TFARCHIVE FORUMS

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/West/03/11/m ... index.html

SALT LAKE CITY, Utah (AP) -- A pregnant woman who allegedly ignored medical warnings to have a Caesarean section to save her twins was charged Thursday with murder after one of the babies was stillborn.

Prosecutors said Melissa Ann Rowland, 28, didn't want the scars that accompany the surgery.

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

The doctors had warned that without a C-section, the twins would probably die, authorities said. A nurse told police Rowland said a Caesarean would "ruin her life" and she would rather "lose one of the babies than be cut like that."

"We are unable to find any reason other than the cosmetic motivations" for the mother's decision, said Kent Morgan, spokesman for the district attorney.

I'm torn as to what to think. On one hand, I think the woman was a selfish b*tch for refusing a procedure that would have saved the life of her child just because she didn't want a scar. WTF? If it was me, I'd rather get a hundred scars than not bring my baby into the world alive.

OTOH, isn't it the right of a patient to refuse surgery, even against medical advice? If you make it a crime to refuse surgery that would save the life of another person, which is what's the issue here (not touching the question whether an unborn child counts as a "person" for the moment), where do you draw the line? Should people be forced to donate bone marrow? A kidney? A lung?

However, according to this article -

In a jailhouse interview with KSL Newsradio 1160, Ms Rowland denied she had been advised to have a C-section with the twins.

"I've never refused a C-section. I've already had two prior C-sections. Why would I say something like that?" Ms Rowland said.

Another article on this case:

http://www.sltrib.com/2004/Mar/03122004/utah/147031.asp

My siding is always with the host rather than the parasite, regardless of whether I agree with their reasoning. Because the alternative—people used as breeding devices—isn't one I'd countenance.

Oh, how inconvenient for her to have scars . . . :rolleyes:

A nurse told police Rowland said a Caesarean would "ruin her life" and she would rather "lose one of the babies than be cut like that."

How old was this girl? Not old enough to realize how childish and selfish it is to say such a thing, I suppose.

I can see where you're coming from, Denyer. This isn't your usual "Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice" issue here, though. When it comes to deciding about life or death of a ready-to-be-born child (as opposed to aborting an only just formed fetus), it becomes an even more iffy issue. Developmentally speaking, there isn't much of a difference between an unborn child in the ninth month of pregnancy, and a newborn.

And parents don't have the right to strangle their already born children, do they? And IMHO, they also shouldn't have the right to refuse lifesaving medical treatment for their born children[1] (e.g. Jehovah's Witnesses who refuses blood transfusions - if adult JWs refuse them for themselves, okay - their life, their decision. But they shouldn't have the right to refuse it for their children, that's abuse of parental power.)

[1] except maybe in cases where the child would only have a short life with much suffering even if treated - the whole "right to die" issue

Given the choice between establishing precedence of forcing medical procedure upon someone and the death of a foetus whose entire world experience consists of a mobile goldfish tank, I'll always side with the adult human. I'm never going to support medical practitioners substituting their judgement for others; in part because I know several people who'd be dead if they'd followed medical advice.

Incidentally, I quite agree with you on the example of children denied treatment due to the religious convictions of parents; children are part of a community. A foetus, on the other hand, isn't. It has no existence separate from its parent, nor is it capable of unaided separate existence. The mother is its world until it's born.

*waits for this topic to get drug through the mud*

Personally I think the woman behaved ridiculously and deserves to be tried for murder.

A life is still a life no matter which way you look at it.

A foetus yes may not have much existance apart from its mother but it is still a life and it still has potential to grow and develop.
You've got to take a look back at human ethics and if you can tell me its right to destroy potential, no matter how small or how insignificant it is, i would say you're wrong. If there was a chance for something to live, it should live. You could also say it might never stand up in life but risk is part of the job. You never know how things are going to turn out and thats why i believe this whole thing is wrong.

You eradicate a life, you deserve to pay for that life.

Originally posted by DrEvil
A life is still a life no matter which way you look at it.

Damn straight, and the beef cattle in government agree with you.

Wait, you were talking about human life? Care to draw a line there? Sperm? Cancerous flesh? People in hideous pain on life support? Hitler? After all, if there's a chance for something to live...

We don't inherently respect life. We may like to think we do, but this rarely lasts as long as the next sandwich or war. It's the dishonesty which sickens me.

Originally posted by DrEvil
You never know how things are going to turn out

For good or ill. Actually, you know for certain how things will turn out if you kill them, so that's doubly a dead-end argument.

Originally posted by DrEvil
You eradicate a life, you deserve to pay for that life.

I can only hope that retributive karma will involve a more fatal version of an Alan Partridge sketch...

This type of operation is very dangerous, not just the scar. There is a very serious risk of infection.

My siding is always with the host rather than the parasite, regardless of whether I agree with their reasoning.

Denyer, I know your views on abortion and what constitutes a person but surely a baby ready to be born is a person and to kill it for the sake of avoiding a few scars (if that is the reason, maybe I posted too soon, but assuming it is) is indefensible?

There's growing concern in medical circles about the sheer number of caesareans being performed now... dangers to fertility, breathing difficulties in offspring, stillbirth, risk to mother of death on average six times that of natural birth, infection either of the urinary tract or incision... that's the short list.

Don't assume doctors always act in your best interests. Most are simply trying very hard to avoid being sued by playing the odds; stories will change at the first sign of trouble.

Specific points, since I was responding to UW above.

Originally posted by Dinobot
a baby ready to be born is a person

If it can be born safely, I would always urge that, yes. See above for basic notes on the risks caesarean birth introduces.

Originally posted by Dinobot
a few scars (if that is the reason, maybe I posted too soon, but assuming it is) is indefensible?

It would appear that the woman in question had already had caesarian sections. The rest of the article suggests that the risk (or the way the risk was presented to her) was considerably above the norm, or that this advice never reached her (possibly despite good intentions to the contrary.) Note also that this is happening in Utah, where medical staff can be prosecuted as accessories to murder; short capsule summary: they're passing the buck. Take with considerable salt the reporting angles used.

Yeah would have to agree that if the risk to the mother is substantial then the baby shouldn't be born, unless the mother wants to take the risk. And like I said, I probably posted too soon without knowing the facts. If she refused the chance to save the baby simply to avoid a few scars then I don't think she has any defense, but if she has had C-sections before and is denying she refused one then the case is obviously a lot more complicated.

Doctors make more money on surgeries. If you get infected they will hook you up on drugs. Thats how the medical cartel works. They will not be satisfied until every american is either diagnosed depressed or ill. Much like how everyone was a sinner that needed a priest in medievel times.

Originally posted by Ultimate Weapon
Doctors make more money on surgeries. If you get infected they will hook you up on drugs. Thats how the medical cartel works. They will not be satisfied until every american is either diagnosed depressed or ill. Much like how everyone was a sinner that needed a priest in medievel times.

I think a lot of genuinely hard working doctors who work in the best interests of their patients would be very pissed off at you "tar them all with the same brush" mentality

Originally posted by Dinobot
I think a lot of genuinely hard working doctors who work in the best interests of their patients would be very pissed off at you "tar them all with the same brush" mentality

There is a large grassroots movement towards holistic medicines and accu therapy. I have much disdain for any doctor who limits a patients choices due to dollar signs.

It's more of an issue in the US and in places where medical staff can increase earnings in direct proportion to prescriptions, surgeries and bungs from drug companies. It's a very real issue.

Whereas in the UK or Canada, salary and fee structures are very different. The company 'sponsor' issue is still present, but in a much more muted form.

Now the drug companies want to label obesity as a depression. There reasoning that people who are fat are frustrated by this which can clinically be diagnosed as depression.

A number of personal reports indicating that SSRI anti-depressants are being given to fat people, under the assumption that their frustration about being fat is partly clinical depression.

By this general logic, any person who resists medical-drug treatments FOR ANYTHING long enough can be labeled depressive. Massive authority in any arena of life eventually produces frustration and passivity, and this can be called depression.

When the SSRI drugs induce abnormalities in blood sugar levels, or nightmares, or insomnia, or violent behavior, or suicides and suicidal thoughts, or sharp variations in brain neurotransmitter levels, these outcomes can receive new disease/disorder labels, and other drugs can be brought on board to treat the patients.

It's certainly no coincidence in Star Trek that the ship's doctor was the only person qualified to directly remove a captain from duty. For those who think that a facetious reference, hear me out.

Medical science, as with any other science, is based on empiricism and hypotheses. In the first instance, we trust people to diagnose. In the second, we trust people to prescribe and dispense remedial action—often selecting from a number of courses of actions suggested to them.

Between friends who've been given potentially lethal medication in direct opposition to clearly worded statements in their medical records, another whose grapefruit-sized uterine cyst remained undetected almost long enough to kill her, and other incompetent and half-assed assessments of situations...

Giving people the option to overrule others, even when in danger of causing injury to themselves? Not a chance. Where they directly impact upon other people, maybe, depending on the severity. Again, we're taking into account that medical advice is rendered with lawsuits in mind, couched to minimise personal damage in the event of mistake. And again, we're taking into account the right of medical opinion to subject others to invasive and potentially fatal procedure on assumption or inference... and specifically, the risk to an unknown quantity (a foetus) versus a fully-grown adult, complete with personality, active life, etc.

As I say, I know where I stand, and it isn't with the guy doing his best to cover his own ass...