| Author | Message | ||
     shoshannah Citizen Username: Shoshannah Post Number: 405 Registered: 7-2002 |
Did you hear this one? She purportedly said that the scar would "ruin her life." So she refused to consent to a C-section to save her baby's life. The child was stillborn. It was a twin pregnancy; the other baby was born healthy. She probably belongs under strict psychiatric care, but murder? | ||
| Michael Janay Citizen Username: Childprotect Post Number: 202 Registered: 1-2003 |
This story is scary on many many counts. | ||
| just me fromsouthorange Citizen Username: Jmfromsorange Post Number: 184 Registered: 7-2003 |
where did this happen? how old is the woman and does she have other children? i'm surprised the courts couldn't force her to have the c section the same way they force parents to provide medical care for their children. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 1100 Registered: 8-2003 |
Why even put her under psychiatric care? Perfectly reasonable and legal choice she made. She has certain priorities that take precedence over the life of a child. It's not murder. She's far from alone. Who are we to judge? Roe V. Wade rocks. | ||
| Earlster Citizen Username: Earlster Post Number: 142 Registered: 8-2003 |
One news piece I read said she didn't want the scar, then went hospital shopping to find one that would deliver without the C-Section. By the time whe arrived a the 3rd hospital the baby was dead. What about the doctors in the first hospital that should have respected her choice for vaginal birth. They could have monitored the babies and maybe induced labor. It is clearly her rigt to chose against a C-Section, it's not that she aborted the pregnancy or anything like that. Also consider that she is probably quite griev strucken by the fact that she loast one of her babies. Shame on the prosectution here, I wonder what their agenda is. Sounds very Ashcrofty to me. | ||
| shoshannah Citizen Username: Shoshannah Post Number: 406 Registered: 7-2002 |
Just Me, The woman is 28 and she does have other children. | ||
| e roberts Citizen Username: Wnwd00 Post Number: 21 Registered: 3-2004 |
cjc i agree with you. I think it is a little messed up that the state arrested her because she refused a medical procedure. no matter what her reason. i am not a big liberal guy or anything. however i am of the opinion that if you do not want a medical procedure even if it will hurt you if you dont get it you should not be forced. this is also my understanding of the law too, if anyone could correct me if i am misunderstanding it. | ||
| ffof Citizen Username: Ffof Post Number: 2055 Registered: 5-2001  |
watch out e roberts...cjc's post was completely cynical. His posts show a 100% non-choice stance. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 1103 Registered: 8-2003 |
And who the hell cares anyway? What's the big deal? So it's stillborn. Big whoop. If she didn't care if the kid lived or died, then I don't either. But if she wanted the kid to live, then I care. | ||
| ffof Citizen Username: Ffof Post Number: 2056 Registered: 5-2001 |
why didn't she want a c-section - there is a huge swell of thought that "natural" is the only way to go - who the hell knows what was going in her mind. And if the kid had lived? Certainly there are instances when the doctor says "you must have a c-section" but then the woman doesn't and the baby lives! Do you have the statistics cjc? How about if the mother had died and the baby lived? something tells me cjc would be happy. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 1104 Registered: 8-2003 |
Who are we to judge, ffof? I have no use for statistics. Whatever the mother desires is fine and legal. If anyone calls this a tragedy, you're being intolerant. There is no tragedy in this instance, as the mother got what she wanted -- no scars. A perfectly reasonable decision. The stillborn child? Easy come, easy go. Your view that a mother dying could be a happy event is disturbing, ffof. Why do you feel that way? | ||
| SoOrLady Citizen Username: Soorlady Post Number: 449 Registered: 9-2003 |
Earlster/ffof: She reportedly said to a nurse that she would rather have her child die than have a scar. So, I doubt that there is much grief over her dead child. If a Christian Scientist can be taken to court for refusing medical treatment for their child - this woman can be charged with allowing her child to die. | ||
| ffof Citizen Username: Ffof Post Number: 2058 Registered: 5-2001 |
there are risks with c-sections, cjc. It is major surgery afterall. Hell, maybe her religion prevents her from taking any medication. we just don't know. shoshoshanna said "purportedly" she didn't want a scar. Maybe there's more to the story, but as reported above, I'd say it was the non-choicers who are pushing this story. and nice twisting of words at the end of your post honey pie. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 1106 Registered: 8-2003 |
But it wasn't a child. It's not a child until it's completely out from the mother. If it's still inside the mother, it's not a child unless it's a wanted child. If it's inside the mother and it's not wanted, it's not a child. | ||
| shh Citizen Username: Shh Post Number: 978 Registered: 5-2001 |
I'll need to read the full story to better understand what happened. Was one baby breech? How could a hospital have allowed her to leave to go hospital shopping? I can understand not wanting a c-sec. I had those thoughts w/ my third kid. I tried everything I could to get the baby to turn (she was breech) and did research about delivering vaginally. Finally I asked my doctor what the worst that could happen was if I went into labor w/ the baby breech and he explained everything very clearly to me. I finally resigned myself to the fact that unless the baby turned a c-section it was. Maybe no one explained the hazards to her? Sometimes doctors feel that you should just take what they say verbatim. Perhaps she didn't realize how serious the risks were. Or, she's just a vain moron. | ||
| Dave Citizen Username: Dave Post Number: 6577 Registered: 4-1998  |
Does anyone know if she is a Mormon? The Church of LDS has some skeptical beliefs about doctors and modern medicine. http://www.watchman.org/lds/mormed.htm | ||
| ashear Citizen Username: Ashear Post Number: 1041 Registered: 5-2001 |
AP wire story says she has a long history of mental illness. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A53120-2004Mar12.html | ||
| shh Citizen Username: Shh Post Number: 979 Registered: 5-2001 |
...or a vain MorMon.  | ||
| Dave Citizen Username: Dave Post Number: 6578 Registered: 4-1998 |
Perhaps the hospital that released her should bear some responsibility. Their oath is to "do no harm" and that's what they did by letting her walk out. | ||
| Michael Janay Citizen Username: Childprotect Post Number: 204 Registered: 1-2003 |
Hospitals can't hold you there against your will. And they can't force you to have a medical procedure that you do not want. There are many questions in this case: Was the unborn child a life? Can the unborn be murdered? Was it mothers choice to reject the procedure or someone elses? Whos? By rejecting a medical procedure on yourself, should you be charged with murder (pregnant or not)? Should anyone be able to force anyone else to have a medical procedure you oppose (for whatever reason)? Should anyone be charged with murder when it isn't guaranteed the babies would have survived the C-section? If instead of refusing the C, she aborted the the babies, would your opinion change? I don't know the answers. |
