Re: OT - Did anyone see this in the news?

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/12/2004 7:57:33 AM Eastern Standard Time,

nowhiners@... writes:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/West/03/11/mother.charged.ap/index.html

IN THAT PIC OF HER SHE SURE LOOKS OUT OF IT. I WONDER IF SHE DID NOT HAVE

MENTAL PROBLEMS. SHE THOUGHT SHE WAS GOING TO BE CUT FROM TOP TO BOTTOM BY THE

SOUNDS OF IT. MAYBE SHE WAS IGNORANT TO WHAT A CSECTION REALLY WAS.

God Bless,

Robin, NorthEastern, NY

EDD- July 27th, 2004

IT'S A BOY!!!!!!

Mommy to:

&

(twin boys 7 1/2),

Madison, daughter, 5 years and

Wife to Pup 15 years (October 31, 1988)

Gastric Bypass Surgery-

October 18th 2002

Start-378, current- 246(pregnant)

goal 170 after baby

[Guest guest]

Just to play devil's advocate......does anyone who has read the article

believe she should NOT be charged after being told by multiple medical

professionals that her children would die if she did not have the procedure??

She said she would rather her children die than go to another hospital??

Sounds like a whacked out lady to me to start with and from what I read her

perspective was that the " scars " from a C-section would ruin her life??

Sounds

like a case of screwed up priorities to me.

Mandi in Concord, NC

[Guest guest]

Just to play devil's advocate......does anyone who has read the article

believe she should NOT be charged after being told by multiple medical

professionals that her children would die if she did not have the procedure??

She said she would rather her children die than go to another hospital??

Sounds like a whacked out lady to me to start with and from what I read her

perspective was that the " scars " from a C-section would ruin her life??

Sounds

like a case of screwed up priorities to me.

Mandi in Concord, NC

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/12/2004 2:10:52 PM Eastern Standard Time,

drasley@... writes:

Granted the law doesn't allow you the

right to necessarily refuse medical treatment for your children but a

c-section is a medical treatment for the adult woman.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I totally understand your line of reasoning here if that treatment were only

for her. A C-section for a woman with VIABLE children is NOT only treatment

for her. I am not arguing the point of abortion, which is a woman's right to

do whatever she chooses for her body while the child is not viable (Which I do

not personally believe in because the child WOULD be viable if you chose NOT

to kill it.....but if it's legally your right it's your right)...but once the

child reaches viability it no longer is just HER body, it is a body that

belongs to both her and another, or in her case, two other human beings.

I do agree that it is perfectly okay to choose what treatment you feel is

appropriate for you and/or your children at any point provided they are rational

decisions. The decision to flat out say " I would rather my child die " makes

it criminal to me. Most parents make decisions based on the well-being of

their children, the decision to allow your child to die rather than undergo

surgery to me has nothing to do with the well-being of your child and therefore

not

a " medical decision " .

Just my 0.02.

Mandi in Concord, NC

[Guest guest]

This really scares me because here in Massachusetts the lawmakers and doctors

always seem to be ganging up against patients or parents for the choices they

make for their children. I hear almost monthly about parents being taken to

court because they want to try a different treatment for their child then the

one that one single doctor recommends.

This is why I think its so important to have all your doctors and your childs

doctors respect and support you.

Chrystal

Wife to Jace - together 6 Years!

Happy Mommy to - 4 Years Old!

New Baby Swenson Due July 28, 2004!

Zookeeper for 2 big dogs and 5 cats who let me feed them!

OT - Did anyone see this in the news?

This article frightens me because if I don't follow my doctors advice can

they then charge me with some kind of negligence? What if something is wrong

with my baby and they say oh its because she wouldn't take a glucose tolerance

test, or she wouldn't do this...are they going to come after me? This is very

scary.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/West/03/11/mother.charged.ap/index.html

No Caesarean leads to murder charge

Friday, March 12, 2004 Posted: 6:50 AM EST (1150 GMT)

Rowland was charged wth the murder of her stillborn baby.

[Guest guest]

This really scares me because here in Massachusetts the lawmakers and doctors

always seem to be ganging up against patients or parents for the choices they

make for their children. I hear almost monthly about parents being taken to

court because they want to try a different treatment for their child then the

one that one single doctor recommends.

This is why I think its so important to have all your doctors and your childs

doctors respect and support you.

Chrystal

Wife to Jace - together 6 Years!

Happy Mommy to - 4 Years Old!

New Baby Swenson Due July 28, 2004!

Zookeeper for 2 big dogs and 5 cats who let me feed them!

OT - Did anyone see this in the news?

This article frightens me because if I don't follow my doctors advice can

they then charge me with some kind of negligence? What if something is wrong

with my baby and they say oh its because she wouldn't take a glucose tolerance

test, or she wouldn't do this...are they going to come after me? This is very

scary.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/West/03/11/mother.charged.ap/index.html

No Caesarean leads to murder charge

Friday, March 12, 2004 Posted: 6:50 AM EST (1150 GMT)

Rowland was charged wth the murder of her stillborn baby.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/12/2004 3:11:33 PM Eastern Standard Time,

denise.axelrod@... writes:

Following this line of reasoning.....What about a mom who has lost her mucus

plug and her bag of waters has broke and feels it is critical to preserve the

life of her unborn baby that she get a c-section immediately, but the OB says

that it just isn't necessary at this point and she should wait it out. Then,

because the doc choose to wait against the mom's wishes, the baby is finally

born, but has died. Should the doc be charged with murder or just malpractice?

Axelrod

I think in this situation I would ask for a second opinion if I absolutely

felt that my child would die. I honestly think there are laws against charging

a doctor with murder unless it was " intentional " but I'm not necessarily in

favor of that either. I think doctors should be held accountable for their

decisions also.

The thing with doctors is that they have enough experience to make an

educated decision on what is medically correct. They at least know the probable

outcomes on a case by case basis. I don't care how much research I do on the

internet or otherwise without the knowledge to understand or quantify or even

judge the quality of studies/case management/etc., I'm not qualified to overrule

him in MOST life-threatening situations.....and I have a medical background.

Under normal situations, and I would almost be willing to bet, that this woman

had no medical information/background/knowledge and therefore this was not an

educated decision, but just a negligent one in my opinion.

They noted decelerations in her infant in December. That in most

circumstances over a prolonged period of time warrants at least continuous

monitoring if

not an emergency C-section. Doctors know that because they have lost babies

in those cases. The fact that she waited 2 weeks to even go back and see if

the babies were " still alive " dumbfounds me.

I'm all for choosing your own medical care....especially if it's for YOU. In

all other cases, if you are choosing something that has proven to be

detrimental in MANY other situations to MANY other people, you are not qualified

to

make that choice. If 100 people had the same situation and 98 of them had poor

outcomes, it is not reasonable to take the risk that your child will be one of

the two that will live. Bad decisions equal bad consequences and that to me

is what is wrong with our society. We are willing to excuse too many people

for their bad decisions because we don't want somebody to examine our

decisions.

" Okay, you kill somebody today so that if I happen to kill somebody tomorrow

I won't be in trouble " is NOT good logic to me. Protecting children is way

more important than my personal liberty if I happen to be the one who is

inflicting the harm.

I'm willing to go to the mat for decisions that I feel are right for me and

my children......but I make them only after I'm sure that there's not a chance

I'm putting them in harms way.

Freedom of personal choice does not extend beyond ourselves. Once it impacts

someone else then we don't necessarily have those freedoms.

By the way, I'm not for Big Brother or Big Government. But if it's a blatent

act of negligence, I have to say throw the book at the woman.

Mandi in Concord, NC

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/12/2004 3:11:33 PM Eastern Standard Time,

denise.axelrod@... writes:

Following this line of reasoning.....What about a mom who has lost her mucus

plug and her bag of waters has broke and feels it is critical to preserve the

life of her unborn baby that she get a c-section immediately, but the OB says

that it just isn't necessary at this point and she should wait it out. Then,

because the doc choose to wait against the mom's wishes, the baby is finally

born, but has died. Should the doc be charged with murder or just malpractice?

Axelrod

I think in this situation I would ask for a second opinion if I absolutely

felt that my child would die. I honestly think there are laws against charging

a doctor with murder unless it was " intentional " but I'm not necessarily in

favor of that either. I think doctors should be held accountable for their

decisions also.

The thing with doctors is that they have enough experience to make an

educated decision on what is medically correct. They at least know the probable

outcomes on a case by case basis. I don't care how much research I do on the

internet or otherwise without the knowledge to understand or quantify or even

judge the quality of studies/case management/etc., I'm not qualified to overrule

him in MOST life-threatening situations.....and I have a medical background.

Under normal situations, and I would almost be willing to bet, that this woman

had no medical information/background/knowledge and therefore this was not an

educated decision, but just a negligent one in my opinion.

They noted decelerations in her infant in December. That in most

circumstances over a prolonged period of time warrants at least continuous

monitoring if

not an emergency C-section. Doctors know that because they have lost babies

in those cases. The fact that she waited 2 weeks to even go back and see if

the babies were " still alive " dumbfounds me.

I'm all for choosing your own medical care....especially if it's for YOU. In

all other cases, if you are choosing something that has proven to be

detrimental in MANY other situations to MANY other people, you are not qualified

to

make that choice. If 100 people had the same situation and 98 of them had poor

outcomes, it is not reasonable to take the risk that your child will be one of

the two that will live. Bad decisions equal bad consequences and that to me

is what is wrong with our society. We are willing to excuse too many people

for their bad decisions because we don't want somebody to examine our

decisions.

" Okay, you kill somebody today so that if I happen to kill somebody tomorrow

I won't be in trouble " is NOT good logic to me. Protecting children is way

more important than my personal liberty if I happen to be the one who is

inflicting the harm.

I'm willing to go to the mat for decisions that I feel are right for me and

my children......but I make them only after I'm sure that there's not a chance

I'm putting them in harms way.

Freedom of personal choice does not extend beyond ourselves. Once it impacts

someone else then we don't necessarily have those freedoms.

By the way, I'm not for Big Brother or Big Government. But if it's a blatent

act of negligence, I have to say throw the book at the woman.

Mandi in Concord, NC

[Guest guest]

I think this woman is sick and I'm personally GLAD she was charged! I think

its disgusting and my BIGGEST pet peeve. Refusing a c/s when you're told your

child will die! Yes SOME dr's aren't " honest " and " wanna get it over with! "

But to ignore 3 opinions b/c you don't want a SCAR?! @@ idiots the world is

full of idiots!

*~Joy~*

Lap RNY @ 491lbs

2/26/01

Mommy to:

(5) , Saralyn (4), Hunter (7/3/03)

and

#4 due sometime in September '04!

We have 3 kids, soon we'll have FOUR!

After this one,

Quoth Raven...

NEVERMORE!

[Guest guest]

Wow! This is scary. I'm not sure how to take this last quote.....

---The law has been used to prosecute women who kill or seriously harm

their babies through drug use; it has never been used because a woman failed to

follow her doctor's advice, said Marguerite Driessen, a law professor at Brigham

Young University.

" It's very troubling to have somebody come in and say we're going to charge this

mother for murder because we don't like the choices she made, " Driessen

said.---

I can see why they made the law, but what this Driessen person said about it

being troubling to charge a mom because they don't like her choices,

well......isn't using drugs ultimately a choice??? I know there are people who

are addicted to drugs don't feel like they can control whether they can use the

drugs or not, but they can make a choice to get help, so thats why I feel drug

use is a choice.

I definitely think that this case warrants us watching because of the points

Chrystal brought up, and many many more. Something like this can get out of

hand real easy if we as citizens don't watch. Even if we as mothers don't agree

with what this woman did, you have to play out to completion using a law like

this the way they are trying to use it. Heck, if this gets out of control they

parents could possibly be sued if they choose to let a child's minor infection

try to clear up on its own and then it got worse, or something like that, pick a

scenario. Chrystal, thank you for sharing this article with us.

Axelrod

OT - Did anyone see this in the news?

This article frightens me because if I don't follow my doctors advice can they

then charge me with some kind of negligence? What if something is wrong with my

baby and they say oh its because she wouldn't take a glucose tolerance test, or

she wouldn't do this...are they going to come after me? This is very scary.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/West/03/11/mother.charged.ap/index.html

No Caesarean leads to murder charge

Friday, March 12, 2004 Posted: 6:50 AM EST (1150 GMT)

Rowland was charged wth the murder of her stillborn baby.

[Guest guest]

Chrystal,

I totally agree. With all the struggles I have gone through the last few years

with doctors, and now finding ourselves in this struggle again since we want to

breastfeed our baby, hubby and I see that we are really going to have to apply

as much energy in finding the right pediatrician for our baby as we do in

finding docs for me. Ugh! Such stress, I hate it.

Axelrod

Re: OT - Did anyone see this in the news?

This really scares me because here in Massachusetts the lawmakers and doctors

always seem to be ganging up against patients or parents for the choices they

make for their children. I hear almost monthly about parents being taken to

court because they want to try a different treatment for their child then the

one that one single doctor recommends.

This is why I think its so important to have all your doctors and your childs

doctors respect and support you.

Chrystal

[Guest guest]

Chrystal,

I totally agree. With all the struggles I have gone through the last few years

with doctors, and now finding ourselves in this struggle again since we want to

breastfeed our baby, hubby and I see that we are really going to have to apply

as much energy in finding the right pediatrician for our baby as we do in

finding docs for me. Ugh! Such stress, I hate it.

Axelrod

Re: OT - Did anyone see this in the news?

This really scares me because here in Massachusetts the lawmakers and doctors

always seem to be ganging up against patients or parents for the choices they

make for their children. I hear almost monthly about parents being taken to

court because they want to try a different treatment for their child then the

one that one single doctor recommends.

This is why I think its so important to have all your doctors and your childs

doctors respect and support you.

Chrystal

[Guest guest]

My problem with the law is they are prosecuting her not for doing something

but for not doing something -- not doing something that she had the right to

choose not to do. YOU have the RIGHT to refuse medical treatment that you

don't agree with. The fact that she didn't want a c-section -- whatever her

reason -- is her right! Granted it is horrible that her baby died but to

prosecute her for murder? I dont think so.

Rasley

mailto: drasley@...

BTC, Columbus, 10/7/98

Re: OT - Did anyone see this in the news?

> Wow! This is scary. I'm not sure how to take this last quote.....

> ---The law has been used to prosecute women who kill or seriously

harm their babies through drug use; it has never been used because a woman

failed to follow her doctor's advice, said Marguerite Driessen, a law

professor at Brigham Young University.

>

> " It's very troubling to have somebody come in and say we're going to

charge this mother for murder because we don't like the choices she made, "

Driessen said.---

>

[Guest guest]

My problem with charging her because we think her priorities are screwed up

is because it could lead to a lot of people being charged. What about the

family who had a baby to save their child from cancer? Should we charge them

for harvesting body parts? I mean they conceived the youngest child to use

the child's bone marrow to save their oldest from cancer. The woman had a

right to refuse the medical treatment. Granted the law doesn't allow you the

right to necessarily refuse medical treatment for your children but a

c-section is a medical treatment for the adult woman.

My question is: did the woman have any psychological testing done to

determine if she was suffering from a mental disability?

Rasley

mailto: drasley@...

BTC, Columbus, 10/7/98

Re: OT - Did anyone see this in the news?

> Just to play devil's advocate......does anyone who has read the article

> believe she should NOT be charged after being told by multiple medical

> professionals that her children would die if she did not have the

procedure??

>

> She said she would rather her children die than go to another hospital??

> Sounds like a whacked out lady to me to start with and from what I read

her

> perspective was that the " scars " from a C-section would ruin her life??

Sounds

> like a case of screwed up priorities to me.

>

> Mandi in Concord, NC

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

What I don't understand is if they were so worried about her babies why didn't

they do a 51/50 commitment hearing and hold her there?

I've seen in done in hospitals here and when I worked as a paramedic in

California...

Chrystal

Wife to Jace - together 6 Years!

Happy Mommy to - 4 Years Old!

New Baby Swenson Due July 28, 2004!

Zookeeper for 2 big dogs and 5 cats who let me feed them!

Re: OT - Did anyone see this in the news?

Just to play devil's advocate......does anyone who has read the article

believe she should NOT be charged after being told by multiple medical

professionals that her children would die if she did not have the procedure??

She said she would rather her children die than go to another hospital??

Sounds like a whacked out lady to me to start with and from what I read her

perspective was that the " scars " from a C-section would ruin her life??

Sounds

like a case of screwed up priorities to me.

Mandi in Concord, NC

[Guest guest]

" This really scares me because lawmakers and doctors always seem to

be ganging up against patients or parents for the choices they make

for their children. I hear almost monthly about parents being taken

to court because they want to try a different treatment for their

child then the one that one single doctor recommends. "

------------------------------------

this mother is in trouble because of blatantly refusing to save the

life of a baby when she was told it could die anf most likely would

die if she didn't deliver them at once. Obviously, she thought more

of having a scar than saving her unborn children's lives. This is

exactly the same woman who will probably try to turn right around and

sue the hospital for not doing the cesarean; and with today's court

system, I wouldn't doubt it if the courts ruled in her favor!!

I don't think too many people are so vain that they would take the

risk of killing a child. There certainly is a HUGE difference between

failing to follow a Dr's advice regarding medication for a minor

infection and refusing a procedure to save a child's life for vanity

purposes.

Not to talk about anyone, but after seeing her picture, I think she

had way more *beauty* issues than having a scar that is covered by

clothes most of the time. Shame she cant keep her face covered as

well.

JMO!

Sheila

[Guest guest]

It would probably only be malpractice because a prosecutor would not charge

them with murder. Though you could also get them civilly for wrongful death.

However if you charge one side you should charge the other with the same

offense for the same result.

Rasley

mailto: drasley@...

BTC, Columbus, 10/7/98

Re: Re: OT - Did anyone see this in the news?

> Following this line of reasoning.....What about a mom who has lost her

mucus plug and her bag of waters has broke and feels it is critical to

preserve the life of her unborn baby that she get a c-section immediately,

but the OB says that it just isn't necessary at this point and she should

wait it out. Then, because the doc choose to wait against the mom's wishes,

the baby is finally born, but has died. Should the doc be charged with

murder or just malpractice?

> Axelrod

[Guest guest]

Following this line of

reasoning.....What about a mom who has lost her mucus plug and her

bag of waters has broke and feels it is critical to preserve the life

of her unborn baby that she get a c-section immediately, but the OB

says that it just isn't necessary at this point and she should wait

it out. Then, because the doc choose to wait against the mom's

wishes, the baby is finally born, but has died. Should the doc be

charged with murder or just malpractice?

-------------------------------------

he shouldn't be charged with either. Losing your mucous plug is

ENTIRELY normal and her BOW breaking is an entirely normal process.

The Mom thinking that she needs a c-section immediately is ridiculous

(based on those 2 NORMAL events that normally occur prior to labor

starting. A c-section is NOT needed in this case. If the Mom is

paranoid and thinks she needs a c-section, she needs to be re-

educated that this is a normal event. In the event the baby dies,

based on those 2 things happening, she has no legal grounds to sue.

Would she sue? probably. Would she be entitled to win? not based on

those 2 normally occuring events. If something else happened that

*caused* or *contributed* to the baby's demise, then that may be the

factor that decided the Dr was guilty of murder or malpractice.

Sheila

L&D RN

[Guest guest]

Following this line of

reasoning.....What about a mom who has lost her mucus plug and her

bag of waters has broke and feels it is critical to preserve the life

of her unborn baby that she get a c-section immediately, but the OB

says that it just isn't necessary at this point and she should wait

it out. Then, because the doc choose to wait against the mom's

wishes, the baby is finally born, but has died. Should the doc be

charged with murder or just malpractice?

-------------------------------------

he shouldn't be charged with either. Losing your mucous plug is

ENTIRELY normal and her BOW breaking is an entirely normal process.

The Mom thinking that she needs a c-section immediately is ridiculous

(based on those 2 NORMAL events that normally occur prior to labor

starting. A c-section is NOT needed in this case. If the Mom is

paranoid and thinks she needs a c-section, she needs to be re-

educated that this is a normal event. In the event the baby dies,

based on those 2 things happening, she has no legal grounds to sue.

Would she sue? probably. Would she be entitled to win? not based on

those 2 normally occuring events. If something else happened that

*caused* or *contributed* to the baby's demise, then that may be the

factor that decided the Dr was guilty of murder or malpractice.

Sheila

L&D RN

[Guest guest]

One thing that hasn't been brought up.... maybe the true reason she didn't care

if one of twins dies was because she never wanted twins? Maybe she felt, " so

what, I will still have one baby " ?

Niki

Re: Re: OT - Did anyone see this in the news?

> Following this line of reasoning.....What about a mom who has lost her

mucus plug and her bag of waters has broke and feels it is critical to

preserve the life of her unborn baby that she get a c-section immediately,

but the OB says that it just isn't necessary at this point and she should

wait it out. Then, because the doc choose to wait against the mom's wishes,

the baby is finally born, but has died. Should the doc be charged with

murder or just malpractice?

> Axelrod

Children are a blessing, and a gift from the Lord. -Psalm 127:3

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Guest guest]

Mandi,

Something tells me that we aren't getting the whole story from the mom's

perspective. Like Robin said in a earlier post, maybe the mom didn't understand

exactly what they were going to do to her with a c-section. You also have to

consider that some people don't believe in surgery and if you take into

consideration her comments about her rather losing the babies than have the

surgery kinda makes sense. Maybe someone who overheard the mom making these

comments made the leap that she didn't want the surgery because of the scars, we

will never know exactly what this mom said or what she was thinking.

It said in the article that the original law was made to protect babies from

their mothers from using illegal drugs during pregnancy. Well, if these lawyers

are trying to use this law to charge this mom, who is to say that they won't try

to use this law against pregnant mom's like me? Pregnant moms who have to use

medications during pregnancy due to a chronic illness. The drugs that must be

taken may or may not have an effect on my unborn child, and charge them with

something if when the baby is born it has some problems once they are born?

It is for these reasons that no, I don't believe that this woman should have

been charged. It isn't our right as a society to decide what is an acceptable

reason for another person to accept or refuse any medical treatment. To me

there is just to many gray areas when you deal with medical procedures and

people's choices.

Axelrod

Re: OT - Did anyone see this in the news?

Just to play devil's advocate......does anyone who has read the article

believe she should NOT be charged after being told by multiple medical

professionals that her children would die if she did not have the procedure??

She said she would rather her children die than go to another hospital??

Sounds like a whacked out lady to me to start with and from what I read her

perspective was that the " scars " from a C-section would ruin her life??

Sounds

like a case of screwed up priorities to me.

Mandi in Concord, NC

[Guest guest]

Mandi,

Something tells me that we aren't getting the whole story from the mom's

perspective. Like Robin said in a earlier post, maybe the mom didn't understand

exactly what they were going to do to her with a c-section. You also have to

consider that some people don't believe in surgery and if you take into

consideration her comments about her rather losing the babies than have the

surgery kinda makes sense. Maybe someone who overheard the mom making these

comments made the leap that she didn't want the surgery because of the scars, we

will never know exactly what this mom said or what she was thinking.

It said in the article that the original law was made to protect babies from

their mothers from using illegal drugs during pregnancy. Well, if these lawyers

are trying to use this law to charge this mom, who is to say that they won't try

to use this law against pregnant mom's like me? Pregnant moms who have to use

medications during pregnancy due to a chronic illness. The drugs that must be

taken may or may not have an effect on my unborn child, and charge them with

something if when the baby is born it has some problems once they are born?

It is for these reasons that no, I don't believe that this woman should have

been charged. It isn't our right as a society to decide what is an acceptable

reason for another person to accept or refuse any medical treatment. To me

there is just to many gray areas when you deal with medical procedures and

people's choices.

Axelrod

Re: OT - Did anyone see this in the news?

Just to play devil's advocate......does anyone who has read the article

believe she should NOT be charged after being told by multiple medical

professionals that her children would die if she did not have the procedure??

She said she would rather her children die than go to another hospital??

Sounds like a whacked out lady to me to start with and from what I read her

perspective was that the " scars " from a C-section would ruin her life??

Sounds

like a case of screwed up priorities to me.

Mandi in Concord, NC

[Guest guest]

I have to agree. I know tha a woman my husband works with said she would nevr

have a c-section. I personally can't comprehend that. I am willing to do

whatever bring my baby here safely. That woman refusing a c-section when she

knew she was in need of it just floors me!

Re: Re: OT - Did anyone see this in the news?

I think this woman is sick and I'm personally GLAD she was charged! I think

its disgusting and my BIGGEST pet peeve. Refusing a c/s when you're told your

child will die! Yes SOME dr's aren't " honest " and " wanna get it over with! "

But to ignore 3 opinions b/c you don't want a SCAR?! @@ idiots the world is

full of idiots!

*~Joy~*

Lap RNY @ 491lbs

2/26/01

Mommy to:

(5) , Saralyn (4), Hunter (7/3/03)

and

#4 due sometime in September '04!

We have 3 kids, soon we'll have FOUR!

After this one,

Quoth Raven...

NEVERMORE!

[Guest guest]

I'm not sure that this particular instance (or similar instances)

could cause a pregnant woman's decision not to have glucose testing

(which I've personally chosen not to have and my OB is supporting me

in my decision), AFP, or amnio testing to lead to lawful

interference... This woman was informed numerous times that her

children's lives were at risk and not only did she refuse their

lifesaving treatment, but she went so far as to (disgustingly in my

opinion) state more than once that she would rather one or both of

them die than have a scar or go to a different hospital that could

offer her better help. I'm sure there is more to this woman's story

that will be revealed.

You also have to remember that this arrest took place in Utah (where

I was born and raised, btw), the same state that just a few months

ago took a mother and father to court because they refused to get

their son chemotherapy for his cancer. They wanted to try less

drastic, alternative means to help him. I've seen many, many

instances where the State will step in and try to compensate for

parent's poor or " different " decisions. This may be a plus or a

negative depending on the child and circumstances. My point here is

that just because one state's laws dictate certain interferences

doesn't mean that all states are equally passionate.

Toi

..

>

> Not to talk about anyone, but after seeing her picture, I think she

> had way more *beauty* issues than having a scar that is covered by

> clothes most of the time. Shame she cant keep her face covered as

> well.

>

> JMO!

> Sheila

[Guest guest]

I can agree if she was just being negligent but what if she didn't want it

because of religious reasons? Or because she is mentally ill? I would like

to know more facts rather than what the paper said. There may have been a

very good legitimate reason for her actions that we would not agree with but

would mean it was not murder. The main problem I have with murder is you

have to say this was an intentional premeditated act. I dont see it as

premeditated. Murder may grab headlines but if she is responsible for the

death of her child then I could see it being manslaughter or even neglect.

Rasley

mailto: drasley@...

BTC, Columbus, 10/7/98

> I think in this situation I would ask for a second opinion if I absolutely

> felt that my child would die. I honestly think there are laws against

charging

> a doctor with murder unless it was " intentional " but I'm not necessarily

in

> favor of that either. I think doctors should be held accountable for

their

> decisions also.

>

> The thing with doctors is that they have enough experience to make an

> educated decision on what is medically correct. They at least know the

probable

> outcomes on a case by case basis. I don't care how much research I do on

the

> internet or otherwise without the knowledge to understand or quantify or

even

> judge the quality of studies/case management/etc., I'm not qualified to

overrule

> him in MOST life-threatening situations.....and I have a medical

background.

> Under normal situations, and I would almost be willing to bet, that this

woman

> had no medical information/background/knowledge and therefore this was not

an

> educated decision, but just a negligent one in my opinion.

>

> They noted decelerations in her infant in December. That in most

> circumstances over a prolonged period of time warrants at least continuous

monitoring if

> not an emergency C-section. Doctors know that because they have lost

babies

> in those cases. The fact that she waited 2 weeks to even go back and see

if

> the babies were " still alive " dumbfounds me.

>

> I'm all for choosing your own medical care....especially if it's for YOU.

In

> all other cases, if you are choosing something that has proven to be

> detrimental in MANY other situations to MANY other people, you are not

qualified to

> make that choice. If 100 people had the same situation and 98 of them had

poor

> outcomes, it is not reasonable to take the risk that your child will be

one of

> the two that will live. Bad decisions equal bad consequences and that to

me

> is what is wrong with our society. We are willing to excuse too many

people

> for their bad decisions because we don't want somebody to examine our

> decisions.

>

> " Okay, you kill somebody today so that if I happen to kill somebody

tomorrow

> I won't be in trouble " is NOT good logic to me. Protecting children is

way

> more important than my personal liberty if I happen to be the one who is

> inflicting the harm.

>

> I'm willing to go to the mat for decisions that I feel are right for me

and

> my children......but I make them only after I'm sure that there's not a

chance

> I'm putting them in harms way.

>

> Freedom of personal choice does not extend beyond ourselves. Once it

impacts

> someone else then we don't necessarily have those freedoms.

>

> By the way, I'm not for Big Brother or Big Government. But if it's a

blatent

> act of negligence, I have to say throw the book at the woman.

>

> Mandi in Concord, NC

>

>

>