Woman charged with murder after refusing C-section - Page 17

[lena g]

kim

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Re: mindyleigh

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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,

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:

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

Only to 22 weeks where I live.

[mamanclaire]

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]

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]

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?