Mother's choice

[Hegemonicretribution]

Mother charged in Caesarean row
Melissa Ann Rowland
Rowland's case has triggered a heated debate in the US
A US woman who allegedly ignored medical warnings to have a Caesarean section has been charged with murder after one of her twins was stillborn.

Melissa Ann Rowland, 28, showed "depraved indifference to human life", prosecutors in Salt Lake City said.

They said Ms Rowland refused the Caesarean because she did not want "her cosmetic appearance to be disfigured".

Ms Rowland, who is being held in jail on $250,000 bail, denies the charge. If convicted, she could face life in jail.

Rowland's 'omissions'

An autopsy found the baby boy died two days before its 13 January delivery.


I've never refused a C-section. I've already had two prior C-sections. Why would I say something like that?
Melissa Ann Rowland
Medics said it would have survived had Ms Rowland had a Caesarean between Christmas and 9 January - as her doctors urged her to do.

The other twin was in stable condition.

A nurse at a city hospital said she heard Ms Rowland saying she left the hospital because doctors wanted to cut her open "from breast bone to pubic bone" and that this would "ruin her life", court documents say.

The documents also say Ms Rowland said she would rather "lose one of the babies than be cut like that".

"It was her (Ms Rowland's) omissions that caused the death of the child," Kent Morgan of the Salt Lake District Attorney's Office was quoted as saying by the Deseret Morning News newspaper.

"She was given three or four opportunities to get a C-section to save the baby. She continued to say no," Mr Morgan added.

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.

Unique case

In January, the Utah Supreme Court ruled that unborn children at all stages of development are covered under the state's criminal homicide statute. The law exempts the death of a foetus during an abortion.

The state law has been used to prosecute women who killed or harmed their unborn babies through their lifestyle, drinking or drugs.

But it has never been applied to prosecute a woman who failed to follow her doctor's advice, Marguerite Driessen, a law professor at Brigham Young University said.

"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," Prof Driessen said.

Ms Rowland's case has already triggered a heated debate across the country. - Taken from a BBC news site.

I know this is old news now, but the forum wasn't around then, and this is an interesting starting point for debate. Reflections, views?

[redxroses]

Personally i think it is disgusting that she values her appearance more than a life. But it is still her choice what she wants and they had no right to take her to court for it. It's very hypocritical isnt it? Accusing a mother of murder because she didnt have a C-section but freely allowing anyone who wants to, to have an abortion. Make your mind up - is a developing foetus "alive" or not?

Secondly is it proven that these were her reasons for not having a C-section? Or is it just rumours that will ruin the poor woman's life?

If it is true, is this the kind of society we live in today? Where body image is more important than a life? :huh:

[Sir Aunty Christ]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2006 06:52 pm
Personally i think it is disgusting that she values her appearance more than a life.
Yeah ok, maybe her reasons for not having a Ceaserian were a bit... skew wiff, but state law is the real problem here. This, for example:


In January, the Utah Supreme Court ruled that unborn children at all stages of development are covered under the state's criminal homicide statute. The law exempts the death of a foetus during an abortion.

is total hypocrisy. I'm even surprised abortion is exempt as Utah is one of the most conservative states.

I'm not going to say if the woman was right or wrong not to have C-Section but there is no way the state should have intervened in this way.

[redxroses]

i know, i'm suprised no one said anything, maybe thats because i live over here in England and i'm not sure how long ago it happened...but still.

[nmlssone]

This is a pretty funky situation.

Starting off, about a third of all births now are Caesareans. This is mostly due to the mother not wanting to risk a bad delivery or in some cases overstretching their vagina. Many of these Caesareans are unnecessary, and perhaps the mother in this situation didn't properly weigh the situation and assumed that a Caesarean was unnesscary. (Perhaps this was supplimented by the fact that she had already had 2 Caesareans and were perhaps unnecessary)

In this situation, it would be her fault for not properly weighing the situation.

If she didn't want to have the Caesareans for purely cosmetic reasons, it iwould surely be her fault.

Now, on Fetuses...

The Utah law is stupidshitmushrooms.

I, being a hardcore anti-theist, could really care less about when the religious idiots think that "god" makes the fetus "human". For me, if the baby could be removed from the womb using whatever method, and still live and reproduce, it is human. So I'm pro-abortion, pro-stem-cell research and everything else that "kills babies".

So under my definition, a fetus very close to delivery would be "human", so the mother would always be guilty unless the doctors failed to inform her about the necessity of the Caesarean.

[TC]

Personally i think it is disgusting that she values her appearance more than a life.

actually, virtually all westerners implicitly value their apperance more than a life: we actively participate in maintaining and/or enhancing our apperance but we are passive when it comes to saving people's lives; we wont go out of our way to save as many as we can.


is total hypocrisy. I'm even surprised abortion is exempt as Utah is one of the most conservative states.


Abortion is only exempt because roe vs wade in the us supreme court prohibited any laws banning abortion as violations of individual privacy rights protected under the 14th amendment, the logic being that what a person chooses to do to her own body with a doctor is a private issue outside of the realm of community interests.

Applying the law in this way violates percisely the logic of the ruling, protection of privacy rights, without violating the ruling itself, its really sick.


If she didn't want to have the Caesareans for purely cosmetic reasons, it iwould surely be her fault.


Well, i think the prosecution was probably misrepresenting the situation since she's already had two caesareans having a third one isn't going to make any cosmetic difference since they'd just go along the existing scar line...not wanting a caesarean for cosmetic reasons only makes sense if you haven't had one already. The entire story is quite weird and to figure out what actually went on in that case i think would take additional research.

However, its really irrelevant, as not wanting to feel disfigured is a perfectly acceptable reason not to have surgery. No one should EVER be forced to undergo a medical procedure against their will but especially not for someone elses benefit, its an extreme violation of their bodily integrity and human rights and personal dignity (comperable but worse than rape).


Originally posted by nmlssone+--> (nmlssone) For me, if the baby could be removed from the womb using whatever method, and still live and reproduce, it is human.[/b]

Thats increadibly stupid. The notion that 'humanity' is granted at the point where a fetus could concievably survive as a premature birth is ridiculous because severely premature births are only able to survive fractions of the time even with artificial 'heroic measures' and the tiny portion of them that survive are likely to end up retarded. Were they normal people who signed 'do not resuscitate' orders, they would be dead.


nmlssone
So under my definition, a fetus very close to delivery would be "human", so the mother would always be guilty unless the doctors failed to inform her about the necessity of the Caesarean.


That is absolute reactionary bullshit. Whether or not a caesarean was necessary to save the life of the fetus is utterly irrelevant from a standpoint of rights and obligations, because while someone might be kind enough to make the sacrifice to undergo an elective procedure to save someone elses life, which is what we're talking about here, and we can correctly applaud them if they choose to, they have absolutely no obligation to do so.

When a child urgently needs a new kidney or half a liver, it might be kind for a family member with the same tissue type to volenteer to undergo major invasive surgery to give them one, knowing that if they don't, the child will probably or certaintly die, but if they decide not to have surgery for their child, doctors and judges don't have the option of cutting them up against their will.

In fact, failing to donate non-essential organs randomly has the same effect with strangers.

So unless you're a multiple organ donar, you clearly feel that while your body belongs to yourself, pregnant women's bodies are apparently not their own but some sort of public or state property. You should get out of these forums and go to Utah where you'll find more people who share your view women as objects.

[Physco Bitch]

How does anybody now that the baby would have servied even if she had the caesarean or not, the clock can not be taken back to take the other course of action. I still think she was a bit in-considerate to put her looks above a young life - if it could have been saved that is. As the debate is still on going as to if a feotuses actually have a soul and in that way if they are probaly alive or not (i mean alive in the sense as we are now). If the baby would have servided or not if she had taken the option to have a caesarean then that is a diffrenet matter - looks are not as important as someones life. But if abortion is legal then i don't understand why they are coming down on her as hard as they are - it is alright to kill a life off early on but it is a totally different matter when it is later on. It does seem hypocritical to take up such a double standard as this. I do belive that such an action is wrong only if the baby would have been saved if she had taken up the option , but as i said there is no way to find out now, there is only the doctors word - and that is only their opinion and that has been known to be wrong before now. They are not physics, they can not look into the future so there was no way for them to be definate on the case anyway. I don't now if the case has gone through court yet and if so what the decsion was - but i don't think she should be put in prison - if that happens then all women should be through in prison for all babies deaths wether through abortion or through a case like this.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Until the baby is born it is not alive.

The mother has a right to determine what she does to her body, the baby (as it is actually being born) may be considered to have a right to life. The mother does not have a responsibility to the unborn baby...TC's organ donor example was a good illustration of this point.

Giving birth is like saving a life. To place a responsibility upon a women in this situation is to exagerate the differences between men and women even more. It is the difference between self-sacrifice/doing a "good" thing...and fulfilling a duty as it ought to be. Again until the baby is born it is not alive, any responsibilities start after childbirth, and personal choice is still key.

[Sentinel]

Forcing someone to have a surgery is as unacceptable as forcing someone to keep an unwanted child. It's claiming authority over someone elses body, and a totally unacceptable position among the left in my opinion.

The Utah laws are a really scary example of where religious emotionalism mixed with lawmaking can lead.