Mom chooses not oto have C-section. Charged wh Murder.

[Tmy]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,114016,00.html

One of her twins died prior to birth when she didnt have the c-section as suggested by the doctors. She didnt want to have the scar.

Now her reasons are disgusting but this case brings up some interesting questions. All she did was refuse to have surgery done to her. Which is a persons right. BUT at the same time theres full term babies life at stake.

Thoughts on the murder charge?

[Graham]

A few small points to bear in mind while discussing this story (had a long discussion with some people about this already today):

1) The woman has a documented history of mental illness

2) The woman has a documented history of alcohol and drug abuse (she is currently also facing charges because of they found cocaine in the bloodstream of the baby that survied, btw)

3) The woman has a history of neglecting her children (of which she has, IIRC, two or three others all in one form of care or another)

When this woman arrived at the hospital, acting irrationally and refusing medical advice, why was she not dealt with more appropriately ie sectioned and a court guardian appointed to the unborn children (which, AFAIK, is standard procedure in these cases)?

The woman is a strung out, messed up lunatic and should be in a mental hospital.

IMO, the hospital authorities should be charged with neglect (and manslaughter of the baby, if you want to go down that route at all).

Those issues aside, this case sets a hideous precedent. What if your doctor says "go on a diet - for the sake of the baby" or "stop working and stay home - for the sake of the baby" and you don't and the baby happens to die (and sometimes they just do, you know, no matter who's advice you take), is that murder too?

Graham

[Jocko]

While her actions are inexcusable as a human being, surely she is within her rights to refuse medical treatment? I mean, if she was some hillbilly in the woods who never went to a doctor at all, would there still be grounds to file charges?

I guess it comes down to fetus rights. Does her right to refuse treatment extend to the point where it infringes on the rights of her unborn children? Are there even any rights to be had? If what Graham says is true and a guardian would/should be appointed because of the mother's diminished mental state, then I'd have to say that yeah, the mother ought to be prosecuted.

I don't see how you can blame the hospital, though, except maybe for not adequately pursuing legal channels to override the mother's refusals. They're not in the business of getting themselves sued, after all.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Graham

Those issues aside, this case sets a hideous precedent. What if your doctor says "go on a diet - for the sake of the baby" or "stop working and stay home - for the sake of the baby" and you don't and the baby happens to die (and sometimes they just do, you know, no matter who's advice you take), is that murder too?

Graham

More to the point, what if the mother had not been strung out and mentally diminished (i.e., out of her cocaine-fried mind)? Is a competent mother legally responsible under the same circumstances? Now THAT'S a scary precedent, when the rights of a fetus exist or not depending on what is really an irrelevant circumstance (as far as the fetus might be concerned).

[El Greco]

Graham's points give a new dimension to the story, but I think a theoretical discussion would be more interesting if we assume a healthy, normal woman.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by El Greco
Graham's points give a new dimension to the story, but I think a theoretical discussion would be more interesting if we assume a healthy, normal woman.

My point exactly. Is this a matter of the rights of the unborn child, or simply relieving a manic of her own rights for her own good?

I'm wondering... did the mother suffer any ill-effects by delivering normally? Is there a compelling reason based on her health alone to perform the c-section? Or was the recommendation based soley on the welfare of the fetuses?

Seems like the "health and welfare" of the mother may become an argument not only for abortion, but also for forced delivery... how's that for ironic?

[jimlintott]

This is going to sound pretty 'out there'.

I believe that we should generally not charge a mother with murder if she kills her own child in its first year of life.

This child died during child birth and therefore, in my own crazy opinion, was never a living human being. No murder (or manslaughter) was committed by anyone.

(I'm guessing I probably just upset many people.)

[Graham]

Originally posted by Jocko


More to the point, what if the mother had not been strung out and mentally diminished (i.e., out of her cocaine-fried mind)? Is a competent mother legally responsible under the same circumstances? Now THAT'S a scary precedent, when the rights of a fetus exist or not depending on what is really an irrelevant circumstance (as far as the fetus might be concerned).

That is really what I was wondering in my last paragraph.

In my experience, you get all kinds of varying and sometimes contradictory advice from doctors when you're pregnant (or your wife is anyway ;) ).

At some point you have to decide for yourself what to do. What happens if you make the wrong decision and the baby dies?

This is especially worrying if it's the doctor who gave the advice who decides if not following his advice was directly responsible for baby's death.

In this case, for instance, leaving aside the other particulars mentioned above, the doctor who carried out the autopsy stated that the baby would have survived if the C-section had been carried out when first recommended. Now that's possible but it's also very possible that the baby wouldn't have survived anyway, given his mothers state of health and the cocktail of chemicals in his bloodstream.

Who's to say what would have happened had circumstances been different? You can speculate as to likely outcomes and possibilities but, IMO, that's the best you can do.

Graham

[El Greco]

I wonder... if this is a crime and the doctors could already predict the outcome... should they have reoprted her refusal to undergo a c-section to the police ?

I mean, if they can charge her for a crime, shouldn't someone also be charged for not preventing that forewarned crime ?

[El Greco]

And another question: When you murder someone you know beforehand that you are going to face justice. Did the woman know this ?

[Dancing David]

Grahm, there are some points that you raise which should not even be considered in the impact of a criminal cases. There are thousands if not millions of women who chose to have thier children at home. This poses a huge risk to the child being borne. But since a lot of the them are middle clas they never get charged with a crime, they just sue the doctor for not being able to save the baby after it was starved of oxygen in a difficult labor outside the hospital.

Originally posted by Graham

-snip-
1) The woman has a documented history of mental illness

In American juriprudence this is totaly irrelevant. If she is not threatening to kill herself or murder someone, then she is never going to be hospitalized.

This is nation that starves people too, in the name of freedom.



2) The woman has a documented history of alcohol and drug abuse (she is currently also facing charges because of they found cocaine in the bloodstream of the baby that survied, btw)

Not to be rude, but this is also irrelevant, alcohol use by a pregant woman is not a crime, althous fetal alcohol syndrome is a real problem. It is also a crime that is just as likely in the middle and upper class as the lower class, guess whose babies get taken into custody, only the poor's.


3) The woman has a history of neglecting her children (of which she has, IIRC, two or three others all in one form of care or another)

There are millions of cases of child abuse and neglect in the USA, we do not prevent people from having children, even if they have had children taken into custody. We allow children to remanin in abusive families, especialy if the family has enough money to afford a private attorney.

When this woman arrived at the hospital, acting irrationally and refusing medical advice, why was she not dealt with more appropriately ie sectioned and a court guardian appointed to the unborn children (which, AFAIK, is standard procedure in these cases)?

In the US in lots jurisdictions it is very difficult to take gaurdianship of a person, the standards are very hard to meet. People are irrational in refusing medical care all the time. She is no different from a middle class woman who choses to have a home birth. Or a person who refuses chemotherapy.

The woman is a strung out, messed up lunatic and should be in a mental hospital.

Not in the Us, we allow people the freedom to be ill, the standard is that she must threaten to kill herself or another before she can be involuntarily commited.
Would you have us commit people who refuse to get treatement for their heart condition or for diabetes?

IMO, the hospital authorities should be charged with neglect (and manslaughter of the baby, if you want to go down that route at all).

Well then the government would be liable for all the suffering caused by a lack of universal health care.

Those issues aside, this case sets a hideous precedent. What if your doctor says "go on a diet - for the sake of the baby" or "stop working and stay home - for the sake of the baby" and you don't and the baby happens to die (and sometimes they just do, you know, no matter who's advice you take), is that murder too?

Graham

I think that your last paragraph sums it up.
the reason this womean is being tried is that the state's attorney/district attorney is standing for re-election. The memebers of the upper clas and middle clas do this all the time. This women is being persecuted for the crime of being poor and menatly ill.

religous whackos torture and kill thier children every year, but we won't charge religion with murder.

Thanks Grahm, good post. I hope I haven't been to over the top.
I just hate the 'right-to-life' in the US, they want to save the unborn babies and then let them suffer after they are born.

[Graham]

David,

I am not clear from your post - are you saying that this woman shouldn't have been sectioned or just that, under the current US system, she wouldn't have been sectioned?

If it's the former, I can think of few better reasons for sectioning a pregnant woman than clear evidence of mental illness, substance abuse and neglect of other children.

If it's the latter, then that's just very sad really and should be changed, IMO.

I do agree with you though, that this case might have gone differently if the woman was of a different background. That's sad too.

Graham

[Tmy]

One baby was born fine. ( I assume). So she was 1/2 right about the natural chidl birth! Its not clear from the story that just the one was in danger.

[Dancing David]

No I was pointing out that in the US the right to refuse treatment is seen every where except for this case. People are free to deny themselves medical treatment all the time. There is very little in US law that allows for the government to force medical tratement on an individual, and in act alot of parents legaly dent thier children medical treatment.

I think that this case is just election year pandering and some sort of attempt to set back abortion laws.

[Graham]

Originally posted by Tmy
One baby was born fine. ( I assume). So she was 1/2 right about the natural chidl birth! Its not clear from the story that just the one was in danger.

The other child was born a coke addict, so not quite fine but your point is still valid.

However, I think it is sometimes the case with twins that it seems likely that one or other will die unless action is taken. That may have been the situation here.

Anyone with medical knowledge want to comment on that?

Graham

[shecky]

You'd think this must have come up before.

There are also plenty of folks delivering at home with widwives of varying ability and experience. There must be times when C sections should be performed but are not, with fatal consequences. At what point does this become a chargable offense? And under what conditions?

On a somewhat related note, my physician, who used to do OB, told me that the local hospital has a very high rate of C section deliveries. Significantly more than 25%, IIRC. Apparently, delivery by C section is a safer and more controllable procedure?!?!

[Blue Monk]

My pat response is that no one should be forced into a medical procedure against their will. This, of course, raises some moral dilemmas in the cases of childbirth.

There is one overriding factor that should be considered from a legal standpoint.

A doctor’s opinion is simply that, an opinion.

Medical history is filled with exceptional cases of people surviving what should have killed them, contrary to all accepted understanding of the cases. These cases are rare but they do happen.

In this particular case, if the story is accurate and I’m reading it correctly it says, “doctors repeatedly told her they (emphasis mine) would likely die if she did not have a Caesarean .”

By ‘they’ I am assuming they meant both children and in that respect they were wrong as one child did survive and the term ‘likely’ is a clear indication that they could not predict the outcome with absolute certainty.

Now to the crux of my argument, there is no way anyone can say with any degree of certainty that the child who died would have survived had the Caesarean been performed. They can offer their expert opinion but any good defense lawyer will no doubt point out that one child did in fact survive despite their expert opinion.

Personally, I am appalled by this woman’s reasoning but the fact remains there is no way of knowing with any certainty that the outcome would have been any different had she had the procedure.

[El Greco]

Originally posted by shecky
Apparently, delivery by C section is a safer and more controllable procedure?!?!

It's just that obstetricians can program them and the labour will not spoil their sleep, weekend or vacation. There was a big fuss here sometime ago when the undue number of c-sections hit the media.

[Denise]

I can't help but think what this woman would be charged with if she claimed her reasons for not having the surgery were religiously based. I doubt they would charge her with anything because the child apparently died in the uterus.

On a side note, having been through the pain of labor, I can't imagine turning down a chance to have a c section before having any labor pains at all. Sure the recovery time is longer, but you are also able to take liberal pain medications and there's no worry about harming the babies as there is during labor.

I also can't help but think about other stories in the media. What about the women who have six babies but choose not to reduce? Some of these cases have turned out not so rosy with one or more of the children suffering from handicaps as a result. I'm thinking of the woman in Iowa with septuplets. A couple of her children have significant handicaps. Obviously, we can't force medical procedures on these women. What about a family that refuses to have conjoined twins separated knowing that they will both die if it's not done, but not wanting to do so because one will surely die? Can we charge them with murder too?

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Dancing David
In American juriprudence this is totaly irrelevant. If she is not threatening to kill herself or murder someone, then she is never going to be hospitalized.

Absolutely wrong, DD, you can be involuntarily admitted to state psychiatric care if you're a threat to yourself or someone else (not threatening "murder," as you put it)... Depending on what state you live in, examples can include something as straightforward as being unable to keep yourself clean and socially acceptable, far short of threatening murder or suicide.

Like it or not, it's the law. I recommend reading up on Baker Act law in Florida for a good example of what it takes to get yourself declared incompetent.

This is nation that starves people too, in the name of freedom.

I have no idea what you're talking about in this.

[Tmy]

I was thinking that this case isnt that big of deal. (when you igonore the pro/anti abortion types looking for a foothold)

What shouldve happend is that the hospital shoudve gone to the court to force the c section. A judge could way the interest of the child vs moms interest.

I think if you take a kid to term in a sence youve wavied your right to call all the shots. The kid has a stake too. Sort of like if you drive, you then imply that the cops can take a blood test in a DUI situation.

Or better yet, you dont have to help a drowing person. BUT if you start to assist the drowning guy you then have an obligation to not just quit mid rescue.

[Demigorgon]

I believe that we should generally not charge a mother with murder if she kills her own child in its first year of life.

You are a focking moron. There is no way you have any children.

I have a 7 month old daughter. Kill yourself.

[nemo]

What about Christian Scientists? Don't they refuse medical treatment all the time? I wonder how bringing religion into the mix would affect this situation?

Just saw Denise's post - she poses the same question :)

[gethane]

Originally posted by Denise

On a side note, having been through the pain of labor, I can't imagine turning down a chance to have a c section before having any labor pains at all. Sure the recovery time is longer, but you are also able to take liberal pain medications and there's no worry about harming the babies as there is during labor.


Uhh, following your sidenote.. Have you HAD a c-section? I've had two. I've also had two vaginal births (in between the two c-sections). There is NO QUESTION that I would choose a vaginal over c-section. The recovery is SO much harder with a c-section. In fact, I wanted another VBAC with my last child, but the doctor said he wouldn't do it BECAUSE OF malpractice risk.. NOT because of any particular medical risk of mine. My c-section wound was open for 5 weeks after my last c-section, and someone I know STILL has an open wound 4 months after her section. This is one of those "complications" they speak of.

In general, I have to say that people need to be able to make their own medical decisions. However, in this specific instance, with it CLEAR that the woman was mentally ill and not capable of making good decisions, a guardian should've been appointed and a c-section performed by force. Thank God the other baby has been taken away. That woman has no business breeding. If she is found guilty and sent to jail, the one good thing will be she is no longer breeding.

Gethane- mom to 4

[Denise]

Originally posted by gethane


Uhh, following your sidenote.. Have you HAD a c-section?

No, I only have one child. I had a very bad labor with her and she almost didn't make it. I probably should have had a c-section. I was pushing for over two hours but she had the cord wrapped tightly around her neck. The tear the doctor caused by ripping her out of me went all the way to my anus and it took him over half an hour to stitch it up inside and outside. If I were to have another child, which I don't plan on, I would elect a c-section in a heartbeat.

[gethane]

Originally posted by Denise


No, I only have one child. I had a very bad labor with her and she almost didn't make it. I probably should have had a c-section. I was pushing for over two hours but she had the cord wrapped tightly around her neck. The tear the doctor caused by ripping her out of me went all the way to my anus and it took him over half an hour to stitch it up inside and outside. If I were to have another child, which I don't plan on, I would elect a c-section in a heartbeat.

I'm sorry you experienced such a negative birth. However, you must surely realize that YOUR circumstance was unusual and not necessarily the general experience of all birthing women? Labor and birth is not fun. No question about it. However, you said you couldn't imagine a woman turning down a c-section over choosing labor. Since I've experienced both, I thought I would add my voice.

And yes, it does sound to me like perhaps you should've had a c-section after all with the cord around her neck. I pushed for 2.5 hours with my 2nd (first vaginal) so that in itself isn't necessarily cause for a section. Finally he offered to suction her out and I said please do so. (Actually I said, "Get... her.... OUT NOW!!") I'm sure your stitches were painful. I know I sure didn't enjoy my episiotomies. However, i would STILL choose vaginal (though I can't anymore after 2 sections).

I'm not arguing whether YOU should choose a section, but just belaboring the point that you can't imagine any woman choosing labor over a c-section.

[shanek]

I don't really have an opinion yet on whether or not what she did was murder, but I do have one question: If the doctor convinced her the c-section was necessary, and he performed the c-section and both babies died, could he be charged with murder? If not, isn't that a bit of a double-standard?

As for the c-section itself, my sister had one, and she still has back problems from it. She was also walking around for weeks holding her belly with the feeling her insides were going to fall out. And it was several days before she could walk properly. Whereas, my ex-wife, with both our children, had them not only vaginally but drug-free. We used the Bradley method, which prepares the woman's body for labor with stretching, exercises, and diet, and gives you a really good amount of knowledge to be as prepared as you can for this event. It went (almost*) textbook both times and she said that, although the pain was bad, it wasn't something she'd want a painkiller for.

*-The reason for the "almost" is that, when our daughter was born, labor stopped halfway through with the hild crowning; they had to get her out with the suction device quickly so she wouldn't suffocate.

[Denise]

Gethane, yes I understand some women would choose vaginal birth over c-section. I am not one of them! Let's see... 36 hours of painful labor in which one cannot take heavy duty narcotics versus a quick operation after which one can imbibe in very good pain killers. I would take the operation.

I understand that the recovery period is longer, but I couldn't walk hardly at all after my labor. I had to do the Tim Conway shuffle and it was very painful. I could barely get in and out of bed, in fact, I could not hold my daughter in my arms and do so as it took all I had to do so.

Anyhow, people probably don't want to read about my labor and birth experiences. Just want you to know that I understand that there are women who feel they way you do, and women who feel the way I do. I think women should have the choice, and at least around here, they do not.

[Denise]

Originally posted by shanek
[B
*-The reason for the "almost" is that, when our daughter was born, labor stopped halfway through with the hild crowning; they had to get her out with the suction device quickly so she wouldn't suffocate. [/B]

Yes, and that's why we should remember that purely "natural" child birth also caused a lot of maternal deaths. We've come a long way baby!

[Tmy]

Eeewwwwwww a little too much info in this thread.

Just goes to show you that C -sections arent so "routine" as the news shows are making it seem. After all they are gutting you man moving your insides out of the way. Its not exactly as simple as lasik surgery.

This case is in Utah. A heavy relegious state. You think that has alot to do wh the charges?

[gethane]

Originally posted by Tmy
Eeewwwwwww a little too much info in this thread.

Just goes to show you that C -sections arent so "routine" as the news shows are making it seem. After all they are gutting you man moving your insides out of the way. Its not exactly as simple as lasik surgery.

This case is in Utah. A heavy relegious state. You think that has alot to do wh the charges?

Yes, I think that really IS the point. C-sections aren't a tonsillectomy. A c-section is major abdominal surgery with the risk of maternal death HIGHER than in a vaginal birth. So by charging her with murder they are saying that she should've taken the higher risk of maternal death, and saved the babe. Seems as if they are valuing the child's life OVER the mothers. I have to say, I don't think that's right, for the State to make that judgement. (Though most pregnant women might feel that way :))

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Jocko


Absolutely wrong, DD, you can be involuntarily admitted to state psychiatric care if you're a threat to yourself or someone else (not threatening "murder," as you put it)... Depending on what state you live in, examples can include something as straightforward as being unable to keep yourself clean and socially acceptable, far short of threatening murder or suicide.

In my county of Illinois, you have to present 'a clear and present danger', to be hospitalized. The SA requires not only that you make a threat to harm someone but that you also show the intent to follow through upon it. I thought I had tempered my statement but perhaps not. In Illinois you have to be grossly incompetent to care for yourself to be committed.

Like it or not, it's the law. I recommend reading up on Baker Act law in Florida for a good example of what it takes to get yourself declared incompetent.

I understand that the standards vary from state to state, there is a veryhigh standard in illinois becuase the state does not want to pay to act as guardian.




I have no idea what you're talking about in this.

I am sure it was transparent socialist propaganda.

[Tmy]

I think the state should have a say.

Parents have a duty to protect their kids even if there is some risk to them. If your 5 yr old is running into the street you should be expected to run after him, even if theres a chance you might be injured.

If you take a kid to term, you owe him some protection. Just like we prosecute drug abusing moms for having crack babies.

[Mr Manifesto]

Just to throw a bit more controversy into the mix:

Risks of Cesarean (sic) Section (http://www.childbirth.org/section/risks.html)

Cesarean birth is major surgery, and, as with other surgical procedures, risks are involved. The estimated risk of a woman dying after a cesarean birth is less than one in 2,500 (the risk of death after a vaginal birth is less than one in 10,000). These are estimated risks for a large population of women. Individual medical conditions such as some heart problems may make the risk of vaginal birth higher than cesarean birth.

Other risks for the mother include the following:



Infection. The uterus or nearby pelvic organs such as the bladder or kidneys can become infected.
Increased blood loss. Blood loss on the average is about twice as much with cesarean birth as with vaginal birth. However, blood transfusions are rarely needed during a cesarean.
Decreased bowel function. The bowel sometimes slows down for several days after surgery, resulting in distention, bloating and discomfort.
Respiratory complications. General anesthesia can sometimes lead to pneumonia.
Longer hospital stay and recovery time. Three to five days in the hospital is the common length of stay, whereas it is less than one to three days for a vaginal birth.
Reactions to anesthesia. The mother's health could be endangered by unexpected responses (such as blood pressure that drops quickly) to anesthesia or other medications during the surgery.
Risk of additional surgeries. For example, hysterectomy, bladder repair, etc.

In cesarean birth, the possible risks to the baby include the following:


Premature birth. If the due date was not accurately calculated, the baby could be delivered too early.
Breathing problems. Babies born by cesarean are more likely to develop breathing problems such as transient tachypnea (abnormally fast breathing during the first few days after birth).
Low Apgar scores. Babies born by cesarean sometimes have low Apgar scores. The low score can be an effect of the anesthesia and cesarean birth, or the baby may have been in distress to begin with. Or perhaps the baby was not stimulated as he or she would have been by vaginal birth.
Fetal injury. Although rare, the surgeon can accidentally nick the baby while making the uterine incision.

[Denise]

And just to throw something else in...

http://www.ahcpr.gov/research/may01/501RA4.htm

The rate of women who died from pregnancy-related problems was higher among women who had c-sections than among women who delivered vaginally (10.3 vs. 2.4 per 100,000 women). However, the women who died were more likely than those who survived to have had cardiac, renal, mental health, or severe preeclampsia complications and to have had medically indicated induction or labor. Also, compared with women who delivered vaginally, women who had c-sections were not at a significantly higher risk of death overall after adjustments were made for their age. Nor were they at increased risk of either pregnancy-related death after adjustment for their age and the presence of severe preeclampsia or pregnancy-unrelated death after adjustment for their age and marital status, compared with women who had vaginal deliveries.

[Denise]

As for the infants, I'd like to point out that a lot of them are already having medical problems such as in the case of emergency c-sections. I'd like to see some studies that take that into account.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Denise
Yes, and that's why we should remember that purely "natural" child birth also caused a lot of maternal deaths. We've come a long way baby!

Yes, we have. And the nice thing about the Bradley method is that it doesn't make you feel like a schmuck if you end up needing the drugs or a c-section. It helps you try and avoid it if possible, but it doesn't try to make the people who go that route out to be bad people.

Child birth works more often than it doesn't. And when it does work, the natural way is better in many ways for both mother and child. When it doesn't work, it's nice to have the doctors there.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Tmy
Just goes to show you that C -sections arent so "routine" as the news shows are making it seem. After all they are gutting you man moving your insides out of the way. Its not exactly as simple as lasik surgery.

Actually, you don't go anywhere near far enough in describing it. Anyone who's ever seen one (even if on video) can attest to that. I won't go into a graphic description here, but let's just say it's a little more involved that cutting you open, moving some stuff out of the way, and grabbing the little tyke...

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Tmy
I think the state should have a say.

Parents have a duty to protect their kids even if there is some risk to them. If your 5 yr old is running into the street you should be expected to run after him, even if theres a chance you might be injured.

If you take a kid to term, you owe him some protection. Just like we prosecute drug abusing moms for having crack babies. If you can have an abortion up to the time of birth (or a moment before) - how can one charge this woman for anything?

- I don't want the C-section: Charged with murder
- I don't want the C-section, I want an abortion right now: OK

:confused:

[waitew]

Originally posted by jimlintott
This is going to sound pretty 'out there'.

I believe that we should generally not charge a mother with murder if she kills her own child in its first year of life.

This child died during child birth and therefore, in my own crazy opinion, was never a living human being. No murder (or manslaughter) was committed by anyone.

(I'm guessing I probably just upset many people.)


Inside,outside, upside down..there comes a point when the child becomes a human being.Outside's a good point in my mind.One Year!!!That's a bit much.Does the right to kill a one year old apply only to the mother?Why not the father?..don't want to pay child support for your 10 month old ....no problem!!!Wack!!!..problem solved.I think you should have thought this out abit more!

[RPG Advocate]

I think the reason they're charging a murder this time is because of the reason the woman gave for refusing the C-section. According to Utah Code 76-5-203(2)(c), one way a person cam be charged with murder is if:

acting under circumstances evidencing a depraved indifference to human life, the actor engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to another and thereby causes the death of another

I think the prosecution's reasoning is that not wanting a scar at the expense of a heightened risk of death to the baby would qualify as "evidencing a depraved indifference to human life." I doubt they could establish that in front of a grand jury in the case of not following your obstitrician's diet or other prenatal advice. They could only do it this time because the link was immediate and direct. Of course, given her history of mental illness, the prosecution should have to establish that she knowingly put her child at risk.

Personally, I think if this woman was lucid, this should have been charged as a negligent homicide, since her actions did cause risk, but I don't think the risk was "grave", since one of the children survived. The definition of "negligent homicide" as stated in Utah Code 76-5-206(1) is:

Criminal homicide constitutes negligent homicide if the actor, acting with criminal negligence, causes the death of another.

"Criminal negligence" is defined in 76-2-103(4) as:

criminally negligent with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he ought to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise in all the circumstances as viewed from the actor's standpoint.

That seems to fit much better than the murder statute quoted above.

[Bjorn]

acting under circumstances evidencing a depraved indifference to human life, the actor engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to another and thereby causes the death of another But 'the actor' in this case is a person who has a right to kill the unborn baby by having an abortion.

An abortion is absolutely creating a grave risk of death, but legal because the baby is still not a separate human. How is it a separate human if the mother uses cocain or drinks alcohol or refuses to have a C-section?

[Cecil]

Originally posted by RPG Advocate
I think the prosecution's reasoning is that not wanting a scar at the expense of a heightened risk of death to the baby would qualify as "evidencing a depraved indifference to human life." But suppose for some reason that you had to undergo major surgery to save someone else's life. I think we'd agree that ethically the right decision is to do it, but are you legally bound to do so? That sounds like a Good Samaritan law to me. I don't that legally it should matter whether the other person is related to you or not; the state should not have the right to force you to undergo invasive surgery.

[Eos of the Eons]

Leave it to Fox to leave a lot of details out.

The mom was on drugs and alcohol when she refused the C section. She was at no physical danger if she had the C section, and if fact had one before.

Any mom in the same situation (healthy or not) has a child here that she is responsible for. If they can show that the child would have died whether or not there was a C section, then yeah, no charges.

That lady was told her kids were going to die. She said she didn't care.

That's murder.

So before wandering over the poll I set up, not knowing this thread was here, go to where I got the information from. Not Fox.
http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%257E11676%257E2013695,00.html


Rowland left the hospital after signing a statement indicating that she understood that leaving could result in death or significant brain injury to the babies, according to the statement.

[Bjorn]

Rowland left the hospital after signing a statement indicating that she understood that leaving could result in death or significant brain injury to the babies, according to the statement. Murder?

What if the quote had been:

Rowland entered the hospital after signing a statement indicating that she understood that an abortion could result in death to the babies, according to the statement.I'm all for women's right to have an abortion, but doesn't it logically follow that we cannot prosecute people for drinking while pregnant, or saying no to a C-section? :(

[gethane]

If you can now force women to undergo a surgical procedure to try and save one of her children, can you also make a father undergo a medical procedure, upon threat of being charged with murder?

For example: Child needs kidney transplant. Father is a match. Father is estranged from the mother and child and refuses. Child dies. Does that result in a murder charge? If not, why not? How exactly is that different?

Doing some reading on this has definitely caused me to change my views. I personally think the woman was ethically wrong, but I just don't see how you can charge her with murder if you don't then charge men with murder for refusing operations to save their children.

If a woman flees a burning building without saving her children, do we now charge her with murder?

This is a bad bad road to go down, IMO.

[Kopji]

This story is tragic in so many ways, which to choose?

A potential legal solution was offered in the previously linked article:

"We have not been granted authority to intervene in the life of an unborn child," said Carol Sisco, a spokeswoman for the Division of Child and Family Services. "We don't have jurisdictional authority." The only agency with authority would have been a hospital, who could have petitioned to have a guardian appointed for the child.
That guardian then could have petitioned a judge to force the medical procedure on Rowland.


There’s an argument that the hospital failed to save the child when it could. (If that is not murder, why is it murder for the mother?) So I generally agree with Gethane's post.

Appointing a legal guardian sounds like a Solomon-like solution in this unusual case: An answer that would have been in both the best interest of the mother and the unborn children. Certainly the mother was not made aware that she might be charged with murder and put in prison for life.

The paragraph above offers another option: Give a government entity jurisdiction over an unborn child. Unfortunately that is not a simple answer, it also gives them control over the mother. (So why not the father too?) I agree that there is an aspect of this case that is an election year issue, brought up to erode rights for women.

The case is flawed as a study of the need to change law: What sane mother would let her child die because of fear of an incision? By definition, that would be insanity.

So are laws for the sane driven by the needs of the insane? Seems more likely that an insane person is a pawn for people with an agenda.

[Luke T.]

The arguments about smoking, or home childbirth are strawmen. The baby in this case was in clear and present danger. And home births have been going on for a lot longer than hospital births.

The baby was in clear and present danger.

She allowed her baby to die. She killed it. That's murder.

Scott Peterson is being charged with the murder of his baby, so should this woman.

"Pro-choice" is getting harder and harder to defend as not being "pro-abortion" isn't it?

[Tmy]

Originally posted by gethane


If a woman flees a burning building without saving her children, do we now charge her with murder?



YES! Depending on the circumstances. I woudlnt expect her to walk through flames BUT if all she has to do is open the front door to let the kid out, and she doesnt, thats murder. Mom has a duty to her kids.

In this case you can argue a C-section is not walking thru flames, but just opening a door.