Woman charged with murder for refusing C-section

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I see a nurse telling her it would ruin her life. That would be a fairly strong motivation not to go under the knife.

Really? Because I see a nurse reporting that the woman said that a Caesarean would “ruin her life” and she would rather “lose one of the babies than be cut like that.”

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

"Interesting" as in "completely insane and certain to be thrown out"? I agree.

[Ned]

Gimp, so you support a woman's right to murder for cosmetic reasons?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Really? Because I see a nurse reporting that the woman said that a Caesarean would “ruin her life” and she would rather “lose one of the babies than be cut like that.”

Ah, read it backwards. Dyslexic like that.

I still see no evidence that this was done for cosmetic reasons other than the DA's assertion.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ned
Gimp, so you support a woman's right to murder for cosmetic reasons?

Begging the question.

[Ned]

This does bring up the question of where the defense of "health" must be asserted and whether it is legitimate.

[chequita guevara]

If a woman has a right to control her own body, then she has the right, for any reason, to elect not to undergo surgery.

[Ned]

Che, you may be right.

But the question I raise is this:

Does the state have to show that the woman had no legitimate health reason for causing the death of her child as a preliminary matter, or is this a proper affirmative defense to a charge of murder?

[Urban Ranger]

First of all, the doctor only informed her that the baby may die without a c-section. Secondly, the woman wasn't killing the baby, she merely did nothing while it died. It's like you refuse to donate a kidney to save some other person's life. Should you be charged with murder, or anything at all?

So, unless the state's law stipulates that a person must save the life of another person if he or she is capable of doing so, she should not be charged.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
First of all, the doctor only informed her that the baby may die without a c-section. Secondly, the woman wasn't killing the baby, she merely did nothing while it died. It's like you refuse to donate a kidney to save some other person's life. Should you be charged with murder, or anything at all?

So, unless the state's law stipulates that a person must save the life of another person if he or she is capable of doing so, she should not be charged.

Absolutely... some people in here are confusing morality, with legality... they are two entirely different things.

[Ned]

UR women have be tried for murder before for neglecting their children and permitting them to die. They do have an affirmative duty of due care.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
UR women have be tried for murder before for neglecting their children and permitting them to die. They do have an affirmative duty of due care.

Exactly. This isn't a defense.

Since one of the twins did live, the prosecution has a severe burden of proof showing that death was the probable outcome of her actions.

More important, however, is the fact that no adult in their right mind can be compelled to have medical treatment or surgery against their will. If you can charge the woman for this, you should charge the doctors as well, who had the power to force the surgery upon her anyway and save both babies.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Anyway, if you support the riht to choice, you have to respect this women's decision and realize that this charge is just a back door assault on the right to abortion.

Supporting the Right to Choose isn't black and white, as most folks who are pro-choice also recognize there is a reasonable time limit of a pregnancy in which to allow such a choice.

It's irresponsible to allow a baby to be brought to full term knowing full well it is likely to die unless one undertakes a fairly routine medical procedure to save the baby. My mother and sister-in-law both had Caesarians, and while not fun, balancing them against the lives of their children is a non-issue.

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Exactly. This isn't a defense.

Since one of the twins did live, the prosecution has a severe burden of proof showing that death was the probable outcome of her actions.

More important, however, is the fact that no adult in their right mind can be compelled to have medical treatment or surgery against their will. If you can charge the woman for this, you should charge the doctors as well, who had the power to force the surgery upon her anyway and save both babies.

As I said, you might be right on the surgery part. I am not convinced at this time, though, without more.

As to the charge of murder, they still have to go through a grand jury or equivalent and prove their case to a certain degree. Perhaps they can only prove manslaughter.

[Imran Siddiqui]

"Interesting" as in "completely insane and certain to be thrown out"?

No... I don't know if it is certain to be thrown out at all. It's in a grey area.

Secondly, the woman wasn't killing the baby, she merely did nothing while it died. It's like you refuse to donate a kidney to save some other person's life. Should you be charged with murder, or anything at all?

However, she, carrying the children to full term, definetly assumed a duty to them. It's like the first person who responds to an accident. They then have a duty to take reasonable care to try to save the person's life (ie, they can't simply drive away). If she didn't want an abortion, the case can be made that she was duty-bound to take reasonable measures to make sure both lived.