Woman charged with murder after refusing C-section - Page 3

[isleta]

[Arduinna]

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

[RAF]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[hmpc2]

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]

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]

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]

This really bothers me!:

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]

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]

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]

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]

Very Very Sad!!!

[wombat]

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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.