She refused a C-section to keep an infant alive because she didn't want to have a scar?! And a law professor finds it disturbing that she was charged with murder?
So much for my faith in human kindness.
Posted by Human (Member # 2985) on :
I took one look at the picture in the article and thought...that woman is worrying about preserving her looks?!
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
To be honest, though, I'm ALSO concerned about the precedent this sets. Are we going to start requiring that mothers follow the advice of their doctors, to the point that choices which do not turn out well are considered MURDEROUS? By that token, should doctors who screw up a C-section and kill the baby be tried for murder instead of malpractice?
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
Tom, there are plenty of circumstances under which I would agree with you. But this woman was advised by no fewer than three doctors, apparently each totally independent of the others, that it was critical she have an operation and that they could not find a heartbeat for one of the children. And she refused not on any medical grounds, but for basically cosmetic reasons. To me that steps over the line beyond being "a bad decision" into negligent homicide.
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
Suprised at that law professor from BYU.
Anyway, there was a discussion on the radio here in Utah, yesterday.
On the radio we heard more of what she told nurses:
"I'd rather lose one of the babies than have a scar."
Posted by Book (Member # 5500) on :
Man. I'm choking back the vomit, here.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Did the CNN article mention she had already had two cesareans? Can the doctors be charged for not tying the woman's tubes?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:The same day, Rowland allegedly saw a nurse at another hospital, saying she had left LDS Hospital because the doctor wanted to cut her "from breast bone to pubic bone."
I think the woman is a little bit nuts.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I wonder if there were religious or financial reasons also prompting the refusal of invasive treatment?
Avoiding a C-section scar when she already has one (twice) doesn't seem to make sense from any standpoint. Posted by PaladinVirtue (Member # 6144) on :
I am surprised that someone hasn't brought up the "womens right to choose", "it is only a baby once it is born" dogma that is so rampant with prolife abortion arguments and applied it to this case? Any thoughts?
What is so different from this case of neglect and choosng to terminate the child? Other that the obvious that the child was much more developed than when most abortions take place?
I know that most people who do suppport abortion don't support partial birth abortions, but what of those that do? How do they see this?
Posted by PaladinVirtue (Member # 6144) on :
Ok, why did it not post this for like a minute and then make me post it twice? Glitch?
[ March 12, 2004, 01:34 PM: Message edited by: PaladinVirtue ]
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Yeah, kat, she sounds a bit irrational, to say the least.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Hey, Paladin, I bet you'd get more thoughtful and honest responses from the other camp if the terminology of the question were less emotionally loaded. I, for one, am about as likely to put myself on the defensive with that setup as I am to attempt a headlock on David Bowles' wife.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Maybe it was just that day?
And was a pregnant woman really wandering from hospital to hospital, making decisions on her own? Where the heck was her family? The FATHER?
I realize that she went there because she wanted to put the kids up for adoption, and that she couldn't take care of them. It sounds like there is much more to the story, and I really think there was something wrong with her mental processes on that day. It's still very sad, but murder is a bit much. I don't know how to fix the system so it doesn't happen again, but this is hardly a society princess desperate to preserve her fading beauty queen looks.
It's so sad. Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Yeah, kat, I'm guessing that some of the less sensational details of the story are getting left out. Posted by PaladinVirtue (Member # 6144) on :
Thanks for tip CT Rereading that I can see what you mean, but in reality there is no "other camp" to me as I am a moderate on the issue. That is to say I have an opinion but I can see both sides. Those are just questions I was stating to stimulate discussion b/c I think that there might be very interesting answers to them. Don't mean to mean to put anyone one the defensive Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
No problem. In this case, the law exempts abortions performed by doctors.
I agree with kat that the woman was probably slightly delusional. I think she should have had a psych eval. Why not charge the nurse for failing to provide that?
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
Is it just me, or is that law somewhat hypocritical in that it considers a fetus a life relative to murder and such, except in the case of abortion.
Posted by PaladinVirtue (Member # 6144) on :
So abortions are only legal if a doctor performs them...I see. Important distinction. TY pooka.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
No worries, Paladin. I get where you are coming from, now.
Will you think me an intellectual and ethical wussy if my first reaction on rereading the question is still "ahhh, aahhhh, no way, my sweet patootie"? My body involuntarily shudders.
(I am wiping spit from the keyboard, as when I shake my head violently with my mouth open, things get messy. )
Posted by HRE (Member # 6263) on :
But this was not an abortion. It was entirely negligent behavior...can you imagine how she treats her children?
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
*rereads, looks at replies, reflings spit
*backs out of thread very slowly
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
They said on the noon news that the woman has had a history of mental illness.
Too bad she didn't have SOMEONE -- a close mentor - that could help her through this better.
Farmgirl
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
No kidding. This is a sad story in many ways - and even without the mental illness, what a terrible day to be alone and far from home.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
So any miscarriage is murder?
Or just any miscarriage in which nurse's advice is ignored?
I have several friends with medical conditions which would probably take a severe turn for the worse -- quite possibly lead to death -- if they became pregnant. Should they be charged with murder if they miscarry after failing to follow a doctor's advice to not to get pregnant? Or for failing to go on the pill? Or for not following the dosage schedule correctly? How about a miscarriage after a doctor recommends terminating the pregnancy because of those severe health effects -- like total kidney failure -- upon the woman?
[ March 12, 2004, 03:08 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
There is a difference between a miscarriage and a stillbirth AFTER the babies were known to be in severe distress.
That said, I agree with Tom that the legal precedents here are of serious concern.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Murder is as murder does.
Hobbes Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I would hold that any laws involving this decision should apply to late-term abortions and vice versa. I think this woman did something exactly similar to choosing a late term abortion, and if she gets charged with murder, so should they.
Posted by PaladinVirtue (Member # 6144) on :
Prosecuting this women just creates so many problems. It can set a precident that will result in many other similiar cases.
Such as, what if the person had been amish and refrained for religious reasons? I beleive that they would not approve of the use of the medical technology needed perform a C-section...
[ March 12, 2004, 03:14 PM: Message edited by: PaladinVirtue ]
Posted by Ghost of Xavier (Member # 2852) on :
I think she should be charged, but certainly not with murder.
First off, she didn't say "I am going to kill my unborn baby by way of refusing treatment". So without the intent to kill, its stupid to call it murder. At TOPS you could call it manslaughter.
And even then I think its a tad too much. What are the sentences for criminal neglect? That seems much more applicable to me.
Again, there are FAR too many precedents with charging this woman with murder!
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
You may be right Xavier, but I think it's clear that she made a CHOICE to end the child's life rather than have a scar, which she said she preferred herself.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I agree, PSI. However, it was by inaction, not action. I'm not sure whether there is a moral difference, but I believe there is a legal difference.
Dagonee?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Murder is as murder does.
Hobbes, you know I adore in a very honorary-sister's-boyfriend-in-law sort of way, but what the heck does that mean? That doesn't mean anything!
Posted by PaladinVirtue (Member # 6144) on :
No, she made a choice to RISK the childs life, rather than have her C-section. She didn't take definitive action to END it.
[ March 12, 2004, 03:22 PM: Message edited by: PaladinVirtue ]
Posted by Dead_Horse (Member # 3027) on :
Amish people use medical services. Must be some other religion that doesn't.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Kat wins the golden egg!
[EDIT: By the way, did you get my e-mail?]
Hobbes
[ March 12, 2004, 03:27 PM: Message edited by: Hobbes ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*feels Hobbes' forehead* What?
(Yes! It made my morning. You're such a sweetheart. )
[ March 12, 2004, 03:29 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I don't think so Paladin. She was told she'd likely lose BOTH children. She's lucky one even lived. She wasn't in labor yet, and the babies' heartbeats were dropping. Her choices were: 1. C-section 2. Leave the babies in there and let them die.
That seems pretty cut and dried to me.
Posted by PaladinVirtue (Member # 6144) on :
Well..not exactly. Look this comes down to legal manuvering as I see it. Like Rivka posted above. Is non-action to be considered neglect or an action in and of itself? And from that follows is it murder or neglect. I'm not qualified to agrue that from a legal standpoint but I do pose the question. (The only time I have use for a lawyer none seem to be around!) From a moral standpoint, obviously she did someting that we all feel was extremely selfish and wrong. But was it murder? i am not so quick to call it such.
As for the Amish, DH, I was just using them as an example. But I think that to what extent they will utilize medical services depends upon the particular community. But am not certain. Posted by PaladinVirtue (Member # 6144) on :
Use this analogy to put it in perspective:
You see a person who is caught in a tornado. You the ability to save the person but the act of doing means that you will have to go out to them on a secure bungee rope and risk your face being cut by flying debris, suffering pain and a disfigurment. If you don't take action, there is a good chance that the person will die. You are not responsible for the situation that has developed, it is an act of nature. Your choices are to either take action or let nature take it's course. Is this person guilty of murder if they do not act?
[ March 12, 2004, 03:58 PM: Message edited by: PaladinVirtue ]
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
A C-Section scar is hardly disfigurement, and it is a controlled, almost routine procedure, unlike a tornado where who knows what could happen.
There are laws that say if you're able to prevent someone's death and you do nothing, you are to a degree responsible for the death. (Assuming that you did not have to take unreasonable risks of your own life to prevent the killing, of course.)
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
Parents have a legal duty to provide medical care for a dependent minor child. In re Hudson, 126 P.2d 765 (1942); White v. McDowell, 74 Wash. 44, 132 P. 734 (1913); Commonwealth v. Breth, 44 Pa. County Ct. 56 (1915)
Why is this any different?
This woman may qualify for second-degree murder. The Model Penal Code allows designation of reckless conduct as murder if the act in question was done "under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life." This woman's act certainly qualifies.
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
I find her selfishness disturbing and revolting. But I think the legal precedent set by charging her with murder is MORE disturbing. Women should have the right to refuse medical treatment they disagree with-parents should have the right to refuse medical treatment. If women fear they will be charged with murder for not following medical advice, they simply won't seek it.
Posted by PaladinVirtue (Member # 6144) on :
Great point Wiggin!
But then we get into the agrument of "fetus vs. child"
Love to discuss more but time to go home. Have a great weekend everyone!
[ March 12, 2004, 04:38 PM: Message edited by: PaladinVirtue ]
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
Latest news said surviving infant was in respiratory distress. Cocaine found in infant's bloodstream. Mother had told doctors that she needed to go outside for a smoke. She had smoked a cocaine-laced joint. Mother being charged with child endagerment in addition to murder.
[ March 12, 2004, 06:14 PM: Message edited by: skillery ]
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Inaction can be a crime as much as action. Take criminal negligence, for example. It is not the doing, but the not doing that creates the crime.
I don't know if I'd advocate for murder, but quite possibly voluntary manslaughter.
I'm not sure.
This is a bugger.
Gut reaction is "Good lord, that's not right."
I mean, choosing not to have C-Section because of the risk of your own health/death, sure.
But choosing not to have one because of a scar?
But is this all that's going on?
Gah.
I think the thing is that these fetuses were fully developed and entirely viable outside the womb. Doctors said they needed to be born ASAP. Woman chooses not to have them born via C-section, ensuring that one or both children would die before a vaginal birth.
It does sound premeditated in that she went to three different doctors for three different opinions--possibly trying to find one that would say, "No, it's okay, you don't need a c-section."
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: In January, the state 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 fetus during an abortion.
This seems like a contradiction to me. I understand that sometimes abortion is an appropriate solution, but *sigh* I don't know. I don't really understand the reasoning.
Human, I have to agree with your assessment. What an unflattering picture!
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I think there is a bit of sensationalize reporting. Why does the media's interest in selling their wares override her right to a fair trial? (as a person who could conceivably serve in the jury pool)
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Accordin to an article I'd read in the paper this morning-link will come when I've got more time-she has a history of some mental problems. They were unspecified in the report.
Also, we do not know that she actually said, "I don't want a C-section because I could have a scar." She'd already had two, after all.
But if she did say it, then I think it's pretty clear she's got some mental health issues. For one thing, with two previous C-sections, she wouod already have a scar. So if she said it, it was a totally irrational thing to say.
Possibly indicating she wasn't sane at the time.
I don't know. I will say, though, that not having a C-section because of fear of cosmetic damage when there is a good chance-and aspectre, this wasn't just 'it could happen' kind of chance-the baby will die, when the baby could obviously live outside the womb-it's murder, plain and simple.
I'm not saying this is why this woman did it, but that situation-refusing a c-section for fear of a C-section scar-is murder.
It's a fricking kid when it's just about to be born. It's just as much a murder as letting the kid crown and then vaccuuming its brains out before it is fully delivered.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
I would say skillery's last post points out the problem in excruciating detail. The woman was on coke. Of course she seemed nuts, she was altering her brain chemistry. I would think taking coke and killing your child is pretty clearly premeditated murder.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Or premeditated stupidity.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
Well, there's always that...
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"And a law professor finds it disturbing that she was charged with murder?" "Surprised at that law professor from BYU." "I can't believe they're charging her with anything."
Nothing unusual about a rat's patootie DA politically hamming it up for his voter base. Though I do wonder about Utahans re-electing the type of governors and legislators who would appoint the "We don't hafta care what the Law says" justices of the UtahSupremeCourt.
"Courts have long recognized a patient's right to make health care decisions free from governmental intrusion." Though they did rule that states could ask for proof of a patient's desire, "The United States Supreme Court recently reaffirmed that an individual "has a constitutionally protected liberty interest in refusing unwanted medical treatment" in Cruzan v. Missouri Department of Health."
Specifically inregards to refusing medically recommended CaesarianSections, even the extremely conservative US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia "has rejected the rationale that women may be compelled to undergo surgery simply because they chose to become pregnant, stating unequivocally that "a fetus cannot have rights in this respect superior to those of a person who has already been born." Neither the viability of the fetus nor the potential harm to it are factors that can be used to justify overiding the woman's wishes."
So while the DA may* have grounds for prosecuting the woman if he can prove cocaine abuse caused the miscarriage, his original charge of murder for failing to follow medical advice was pure unadulterated abuse of his governmental office to practice legal malice.
*It would still be testing the borderlines of established Law.
[ March 13, 2004, 03:24 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
Ann Rowland just pled guilty to two counts of child endangerment. Each count carries a prison term of zero to five years and up to $5000 fine. The prison terms may be served concurrently. Local speculation is that she will end up in a mental institution.
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
Truly, that sounds like the best place for hert. She sounds very messed up.
Posted by AeroB1033 (Member # 6375) on :
*Caution: extremely conservative comment ahead*
This doesn't make me more or less sick than the abortions that occur every day. It's just as much a matter of taking a life for convenience's sake.
I'm afraid I've been a little too desensitized to the killing of babies to really care, at this point.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)