhaps more.....

Good luck with the debates.

Lena, mother to Max and ^i^Mia

PS Kim, thanks for your post. It meant the world to me.


----------



## OnTheFence (Feb 15, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by playdoh_
*On The Fence, your recommendations for sterilization are incredibly offensive. You also said these babies should have been aborted. How about now one is dead? So you must be happy with that given that you thought they both should have been terminated long ago.

What's next? Charging babies with murder when their mom dies in childbirth?

She should not be sterilized and I'm sickened that I'm reading this here at MDC. Disgusting.*
O give me a break.







:

How insulting that you think I am happy one is dead. What kind of person are YOU?
I am sickened by your attitude as well, towards me. Your insinuations and assumptions.


----------



## Peppamint (Oct 19, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by lena g_
*But would you as mothers make the choice of no surgery over c-section?*
This mother would ask for a second opinion. My 14 month old brother died because of a physician. My dd's birth was managed because of a physician who was "playing it safe"... another OB has told me she took things too far.









If a physician I trusted recommended one and I saw evidence that it was true, yes I would have a c/s. I would also be heartbroken as well.

I fell for the "your baby's heart tones are dropping we need to get her out" gimmick once and all it got me was a baby who wasn't ready to be born and my vagina cut open.


----------



## Mindyleigh (Mar 21, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by lena g_
*Twins are high risk and for that reason you see a doctor every other week with monthly ultrasounds. They tell you from day one that rarely are twins delivered vaginally but in all cases they prefer to deliver vaginally. The number of tests and appointments you have is staggering. As I read the articles, the doctors saw that one twin was in distress, probably twin to twin transfusion as that is what shows over time. If it were a lowered heartrate or a cord twist, they would not have given her weeks to make the decision. Therefore she knew that the twin was in distress and chose to not save its life.

While I agree, that this case sets a dangerous precedent, I find it hard to believe based on my own love for my children that a mother would chose her own over her child's life. Frankly, I thought nothing of being bedridden for my entire pregnancy to give my twins the best chance of survival.

While I agree with much of what is said on this post, let us not forget, that she let a child in her womb die. No matter what the reason. And frankly, then she should have terminated the pregnancy. I promise you the list of dangerous possibilities from having multiples is given to you on day one, and reinforced at every single appointment, there is no way she was not aware of the chance of a c-section.
*
Alrighty. Hi, everyone! Have avoided posting up til now, but when I saw this post last night, I had to comment.

At 22-ish weeks of our most recent pregnancy, my husband and I received the one and only ultrasound of the experience to diagnose that we were, in fact, having twins. We were thrilled! Then it hit us---there were next to no midwives in our area who were willing to work with us from that point on.

Since we couldn't find a midwife, we decided to have an unassisted birth. It was NOT ACCEPTABLE to subject ourselves OR OUR CHILDREN to the invasive, interventive, monitor-happy philosophies of western medicine and turn our pregnancy into a high-risk "disaster waiting to happen." I knew I could birth these children. I had no doubt whatsoever in my mind. Yet, we also knew that one or both might die. That is always a possibility in any birth. Frankly, as doctors are the third leading cause of death in the United States and the US has just about the worst infant mortality rate among the industrialized nations of the world, it happens a whole lot more often here than in other countries. However, we knew we would only feel accepting of that outcome if it happened as a result of natural causes, not because of the surgery I would probably be encouraged to have if I tried to give birth in a hospital.

Sure enough, our daughter was a footling breech. I gave birth to both of them in my bathroom and they are both sleeping soundly next to daddy at this early morning hour. Had we been in a hospital, I would have been forcibly encouraged to have surgery. Who knows what would have happened to our daughter or to me? Cesareans are touted as the safe alternative to vaginal birth but women seldom learn of the true risks involved to both mother and child through this often pointless surgery which is now at its highest rate in U.S. history. The facts have been cited throughout this thread, so I won't do it here.

Lena G, I am so sorry to hear of your loss, and I am not trying to rub my experience in. But you cannot insist or assume that all families are willing to participate in western medicine and obstetrics. I have a whole lot more faith in mother nature and would never subject my body to any of those procedures you speak of. I would never let a human being label me "high risk." Why did God give me these babies in the first place? To have me hand over my body to the faulty premise that birth only works when doctors get involved?

Furthermore, why should healthy women everywhere be potentially endangered by the precedent this woman's case has set?? I don't agree with her lifestyle or most of the choices she's made in the past, but I sure as heck don't want to be arrested for making the decision to give birth in the way that's right for our family.


----------



## OnTheFence (Feb 15, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by busybusymomma_
*This mother would ask for a second opinion. My 14 month old brother died because of a physician. My dd's birth was managed because of a physician who was "playing it safe"... another OB has told me she took things too far.









If a physician I trusted recommended one and I saw evidence that it was true, yes I would have a c/s. I would also be heartbroken as well.

I fell for the "your baby's heart tones are dropping we need to get her out" gimmick once and all it got me was a baby who wasn't ready to be born and my vagina cut open.*
MR got not ONE OR TWO BUT THREE. THREE OPINIONS!!! Over the course of 2 weeks. THREE, not ONE.


----------



## Pynki (Aug 19, 2002)

So in your mind then OTF.. It is the fact that she sought out other options that bothers you.. She didn't believe the OB on call, and later sought different Medical treatment.. And the 3rd time she sought medical help she took the medical advice..

That seems to be the timeline of events.. She was seeking medical treatment, but didn't like her options so left.. And still continued seeking medical treatment..

I may not agree with her choices, but she was still seeking treatment options..

Warmly..

Dyan


----------



## candiland (Jan 27, 2002)

It's funny....... everyone's talking and thinking logically here. Obviously, this woman did not have the ability to think logically. So those of you who wish to see her behind bars for the rest of her life are assuming that she had the ability to think logically and reason everything out, like you are doing right here on this board. But she couldn't think logically. She couldn't use reason. That's probably why she chose not to abort. That's why she did drugs. That's why she freaked and kept hemming and hawing over the advice to have a c-section. That's why she didn't think of consequences.... truly mentally ill people are incompetent to do so!

Having had mental health issues in the past, I can attest to the fact that in some places, it is impossible to get help. I called around to every department and office in my state, and over and over again, I heard, "Yes, our therapists can work on a sliding scale fee. But in order to get medication, we have a waiting list of four to five months. Our psychiatrists are very busy." And I'm a LOT more mentally stable than this woman! And I was literally driven to tears, several times a day, by the fact that I desperately needed help and no one would help me.

It's so easy to judge if you've never experienced anything like that. If I hadn't experienced something similar in my past, I'd probably be right here with those people pointing my finger and saying "Jail! Jail! Jail!" Luckily, I have a tremendous assortment of life experiences so I am not judgmental anymore.


----------



## OnTheFence (Feb 15, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Pynki_
*So in your mind then OTF.. It is the fact that she sought out other options that bothers you.. She didn't believe the OB on call, and later sought different Medical treatment.. And the 3rd time she sought medical help she took the medical advice..

That seems to be the timeline of events.. She was seeking medical treatment, but didn't like her options so left.. And still continued seeking medical treatment..

I may not agree with her choices, but she was still seeking treatment options..

Warmly..

Dyan







*
She didnt take it any of the three times. She went three times between Dec 25 and Jan 9, and then a FOURTH time on the 13th. What bothers me is that after the second and even third opinion from three different sources, she did NOTHING. To me that makes her guilty of at the least manslaughter.

Also, I cannot support women who do risky, negligent behaviors -- that includes homebirthing and unassisted births and not transferring to hospitals when complictions arrive. Medicine and medical intervention has its place. Allowing children to die out of fear of surgery or a scar to me is unacceptable, sane or not sane. While I support homebirth and unassisted birth as choices for women, to not seek medical intervention to possibly save your child is horrendous. I value my children more.


----------



## OnTheFence (Feb 15, 2003)

{{{LENA}}}

I am right there on the bench with you! As someoone who has struggled to have children, I can't fathom why people would be so negligent in their care and take unnecessary risk with their children's lives, born or unborn.


----------



## OnTheFence (Feb 15, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by candiland_
*It's funny....... everyone's talking and thinking logically here. Obviously, this woman did not have the ability to think logically. So those of you who wish to see her behind bars for the rest of her life are assuming that she had the ability to think logically and reason everything out, like you are doing right here on this board. But she couldn't think logically. She couldn't use reason. That's probably why she chose not to abort. That's why she did drugs. That's why she freaked and kept hemming and hawing over the advice to have a c-section. That's why she didn't think of consequences.... truly mentally ill people are incompetent to do so!

*
I think she made a conscience choice to kill her child. Three people, three seperate occassions she sought medical treatment. What does this say? She knew something was wrong, did nothing, not once, but three times. The fourth time she showed up at a hospital one baby was dead, the other in distress. This leads me to believe she knew what she was doing and had the ability to reason.


----------



## Breathless Wonder (Jan 25, 2004)

Quote:

Also, I cannot support women who do risky, negligent behaviors -- that includes homebirthing and unassisted births and not transferring to hospitals when complictions arrive.


----------



## candiland (Jan 27, 2002)

OTF, did you even read my post?????

This woman is seriously ill and probably doesn't have the capabilities to judge sane actions from irrational ones!!!!!! She's not like you and I, sweetie. She obviously cannot think logically. She cannot think rationally. Why is it so hard to see this??? Just because she panicked and went to three different docs does not make her sane, or rational, or healthy, or normal! If she were, she wouldn't have been doing drugs, selling her kids, and not agreeing to the cesarean!


----------



## Evergreen (Nov 6, 2002)

I still don't understand how she can be charged with murder if abortion is legal at anytime during a pregnancy.

Child endangerment for the drugs, sure









I do think she is a horrible person mentally ill or not


----------



## honey (Nov 28, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by OnTheFence_
*Also, I cannot support women who do risky, negligent behaviors -- that includes homebirthing and unassisted births and not transferring to hospitals when complictions arrive. Medicine and medical intervention has its place. Allowing children to die out of fear of surgery or a scar to me is unacceptable, sane or not sane. While I support homebirth and unassisted birth as choices for women, to not seek medical intervention to possibly save your child is horrendous. I value my children more.*
Woah. Step back sister. I agree that hospital birth and medical intervention have their place, but you must not know much about homebirth if you think it is risky or negligent. It is a proven fact that home birth is at least as safe as hospital birth.

Thanks for supporting out of hospital births as choices for women. I support hospital births for women who choose to be there.

I agree that sometimes women don't make choices with their baby's best interests in mind. This is not unique to the out of hospital crowd. We've all heard stories about these women, regardless of where they give birth.

And, I value my children as well.


----------



## lena g (Mar 15, 2004)

Aren't you fortunate that both of your twins are sleeping by your side. I envy you that. Had you read my previous posts you would have seen that Mia was in fact transverse breach and she was twin b. Max was twin A and was head down, so my OB would not do a c-section on me. They were adament even that they not induce but that i go to term. I was induced only after they found that Mia had been tangled in her cord and died three days prior and they were unsure if Max was even safe, but we were almost full term and they decided to risk his delivery. And even then they induced for a vaginal delivery for Max since he was head down. NEVER did my Ob recommend a c-section, never did they even hint that was an option unless of difficulty.

I feel sorry for those who have chosen western medicine and had bad experiences, which it sounds like many here have had, as one who believes strongly in acupuncture and yoga and healing not through antibiotics and the like, I feel that I live a balanced life. I however, have researched hard, and we pay through the nose, so that I can see the doctors of my choice, ones I trust.

And I think you made a well informed decision and weighed the pros and cons. That however does not sound like the decision this woman made. Evidently not since she was using drugs during her pregnancy.

And now, I really will sign off, I am not even interested in hearing what pious advice such as yours is being doled out. Lucky, lucky, lucky and congrats on your homebirth with no complications.

Enjoy your twins safely in your arms. And frankly, rather than responding to me directly, you could have just posted. Would have made the same point without the hurtfulness. It was a mistake for me to even post, I thought it might provide an interesting insight, but really, this seems to be a doctor bashing forum.


----------



## lena g (Mar 15, 2004)

Thanks again for your reply. Perhaps there is a different vein of thought amongst those who have problems conceiving, not sure. It seems so from my grief group postings though. But we also have a rule of not attacking other people for their opinions, which seems to not be the case here.

Maybe the act of trying to hard to have a child puts this whole case in a different light, I don't know. I think if you have a hard time concieving and carrying, or even a hard pregnancy, you might see this case from that perspective and that clouds your vision. But for whatever that is worth, I am leaving this post, too hard. I do know that I gaze at my son daily, with his scars and possible delays due to prematurity, and realize him for the miracle he is. And I think shame on this woman for endangering her children. Why choose to have them at all if you are going to not care for them.

But again, I see the world through a unique perspective. One that I don't wish on anyone I care about.

In any case, I wish you peace, and hope that your arms are full of love, and that if you are still trying I wish you fertile days.

Peace.


----------



## OnTheFence (Feb 15, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by honey_
*Woah. Step back sister. I agree that hospital birth and medical intervention have their place, but you must not know much about homebirth if you think it is risky or negligent. It is a proven fact that home birth is at least as safe as hospital birth.

Thanks for supporting out of hospital births as choices for women. I support hospital births for women who choose to be there.

I agree that sometimes women don't make choices with their baby's best interests in mind. This is not unique to the out of hospital crowd. We've all heard stories about these women, regardless of where they give birth.

And, I value my children as well.*
I think some of you have reading problems. You read one thing and then run with it READ THE WHOLE THING. I said I supported homebirth and unassisted birth but did not support it when women acted negligent and reckless. (and yes, I do think trying to deliver a twin footling breech without a midwife at the very least falls in this category -- but glad everything was ok) I know a lot about homebirth -- I had hoped to have babies at home, but I would never have put my baby's life on the line to avoid a surgery. Sorry but those who do that also put women's choices at risk.


----------



## honey (Nov 28, 2003)

Quote:

Also, I cannot support women who do risky, negligent behaviors -- that includes homebirthing and unassisted births and not transferring to hospitals when complictions arrive.
It reads to me that you are saying those three things are risky and negligent.

Quote:

I think some of you have reading problems. You read one thing and then run with it READ THE WHOLE THING.
Perhaps your sentence doesn't quite say what you meant it to?

Regardless, let's remember to treat each other with common courtesy. Obviously you feel extremely passionate about this subject, but even with passionate feelings we can keep our dignity and respect for each other intact.


----------



## candiland (Jan 27, 2002)

I think OTF meant it was risky to not transfer from home when complications arise. I had homebirth complications with my second and my midwife handled everything fine. I didn't need to transfer. However, many people have never studied the statistics regarding home birth thoroughly. I don't expect everyone to thoroughly understand the ins and outs like I do.


----------



## honey (Nov 28, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by candiland_
*I think OTF meant it was risky to not transfer from home when complications arise. I had homebirth complications with my second and my midwife handled everything fine. I didn't need to transfer. However, many people have never studied the statistics regarding home birth thoroughly. I don't expect everyone to thoroughly understand the ins and outs like I do.*

Yeah, I get it now. My point was the she accused me of having reading problems. From my perspective, that was beyond run of the mill snarkiness, considering her paragraph may have not been written as clearly as it could have been.


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

Quote:

Hence, malpractice rates for OBs are astronomical because they lead their patients to believe that they will take care of everything.
Also because they commit malpractice so often...if you don't want to be sued, don't do things to hurt other people! I've never been sued; I must be doing something right. (And I have held jobs where I had a high likelihood of being sued.)

A second opinion is not a second opinion if it comes from another doctor. In small towns, the doctors often know each other. If three doctors told me my baby was going to die if I didn't have crash surgery, there is no way I would believe them unless I had a prolapsed cord or placental abruption. I'd have to get a second opinion from a midwife; they are the ones who truly know what they are doing.


----------



## veganmamma (Sep 10, 2002)

As this thread spirals further and further out of control I have refrained from posting. I made myself a big cup of yummy coffee and some cinnamon/sugar toast to pacify me and keep me calm as I type.

Mindyleigh- What a wonderful thing you did for your family. Congrats on the courage to go against the establishment. 80% of all cases of twins are both head down by 37 weeks to my knowledge. A lovely pregnancy "model" came to one of my classes to help with palpation and that is the number she gave me. (She had two twins with heads down, flexed heads in perfect position for a vaginal birth which she did have. She scrapped her homebirth based on low hemoglobin levels and had a natural birth in the hospital.)

There are so many issues here to respond to. Would abortion have been better in this case? It could very well be. I am pro life to be sure, but I think it is TOTALLY counterproductive to talk about abortion once there are babies who have been born or are close to birth- regardless of the outcomes. I had to make a decision to have my daughter. It is why she is a planned baby from an unplanned pregnancy. It is very difficult for me to think of her in terms of a fetus who could have been aborted. My spiritual beliefs include a belief that her sprit is that of a m/c I had a few months before I was pg with dd, and if I'd aborted when in pregnancy with dd, I do believe she'd be waiting for me to be ready to have her again. Anyway, I'm getting off track to the real issue. To say that an abortion would have been better just sounds hurtful at this point and isn't productive at all.

As far as forced sterilization goes, there is a reason we cannot set that precedent in this country. There are women on these boards who do not use birth control, who have lots and lots of babies and use questionable parenting techniques. Whether they be homebirth, not vaccinating, family bedding or spanking-- yes some moms here spank- there are a LOT of people who would take away their reproductive rights if they could. There are people who would ban me from having more children because of my radical stance on parenting. There isn't a black and white in this issue, so I think we can all agree that sterilization by force or coersion is a very dangerous thing. btw, I have read that it is common in this country to sterilize illegal immigrants during c/s, and that it is super common for OBs to do tubal ligation on unconscious women in 3rd world countries. I'm thinking the book is Women as Wombs, not sure though.

Greaseball ITA about OBs. It is so common to see women suing for malpractice of an OB when they don't have a c/s and have a bad outcome, but no one really talks about the cycle of interventions leading to that crisis do we see mass malpractice suits based on unnecessary episiotomy, an OB who refuses to turn the pitocin off leading to a c/s for fear of rupture despite healthy contrax when the pit is off, OBs not explaining double vs. single layer suturing, brachial plexus injury when an OB pulls the baby out of the c/s incision by it's head, induction for macrosomia that leads to the premature birth of a 4 pound baby, the list goes on. It isn't okay to sue for unnecessary c/s because that is an acceptable way to birth, as long as the baby turned out okay we have no right to be angry that our empowering birth was taken away, that our reproductive organs have been gravely injured. Bottom line, c/s puts mother and baby at a greater risk of death. It shouldn't be done without good reason. When it is done without good reason, or based on unnecessary interventions, we should be outraged. But the baby turned out okay, right?







:

FTR, many studies show homebirth is safer than hospital birth. I personally think hospital birth is risky if you are not aware and empowered in your own healthcare. If you are high risk and have looked at other venues for birth and none are safe for your condition, then the hospital is the right place for you. Just walking into a hospital expecting good care, expecting the OB to "take care of everything" is folly and risky, IMO. OBs are trained for high risk birth and that's al they should attend, IMO. They have a bad habit of messing with what nature has already made perfect. But I'm majorly digressing.

Back to the main point of the thread, MR and her actions. MR is a mentally ill woman. I cannot hold her to the standard I hold everyone else in terms of decision making. I feel a lot of compassion for her because of her circumstance and choices. Someday, my dd may decide to have children. I know that if she has a twin pregnancy she will take incredible care of herself, and find a way to have a vaginal birth, even if it is the vaginal birth of one twin and the c/s of the second twin. She will be healthy, empowered, supported and loved, just as she has been since her conception. If she is confronted with a situtaion where c/s is the only possible way to save one or both of her babies, I'm confident she will have an empowered cesarean. The circumstances in her life leading up to that make it unlikely that she would be in that position.

What if my dd had been born to a "retarded" (whatever that means) woman, and was adopted by me so that I could love her and support her and guide her in life? Most likely a similar outcome. What if she was left to rot in foster care where she developed mental illness and was not treated, was raised by people hwo didn't love her and was thrust out onto the street at 18 with mental illness and drug addiction to fend for herself out in the wide world? Definitely not the same outcome, more like the outcome of MR. OTF, what if your son didn't have you to raise him? When hegrew up if he made terrible decisions that hurt or killed others, even children? When it is put into that context, does it feel different? Is it easier to feel compassion for her?

The way I see it, MR's spirit could have been born to me or anyone else here. She was born into the life she has. I feel deep sorrow for her and her babies, and everyone in her life.


----------



## Mindyleigh (Mar 21, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by lena g_
*Enjoy your twins safely in your arms. And frankly, rather than responding to me directly, you could have just posted. Would have made the same point without the hurtfulness. It was a mistake for me to even post, I thought it might provide an interesting insight, but really, this seems to be a doctor bashing forum.*
Ooookay, I see I need to work on my sensitivity??? I was not attempting to be hurtful, so I apologize. I was simply trying to make the point that everyone has their own definition of "risky." To me, being treated like a "high risk" is risky. To others, it is riskier to be at home having a baby. We need to preserve the right to determine what that risk is for our families. That's why this case scares me.

So again, if I was insensitive to your pain, I extend my deep apologies. And I, too, am bowing out in favor of less emotional topics, because I am waaaay too preoccupied with motheringdotcommune right now.


----------



## Peppamint (Oct 19, 2002)

OTF:

Okay... mental illness aside, I do think she was negligent by getting three separate opinions and not following them. However, she could have legally aborted both babies. What is the difference? I really don't see it.

So are you saying it's okay to have a surgeon remove a fetus from the womb via dialation and curettage or dilation, partial delivery of the baby and jamming-scissors-in-the-back-of-the-skull, but it's not okay to refuse to have your abdomen cut open, hence the baby dies?

Both result in a dead baby. I guess because the doctors weren't allowed to participate in the death it wasn't okay?


----------



## lollaleeloo (Jan 29, 2003)

The state already recognizes the right of people to refuse medical procedures on themselves, and their minor children. If Rowland, OR THE FATHER, had delayed surgery on behalf of a baby she carried in her arms, instead of in her womb, *nobody* would have been charged with *anything* if the baby died. Prosecuting this woman for a stillbirth is an act of pure malice. Like it or not, Melissa Rowland had an absolute right to refuse (or in this case, postpone) any surgery that could potentially kill her. It's called Informed Consent.


----------



## veganmamma (Sep 10, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by lollaleeloo_
*The state already recognizes the right of people to refuse medical procedures on themselves, and their minor children. If Rowland, OR THE FATHER, had delayed surgery on behalf of a baby she carried in her arms, instead of in her womb, *nobody* would have been charged with *anything* if the baby died. Prosecuting this woman for a stillbirth is an act of pure malice. Like it or not, Melissa Rowland had an absolute right to refuse (or in this case, postpone) any surgery that could potentially kill her. It's called Informed Consent.*
Yep. Well said


----------



## mamanclaire (Mar 25, 2004)

I think that this murder charge might deter a great number of women who are afraid of c-sections from giving birth in a hospital under the care of a physician. If the pregnancy is normal, then great! Giving birth at home with a midwife is a safe option. But if complications develop during pregnancy or labor, the fear of being forcibly cut open "from breast bone to pubic bone" (a very violent image) might prevent some women in labor from seeking necessary medical help.
So aside from the ethical problems of charging a woman in that situation with murder, there is also that very practical problem.
Personally, this story adds to my prejudice against hospital births as procedures that take control of your body


----------



## lollaleeloo (Jan 29, 2003)

Here's an interesting article on the subject.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/03/19/co...ion/index.html The section labelled "C-section truths" was particularly fascinating to me. For example,

Quote:

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.
and this one:

Quote:

And unlike court orders, criminal prosecutions can benefit from 20-20 hindsight. They thus allow prosecutors to ignore the _many cases in which doctors said the very same things that they said to Ms. Rowland, and outcomes proved the doctors to be very much mistaken._
Reading this called to mind the coroner -- who could not even determine what the baby died of, much less the moment death occurred -- but who nevertheless asserted that a c-section performed at some unspecified earlier point in time would definitely have saved the baby's life, something even the surgeons who ultimately performed the surgery didn't dare claim. Incredible using such "evidence" as the basis for a murder charge.

Quote:

_by manaclaire:_
*Personally, this story adds to my prejudice against hospital births as procedures that take control of your body*
I'm with you there, mamanclaire. I had my last one at home, despite having mostly positive feelings toward my hospital vbac ob/midwife team, for precisely this reason.


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

I wrote a letter to the editor to correct an error in an article about this. The article stated that "the autopsy showed the baby would have lived if delivered by c-section." I wrote in and said no, that's not what it showed, it showed the day the baby died. There is no guarantee that a severely compromised baby would have survived the procedure.

My letters almost always get printed. We'll see about this one...


----------



## Peppamint (Oct 19, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by lollaleeloo_
*Here's an interesting article on the subject.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/03/19/co...ion/index.html*
What a great article! It was well-written and accurate IMO. Exactly what I think, except I wouldn't have been able to articulate myself so well.


----------



## Dragonfly (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Gr8flmom_
*I still don't understand how she can be charged with murder if abortion is legal at anytime during a pregnancy.*
It's not legal at anytime during a pregnancy. In Utah, specifically, it's not legal past 20 weeks unless the mother's health is in jeopardy.


----------



## Gemini (Apr 9, 2003)

Only to 22 weeks where I live.


----------



## mamanclaire (Mar 25, 2004)

That was an excellent article.
Can you imagine the horror of being physically restrained and forced to undergo surgery? And how arrogant on the part of the doctors involved to assert that the baby would have been saved by the c-section. They cannot possibly know that.

Here's another possible scenario: The babies are delivered early by c-section


----------



## mamanclaire (Mar 25, 2004)

Sorry, I hit enter in the wrong place. Anyway, imagine if the babies were delivered too early, and Baby#1, who was dying anyway, doesn't make it; Baby#2's lungs are not fully mature and he/she ends up having problems because of that; and Mother develops a serious infection that would not have occured if she had delivered vaginally. In that case, hindsight would tell us that the woman should have refused the procedure.


----------



## Peppamint (Oct 19, 2002)

A baby's body is fully developed at 12 weeks... it only needs a safe place to grow and finally, at the end of the pregnancy gain some fat. What changes between the 20 (or 22) weeks and full term? It is legal to undergo a medical procedure for the sole purpose of killing the baby but 20 weeks later it's illegal to refuse a medical procedure that may or may not save the baby's life?!







So the government suddenly becomes an advocate for the child after 20 weeks?


----------



## Dragonfly (Nov 27, 2001)

The difference with regards to the law is pre-viability vs. post-viability. It's tricky, because no one really knows exactly when a baby is viable (with the help of technology) outside the womb, which probably explains the discrepancy of a few weeks from state to state.


----------



## Dragonfly (Nov 27, 2001)

And busybusymomma - the law doesn't say that it's illegal after 20 weeks to refuse medical treatment that may or may not save the baby's life. It says that the baby's life can only be terminated to preserve the health or life of the mother.

Here, they're trying to bring in the former, in a sense. But, IMO, there is absolutely nothing typical about this case, and I have a hard time seeing it serve as future precedent for the average woman.


----------



## Peppamint (Oct 19, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Dragonfly_
*And busybusymomma - the law doesn't say that it's illegal after 20 weeks to refuse medical treatment that may or may not save the baby's life. It says that the baby's life can only be terminated to preserve the health or life of the mother*
Then why the hell is she being charged with murder if she didn't break a law?


----------



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

Rowlands is scheduled to be in court tommorow. (To enter a plea, perhaps?)


----------



## Mamid (Nov 7, 2002)

Because the Powers That Be want to make an example of her so no other (drug addicted) woman pulls the same thing - Daring to have a mind of her own when the know it all doctors decide that she should do what they have decreed.


----------



## wombat (Nov 3, 2002)

Here's a very eloquent, well thought out argument about the implications of this case from a law professor.

Crying murder when C-section refused
Disturbing implications of a Utah prosecution
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/03/19/co...ion/index.html


----------



## CraftyMommaOf2 (Mar 23, 2004)

OK, haven't read all the posts yet...and this is probably gonna make some of you REALLY mad, but... I don't care if they had to take my leg off to save my baby...DO IT. We didn't think we could have kids...took over 5 years to get pregnant with our first. I just can't see not being willing to do anything to save your baby. Luckily I was able to go natural with DS. Plus there's the fact that the other baby had cocaine and alcohol in it's system. Personally, I believe that anyone that would do either of those things while pregnant didn't want to baby/ies to begin with. And she put the other up for adoption, which REALLY makes me think she didn't want them. I think she needs some serious psyche help. There has to be something going on there.
Commence to throwing the rotten food....it's ok.


----------



## Breathless Wonder (Jan 25, 2004)

Quote:

I just can't see not being willing to do anything to save your baby.
You know, sometimes the best way to protect or save your baby is to go AMA. Maybe read some of the birth stories here about interventions that threatened or damaged the lives and health of the children and/or mothers in question?


----------



## Mamid (Nov 7, 2002)

Or watch Maternity Ward some night.

The last one I saw, mom A had an inducted vbac that turned to a section.
Mom B had an epidural and an induction
Mom C had a cerclage and when it was taken out, she was immediately at 4cm.

But what I really liked was Mom D 19yo going completely natural. What I didn't like was the nurse saying that she has to be more creative with those moms and therefore work harder than those with epidurals...

Home birth... unassisted. Oh yeah. that's for me.


----------



## CraftyMommaOf2 (Mar 23, 2004)

I feel so much pain for those mamas that have had all these horrible things happen during pregnancy/birth. I had a really hard time carrying DS. I would have lost him if not for "medical intervention". I went into early labor and it was able to be stopped/slowed down enough to let DS have more time to develop. (32 wks labor started and had him 10 days before EDD) My ob was a fantastic man. The hospital here is wonderful. But, I live in a small, VERY crunchy friendly town. From my experience, my docs much prefer you to go the most natural route possible. My ob and nurses were TOTALLY supportive of me going natural with a very big baby. They even offered extra assistance to DH in making me comfortable. They asked ONE time if I wanted an epidural, told them no I wanted a natural birth, and they smiled at me (non-condiscendingly) and patted my leg and asked if I wanted anything to drink. I guess I am just in the right place. This will be my last child...it's just too hard on my bod. So I'm glad that I will be having this babe here, too. My heart is with you, mamas.
But I cannot support this woman. The drugs, alcohol and smoking (mainly the drugs and alcohol) tell me in my heart that she couldn't have cared less about her babies. Do we know what kind of prenatal care she was giving them? Other than coke?

PS-I just want to say that even if I don't agree with you, I still TOTALLY respect your opinions/views. I hope you can mine. Peace to you my dear mamas.


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

T
My biopsychology textbook claims that cigarettes are more dangerous to fetuses than cocaine.

This doesn't mean cocaine use is OK...it means cigarette use is very bad!


----------



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

I don't believe we know much of anything about what prenatal care she had. Nor do we *know* anything more than that those who are prosecuting her allege she used cocaine.


----------



## Dragonfly (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

_Originally posted by busybusymomma_
*Then why the hell is she being charged with murder if she didn't break a law?*
I don't know. The law in Utah as it stands now is very protective of the fetus. From reading it, it looks like they've even legislated abortion pre-viability but left a fallback provision for when it is ruled unconstitutional. Very odd. I think the prosecutors see this as a natural extension of the law - depraved indifference lead to the death of a child whose rights are already protected by the state. That's the only thing I can figure, anyway.


----------



## leavesarebrown (Apr 22, 2003)

So what happened when she appeared in court?


----------



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

Not much. The case was reassigned to a different judge since the first one is retiring. New judge was hearinga few motions and laying down the rules in his court, re: contact with the media, etc...


----------



## Peppamint (Oct 19, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Dragonfly_
*I don't know. The law in Utah as it stands now is very protective of the fetus. From reading it, it looks like they've even legislated abortion pre-viability but left a fallback provision for when it is ruled unconstitutional. Very odd. I think the prosecutors see this as a natural extension of the law - depraved indifference lead to the death of a child whose rights are already protected by the state. That's the only thing I can figure, anyway.







*
A thought occurred to me: if a woman is being abused by her dh/so/bf and she miscarries or the baby is born stillborn, is she prosecuted for murder? If they are going prosecute a woman because her baby dies of "indifference"... well, that could cover a whole lot of things, couldn't it?


----------



## leavesarebrown (Apr 22, 2003)

Melissa plead guilty to two counts of child endangerment and admitted to using cocaine near the end of her pregnancy, but not intending to kill the babies. She will undergo a drug treatment program as part of her sentance. She still maintains that she was not informed that she needed surgery immediately to save the life of the twin who died. I can believe that.


----------

