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:
|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.