Full Version: Murder because of refusal of a C-Section
Winner: Best Topic Big Trials and Legal Cases 2003-2004
Woman charged with murder
I don't know how long these links stay up so I'll quote a couple of paragraphs from the story......
QUOTE
In a case that could unleash a storm of debate about women's reproductive rights, as well as the rights of parents, the Salt Lake District Attorney's Office has charged a woman who allegedly refused a Caesarean section with first-degree murder after one of her twins was born dead.
Melissa Ann Rowland, 28, demonstrated "depraved indifference to human life" by failing to pursue immediate medical treatment, including a recommendation for a C-section, according to court documents filed in 3rd District Court.
Melissa Ann Rowland, 28, demonstrated "depraved indifference to human life" by failing to pursue immediate medical treatment, including a recommendation for a C-section, according to court documents filed in 3rd District Court.
QUOTE
"It was her omissions that caused the death of the child," said Kent Morgan of the Salt Lake District Attorney's Office. "She was given three or four opportunities to get a C-section to save that baby. She continued to say no because she didn't want her cosmetic appearance to be disfigured."
In her defense she claims.....
QUOTE
For her part, Rowland, in a jailhouse interview with KSL Newsradio 1160, said she came to Utah from Florida in November to have the babies and place them for adoption because she and the birth father could not take care of the children. She denies she was advised to have a C-section with the twins and also denies she refused to have one to avoid a scar.
She said the twins were ultimately born by C-section. "I've never refused a C-section," Rowland said. "I've already had two prior C-sections. Why would I say something like that?"
She said the twins were ultimately born by C-section. "I've never refused a C-section," Rowland said. "I've already had two prior C-sections. Why would I say something like that?"
Obviously there are two sides to this specific story, she makes a good case for her defense if she indeed has had two previous C-sections, but it does bring up a broader question for debate. And that question is.... (drumroll.....)
Does a pregnant woman's refusal to consent to surgery for the purpose of maintaining the vitality of the unborn child constitute murder?
Not murder at all, I would think, and I think the charge of first-degree murder is, frankly, absurd. You and I might think it utterly unethical for a pregnant woman to refuse a C-section that could save the life of her unborn child, but I wouldn't call this murder.
To explain my thinking, let's consider an analogy that avoids all the controversy about abortion. Suppose a woman has a child who will die unless she gets a kidney transplant. Let's say that the only possible donor, for tissue matching reasons, is the mother. The mother refuses to undergo the surgery. The daughter dies. Is the mother guilty of murder? Could a court, aware of the situation ahead of time, force her to donate her kidney? Although we might be shocked at the mother's refusal, I don't think we could accuse her of a crime.
My analogy breaks down somewhat, since a kidney removal is inherently more dangerous surgery than a C-section. On the other hand, it seems unlikely that it would be absolutely certain that failure to consent to a C-section would result in the death of the unborn child. I don't think we can classify refusal to undergo surgery as murder.
Undeniably, this is a tragic situation, and such a mother would be acting badly and foolishly. At the very most, I would classify this as manslaughter. (Perhaps some of our members more fluent in the law can clear this up for me.)
(To my surprise, I discovered that the Planned Parenthood representative quoted in this article used the same analogy that I did. I promise you that this is a coincidence.)
To explain my thinking, let's consider an analogy that avoids all the controversy about abortion. Suppose a woman has a child who will die unless she gets a kidney transplant. Let's say that the only possible donor, for tissue matching reasons, is the mother. The mother refuses to undergo the surgery. The daughter dies. Is the mother guilty of murder? Could a court, aware of the situation ahead of time, force her to donate her kidney? Although we might be shocked at the mother's refusal, I don't think we could accuse her of a crime.
My analogy breaks down somewhat, since a kidney removal is inherently more dangerous surgery than a C-section. On the other hand, it seems unlikely that it would be absolutely certain that failure to consent to a C-section would result in the death of the unborn child. I don't think we can classify refusal to undergo surgery as murder.
Undeniably, this is a tragic situation, and such a mother would be acting badly and foolishly. At the very most, I would classify this as manslaughter. (Perhaps some of our members more fluent in the law can clear this up for me.)
(To my surprise, I discovered that the Planned Parenthood representative quoted in this article used the same analogy that I did. I promise you that this is a coincidence.)
Does a pregnant woman's refusal to consent to surgery for the purpose of maintaining the vitality of the unborn child constitute murder?
I gotta be consistent here. If I turn the question around and ask "Does a pregnant woman's surgery for the purpose of destroying the vitality of the unborn child constitute murder?" I still come up with the same answer "no, not until the child is born."
That's the problem with the whole abortion laws debate. It centers on punishment for not properly maintaining the fetus instead of creating the proper climate for people to not need an abortion. Anyway....
ALL laws that punish a woman whose child does not come to full term due to her actions or inaction are just wrong. Yes, I include the punishment that comes from women ingesting cocaine that ends up killing her fetus; that's just two wrongs, which doesn't make anything better.
The sharks are circling on that argument. Blood in the water!
I gotta be consistent here. If I turn the question around and ask "Does a pregnant woman's surgery for the purpose of destroying the vitality of the unborn child constitute murder?" I still come up with the same answer "no, not until the child is born."
That's the problem with the whole abortion laws debate. It centers on punishment for not properly maintaining the fetus instead of creating the proper climate for people to not need an abortion. Anyway....
ALL laws that punish a woman whose child does not come to full term due to her actions or inaction are just wrong. Yes, I include the punishment that comes from women ingesting cocaine that ends up killing her fetus; that's just two wrongs, which doesn't make anything better.
The sharks are circling on that argument. Blood in the water!
What about malpractice cases? Under such a law, could the medical staff blame the woman to avoid a law suit because they were too slow to do a cesarean? That actually seems to be the case in this instance.
How would home deliveries fit into this? Could a woman be incarcerated for negligent homicide if she elected to have her child at home (with a midwife), rather than the hospital, but had complications? I think it's a bad idea.
How would home deliveries fit into this? Could a woman be incarcerated for negligent homicide if she elected to have her child at home (with a midwife), rather than the hospital, but had complications? I think it's a bad idea.
I have to agree with AMF, Victoria and Mrs. Pigpen on this one. I would make a couple of comments:
1. Was there a guarentee that, if the c-section was performed, that the baby would have survived. Childbirth, even performed in ideal conditions is not 100% successfull.
2. A Doctors opinion is simply that, an opinion. Only the patient has the right to determine how to proceed.
If someday I get cancer, am I quilty of "attempted suicide" because I don't take the Doctors suggested treatment?
I sure hope not.
Would have made an interesting poll.
1. Was there a guarentee that, if the c-section was performed, that the baby would have survived. Childbirth, even performed in ideal conditions is not 100% successfull.
2. A Doctors opinion is simply that, an opinion. Only the patient has the right to determine how to proceed.
If someday I get cancer, am I quilty of "attempted suicide" because I don't take the Doctors suggested treatment?
I sure hope not.
Would have made an interesting poll.
Its seems so many people today are ready to jump to the defense of the irresponsible, and so few to defend the innocent and voiceless.
Regina Davis, a nurse at LDS Hospital in Salt Lake, told police that during a visit there, Rowland was recommended two hospitals to go to for immediate care. Rowland allegedly said she would rather have both twins die before she went to either of the suggested hospitals.
Perhaps we should quit prosecuting women who give birth to children in public toilets and leave them there...I suppose we can just call it another "alternative birthing method"? After all it her "choice" right?
Regina Davis, a nurse at LDS Hospital in Salt Lake, told police that during a visit there, Rowland was recommended two hospitals to go to for immediate care. Rowland allegedly said she would rather have both twins die before she went to either of the suggested hospitals.
Perhaps we should quit prosecuting women who give birth to children in public toilets and leave them there...I suppose we can just call it another "alternative birthing method"? After all it her "choice" right?
QUOTE(redliner1989 @ Mar 12 2004, 11:27 AM)
I have to agree with AMF, Victoria and Mrs. Pigpen on this one. I would make a couple of comments:
1. Was there a guarentee that, if the c-section was performed, that the baby would have survived. Childbirth, even performed in ideal conditions is not 100% successfull.
2. A Doctors opinion is simply that, an opinion. Only the patient has the right to determine how to proceed.
If someday I get cancer, am I quilty of "attempted suicide" because I don't take the Doctors suggested treatment?
I sure hope not.
Would have made an interesting poll.
1. Was there a guarentee that, if the c-section was performed, that the baby would have survived. Childbirth, even performed in ideal conditions is not 100% successfull.
2. A Doctors opinion is simply that, an opinion. Only the patient has the right to determine how to proceed.
If someday I get cancer, am I quilty of "attempted suicide" because I don't take the Doctors suggested treatment?
I sure hope not.
Would have made an interesting poll.
Good points, redliner
What is so ironic about this case is a similar case also from Salt Lake City. Last year there was a child diagnosed with cancer, Parker Jensen.
In this case the parents wanted to explore alternative therapies and refused to have him treated by chemo. This is not something I have a problem with, it's just the hypocrisy involved, which I'll get to in a second.
The state of Utah tried to intervene to force chemo, the Jensens took off out of state to resist, a warrant was issued.
Long story short -- there was a huge outcry about parents rights (ironically from groups that are pro-life) and the state dropped charges.
There was a big push in the states legislative session to allow more parent rights, which could potentially lead to neglect and abuse -- and during the same session were a number of abortion bills restricting parents rights for the unborn.
It seems in Utah, the majority only care about children until they are born -- after which, just about anything goes.
QUOTE
Does a pregnant woman's refusal to consent to surgery for the purpose of maintaining the vitality of the unborn child constitute murder?
I don't think so, in probably 99% of cases. And to try to make it into an issue of murder is setting a very bad precedent.
more info on the Parker Jensen case:
http://saltlakecity.about.com/cs/famousuta...arkerjensen.htm
http://www.patriotsaints.com/MyChildMyChoi...s/ParkerJensen/
QUOTE
With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in potential life, the "compelling" point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.
The above quote is from the majority opinion in Roe vs. Wade. The Court recognizes the state's interest in protecting fetal life after viability. I would say the charge of negligent homicide or a manslaughter charge would be acceptable. I believe this is a state issue. I believe under Roe vs. Wade the state is still able to prosecute women whose fetuses die directly due to a mother's actions or, in this case, inaction.
At worst, this is a case of negligence, but not murder. In fact, her decision makes my stomach turn.
Victoria's example of the kidney transplant is a perfect one. She refused to risk her own life to save another. Cowardly? Yes. Criminal? No.
Victoria's example of the kidney transplant is a perfect one. She refused to risk her own life to save another. Cowardly? Yes. Criminal? No.
Just a few things to consider:
We should also look at how much danger is involved for the mother
http://www.ican-online.org/news/090400.htm
also see:
Cesarean Section Quadruples the Risk of Maternal Death
http://www.motherfriendly.org/news/Sep2003...ernal-death.pdf
As well as the risks of C-sections (http://www.pregnancy-info.net/c-section_complications.html):
As someone who has given birth twice, I have had to deal with the posibility of a cesarean being necessary, especially when I had been in labor for 3 days with one and 2 1/2 days with the second. I was so terrified of being cut open it would have been very difficult to persuade me to have one, I'd have to be very sure that my child's life was in danger before I agreed to put my life and health on the line.
Let's turn it around for a second. What if a child died from complications of a elective cesarean when the mother could have chosen vaginal birth for something minor like to reduce the risk of urinary incontinence?
Possible slippery slope scenarios could include arresting pregnant women who do anything that could be a risk to the child, regardless of knowlege of risk, such as getting a listeria infection from eating soft cheese like brie (http://www.babycenter.com/expert/pregnancy/pregnancynutrition/3175.html).
I agree with pheeler -- it's cowardly but not criminal.
We should also look at how much danger is involved for the mother
QUOTE
There are good reasons to avoid the procedure if possible. The maternal mortality rate, while still low with cesarean section, is three to seven times higher than with vaginal delivery. Even in the vast majority of cases where all goes well, a woman's recovery is long and painful.
http://www.ican-online.org/news/090400.htm
also see:
Cesarean Section Quadruples the Risk of Maternal Death
http://www.motherfriendly.org/news/Sep2003...ernal-death.pdf
As well as the risks of C-sections (http://www.pregnancy-info.net/c-section_complications.html):
QUOTE
Risks for the baby
- Premature birth. If the due date was not accurately calculated, the baby could be delivered too early.
- Breathing problems. Babies born by cesarean are more likely to develop breathing problems such as transient tachypnea (abnormally fast breathing during the first few days after birth).
- Low Apgar scores. Babies born by cesarean sometimes have low Apgar scores. The low score can be an effect of the anesthesia and cesarean birth, or the baby may have been in distress to begin with. Or perhaps the baby was not stimulated as he or she would have been by vaginal birth.
- Fetal injury. Although rare, the surgeon can accidentally nick the baby while making the uterine incision.
Risks for the mother
- Infection. The uterus or nearby pelvic organs such as the bladder or kidneys can become infected.
- Increased blood loss. Blood loss on the average is about twice as much with cesarean birth as with vaginal birth. However, blood transfusions are rarely needed during a cesarean.
- Decreased bowel function. The bowel sometimes slows down for several days after surgery, resulting in distention, bloating and discomfort.
- Respiratory complications. General anesthesia can sometimes lead to pneumonia.
- Longer hospital stay and recovery time. Three to five days in the hospital is the common length of stay, whereas it is less than one to three days for a vaginal birth.
- Reactions to anesthesia. The mother's health could be endangered by unexpected responses (such as blood pressure that drops quickly) to anesthesia or other medications during the surgery.
- Risk of additional surgeries. For example, hysterectomy, bladder repair, etc.
- You can get blood clots in the legs, pelvic organs or lungs.
- Your bowel or bladder can be injured.
- Premature birth. If the due date was not accurately calculated, the baby could be delivered too early.
- Breathing problems. Babies born by cesarean are more likely to develop breathing problems such as transient tachypnea (abnormally fast breathing during the first few days after birth).
- Low Apgar scores. Babies born by cesarean sometimes have low Apgar scores. The low score can be an effect of the anesthesia and cesarean birth, or the baby may have been in distress to begin with. Or perhaps the baby was not stimulated as he or she would have been by vaginal birth.
- Fetal injury. Although rare, the surgeon can accidentally nick the baby while making the uterine incision.
Risks for the mother
- Infection. The uterus or nearby pelvic organs such as the bladder or kidneys can become infected.
- Increased blood loss. Blood loss on the average is about twice as much with cesarean birth as with vaginal birth. However, blood transfusions are rarely needed during a cesarean.
- Decreased bowel function. The bowel sometimes slows down for several days after surgery, resulting in distention, bloating and discomfort.
- Respiratory complications. General anesthesia can sometimes lead to pneumonia.
- Longer hospital stay and recovery time. Three to five days in the hospital is the common length of stay, whereas it is less than one to three days for a vaginal birth.
- Reactions to anesthesia. The mother's health could be endangered by unexpected responses (such as blood pressure that drops quickly) to anesthesia or other medications during the surgery.
- Risk of additional surgeries. For example, hysterectomy, bladder repair, etc.
- You can get blood clots in the legs, pelvic organs or lungs.
- Your bowel or bladder can be injured.
As someone who has given birth twice, I have had to deal with the posibility of a cesarean being necessary, especially when I had been in labor for 3 days with one and 2 1/2 days with the second. I was so terrified of being cut open it would have been very difficult to persuade me to have one, I'd have to be very sure that my child's life was in danger before I agreed to put my life and health on the line.
Let's turn it around for a second. What if a child died from complications of a elective cesarean when the mother could have chosen vaginal birth for something minor like to reduce the risk of urinary incontinence?
Possible slippery slope scenarios could include arresting pregnant women who do anything that could be a risk to the child, regardless of knowlege of risk, such as getting a listeria infection from eating soft cheese like brie (http://www.babycenter.com/expert/pregnancy/pregnancynutrition/3175.html).
I agree with pheeler -- it's cowardly but not criminal.
I wasn't going to get into this debate as it had seemed Victoria Silverwolf, Mrs P & jenreiautter summed up my views pretty well. I happened to stumble across two statements (affidavits? indictments? not sure the legal term there in Utah) used in the indictment of this woman. If any of what is said in them is close to true this is a VERY unique case and this woman really does deserve the charges.
Here is the statement by a detective relating information gathered in the days preceding the birth and is the support for the homicide charge: Homicide Charge (the Smoking Gun)
Here is the other statement related to an additional charge of child endangerment: Child Endangerment (the Smoking Gun). Apparently, the baby that was born alive tested positive for alcohol and cocaine.
This woman was not merely being vain in her protests against a C-section. She appears to be a drug addict with serious self-control problems and her babies have paid the price of her decisions.
I think the prosecution needs to go on. This is too unique of a case to change any real legal precedent on the way a state can intervene on a person's body.
Here is the statement by a detective relating information gathered in the days preceding the birth and is the support for the homicide charge: Homicide Charge (the Smoking Gun)
Here is the other statement related to an additional charge of child endangerment: Child Endangerment (the Smoking Gun). Apparently, the baby that was born alive tested positive for alcohol and cocaine.
This woman was not merely being vain in her protests against a C-section. She appears to be a drug addict with serious self-control problems and her babies have paid the price of her decisions.
I think the prosecution needs to go on. This is too unique of a case to change any real legal precedent on the way a state can intervene on a person's body.
Jaime's links certainly add some credence to the "depraved indifference" part of the equation, I've heard of other cases where pregnant women have been criminally charged for abusing drugs and alcohol, but there is something else in this story that really caught my eye and has me thinking about it, particularly from the standpoint of the abortion debate.
If you go back to my original quotes from the story, there is something in there that nobody has mentioned....
That's a very pro-life action for this woman to take. One has to wonder why, if she truly has "depraved indifference" to the health and well-being of her unborn children, why didn't she just get an abortion? Why chose the adoption route instead?
If you go back to my original quotes from the story, there is something in there that nobody has mentioned....
QUOTE
For her part, Rowland, in a jailhouse interview with KSL Newsradio 1160, said she came to Utah from Florida in November to have the babies and place them for adoption because she and the birth father could not take care of the children.
That's a very pro-life action for this woman to take. One has to wonder why, if she truly has "depraved indifference" to the health and well-being of her unborn children, why didn't she just get an abortion? Why chose the adoption route instead?
QUOTE
One has to wonder why, if she truly has "depraved indifference" to the health and well-being of her unborn children, why didn't she just get an abortion? Why chose the adoption route instead?
Because some people are messed up in the head. Maybe she felt that simply letting them die would be different than actually killing them, even if they weren't born yet. It's pretty clear that she's not mentally stable so anything is possible.
Edited to add: The evidence provided by Jaime is making me reconsider my position. At first I thought there was no premeditation, but the woman knew for weeks what she was risking and repeatedly refused to do anything about it.
My stance here is the same as my stance on abortion: If it hasn't been born, it isn't a person. If it hasn't been born, it isn't living. If it hasn't been born, it has no rights, and shouldn't. Yes, I am saying that a second before birth it's not a person, and a second after it is.
I can see prosecuting Rowland for felony child endangerment due to the surviving child having cocaine in its system. If the other child's death were related to drug her abuse, I could understand the murder charge. As it is being attributed to her failure to consent to surgery, I think it sets a dangerous precedent. Either it is the right of a patient to refuse surgery or it is not.
If this woman is guilty of murder, does that make the medical staff accessories because they allowed her to leave the hospital against their advice? If she could not be legally forced to have the c-section, then how can she be legally prosecuted for exercising a right which is apparently secured?
If this woman is guilty of murder, does that make the medical staff accessories because they allowed her to leave the hospital against their advice? If she could not be legally forced to have the c-section, then how can she be legally prosecuted for exercising a right which is apparently secured?
This has the markings of a Supreme Court test case. Look at where it took place--at a Mormon Hospital in Utah.
The mother's refusal to have a Caesarean section was not murder. I honestly don't know what the penalty, if any, should be. I just don't understand her, especially since I had a C-section with my last child because I risked losing her life and my own if I didn't have the surgery. If I were concerned about the appearance of my body, I would have had a tubal ligation after my first child!
If I were the woman, having the knowledge that the baby died because of my refusal would be punishment enough. But then, I would not put my children up for adoption, either.
The woman's drug use during pregnancy is certainly a mitigating factor.
As for the doctors pressing charges, was it because they are Pro-Life or because they were following a CYA (cover your derriere) policy, or both?
As the trial takes place, maybe there will be enough information for me to form an opinion about the woman's behavior and whether she should be punished.
The mother's refusal to have a Caesarean section was not murder. I honestly don't know what the penalty, if any, should be. I just don't understand her, especially since I had a C-section with my last child because I risked losing her life and my own if I didn't have the surgery. If I were concerned about the appearance of my body, I would have had a tubal ligation after my first child!
If I were the woman, having the knowledge that the baby died because of my refusal would be punishment enough. But then, I would not put my children up for adoption, either.
The woman's drug use during pregnancy is certainly a mitigating factor.
As for the doctors pressing charges, was it because they are Pro-Life or because they were following a CYA (cover your derriere) policy, or both?
As the trial takes place, maybe there will be enough information for me to form an opinion about the woman's behavior and whether she should be punished.
QUOTE(Wertz)
If she could not be legally forced to have the c-section, then how can she be legally prosecuted for exercising a right which is apparently secured?
Apparently Rowland could have been legally forced to have the c-section. According to the Utah Division of Child and Family Services, the hospital could have petitioned for a gaurdian for the fetus who could have in turn petitioned the courts to force Rowland to undergo the medical procedure. This is according to an article in The Salt Lake Tribune.
Rowland visited two hospitals, and neither of them exercised that ability probably due to liability concerns. I don't think that it's appropriate for her to be prosecuted for her lack of consent to undergo major surgery, but Utah does have a fetal homicide statute
QUOTE
76-5-201. Criminal homicide -- Elements -- Designations of offenses.
(1) (a) A person commits criminal homicide if he intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, with criminal negligence, or acting with a mental state otherwise specified in the statute defining the offense, causes the death of another human being, including an unborn child at any stage of its development.
(B) There shall be no cause of action for criminal homicide for the death of an unborn child caused by an abortion.
(2) Criminal homicide is aggravated murder, murder, manslaughter, child abuse homicide, homicide by assault, negligent homicide, or automobile homicide.
(1) (a) A person commits criminal homicide if he intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, with criminal negligence, or acting with a mental state otherwise specified in the statute defining the offense, causes the death of another human being, including an unborn child at any stage of its development.
(B) There shall be no cause of action for criminal homicide for the death of an unborn child caused by an abortion.
(2) Criminal homicide is aggravated murder, murder, manslaughter, child abuse homicide, homicide by assault, negligent homicide, or automobile homicide.
This has been used to prosecute women who have harmed their children by abusing illegal drugs.
From another article from the Salt Lake Tribune: Death of fetus ruled a murder
QUOTE
Utah's fetal homicide law was first used in 1997 to charge Dayna Pittman with child abuse homicide for killing her unborn child through the use of methamphetamine. Pittman pleaded guilty to the charge. Since then, the statute has also been used against two women charged with child abuse for harming their unborn children with drugs.
Because of this, if the distress prior to labor was a cause of drug abuse, they may have a case against her. Pittman was convicted of Child Abuse Homicide, which in the case of criminal negligence carries a sentence of 1 - 5 years and a fine not to exceed $5,000.00.
Edited because the Utah statutes set off the "cool" emoticon, which was highly inappropriate.
I rigged it, but now the colors in the quote are a bit off. Shrug.
I just read this article, which indicates that she actually signed a document, accepting that she was leaving the hospital fully aware that there was a high likelihood the fetuses would die. This changes my opinion. I would expect a reckless endangerment charge, but still not homicide.
QUOTE
On Jan. 2, a doctor at LDS Hospital saw Rowland and recommended she immediately undergo a C-section based on the results of an ultrasound and the fetus' slowing heart rates. Rowland left after signing a document stating that she understood that leaving might result in death or brain injury to one or both twins, the doctor told police.
QUOTE(Cyan @ Mar 14 2004, 06:18 AM)
Apparently Rowland could have been legally forced to have the c-section. According to the Utah Division of Child and Family Services, the hospital could have petitioned for a gaurdian for the fetus who could have in turn petitioned the courts to force Rowland to undergo the medical procedure. This is according to an article in The Salt Lake Tribune.
Under the Utah statutes, then, it looks like there's all the more reason to prosecute the medical staff as accessories. If they could have petitioned for a guardian, why didn't they? Sounds like criminal negligence to me. And the document Mrs. P mentions strikes me as being an amoral shirking of responsibility in this context. It's like confronting a guy who's threatening someone with a gun and saying "I could disarm you, but if you sign this bit of paper stating that you realize that by firing your weapon you could injure or kill someone, I'll walk away."
I probably have to mention here that I do not in any way support or condone Ms. Rowland's decision. Nor am I advocating any further prosecutions in this sorry affair. I just fear the ramifications of this case. Under Utah state law, it looks as though she could be prosecuted for "fetal homicide" - though it looks more like manslaughter or negligent homicide by the statute's definition. First degree murder strikes me as being inappropriate as there does not seem to have been premeditation to actually kill the child.
Then again, the Utah legislation strikes me as being blatantly contradictory:
QUOTE
There shall be no cause of action for criminal homicide for the death of an unborn child caused by an abortion.
If causing the death of a fetus is homicide, it is homicide. That someone knowingly aborting a fetus should be excluded while someone with a drug addiction is included strikes me as absurd. If, by federal precedent, abortion must be excluded from this law, I would think that all such "homicides" should be excluded, unless they conform to late-term standards established by the Supreme Court. One must wonder if this is yet another back-door attempt to undermine Roe v. Wade...
QUOTE(Wertz @ Mar 14 2004, 01:57 PM)
Then again, the Utah legislation strikes me as being blatantly contradictory:
QUOTE
There shall be no cause of action for criminal homicide for the death of an unborn child caused by an abortion.
If causing the death of a fetus is homicide, it is homicide. That someone knowingly aborting a fetus should be excluded while someone with a drug addiction is included strikes me as absurd. If, by federal precedent, abortion must be excluded from this law, I would think that all such "homicides" should be excluded, unless they conform to late-term standards established by the Supreme Court. One must wonder if this is yet another back-door attempt to undermine Roe v. Wade...
The most likely reason for the contradiction is the amount of money spent in this state every time they try to pass an unconstitutional abortion bill that they have to defend and eventually lose.
Utah is rabidly pro-life/anti-choice (except, as I stated in my first post on this topic re: Parker Jensen, after the child is born). Hardly a legislative session goes by in this state without someone trying to pass some type of law outlawing abortion or making it very difficult to obtain. This year there were 4 anti-abortion bills that passed.
I suspect that part of the statute will soon be done away with as Utah passed a "late term abortion bill" this past session.
Senate passes ban on partial-birth abortions
http://www.sltrib.com/2004/Jan/01242004/utah/132111.asp
There are legitimate reasons for punishing those who engage in "fetal homicide". Most people are attached to their child even before birth. Most couples feel joy and happiness at the impending birth of their child. For those who do not abortion is an option. If someone assaults a pregnant woman causing her to miscarry there should be harsher punishment than a simple assault charge. The emotional distress and since of loss is great, the potential punishment should be harsh. Roe vs. Wade, one sorry piece of legislation from the bench, does allow states to protect fetal life, it does not allow states to prohibit abortion before the third trimester.
Here is a definite example of fetal homicide
Here is a definite example of fetal homicide
QUOTE
According to Erie police, Wilcott, 22, attacked her pregnant rival at a graduation party June 8, kicking her at least four times in the stomach. The 15-week-old fetus died four days later from blunt-force trauma to the mother's placenta, an autopsy said.
Just saw the press release from NOW on this issue:
http://www.now.org/press/03-04/03-12.html
I bolded what I think is an important key to this discussion. How are we certain that have the c-section earlier would have even saved the baby's life?
I also can see the implications set by this precedent on any activity a woman does.
http://www.now.org/press/03-04/03-12.html
QUOTE
She did eventually have the "c-section," but is being prosecuted because she didn't have it early enough -- on the theory that the stillborn twin might have survived if she had delivered earlier.
snip
"Our legal system recognizes every person's right to bodily integrity and the right to make your own medical decisions. You can't force a father to donate a kidney, or bone marrow or even blood to save his child's life -- yet Utah is prosecuting a woman for murder because she delayed having a cesarean section! Where will the pre-natal police be stationed?" asked Gandy, "Will pregnant women risk prosecution for having wine with dinner? Will women be prosecuted for taking their own life-saving medications because those drugs might harm the fetus? Where will it stop?"
snip
"Our legal system recognizes every person's right to bodily integrity and the right to make your own medical decisions. You can't force a father to donate a kidney, or bone marrow or even blood to save his child's life -- yet Utah is prosecuting a woman for murder because she delayed having a cesarean section! Where will the pre-natal police be stationed?" asked Gandy, "Will pregnant women risk prosecution for having wine with dinner? Will women be prosecuted for taking their own life-saving medications because those drugs might harm the fetus? Where will it stop?"
I bolded what I think is an important key to this discussion. How are we certain that have the c-section earlier would have even saved the baby's life?
I also can see the implications set by this precedent on any activity a woman does.
QUOTE(jenreiautter @ Mar 16 2004, 04:08 PM)
I bolded what I think is an important key to this discussion. How are we certain that have the c-section earlier would have even saved the baby's life?
I also can see the implications set by this precedent on any activity a woman does.
I also can see the implications set by this precedent on any activity a woman does.
That's my concern as well. The old school of thought was, "Shut up! Get your feet in the stirrups and we'll cut you open and take charge of this delivery". The new school of thought is,"You are in charge of your own labor, how would you feel most comfortable?". The new schoool of thought has made deliveries much better for the women and less tramatic for the babies...I'm speaking as one who had a midwife with the first (wonderful, natural delivery) and an old school military doctor with the second. I still have nightmares about the second delivery, and couldn't go near that delivery ward without getting the shakes. Natural delivery should be encouraged. As I mentioned before...what about home deliveries? Are we now to prosecute those who choose this option for murder if something goes wrong? I don't like this precedent, as it could undermine the doctor/patient relationship which is extremely important for a delivery. Don't do exactly as I say, and if something goes wrong you go to prison.
I'm very curious why they told this woman she had to be cut wide open from breastbone to pubic bone. That is a very unusual cesarean in this day and age, for which I hope they had good reason (beyond doctor convenience).
QUOTE(Mrs.P)
I'm very curious why they told this woman she had to be cut wide open from breastbone to pubic bone. That is a very unusual cesarean in this day and age, for which I hope they had good reason (beyond doctor convenience).
I don't know that the medical professionals really said that. The quote is attributed to Rowland in all of the articles that I've read.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but in my understanding, most C-sections use a horizontal cut, and in those cases that a vertical cut is used, it doesn't go beyond the navel.
QUOTE(Cyan @ Mar 16 2004, 08:30 PM)
QUOTE(Mrs.P)
I'm very curious why they told this woman she had to be cut wide open from breastbone to pubic bone. That is a very unusual cesarean in this day and age, for which I hope they had good reason (beyond doctor convenience).
I don't know that the medical professionals really said that. The quote is attributed to Rowland in all of the articles that I've read.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but in my understanding, most C-sections use a horizontal cut, and in those cases that a vertical cut is used, it doesn't go beyond the navel.
The vertical incision is the "classical" method. Nowadays, low transverse cuts, across the lower part of the abdomen at the bikini line, are more typical. I don't know if the medical staff said that either, but it certainly seems reasonable, because she had already had a prior cesarean, so why would she hesitate to do another otherwise?
Edited to add: Oh, yes, you're right about the below the navel incision. I just looked it up.
Had she only gone to one hospital, I might have thought it reasonable that one of their staff members said something of that nature, because there are some bad doctors out there to be sure, but she went to two hospitals and refused the cesarian in both cases. Why? I can't imagine that both hospitals told her that they were going to cut her from breastbone to pubic bone.
Here are some drawings of typical C-Section incisions
Here are some drawings of typical C-Section incisions
A group I am involved with here in Salt Lake City -- Salt Lake City CODEPINK -- recently responded to this situation:
http://www.sltrib.com/2004/Mar/03172004/utah/utah.asp
There were a couple of interesting points made in the article:
This is very true -- this state is very conservative and has a limited ideal of what a mother can and can't do.
http://www.sltrib.com/2004/Mar/03172004/utah/utah.asp
QUOTE
After Tuesday's hearing, a CodePink member tried to hand assistant Salt Lake District Attorney Kent Morgan a "pink slip" -- a pink woman's undergarment on a clothes hanger -- telling him: "You're fired."
There were a couple of interesting points made in the article:
QUOTE
"She does not fit the Utah ideal of motherhood," said Vogel. "If she was a married, church-going, religious woman, this case would not be prosecuted."
This is very true -- this state is very conservative and has a limited ideal of what a mother can and can't do.
QUOTE
Kerri Terry, of the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, said Rowland should not be facing the felony charge.
"She doesn't need punishment, she needs help," Terry said.
"She doesn't need punishment, she needs help," Terry said.
QUOTE
Linda Peer, of CodePink, said the case shows a double standard. Parents who make bad decisions that end up killing their children, such as driving too fast or leaving guns in reach of youngsters, are not prosecuted, she said. She added that there was no guarantee that a C-section would have saved Rowland's baby.
QUOTE(Looms @ Mar 14 2004, 01:24 AM)
My stance here is the same as my stance on abortion: If it hasn't been born, it isn't a person. If it hasn't been born, it isn't living. If it hasn't been born, it has no rights, and shouldn't. Yes, I am saying that a second before birth it's not a person, and a second after it is.
A year before i was born my mother had a child in her womb (my sister) who was choked by the umbilical cord because the doctor chose not to fix the problem (he saw that the baby was getting tangled but thought it would eventually untangle). My older sister died because of a mal-practice. Did my mom get any compensation for the loss of a child? NO! She got an I am sorry from a doctor...that was it! You know why she could not sue the doctor or take him to court? Because at that/this point in time...the baby had no rights. Now is that justice?
At one point i was pro-choice...its a woman's body, she can do what she wants. But then I looked at myself and my morality and came to the ultimate conclusion that the person inside the womb is life. I couldn't escape it, i couldn't deny the fact that it was a human person who would one day be a member of society. When does life begin? The church says at conception, the feminists say when the umbilical cord is cut. Does anyone know for sure? NO. If i had to put a time on when no abortions should be allowed...i would say that after 4 months. There have been cases where children have sustained life after being born after 5-6 months.
The real question is: how do you define life? What is "life"?
Here is an analogy i came up with myself to explain why i am against abortion. i think the best example would be a catepillar+butterfly. The current laws are just like saying....if you see a catepillar...you can kill it whenever you want. But once it turns into a butterfly, it is against the law to harm it in any way. How ridiculous would that be? Up until the catepillar turns into what it is supposed to be, you can do whatever you want to it. Thats like what people are saying we can do with fetus'.
I understand that you are hurt, and I sympathize with your pain, but how can you put a price on anyone's life? I mean, if you honestly believe that the unborn is still a human, how can you emand compensation? That I believe is wrong.
This is NOT a general abortion discussion. The question for debate is:
Does a pregnant woman's refusal to consent to surgery for the purpose of maintaining the vitality of the unborn child constitute murder?
Does a pregnant woman's refusal to consent to surgery for the purpose of maintaining the vitality of the unborn child constitute murder?
While this case may indeed be too unique to set a precedent, my answer to the broader question is: no, it is not murder.
We allow people to refuse medical treatment, and to refuse treatment for their children, based on personal beliefs. Jehovah's Witnesses, for example, will not take blood transfusions. If we allow parents to make these decisions for their born children, why would we not for their unborn children?
We allow people to refuse medical treatment, and to refuse treatment for their children, based on personal beliefs. Jehovah's Witnesses, for example, will not take blood transfusions. If we allow parents to make these decisions for their born children, why would we not for their unborn children?
QUOTE(quarkhead @ Mar 24 2004, 10:15 AM)
While this case may indeed be too unique to set a precedent, my answer to the broader question is: no, it is not murder.
We allow people to refuse medical treatment, and to refuse treatment for their children, based on personal beliefs. Jehovah's Witnesses, for example, will not take blood transfusions. If we allow parents to make these decisions for their born children, why would we not for their unborn children?
We allow people to refuse medical treatment, and to refuse treatment for their children, based on personal beliefs. Jehovah's Witnesses, for example, will not take blood transfusions. If we allow parents to make these decisions for their born children, why would we not for their unborn children?
That is a personal belief based on religion; personal beliefs that are protected under the first amendment. Even in these cases the child is often made a ward of the state and receives medical procedures that violate the parent's wishes.
This woman is guilty of nothing but callouseness.
Sadly, Mrs. Pigpen, the other week a child was lost in childbirth and the midwife was charged with murder, and against the parent's wishes. The establishment has always had a problem with women being in positions of power (see inquisition witch burnings). And today is no exception. I have a feeling there are elements in our society which would regulate a woman's pregnancy to death if they could.
QUOTE
How would home deliveries fit into this? Could a woman be incarcerated for negligent homicide if she elected to have her child at home (with a midwife), rather than the hospital, but had complications? I think it's a bad idea.
Sadly, Mrs. Pigpen, the other week a child was lost in childbirth and the midwife was charged with murder, and against the parent's wishes. The establishment has always had a problem with women being in positions of power (see inquisition witch burnings). And today is no exception. I have a feeling there are elements in our society which would regulate a woman's pregnancy to death if they could.
Thanks for sharing lethe. It's one of those articles that make me so damn angry. 
Here's an update:
Does a pregnant woman's refusal to consent to surgery for the purpose of maintaining the vitality of the unborn child constitute murder?
No. C-section was discussed in this thread. C-section appears to be a damned if you do, damned if you don't can of worms. Cases like Judith Wilson's have the potential to set a totalitarian precedent for pregnancy with implications that reach far beyond abortion. No man or woman should be forced to undergo any invasive procedure, even for altruistic reasons, although one would certainly hope a parent would donate an organ to save her child.
Here's an update:
QUOTE
Prosecutors said Rowland, 28, acted with "depraved indifference" when she allegedly ignored doctors' repeated warnings to undergo a C-section to save the babies' lives.
...
[Rowland] denied prosecutors' allegations she was worried about a scar, saying she delivered two previous children through C-sections.
-- 04/07/2004, CNN
...
[Rowland] denied prosecutors' allegations she was worried about a scar, saying she delivered two previous children through C-sections.
-- 04/07/2004, CNN
QUOTE
A woman originally charged with murder for allegedly delaying a Caesarean section that could have saved one of her twins was sentenced Thursday to 18 months' probation for lesser counts of child endangerment.
The Salt Lake County district attorney's office defended the initial decision to file the murder charge, claiming the state only subsequently learned of Rowland's mental illness and that prosecutors don't have the resources to probe the mental health of all defendants before charges are filed.
Some women's advocacy groups said Rowland should never have been targeted for having a drug problem, nor allowed to linger in jail where she couldn't receive needed mental health services.
-- 04/29/2004, CNN
The Salt Lake County district attorney's office defended the initial decision to file the murder charge, claiming the state only subsequently learned of Rowland's mental illness and that prosecutors don't have the resources to probe the mental health of all defendants before charges are filed.
Some women's advocacy groups said Rowland should never have been targeted for having a drug problem, nor allowed to linger in jail where she couldn't receive needed mental health services.
-- 04/29/2004, CNN
Does a pregnant woman's refusal to consent to surgery for the purpose of maintaining the vitality of the unborn child constitute murder?
No. C-section was discussed in this thread. C-section appears to be a damned if you do, damned if you don't can of worms. Cases like Judith Wilson's have the potential to set a totalitarian precedent for pregnancy with implications that reach far beyond abortion. No man or woman should be forced to undergo any invasive procedure, even for altruistic reasons, although one would certainly hope a parent would donate an organ to save her child.
Does a pregnant woman's refusal to consent to surgery for the purpose of maintaining the vitality of the unborn child constitute murder?
State mandated altruism(an oxymoron to be sure) has its place...in China. The case referenced has criminal implications independent of murder. It would be sad if a case like this were used as precedent for legislation that goes far beyond the circumstances of what took place here.
If we cross the bright-line of forcing any human being to undergo a medical procedure, we have in my opinion voided the social contract. I can no longer trust the government to protect anything, much less the sanctity of my person.
Doc
State mandated altruism(an oxymoron to be sure) has its place...in China. The case referenced has criminal implications independent of murder. It would be sad if a case like this were used as precedent for legislation that goes far beyond the circumstances of what took place here.
If we cross the bright-line of forcing any human being to undergo a medical procedure, we have in my opinion voided the social contract. I can no longer trust the government to protect anything, much less the sanctity of my person.
Doc
No one has the right to force someone to undergo a medical procedure which carries any risk of death or complication.
According to my mother, a practicing pediatrician who attends cesareans almost on a daily basis, cesareans carry a higher risk of death to the mother than vaginal delivery, but that types of complications vary on an individual basis.
Quarkhead, my mother has also informed me that if a child of a jehovah's witness needs a blood transfusion, it's standard procedure at the hospital to call a judge and get a court order to do it anyway.
*edited to add last segment
According to my mother, a practicing pediatrician who attends cesareans almost on a daily basis, cesareans carry a higher risk of death to the mother than vaginal delivery, but that types of complications vary on an individual basis.
Quarkhead, my mother has also informed me that if a child of a jehovah's witness needs a blood transfusion, it's standard procedure at the hospital to call a judge and get a court order to do it anyway.
*edited to add last segment
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.