Woman charged with murder for refusing C-section

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Guy, make me proud... argue AGAINST it, but say you are PRO-CHOICE. You'll either piss off everyone or gain the respect of everyone .

I don't see many pro-choice people who are against Roe like myself, though .

Sadly, due to a not-entirely-unsuspected but nonetheless ill-timed family emergency, I was unable to attend class this afternoon. I was REALLY looking forward to it, too.

[Ben Kenobi]

Everyone okay guynemer?

[Dis]

Originally posted by Stuie


The woman obviously didn't want her incredible good looks ruined...

I'd hit it

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

To put matters into perspective, BC just went ahead and allowed C-sections for elective purposes because they are that safe.

So I find the argument that the surgery would have consequences for the mother that would justify her declining the medical treatment untenable.

Have you genuinely forgotten about psychological consequences, or do you just consider them to be irrelevant when balanced against the precious, precious foetus?

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

A reasonably balanced link about the operative risks.

http://www.compleatmother.com/factsheet.htm

For the benefit of the inexperienced, I have first-hand experience of what can happen when cesaereans don't go to plan. There are risks involved with what is, after all, intrusive surgery on internal organs. They have a vital role in medicine, but not as forcible impositions. I imagine the lawsuits resulting would be impressive, to say the least.

[Dis]

the thing is she's ignorant white trash. She didn't even consider the risks of an operation. All she cared about was the scar.

Wait a minute, why am I arguing in favour of prosecuting her . I'm actually taking her side- even though I don't agree with her morally. But muder? come on.

[Az]

Holy ****, Diss. She looks stoned out of her ****ing brains.

[Proteus_MST]

It should rather be negligence than Murder.

I wonder what had happened if the woman had refused the C-Section for religious Reasons (as some religious Groups, such as Jehovas Witnesses have harsh Restrictions on Medical Treatments which are allowed)

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Dissident
the thing is she's ignorant white trash. She didn't even consider the risks of an operation. All she cared about was the scar.

I see. So objecting to surgery must only be restricted to the middle and upper classes who know about good skin care?

Was the objection to the residual scar, or to having a surgical scalpel cut through the skin, muscle walls and uterus? The two concepts are rather different, after all.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Proteus_MST
It should rather be negligence than Murder.

OK. How would you deal with mothers who work through their pregnancy and subject themselves to workplace stress?

2nd point- if you equip doctors with a right, and even a legal obligation to operate against the mother's will, and place the fear of charges on the mothers, what do you think will happen?

Do you think, as I do, that mothers with a fear of surgery will be less inclined to go to see their doctors at all? Do you think that the rates of home births will rise or fall?

Do you think that, by passing a law designed to protect the precious, precious foetus, that the number of foetal deaths might actually rise as a result?

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Azazel
Holy ****, Diss. She looks stoned out of her ****ing brains.

That's normal for parents of young babies.

[The Mad Monk]

Laz, even our most liberal abortion laws recognize the third trimester as a strict boundary; I'm not even sure it's still called a fetus when a child is as close to term as the one that died. It was't a matter of surviving birth -- they were already dying, and if she hadn't given birth when she had, both would have died.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
OK. How would you deal with mothers who work through their pregnancy and subject themselves to workplace stress?

2nd point- if you equip doctors with a right, and even a legal obligation to operate against the mother's will, and place the fear of charges on the mothers, what do you think will happen?

Do you think, as I do, that mothers with a fear of surgery will be less inclined to go to see their doctors at all? Do you think that the rates of home births will rise or fall?

Do you think that, by passing a law designed to protect the precious, precious foetus, that the number of foetal deaths might actually rise as a result?

I don´t think that Mothers who work through their Pregnancy should be punished, as the risk to loose the child this way is much lower.

But I place some Trust in the Doctors, that, if they say that their children are in a critical Condition (after all they detected slowing Heartbeats) and probably they might die without a C-Section, this will be true.
So I think that the woman refused to undergo a medical Treatment to safe the life of their children.
If she had any doubt that her Doctor was right and the C-Section was indeed necessary to safe the Life of her child(s), she might have consulted another Doctor to hear his Opinion.
And either the same day or at least the next day, as slowing Heartbeats indicate a sevrere medical Condition for the unborn children.
But after all I read in the first Posting of this Thread she went to another Doctor, but just a week later, when one of the children already was dead.

And after all I think a C-Section is nothing, which puts the Mother at an extreme risk, as it is a standard medical Procedure, which is very regularly administered (and there is no indication that Miss Rowland faced a higher risk than other mothers who underwent this procedure).

So, yes, as it was just a few days till birth and she had decided to bear those Children, I think she also accepted a certain responsibility for them, which she neglected in the full knowledge, that with refusing the medical treatment, there would be a high Probability of losing one or both of the children.
(but of course she didn´t murder one her children )

I would see similarities between this case and a couple of cases involving Jehovas Witnesses and Blood Transfusions. For example the case of Perrot, where we had a 3 year old girl which should get a Blood Transfusion. But her Father denied this medical Procedure as they were Jehovas Witnesses (and their Faith denies them Blood Transfusions) with the fuill knowledge,that with this Decision their daughter would very probably die (very probably influenced by the Presence of an Elder). The Medics accepted this Decision and the daughter died.

As für similarities between this case and the right for Abortion:
I think there are great differences. If you decide to abort you do it while the children is still a Lump of undifferentiated Cells and doesn´t possess a real neural Network (yes, I am one of those guys who think that conscious Life begins with the development of a nervous System and not already at Conception ). And, after all, you decide not to bear the children.
As for the children of Rowland, it is different.
It was close to birth, so you can assume that Rowland had decided to bear those children and to accept the responsibility for them. And, although the Children were still in the womb, they were already fully developed, as it was very close to birth.

So I think she neglected her responsibility (by not accepting the medical treatment or at least consulting Another Doctor) whereas mothers who decide to abort don´t .

But I agree with you that any conviction of Rowland (be it murder or be it negligence) could lead to pregnant women shying away from visiting their doctors.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
Laz, even our most liberal abortion laws recognize the third trimester as a strict boundary; I'm not even sure it's still called a fetus when a child is as close to term as the one that died. It was't a matter of surviving birth -- they were already dying, and if she hadn't given birth when she had, both would have died.

Call it a foetus. Call it a baby. Call it a precious unborn angel. It's just semantics.

I didn't recall reading in the link how close the delivery was to the expected due date. In any event, one did survive- so where does the cast-iron certainty that both would have died come from?

It's a clear message to expectant mothers- if you fear cesarean sections, stay away from doctors and give birth at home. That way they won't be acting against medical advice and would presumably avoid any charge. Is that an outcome to be desired?

Unless, of course, you make medical attendance compulsory and charge mothers who attempt to give birth at home? Just how far are you willing to go?

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Proteus_MST

And after all I think a C-Section is nothing, which puts the Mother at an extreme risk, as it is a standard medical Procedure, which is very regularly administered

Your opinion is noted and duly dismissed. As I stated several inches higher, are you forgetting about psychological damage or are you merely ignoring it?