Woman charged with murder for refusing C-section

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp

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?

If you think about the psychological Damage the Mother already had.
I found it very difficult to assess, therefore I deliberately left it out.
This could be one of the things where the Hospital probably failed.
If she really thought that she would be cut from Brestbone to Belly, it coulöd probably be a negligience of the Hospital, to properly and gently inform her about the procedure they wanted to perform on her and to adress all of her fears.

Sadly the psychological side is grossly neglected by many Doctors and they treat their Patients more like a broken machine which has to be fixed, than like a human beings with feelings and fears.

So, the psychological side of the case could indeed be a reason fo an Exoneration.

[DinoDoc]

The woman didn't fear surgery. She feared the cosmetic damage surgery would do and considered the life of her children secondary to her looks. That warrants looking into if she is a fit mother or not even if the charges end up being dropped.

[The Mad Monk]

Here you go, Laz:

An autopsy found the baby died two days before its Jan. 13 delivery and that it would have survived if Rowland had had a C-section when her doctors urged her to, between Christmas and Jan.9. The other baby is alive, but authorities had no further information.

According to the documents, Rowland went to LDS Hospital in Salt Lake City in December to seek advice after she hadn’t felt her babies move. A nurse, Regina Davis, told police she instructed Rowland to go immediately to one of two other hospitals, but that Rowland said she would rather have both babies die before going to either place.

On Jan. 2, a doctor at LDS Hospital examined Rowland and recommended an immediate C-section based on an ultrasound and the babies’ slowing heart rates. Rowland left, the doctor told police.

A week later, Rowland allegedly went to a third hospital to verify whether her babies were alive. A nurse there told police she could not detect a heartbeat from one twin and advised Rowland to remain in the hospital, but Rowland allegedly ignored the advice.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

That doesn't answer my query. We're told what the delivery date was, but not the expected due date. In addition, it makes no reference to the level of danger faced where the surviving child was concerned.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
The woman didn't fear surgery. She feared the cosmetic damage surgery would do and considered the life of her children secondary to her looks.

Can you back that up with anything more convincing than an assumption made by a prosecuting lawyer?

[DinoDoc]

Would it make a difference to you if I were able to?

[Ming]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
In any event, one did survive- so where does the cast-iron certainty that both would have died come from?

Exactly... it's not a science, and doctors were stating opinions... yeah, they are in the best position to have SOLID opinions, but in this case they were wrong... one baby did survive.

The woman didn't fear surgery. She feared the cosmetic damage surgery would do and considered the life of her children secondary to her looks. That warrants looking into if she is a fit mother or not even if the charges end up being dropped.

The sole basis of this is a SINGLE comment she made to a nurse.
Do you people realize what emotions and mood swings a women goes through during the birthing process. As many men know who have been there for the birth of their children, we've all heard comments like I'm never having another baby again... I'll cut "it" off if you get near me again with it in the future... strange and weird stuff. To claim she is an unfit mother because of single comment made to a nurse (which nobody else heard) while she was in emotional turmoil is absurd at best.

Did the lady make the right choice... we are all assuming no. Could the lady have died if she had the surgery... YES... Could one or both kids have died even if she had had the surgery... maybe... Nobody knows for sure...

[Ned]

Gimp, on second thought, I don't see a lot of harsh ramifications to a conclusion that this woman may have murdered her unborn infant. I think the law could allow a prosecution for murder without forcing the doctors into a situation that if they did not operate against the will of the woman they too would be guilty of aiding and abetting a crime. I think the proper procedure in such a case would be for the doctors to notify the local district attorney of the circumstances led to take their case. The district attorney could then seek a court order requiring a guardian be appointed to protect the interests of the unborn infant and the seek guardianship over woman herself so that the guardian could sign a consent form for the surgery. This procedure would allow the woman to stay their case before court to test whether or position was reasonable. Among the factors to court could take in consideration would be the viability of the fetus, the health risks to the woman, and the health risks to the fetus.

One thing to consider in the Utah case is that "mens rea" includes something to the effect that the action was taken with a perverse disregard for the likelihood that the action would result in the death of a fetus. The particular statute does not exclude a prosecution against the mother, although it was originally intended to protect the fetus from an attack by a third-party.

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Everyone okay guynemer?

Grandma had a bowel obstruction, surgeons decided yesterday was the day or there could be serious problems...

luckily, she came through the surgery a-ok, didn't even need an ileostomy or anything.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Would it make a difference to you if I were able to?

Yes. It would get you re-admittance on my list of "People unlikely to feature in a lynchmob entirely made up of braying yokels".

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by Proteus_MST
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)

Some Mormon sects, as well, have harsh restrictions on medical treatments... namely:

Surgery is absolutely forbidden unless it is to save your life.

I have no idea if this applies to this woman, but something to ponder nonetheless.

[The Mad Monk]

Laz, none of the news sources I've looked at mention a separate due date; that, and the fact that the surviving twin had no reported complications (apparently not a premie), and the fact that the doctor wanted to do the c-section more than a week earlier, leads me to believe that the due date was on or before the delivery date.

That's the best I can do with the information I have.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Ming
Do you people realize what emotions and mood swings a women goes through during the birthing process.

Yes. And it was her statement combined with her previous actions that led me to the conclusion I did.

[The Mad Monk]

In other news, she's saying that her two other children were both c-sectioned.

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
Laz, none of the news sources I've looked at mention a separate due date; that, and the fact that the surviving twin had no reported complications (apparently not a premie), and the fact that the doctor wanted to do the c-section more than a week earlier, leads me to believe that the due date was on or before the delivery date.

You are assuming an awful lot.

There is simply no way to know, at all, from the current news accounts, what the due date was. A baby can be "premature" are not have any major complications; and we don't know if there are any or not, to be perfectly honest.