or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Pregnancy and Birth › Birth and Beyond › Woman charged with murder after refusing C-section
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Woman charged with murder after refusing C-section - Page 14

post #261 of 357
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.
post #262 of 357
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?
post #263 of 357
OntheFence, can you please clear out your pm box, I've been trying to pm you and can't.
post #264 of 357
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)
post #265 of 357
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.
post #266 of 357
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?
post #267 of 357
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.
post #268 of 357
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.
post #269 of 357

As far as c/s drugs go..

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
post #270 of 357
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.
post #271 of 357
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
post #272 of 357
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.
post #273 of 357
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.
post #274 of 357
whoops.
post #275 of 357
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???
post #276 of 357
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.
post #277 of 357
post #278 of 357
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.
post #279 of 357
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.
post #280 of 357
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.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Birth and Beyond
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Pregnancy and Birth › Birth and Beyond › Woman charged with murder after refusing C-section