Woman charged with murder after refusing C-section - Page 11 - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#301 of 357 Old 03-15-2004, 11:12 PM
 
Greaseball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Eugene, OR
Posts: 8,570
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Quote:
One final thought, somewhat unrelated - should HIV positive women, or women who know they have a genetic or infectious condition, but become pregnant, be charged with murder if their child get the disease or defect and dies?
Well, I say no...

I have a friend whose son is expected to die before age 20 from a genetic disorder she knew she carried. I don't think she should be charged with murder after dealing with his death. And I support her if she wants to have another child, and in carrying to term if she knows she will pass on the disorder.

I also know several HIV+ women who have chosen to have children (all of whom did not get HIV) and I applaud them as well.

Genetic conditions cannot be controlled, and once HIV is gotten it can't be stopped either. (Incidentally, the WHO estimates that one third of all HIV cases are not preventable by the victim, such as rapes or accidental needle sticks.) Drug use can be stopped, though for some women they will need more help than others.

That's a good point about how we want to spend all this money to lock up women who use drugs and damage their babies, but it's OK if babies are damaged by doctors or by environmental conditions that those in power refuse to change. Or by not enough good food...yes, there is hunger in America, even if you get WIC.
Greaseball is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#302 of 357 Old 03-15-2004, 11:30 PM
 
tiffani's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 3,772
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
[QUOTE] originally posted by Mamid
The problem with forced treatment on pregnant women is that those who have problems - medical, social or otherwise - who are and have been marginalized by society for generations will have to go into hiding in order to have their children. So instead of coming out for help when they really need it, they and their unborn will have had no medical care and no help. More women and their babies will die. [QUOTE]




Not only will those who are marginalized by society for having problems be forced to "go underground", so too will those of us who make educated decisions that go against the mainstream be forced to hide those decisions away from society for fear of being prosecuted for doing what we feel is right for our families. The vax issue, homebirth, alternative medical treatments...the list goes on and on, but really, making any decision that goes against the mainstream carries a risk when we allow lawmakers so much control over our lives.
What is so sad about this case is that this woman (Melissa?) was once a child (exactly like the kind many of us strongly advocate for) that needed help, and grew into an adult who needs MAJOR HELP, but our society is so vindictive and narrow-minded that we seek revenge and want to "lock her up" or sterilize her for her problems that stem from drug addiction, mental illness, and, let's not forget, POVERTY that so many women constantly face in our "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" society. I highly doubt that she received much medical treatment or advice during any of her pregnancies, for fear of being locked up for drug abuse. Let's not forget that she wasn't planning to keep these babies--whether she was going to sell them or give them up for adoption by legal methods, she knew she was unfit to care for them, and I'm SURE, in her own twisted way, wanted the best for them. We can't be sure what she was thinking in regard to the advice she received about needing a c-section--she's totally unstable, and was possibly delusional--we really just can't sit in judgement of her actions without walking in her shoes. Ideally, at some point in our lives, we should be able to be held accountable for our actions, but some people are just plain F***ed up, and can't even grasp the concept of responsibility. I fully agree that her kids are the victims of HER reckless behavior, but she and her kids, and all others like them, are the victims of a vengeful society where the almighty $$$$$ is worth so much more than human life--ALL humans, not just the innocent or well-behaved.
What we need to be doing is putting more money and effort and energy into HELPING those is need, and less money into penalizing them after the damage has been done

We're Tiffani , Mark , Lucy (9/99) , Dexter (8/01) ,and Zachary Marvin (3/07) and Naomi Rose (6/09), home 11/10, by way of Ugandan adoption.

tiffani is offline  
#303 of 357 Old 03-15-2004, 11:40 PM
 
Clarity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 4,409
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Genetic conditions cannot be controlled, and once HIV is gotten it can't be stopped either.
You can't control it per se...but some would say that if you knew ahead of time that you had a disease or genetic condition, it was your choice to inflict it on a child by conceiving. Having a genetic issue myself, I don't see this as that much of a hypothetical stretch. If I had been in different hospitals or with other physicians with differing philosophies it would have greatly aoffected my and my babies' medical treatment. Just something to consider when we try to distill this down to a black and white issue. Having had to struggle with these issues personally I believe it's critical that I am the primary patient and sole decision maker in this skin. The circumstances where we decide that it's ok for the state to dictate those decisions is very interesting.
Clarity is offline  
#304 of 357 Old 03-16-2004, 02:46 AM
 
yequanamama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: the Midwest
Posts: 464
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
As you can see, I'm in Utah and WHOO! is this one infuriating. But, interestingly, the story broke just two days after the list of the most-highly paid professions in Utah came out. Guess who topped the list - OBs. This is a bit of a tangent, but this Rowland case has highlighted my general and deep frustration with obstetrics here in Utah (I'm sure many of you feel the same about OB in your communities.)

OBs (especially in ultra-conventional communities like Utah) take the attitude of, "Don't you worry about a thing, sweetheart. I'm going to take care of everything." So the women who see them (the majority of women in the community) don't "worry about a thing." They don't take childbirth classes, they don't learn about their options, they don't learn about the variety of things that can happen during pregnancy, labor and birth.

So, when something goes wrong in one of those three cases (P, L or B) they blame the doctor - of course! He/she was supposed to take care of everything. He/she communicates that he/she is in control of everything, has superpowers and won't let anything "happen" to woman or baby. So, instead of understanding that things sometimes happen beyond anyone's control, they think the doctor who was supposed to "take care of everything" obviously failed them.

Hence, malpractice rates for OBs are astronomical because they lead their patients to believe that they will take care of everything. They give the impression that it's the doctors responsibility to make decisions regarding the care of a baby, and the parents don't realize it's actually THEIR responsibility, with the doctor as their advisor. So something goes wrong, and of course it's the doctors fault.

Women who see midwives, by and large, take far more responsibility, and so don't tend to blame a midwive when something goes wrong.

So, back to the woman charged with murder. Apparently she's mentally ill, so that puts a curve-ball into the ball game, but let's assume the same happened to a mentally competent woman. Of course, the doctors are used to women not questioning their advice, so they have the inclination to go after someone who questions their all-powerful authority on matters obstetrical, when choosing not to follow their advice leads to a bad outcome. (There's no guarantee that a C/S would have had good outcomes for all parties involved.)

I wouldn't have chosen Rowland's course of action, but I probably WOULD have sought a second opinion. And the first doctor would probably be outraged because I wasn't taking his/her word as God's final decision. Anyway, my point is, the same attitudes that make them go after a women who's baby dies after refusing a C/S give them their crazy malpratice rates.

Thanks for letting me vent!
yequanamama is offline  
#305 of 357 Old 03-16-2004, 10:13 AM
Banned
 
PurpleBasil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,425
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
On The Fence, your recommendations for sterilization are incredibly offensive. You also said these babies should have been aborted. How about now one is dead? So you must be happy with that given that you thought they both should have been terminated long ago.

What's next? Charging babies with murder when their mom dies in childbirth?

She should not be sterilized and I'm sickened that I'm reading this here at MDC. Disgusting.
PurpleBasil is offline  
#306 of 357 Old 03-16-2004, 10:18 AM
 
lena g's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 6
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
This actually is too personal for me having lost my twin daughter, and while I find the discussion fascinating, I do think we are losing sight of the basic facts since the precedent scares us so much. And this is my question to each of you, as mothers. In your heart if you were told your child might die if we don't do an emergency c-section would you chose not to have the c-section? Scars and all. This debate is not about the US and it's high rate of c-sections, it is not even about drug addiction or mental illness. At least it is not for me.

I cannot fathom how she could have made that choice. Maybe that is because I worked so hard to keep my twins safe that I cannot imagine how one could choose anything over their lives. Inherently, I feel becoming a mother means losing a part of yourself, but I happily do so for my son, and angel daughter in heaven or wherever she is.

Doing hard core drugs, is not having a beer or two during pregnancy. It is making a concious choice of your own needs over those of your child's, and endangering a life that you have chosen to bring into this world. While this is a fine choice to make (drugs not beer), and yours to choose, I think perhaps then childbearing and rearing are not the best choices for you. And if you are mentally unstable and unable to use birth control, then perhaps as a society we should consider how to protect our children.

But would you as mothers make the choice of no surgery over c-section?

Perhaps I am blessed with a wonderful OB who cares for my family as people, but I worked hard to find her, and they are out there. And I am sorry so many of you are angry at the medical community, I don't feel that, the surgeons saved my son's life when he was five days old.

As for those who believe this woman has the right to continue breeding at will, spend a day or two in the NICU (my son was there for five weeks) and see the 1 pound babies fighting addiction while they fight for their lives, suffering seizures, surgeries, breathing tubes, and brain bleeds.

And lastly, before I sign off, I am Jewish and spent several years studying the holocaust, working with survivors as well as German students on an exchange program to try and heal the past scars. Please do not go there if you do not know what you are speaking of. Sterilizing crack mothers who continue to put their children, living or unborn, at risk IS NOT what Hitler was proposing. It is not wiping out entire races (do not forget the gypsies that he all but destroyed) for purity reasons, that is not what is at issue here.

And not to sound too much like I am creating fiction, but as a child of abuse under the hands of addicts, yes on this one I am speaking first hand as well.

So yes, this case is dangerous, dangerous in that it could create laws that we are not looking to create, but let us not lose sight of the fact that this woman chose not to save her child's life, and endangered her other child, had both up for adoption before they were born (so the remaining one does not need his mother nor is it suffering for her absence), and has already had two other children that as I understand it she is not caring for. This woman, not the case law, this woman, should be stopped from having more children, and perhaps more.....

Good luck with the debates.

Lena, mother to Max and ^i^Mia

PS Kim, thanks for your post. It meant the world to me.
lena g is offline  
#307 of 357 Old 03-16-2004, 10:19 AM
 
OnTheFence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Alabama
Posts: 3,391
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally posted by playdoh
On The Fence, your recommendations for sterilization are incredibly offensive. You also said these babies should have been aborted. How about now one is dead? So you must be happy with that given that you thought they both should have been terminated long ago.

What's next? Charging babies with murder when their mom dies in childbirth?

She should not be sterilized and I'm sickened that I'm reading this here at MDC. Disgusting.
O give me a break. :

How insulting that you think I am happy one is dead. What kind of person are YOU?
I am sickened by your attitude as well, towards me. Your insinuations and assumptions.
OnTheFence is offline  
#308 of 357 Old 03-16-2004, 10:37 AM
 
Peppamint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Not here
Posts: 12,887
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally posted by lena g
But would you as mothers make the choice of no surgery over c-section?
This mother would ask for a second opinion. My 14 month old brother died because of a physician. My dd's birth was managed because of a physician who was "playing it safe"... another OB has told me she took things too far.

If a physician I trusted recommended one and I saw evidence that it was true, yes I would have a c/s. I would also be heartbroken as well.

I fell for the "your baby's heart tones are dropping we need to get her out" gimmick once and all it got me was a baby who wasn't ready to be born and my vagina cut open.
Peppamint is offline  
#309 of 357 Old 03-16-2004, 10:45 AM
 
Mindyleigh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Eagle River, Alaska
Posts: 74
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally posted by lena g
Twins are high risk and for that reason you see a doctor every other week with monthly ultrasounds. They tell you from day one that rarely are twins delivered vaginally but in all cases they prefer to deliver vaginally. The number of tests and appointments you have is staggering. As I read the articles, the doctors saw that one twin was in distress, probably twin to twin transfusion as that is what shows over time. If it were a lowered heartrate or a cord twist, they would not have given her weeks to make the decision. Therefore she knew that the twin was in distress and chose to not save its life.

While I agree, that this case sets a dangerous precedent, I find it hard to believe based on my own love for my children that a mother would chose her own over her child's life. Frankly, I thought nothing of being bedridden for my entire pregnancy to give my twins the best chance of survival.

While I agree with much of what is said on this post, let us not forget, that she let a child in her womb die. No matter what the reason. And frankly, then she should have terminated the pregnancy. I promise you the list of dangerous possibilities from having multiples is given to you on day one, and reinforced at every single appointment, there is no way she was not aware of the chance of a c-section.
Alrighty. Hi, everyone! Have avoided posting up til now, but when I saw this post last night, I had to comment.

At 22-ish weeks of our most recent pregnancy, my husband and I received the one and only ultrasound of the experience to diagnose that we were, in fact, having twins. We were thrilled! Then it hit us---there were next to no midwives in our area who were willing to work with us from that point on.

Since we couldn't find a midwife, we decided to have an unassisted birth. It was NOT ACCEPTABLE to subject ourselves OR OUR CHILDREN to the invasive, interventive, monitor-happy philosophies of western medicine and turn our pregnancy into a high-risk "disaster waiting to happen." I knew I could birth these children. I had no doubt whatsoever in my mind. Yet, we also knew that one or both might die. That is always a possibility in any birth. Frankly, as doctors are the third leading cause of death in the United States and the US has just about the worst infant mortality rate among the industrialized nations of the world, it happens a whole lot more often here than in other countries. However, we knew we would only feel accepting of that outcome if it happened as a result of natural causes, not because of the surgery I would probably be encouraged to have if I tried to give birth in a hospital.

Sure enough, our daughter was a footling breech. I gave birth to both of them in my bathroom and they are both sleeping soundly next to daddy at this early morning hour. Had we been in a hospital, I would have been forcibly encouraged to have surgery. Who knows what would have happened to our daughter or to me? Cesareans are touted as the safe alternative to vaginal birth but women seldom learn of the true risks involved to both mother and child through this often pointless surgery which is now at its highest rate in U.S. history. The facts have been cited throughout this thread, so I won't do it here.

Lena G, I am so sorry to hear of your loss, and I am not trying to rub my experience in. But you cannot insist or assume that all families are willing to participate in western medicine and obstetrics. I have a whole lot more faith in mother nature and would never subject my body to any of those procedures you speak of. I would never let a human being label me "high risk." Why did God give me these babies in the first place? To have me hand over my body to the faulty premise that birth only works when doctors get involved?

Furthermore, why should healthy women everywhere be potentially endangered by the precedent this woman's case has set?? I don't agree with her lifestyle or most of the choices she's made in the past, but I sure as heck don't want to be arrested for making the decision to give birth in the way that's right for our family.
Mindyleigh is offline  
#310 of 357 Old 03-16-2004, 10:47 AM
 
OnTheFence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Alabama
Posts: 3,391
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally posted by busybusymomma
This mother would ask for a second opinion. My 14 month old brother died because of a physician. My dd's birth was managed because of a physician who was "playing it safe"... another OB has told me she took things too far.

If a physician I trusted recommended one and I saw evidence that it was true, yes I would have a c/s. I would also be heartbroken as well.

I fell for the "your baby's heart tones are dropping we need to get her out" gimmick once and all it got me was a baby who wasn't ready to be born and my vagina cut open.
MR got not ONE OR TWO BUT THREE. THREE OPINIONS!!! Over the course of 2 weeks. THREE, not ONE.
OnTheFence is offline  
#311 of 357 Old 03-16-2004, 11:09 AM
 
Pynki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Inside the café au lait
Posts: 7,265
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
So in your mind then OTF.. It is the fact that she sought out other options that bothers you.. She didn't believe the OB on call, and later sought different Medical treatment.. And the 3rd time she sought medical help she took the medical advice..

That seems to be the timeline of events.. She was seeking medical treatment, but didn't like her options so left.. And still continued seeking medical treatment..

I may not agree with her choices, but she was still seeking treatment options..

Warmly..

Dyan

It's lonely being the only XX in a house of XYs.
Pynki is offline  
#312 of 357 Old 03-16-2004, 12:47 PM
 
candiland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Waiting for Calgon to take me away.
Posts: 3,890
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
It's funny....... everyone's talking and thinking logically here. Obviously, this woman did not have the ability to think logically. So those of you who wish to see her behind bars for the rest of her life are assuming that she had the ability to think logically and reason everything out, like you are doing right here on this board. But she couldn't think logically. She couldn't use reason. That's probably why she chose not to abort. That's why she did drugs. That's why she freaked and kept hemming and hawing over the advice to have a c-section. That's why she didn't think of consequences.... truly mentally ill people are incompetent to do so!

Having had mental health issues in the past, I can attest to the fact that in some places, it is impossible to get help. I called around to every department and office in my state, and over and over again, I heard, "Yes, our therapists can work on a sliding scale fee. But in order to get medication, we have a waiting list of four to five months. Our psychiatrists are very busy." And I'm a LOT more mentally stable than this woman! And I was literally driven to tears, several times a day, by the fact that I desperately needed help and no one would help me.

It's so easy to judge if you've never experienced anything like that. If I hadn't experienced something similar in my past, I'd probably be right here with those people pointing my finger and saying "Jail! Jail! Jail!" Luckily, I have a tremendous assortment of life experiences so I am not judgmental anymore.
candiland is offline  
#313 of 357 Old 03-16-2004, 12:53 PM
 
OnTheFence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Alabama
Posts: 3,391
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally posted by Pynki
So in your mind then OTF.. It is the fact that she sought out other options that bothers you.. She didn't believe the OB on call, and later sought different Medical treatment.. And the 3rd time she sought medical help she took the medical advice..

That seems to be the timeline of events.. She was seeking medical treatment, but didn't like her options so left.. And still continued seeking medical treatment..

I may not agree with her choices, but she was still seeking treatment options..

Warmly..

Dyan
She didnt take it any of the three times. She went three times between Dec 25 and Jan 9, and then a FOURTH time on the 13th. What bothers me is that after the second and even third opinion from three different sources, she did NOTHING. To me that makes her guilty of at the least manslaughter.

Also, I cannot support women who do risky, negligent behaviors -- that includes homebirthing and unassisted births and not transferring to hospitals when complictions arrive. Medicine and medical intervention has its place. Allowing children to die out of fear of surgery or a scar to me is unacceptable, sane or not sane. While I support homebirth and unassisted birth as choices for women, to not seek medical intervention to possibly save your child is horrendous. I value my children more.
OnTheFence is offline  
#314 of 357 Old 03-16-2004, 12:54 PM
 
OnTheFence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Alabama
Posts: 3,391
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
{{{LENA}}}

I am right there on the bench with you! As someoone who has struggled to have children, I can't fathom why people would be so negligent in their care and take unnecessary risk with their children's lives, born or unborn.
OnTheFence is offline  
#315 of 357 Old 03-16-2004, 12:57 PM
 
OnTheFence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Alabama
Posts: 3,391
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally posted by candiland
It's funny....... everyone's talking and thinking logically here. Obviously, this woman did not have the ability to think logically. So those of you who wish to see her behind bars for the rest of her life are assuming that she had the ability to think logically and reason everything out, like you are doing right here on this board. But she couldn't think logically. She couldn't use reason. That's probably why she chose not to abort. That's why she did drugs. That's why she freaked and kept hemming and hawing over the advice to have a c-section. That's why she didn't think of consequences.... truly mentally ill people are incompetent to do so!

I think she made a conscience choice to kill her child. Three people, three seperate occassions she sought medical treatment. What does this say? She knew something was wrong, did nothing, not once, but three times. The fourth time she showed up at a hospital one baby was dead, the other in distress. This leads me to believe she knew what she was doing and had the ability to reason.
OnTheFence is offline  
#316 of 357 Old 03-16-2004, 12:58 PM
 
Breathless Wonder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,133
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Also, I cannot support women who do risky, negligent behaviors -- that includes homebirthing and unassisted births and not transferring to hospitals when complictions arrive.

He who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe is as good as dead; his eyes are closed.  ~Albert Einstein
Breathless Wonder is offline  
#317 of 357 Old 03-16-2004, 12:58 PM
 
candiland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Waiting for Calgon to take me away.
Posts: 3,890
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
OTF, did you even read my post?????

This woman is seriously ill and probably doesn't have the capabilities to judge sane actions from irrational ones!!!!!! She's not like you and I, sweetie. She obviously cannot think logically. She cannot think rationally. Why is it so hard to see this??? Just because she panicked and went to three different docs does not make her sane, or rational, or healthy, or normal! If she were, she wouldn't have been doing drugs, selling her kids, and not agreeing to the cesarean!
candiland is offline  
#318 of 357 Old 03-16-2004, 01:08 PM
 
Evergreen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Where all the women are strong
Posts: 5,295
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I still don't understand how she can be charged with murder if abortion is legal at anytime during a pregnancy.

Child endangerment for the drugs, sure

I do think she is a horrible person mentally ill or not

Evergreen- Loving my girls Dylan dust.gifage8, Ava energy.gifage 4 and baby Georgia baby.gif (6/3/11).

Evergreen is offline  
#319 of 357 Old 03-16-2004, 01:35 PM
 
honey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 396
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally posted by OnTheFence
Also, I cannot support women who do risky, negligent behaviors -- that includes homebirthing and unassisted births and not transferring to hospitals when complictions arrive. Medicine and medical intervention has its place. Allowing children to die out of fear of surgery or a scar to me is unacceptable, sane or not sane. While I support homebirth and unassisted birth as choices for women, to not seek medical intervention to possibly save your child is horrendous. I value my children more.
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.
honey is offline  
#320 of 357 Old 03-16-2004, 01:59 PM
 
lena g's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 6
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Aren't you fortunate that both of your twins are sleeping by your side. I envy you that. Had you read my previous posts you would have seen that Mia was in fact transverse breach and she was twin b. Max was twin A and was head down, so my OB would not do a c-section on me. They were adament even that they not induce but that i go to term. I was induced only after they found that Mia had been tangled in her cord and died three days prior and they were unsure if Max was even safe, but we were almost full term and they decided to risk his delivery. And even then they induced for a vaginal delivery for Max since he was head down. NEVER did my Ob recommend a c-section, never did they even hint that was an option unless of difficulty.

I feel sorry for those who have chosen western medicine and had bad experiences, which it sounds like many here have had, as one who believes strongly in acupuncture and yoga and healing not through antibiotics and the like, I feel that I live a balanced life. I however, have researched hard, and we pay through the nose, so that I can see the doctors of my choice, ones I trust.

And I think you made a well informed decision and weighed the pros and cons. That however does not sound like the decision this woman made. Evidently not since she was using drugs during her pregnancy.

And now, I really will sign off, I am not even interested in hearing what pious advice such as yours is being doled out. Lucky, lucky, lucky and congrats on your homebirth with no complications.

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.
lena g is offline  
#321 of 357 Old 03-16-2004, 02:06 PM
 
lena g's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 6
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
lena g is offline  
#322 of 357 Old 03-16-2004, 02:15 PM
 
OnTheFence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Alabama
Posts: 3,391
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
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.
OnTheFence is offline  
#323 of 357 Old 03-16-2004, 02:42 PM
 
honey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 396
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
honey is offline  
#324 of 357 Old 03-16-2004, 02:48 PM
 
candiland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Waiting for Calgon to take me away.
Posts: 3,890
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
candiland is offline  
#325 of 357 Old 03-16-2004, 02:55 PM
 
honey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 396
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
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.
honey is offline  
#326 of 357 Old 03-16-2004, 03:31 PM
 
Greaseball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Eugene, OR
Posts: 8,570
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Quote:
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.
Greaseball is offline  
#327 of 357 Old 03-16-2004, 05:03 PM
 
veganmamma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Yikes, living w/ my ILs!
Posts: 4,355
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
veganmamma is offline  
#328 of 357 Old 03-16-2004, 05:06 PM
 
Mindyleigh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Eagle River, Alaska
Posts: 74
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
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.
Mindyleigh is offline  
#329 of 357 Old 03-16-2004, 06:59 PM
 
Peppamint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Not here
Posts: 12,887
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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?
Peppamint is offline  
#330 of 357 Old 03-16-2004, 07:10 PM
 
lollaleeloo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 53
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
lollaleeloo is offline  
Reply

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off