Woman refuses C-section, charged with murder [new Bush America]

[Sgt. Peppers]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28371-2004Mar26.html

"She's not the vision of a soccer mom," says one, with classic understatement. Even the photo that went around the world on the March day the Utah woman was formally accused of murdering her twin son by refusing a Caesarean section gave new meaning to the phrase "mug shot."

But widen the lens and consider Amber Marlowe, for example. In January this mother also refused to have a C-section. A Pennsylvania hospital got a court order to perform the operation. But after she and her husband fled to another hospital, she delivered the baby normally.

Or widen it to include Angela Carder. In 1987, when Carder was pregnant and critically ill with cancer, the doctors in her Washington hospital got a court order to try to save her fetus. Mother and fetus died in surgery.

The landscape is dotted with such attempts by the state to overrule the power of the mother to make health decisions for herself and her fetus.
==============================================================

[Carolina]

1. the slippery slope

whereby fetal rights supersede maternal ones has started. Can mandatory childbearing be far behind? Ladies, watch your wombs! This is a truly frightening turn of events.

Meanwhile the fetus worshippers don't give a rip about real children ... you know, the ones born, breathing and being screwed daily by frankenfood, fouled environment, starved educational resources and diminshed, if any, access to healthcare.

[TheWraith]

2. The slippery slope...

...is under our own feet as well. It's one thing to say that a smattering of cells is not a person. Here you're talking about a full fledged viable offspring hours away from birth. This is creeping close to the line taken by NARAL's lunatic fringe, the people who claim that a parent is entitled to an 'abortion' up to 30 days after birth.

This woman refused to save the life of one of her own children because she didn't want to run the risk of having a scar. I think the kindest thing you can say about her is that she's probably mentally ill. And I think that painting this up as some kind of right and proper triumph of choice is sick, and makes it easier for the Rightards to paint all abortion this way.

[Robbien]

3. How do you know what her reasons were?

They could be religious reasons.
They could be health reasons.
They could be out of fear.

How do you know? How dare you, a stranger, decide what is best for her?

[Skittles]

4. let me ask you something

let's say a person has their blood on the marrow donor registry. A match is made - but then the person changes their mind. Should that person be forced to donate marrow to save the other person's life?

[Robbien]

5. It is not our decision to make

We are not the involved parties. We do not have all the facts or have anything at risk. In this instance as well as the C-section situation, the involved parties should be the only players that count when it comes down to a decision.

In the marrow situation, what if the donor now has a loved one who desperately needs that marrow, or what if the donor they want to give it to is a convicted rapist or child molester, , , or Bush. If it were me, I would have second thoughts. But again, it is not my place to make that decision for them.

[Skittles]

6. no WAY could you force that person to donate the marrow

but when WOMEN are involved, suddenly EVERYONE'S got an opinion.

[lapauvre]

8. Amen.

It's funny that there is so much governmental control and penalty for women's choices, and absolutely NONE for men's choices. Correct?

[Skittles]

9. oh yeah

controlling women has always been a major part of male-dominated politics.

[Bridget Burke]

16. No.

It's not done. An unrelated donor found through the registry--or a related donor, generally a sibling--may refuse to donate.

Period.

[lapauvre]

7. in response to Wraith

That is bull. The woman had already had c-sections. She already had scars. The woman is entitled to protect her own life, OR not.

What, are we going to go seeking virgins to sacrifice to a volcano, if we can find them. Human life matters, and the delivery was in God's hands, not the hands of the medical profession. And certainly not in the hands of some religious zealot of a prosecutor, who is undoubtedly a republican.

[donhakman]

10. I heard the Southern Babtist credo is

The woman must OBEY

[donhakman]

11. I have to add

We we're signed up to have our child's umbilical stem cells saved as per our contract at the hospital.

The day of delivery this service was denied claiming the Bush administration has ended such programs - due to cost the hospital would not comply. We said we would pay all charges. They still would not comply.

Thus ending an easy cure (compared to mismatched bone marrow) for my son should he ever face leukemia or a myriad of other diseases.

[TheWraith]

14. Re:

Robbien -- Read a few of the articles on the subject, and you'll find the matter spelled out quite clearly in her own words.

Skittles -- Forced? Of course not. But if saving an innocent person's life cost them nothing, and they still refused, I'd say the exact same thing--that they're at best a disturbed individual. If the other person were evil, I could understand it, but a child? Moreover, your own child? That's cold.

lapauvre -- Who ever said anything about protecting the woman's life? Her life was never in any kind of danger at all, only the lives of her kids. And frankly, it's my opinion that if you aren't willing to go to any lengths to protect your children, you have absolutely no business having children.

[Robbien]

15. Again, who are you to make that decision for some other person?

No further information on this case will endow me with rights to force someone else to do something they are not willing to do.

Why do you think that because you hold certain beliefs that gives you the right over the life and actions of another?

[oldcoot]

18. I have read the articles

In every article I have read, Rowland has denied stating that she was worried about the scar. It was a nurse who claims that Rowland was worried about the scar. She has had C-sections in the past and even had one in this case.

Every medical procedure, including C-sections, have some risks. If you are going to argue that she should be forced to undergo this operation, you should also require every healthy American to become a blood donor. Donating blood as far less risky than a C-section and saves lives.

I agree that people who are not willing to do everything in their power to protect their children should not have them. This is why I believed that contraceptives should be available and affordable to every woman (and man) who wants them and abortion should remain legal. However, individuals (including pregnant women) should still be allowed to make their own medical decisions. Doctors are not infallible and make mistakes like other humans.

However, if Rowland is convicted and the courts uphold her conviction, doctors will have near god-like power over their pregnant patients' lives. If their patients do not follow their advice exactly, they can call the police and have the women arrested.

[Bridget Burke]

17. Look into the facts of the case.

The woman does, indeed, have quite serious mental problems.

And where's the father?

[meow2u3]

12. Whatever happened to a patient's right to refuse treatment?

This bullshit murder-by-natural-childbirth charge is a backdoor attempt to deny women their right to accept or refuse medical treatment. Where do those misogynist, fascist DEMONS get the gall to brand a woman a criminal because she refuses a medical procedure which, without it, may result in the death of the kid? The woman has a right to refuse treatment, yet that didn't register with the theocrats and other extremists who give pro-lifers a bad name. She probably knew that her son would die very young, C-section or no C-section.

The macho conservative assholes who infest Utah think God died and left them in charge of all the women of the world. Who the hell do they think they are, putting a gun to a woman's head and telling her, "Get this operation--or else!"?
What next? Murder charges for women who can't get their kids to take their freakin' antibiotics?

[donhakman]

13. thats true fed