Mothering › Forums › Pregnancy and Birth › Birth and Beyond › mom fights legal battle against hospital that court ordered bedrest and c-section
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

mom fights legal battle against hospital that court ordered bedrest and c-section

post #1 of 18
Thread Starter 
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35076853...lth-pregnancy/

The article also mentions these incidents:

In 1987, a Washington, D.C., judge ordered a woman who was dying of cancer to have a C-section, which she had refused, to save her fetus. The baby died within two hours of delivery and the mother died two days later. An appeals court later ruled the judge should not have ordered the C-section.

In 2003, prosecutors in Salt Lake City charged an acknowledged cocaine addict who had a history of mental health problems with murder when she refused to have a C-section for two weeks before finally agreeing to the procedure. One of her twins died in the womb during the delay. Through a plea deal, the charge was later reduced to child endangerment.

In 2004, a hospital in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, obtained a court order to force a woman to have a C-section because her seventh baby was oversized, but the order was too late. The mother, whose first six children each weighed nearly 12 pounds (5 1/2 kilograms) at birth, went to another hospital and delivered a nearly 12-pound girl naturally.

Also in 2004, a judge in Rochester, New York, ordered a homeless woman not to get pregnant again without court approval after she lost custody of several neglected children.
post #2 of 18
I love how legally, a parent can't be forced to undergo medical treatment to help their out-of-the-womb CHILD (i.e. can't be legally forced to donate a kidney), but women can, and HAVE been forced to submit to medical treatment for their fetuses. That's so messed up.
Quote:
"If you apply the best interest of the child standard, the woman becomes nothing more than a fetal incubator owned by the state of Florida," Abrams said.
Exactly!
post #3 of 18
Thanks for posting. It's an appalling story and I expect the FL court to reverse. I'll lose a lot of faith if they don't.
post #4 of 18
That is disgusting. There are major issues here with an individuals liberty and privacy. I have no other words than disgusting.
post #5 of 18
I forwarded this to DH earlier this morning along with a rant & a half about it. The FL story is bad enough, but the woman in PA that was court ordered for a section for a LARGE BABY? I hope there's an awful lot more to that story than just that. Yikes.

I hope the FL courts take into consideration the type of precedent this could set. Smoking? Quit, or court order. Having a small glass of wine while you're pregnant? Could hurt the fetus. That's one heck of a slippery slope they're standing on top of right now.
post #6 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by emnic77 View Post
The FL story is bad enough, but the woman in PA that was court ordered for a section for a LARGE BABY? I hope there's an awful lot more to that story than just that. Yikes
Sadly, no, I don't think so. That story was covered in the book "Pushed" by Jennifer Block. I think she even interviewed the woman. Nope, there wasn't anything more to it.

The crazy thing is that even ACOG doesn't recommend CS for "fetal macrosomia" (big baby!)
post #7 of 18
That's my town! Yuck! Wow, I'm really glad we have several homebirth midwives here. That doctor has the largest practice in town, and was my gyno for a couple of years!
post #8 of 18
Sadly, living in FL....and knowing some of the court decisions here... I'd be surprised if it was overturned.
post #9 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by emnic77 View Post
I forwarded this to DH earlier this morning along with a rant & a half about it. The FL story is bad enough, but the woman in PA that was court ordered for a section for a LARGE BABY? I hope there's an awful lot more to that story than just that. Yikes.
The mom went to a hospital to have a baby. They did a (routine?)U/S to check baby size while she was in labor and said she needed a c/s because baby was too big. Mom and Dad refused and left the hospital. They went to a 2nd hospital. Again they wanted to do a c/s. (I wonder why they agreed to an u/s again, but I digress) 2nd hospital told them they were going to do a c/s. They didn't tell the parents they were getting a court order. They spent 14 hours hassling the parents. Parents fled hospital and went to a third hospital where they had their 11lb baby girl vaginally with no tears. They found out about the court-order later. They sued and won.
post #10 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sweetiemommy View Post
Also in 2004, a judge in Rochester, New York, ordered a homeless woman not to get pregnant again without court approval after she lost custody of several neglected children.
Who the h*** do they think they are?!
post #11 of 18
Amazing what the courts think they have the right to dictate.
post #12 of 18
VERY scary.....I've said it before....we're not as free as we like to think we are. WE're only free as long as we live up to some people's guidelines.
post #13 of 18
One of the other students in my A&P class worked in the L&D unit of the hospital that I'd had my son at earlier in the semester. We were talking about gestation and how the placenta can age and become less functional, and about how that's why women are induced when they go post-dates. The professor asked her what happens if a woman doesn't *want* to have an induction, and she said: "Well, after 42 weeks we get a court order to induce them." Just matter-of-fact, like it wasn't anything out of the ordinary.

And this isn't a terrible hospital by any means, probably slightly above average in terms of birth-friendliness (the c-section rate is below 25%, there's a least one doctor that will attend vaginal breeches, they do VBAC's, etc.)

That cavalier dismissal of the right to make decisions about your own medical care scared the living @#%! out of me.
post #14 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by MegBoz View Post
I love how legally, a parent can't be forced to undergo medical treatment to help their out-of-the-womb CHILD (i.e. can't be legally forced to donate a kidney), but women can, and HAVE been forced to submit to medical treatment for their fetuses. That's so messed up.
On the other hand, courts have forced interventions on children both in and out of the womb. Do you remember that boy in Minnesota who recently had to undergo court-ordered chemotherapy?
Also, remember that a cesarean is as much an intervention on the baby as it is on the mother. And judges often rule while claiming to be saving the baby's life. That the state can dictate what happens to our bodies--as well as those of our children--is beyond frightening.

I'm legally ignorant on this aspect, but aren't there attorneys defending these women?! Or can docs just call up a judge and order an intervention like they're ordering pizza?
post #15 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turquesa View Post
I'm legally ignorant on this aspect, but aren't there attorneys defending these women?! Or can docs just call up a judge and order an intervention like they're ordering pizza?
The hospitals have a lot more $$$ at their disposal than your average woman, and they have attorneys at the ready.
It would take a pregnant woman time and money to find an attorney for her case (especially if she needed to try to find a pro-bono attorney), which is difficult if she has no idea that she even has a "case" until the hospital surprises her with a court order that essentially makes them legal kidnappers.
I imagine that's why these women generally have little recourse but to sue at a later date. :/
post #16 of 18
Not trying to pick a fight or offend anyone, but I see such a huge disconnect in the thinking of the courts.

They uphold the right to a late term, even partial birth abortion for all women. It is the woman's body

YET

They see fit to dictate the how, what, and where of pregnancies and reproductive capabilitys in women. They are protecting the child.

Humm...
post #17 of 18
Argh!!! I just heard another piece on my local news station. It was talking about a new grant to help low-income women in the rural counties around Tallahassee have healthy pregnancies and healthy babies...and the woman they interviewed told the story of how her doctor (at the same hospital mentioned in the previous story) gave her a C-section, even though she didn't want it, because her baby was 9lb 2 oz! WTF??? How is this a good thing?? The program is touting its goal of "healthy pregnancy outcomes" - by giving c-sections to unsuspecting women for 9lb babies?
I hope I never have to set foot in that hospital!
post #18 of 18
ugh! I'm in Tallahassee, too. Yucky. The OB mentioned in the news story was my OB with my first pregnancy, and I birthed him at that hospital. Glad I had my homebirth in November. But my sis is being forced into a planned c-section in May at that same hospital (different OB).
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Birth and Beyond
Mothering › Forums › Pregnancy and Birth › Birth and Beyond › mom fights legal battle against hospital that court ordered bedrest and c-section