Does the government have the right to force competent pregnant women to undergo procedures against their will?

Does a woman enter a contract with the government when she becomes pregnant and loses some aspects of free will, making her subject to government regulation, for the duration of her pregnancy?

No to both. As if the myriad pregnancy complications mothers can face and the cost of raising children aren't enough for many women to put off pregnancy, the government will give women another reason to second guess the decision to have children by trumping women's rights with fetal rights. Unfortunately the Pro-Life movement has the government's ear and two critical bills have passed that addresses fetal rights: Unborn Victims of Violence Act and Fetal Abuse Act. Drug/alcohol/smoking abuse notwithstanding, at the direction we're headed I wouldn't be surprised if pregnant women are charged with child abuse for failing to follow a doctor's advice to the letter in the future.

Does the government have the right to force competent pregnant women to undergo procedures against their will?

No, absolutely not. I think "competent" is the key word at issue here. Forcing someone to undergo a procedure should only be considered if someone is mentally ill, and there should be a very high burden of proof to meet those standards.

Does a woman enter a contract with the government when she becomes pregnant and loses some aspects of free will, making her subject to government regulation, for the duration of her pregnancy?

No, absolutely not, nor should it. Contract law has nothing to do with it; when a woman becomes pregnant, she is not entering into a contract with anyone. Government's authority to regulate anything in this regard must spring from other sources.

---

After reading the source article and a couple others on the same incident, this case strikes me as example of doctors and hospital officals being too heavy handed in their attempts to ensure their opinions prevail. They probably started with good intentions and thought that they were right, but they deliberately blurred the lines and stretched the facts in their court filing to procure an order in their favor. Even if the facts as alleged were true, it still brings into question whether such an order was really justified.

Does the government have the right to force competent pregnant women to undergo procedures against their will?

"Competent" is indeed the word in question here. Insanity or mental illness are very obvious forms of incompetece, but they are not the only ones. A sane pregnant woman might not know what is best for her child in situations involving pregnancy complications, and she might want to disregard professional medical advice. In such cases, the stubborness of the mother should not be allowed to endanger the life or health of the child.

Does a woman enter a contract with the government when she becomes pregnant and loses some aspects of free will, making her subject to government regulation, for the duration of her pregnancy?

Of course, she enters no contract when she becomes pregnant, but she has no right to disregard the health of the child in favor of her own convenience. Due to the vast number of potential complications, a woman with no education on the subject can't acurately assess the risk for herself, which could lead her to disregard a doctor's warning. Also, she might refuse care for religious or philosophical reasons. In either event, the mother must not be allowed to endanger her child by refusing care.

A few years back I was living in Pennsylvania. I saw the story of a pregnant woman with cancer on the local news. Against the advice of her doctor she forwent chemotherapy and gave birth to a healthy baby girl she named Precious. Two months later the woman died.

aakid2012, should the Pennsylvania woman have listened to her doctor?

Is it a foregone conclusion that a woman should not have a right to refuse surgery (a major medical procedure which always carries its own inherent risks) when in the opinion of medical professionals it would be of benefit to the unborn child?

Aakid2012, perhaps you could help distinguish that situation from the following hypothetical scenario by Sherry F. Colb:

Assume that there is a devastating disease that is quite common and is almost always fatal. Doctors discover that the disease can be cured completely with the injection of liver cells taken from American men of Finnish descent. The liver cells must be extracted from the men before they reach the age of 45, and the only way to accomplish the extraction is through abdominal surgery.

Could U.S. prosecutors use ciminal law to force Finnish-American young men to undergo the surgery to save victims of the disease, even if the victims are close relatives of the men? Obviously, the answer is no. Altruistic Finnish-American men might come forward to volunteer for the procedure, but they could not be prosecuted if they chose not to.

So why should we force mothers to undergo the surgery a Doctor directs if the Doctor believes it will benefit the health of the child?

The difference in your argument Azure-Citizen is that nobody depends exclusively on the decisions made by a specific Finnish-American man for their health and well-being. On the other hand, the fetus' life depends soley on the mother and the decisions she makes. She has the complete responsibility for that life unlike the Finnish-American man.

I believe the woman made an admirable sacrifice for her child, something which should not forced or prohibited. The advice the doctor gave her was intended to save the woman's life at the cost of her child's, and the woman decided to do the opposite instead. I don't believe that government intervention has a place in cases such as this. I would say that the woman made the correct choice in this situation. In examining the two choices, we see that if she had chosen chemotherapy, her child would have almost certainly died (almost 100% chance of death), and she would have her chances of survival increased greatly, but nowhere near 100%. The choice she made, however, gave her child a near 100% chance of survival while still giving her a chance to recover from her cancer after she had given birth. Although she didn't recover, the next mother to make such a decision might.

I do think that a woman should not be allowed to endanger her child's life for her own petty reasons, however. When faced with a choice of her life or her child's life(which almost never occurs), I would say it should be her choice. However, when doctors tell her that her child is in danger and that a procedure that won't greatly harm her is needed, she should have the procedure done. If she is unwilling to do so of her own accord, it is appropriate for the government to force the procedure on her in order to protect the child.

I have read as much as I can find on this and it appears to me that Andrea Marlowe went for a second opinion. It also appears to me that her first hospital of choice decided that they were in fact the end all of medical treatment and therfore felt justified in taking legal action against her and her unborn child. To those that find the hospitals actions justified do you really want to give that much power to any one particular medical facility, that they could set a treatment plan and legally bind a patient to it, in essence remove the patients choice of whom is to provide services once a patient walks through the door of any one particular facility from that first day FORWARD! OMG WHAT COUNTRY DO WE LIVE IN?

I believe you when say you think there is a difference, but I don't really think there is a substantive difference between the two. In the liver cell scenario, the victims of the disease are also completely dependent on the Finnish-American men for their survival. If the men don't act and undergo surgery, the disease victims will die. On what basis do we therefore make the judgement that a mother is criminally responsible, just because the child is dependent on the mother for survival? Aren't we really just being arbitrary, and subordinating the rights of adult women?

It would be different if the mother was intentionally trying to kill or harm her own child, for example, by deliberately jumping off a roof. That would be like our Finnish-American men in the scenario trying to intentionally kill our wayward disease victims. But that is not what is at issue here. What is at issue here is who gets the final say over whether or not a mother must have surgery for the benefit of an unborn child. Her, or society?

I would like to think that a concerned and thoughtful mother would think very seriously about rejecting pleas from doctors to undergo surgery for the benefit of the child, but it has to be her choice to undergo surgery. When I contrast it with the scenario with the disease victims and the men, I am struck by the hypocrisy of it.

Define petty. The evils of selective c-section were discussed in this thread. In it I wrote:



Doctors can make risk assessments in the interests of woman and fetus (greater benefit to the woman over fetus and the other way around) but the woman ultimately decides whether to act on that advice. The cancer and blood-thinning patients decided to put their own well being on hold for their offspring. Both patients died. While there is something to be said for of their sacrifice no one chose altruism for these women. Had they chosen differently (forgo blood-thinning treatment, triplets die, woman lives) it is no one's place, least of all the government's, to step in, temporarily recall a woman's bodily integrity, and arbitrarily make value judgments in favor of the fetus (according to what a doctor claims is necessary anyway). Otherwise I'd like our prescient government to hand over the winning numbers for the next big jackpot.

I would define a petty reason in this case as one which is anything besides significant risk to the mother's health. I feel that if the mother's reason for not undergoing whatever procedure is needed to protect the child, whether it be surgury or something else, is anything besides equal risk to her own health, she should still have the procedure done. In other words, whatever is likely to do the greatest good should be done. If the procedure in question poses a moderate risk to a woman's health, but its absence would result in certain death to the child, is should be done. If a certain medicine would improve an unborn child's health slightly without any harm to the mother, it should be gven.

Also, another reason the Finnish-Americans are not responsible whereas the mothers are: Just that, they are mothers! They are responsible for their child's health and should, as I said, do whatever they can to help their child so long as the benifit outways the harm.

Does the government have the right to force competent pregnant women to undergo procedures against their will?

Does a woman enter a contract with the government when she becomes pregnant and loses some aspects of free will, making her subject to government regulation, for the duration of her pregnancy?

No the government does not have a right to force a competent pregnant woman to undergo a procedure that is against her will. I have never heard of a contract to procreate. This reminds me too much of the Handmaid's Tale.



A doctor's prognosis is subjective. Doctor's make mistakes, I have seen it. It is up to the patient to either take the advice of the doctor or seek another opinion. The woman here sought a second opinion and delivered a healthy child without undergoing the risks of an OPERATION. It is not, nor should it ever be, the right of the DOCTOR or GOVERNMENT to tell me or any other person (MALE OR FEMALE) what medical procedure is RIGHT for me. The competent patient should seek more then one advice and act accordingly to what is right for their situation.

Hey! Cool new status I've been given.
This must mean that worries for organ donations are over. Every mother should donate a kidney (they only need one, and they're moms, afterall!). Bone marrow transplants, blood donations, the possibilities are endless...simply an inconvenience for the mother but much more important to the recipient.

Clearly no mother has the right over her own bodily integrity, even after death (why would she gain a liberty she never had in life?), therefore, all dead mothers will donate their bodies, and organs, to science in order to benefit others.

Funny, I don't remember suggesting any of those things. Maybe I should enlighten you as to the reasoning behind my views. Very simply, an unborn child has the right to health care just like the rest of us. The mother doesn't have the right to deny this care unless the procedure would harm her more than it would help her child. Those of you who think that an unborn child is not human or less human than a person who has been born will, of course, disagree with me.

As someone who can have children but elects not to I find it poignantly sad that anyone would see this as a pro-choice v. pro-life stance. I also find it humorous that a woman should not consider aborting if a doctor predicts serious birth defects. The doctor, after all, is human too and can be mistaken. But when it comes to inconveniencing mothers with major surgery the doctor is all-knowing and his or her advice should be accepted without question.

I'll accept that unborn children have the right to health care. In point of fact, they receive health care continuously from the moment of conception until well after their birth. I will also accept for the point of this discussion that all unborn children are exactly as human, and entitled to the same rights, as any other citizen.

When the medical treatment of one patient is dependent on the injury of another party (kidney transplant, bone marrow...even something as simple as a blood transfusion), the treatment is only an option with the consent of that party. Please explain to me why the consent of a pregnant woman should not be necessary for the treatment (or surgical delivery) of her fetus, whereas it would be required for anyone else.

I'm not saying that I disagree with you, but... would you happen to have any case law links outlining these rights as you describe? They ain't rights if they haven't been affirmed in a court of law. Otherwise, they're just your desires of the way things "should" be. Links would definitely help your case here.

Currently the law favors you, as pregnant woman are not required to do much for their unborn children. As we all know, they are allowed to have them killed without any legal consequenses. Thus, my arguement is supported by morals rather than laws. In other words, I'm saying the law as it is now is morally wrong.

If we accept both the mother and child as equally human and having equal rights, then cases such as these always lead to an injustice. Either the mother is done an injustice by being forced to take a medicine or undergo a procedure, or the child is done an injustice by being denied the needed medicine or procedure. If one party must be done an injustice, then the course of action that causes the smallest injustice should be done. That means that in cases where a neccesary medicine or procedure would not greatly harm the mother, it should be taken or done. I don't think that a mother should be legally required to donate organs to her child after birth, however. This is because after birth, the mother is no longer the only one who can help the child in this way, so she is not solely responsible.

On the issue of doctors being wrong, it does happen. I know you will be able to find highly publicized cases of doctor's mistakes, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't listen to them. Doctors are almost always right, and those overly publicized cases of them being wrong make them look less acurate than they really are. Doctors are unquestionabally more likely to be right about what medical procedure should be done than a pregnant woman with no medical education.

Ok, so we've established that these are not really "rights" as you describe them, but that it's morals. Great. Can't argue there.

Except if you try to enforce YOUR morality on me or anyone other than yourself. That's where you run into resistance.

And although I accept the premise that "mother and child" are indeed equally human, that doesn't match "mother and clump of cells that might turn into a child". No matter how much you want to extrapolate the future outcome, the present is the only place you can make that LEGAL judgement.

This is very strange as the argument presented is in fact a response to a very highly publicized case where the Doctor was in fact wrong and the mother did in fact seek another opinion and facility where she subsequently successfully gave birth (vaginally) to a happy healthy infant.

From this, one is to expect all American woman to jump on the I am a breeder for the state band wagon and categorically give up all basic rights afforded to all men and woman here in the great US of A during the gestation period of her fetus?

Plenty of people would probably agree that something should be done when given a hypothetical scenario where everything is known and we're afforded the opportunity to do a simple comparison and pick the lesser evil. In common practice, however, it is rarely that simple. And the concept of "should" gets pretty tricky when we extrapolate it to encompass criminal responsibility and the power of the State to prosecute, or force someone to go under the knife.


Doctors are more likely to be right about what medical procedure should be done than a pregnant woman with no medical education. But when a Doctor makes a recommendation to us or strongly encourages us to pursue a particular course of action with regard to medical treatment, it should be up to the patient to listen, consider, and decide on a course of action. We can hope that the patient makes the best choice, but it must still be a choice.

Reading this thread got me wondering about the possibilities if we actually saw a trend in which States began codifying laws in which doctors have the power to force a woman to deliver her baby in accordance with the doctor's decision, or if States were to begin criminally prosecuting women who do not agree with and follow their doctor's recommendation in child delivery, and use that in the trial proceedings to secure convictions. Might we begin to see grassroots organizations taking note of the policies of hospitals and the track records of doctors in the delivery room, and making that information available to women so that they can choose their doctor? Raising the prospect of women refusing to use doctors who are known to order women into surgery against their will, or women only using physicians who agree in advance that no matter what happens, the doctor will respect the woman's right to choose the method of childbirth.

Returning to the issue at hand, I think people's take on this issue often comes down to the scope and circumstances in a mother versus child balancing of the rights test. For me, given an adult woman who is legally competent and pregnant with a child in the final stages of the third trimester, the law should intervene (and by that I mean criminal responsibility) if the woman is intentionally trying to kill the child, or is so grossly or willlfully negligent that she knew or should have known that death or seriously bodily harm is likely to result from her actions. It is important to distinguish the latter point, however, in terms of what her actions were. If she is told she needs to immediately stop her favorite hobby, bungee jumping from bridges, for the safety of the child, then she is obviously grossly and willfully negligent. If she is in the hospital, preparing for birth, and there is heated discussion and debate with her doctor over which method of childbirth is the best course of action and what the seperate risks are, to mother, to child, and to mother and child, there should be no criminal responsibility attaching to her for her choice. We can argue over which course of action she should take, but I have trouble fathoming the notion that we should legislate which course of action she must take under threat of criminal prosecution.

It seems to me, in the interest of consistency, if this policy ever comes into effect we should prosecute doctors for criminal negligence (rather than malpractice) if and when they make a mistake that results in loss of fetal life. If a woman should be prosecuted for not taking advice, the person giving incorrect advice (which she cannot refuse) should be prosecuted under a similar penalty.

I would mostly agree with Azure-Citizen on this one, but perhaps I am more strict. I would also include criminal responsibility in the first two trimesters. Also, I believe that if it is made clear to a woman that disregarding her doctor's orders might cause her child's health damage, she should be legally responsible to do as her doctor says. If she is unwilling to protect her own child, the she must be made to do so in order to protect the child. A mother's stubbornness can not be allowed to endanger a child.

It is nice to hear that you feel we agree, although, reading your post, I'm not quite sure exactly what we agree on. You seem to be advocating exactly the opposite of what I was saying. Would you care to elaborate with respect to which points we "mostly agree" on?

Of course the line between doctors giving advice and giving legally binding instructions appears to have been crossed in this area:

BBC News: Mother charged in Caesarean row

And I have to agree that this is several steps too far in the loss of independence of action for pregnant women. I can't think of another case where someone is legally punished for failing to undergo surgery.

Two things. Rowland isn't competent and the murder charges were dropped for a lesser offense when she proved she already had a caesarean.

I mostly agree with this statement of yours. The differences I have are that I believe that the responsibility should extend to all knowingly pregnant women, and that I would consider it gross negligence to disregard a doctor's instructions when it is clear that doing so can cause harm to the child. For example a pregnant woman is told by her doctor that her child is at risk for a certain condition. This condition is treatable during pregnancy by a drug that would greatly help the child while having few and minor side effects for the mother. I believe the mother will be grossly negligent if she refuses to take the medicine.

I find it interesting that you have so little faith in the intention of the person who is actually carrying the child to act in the best interest of the baby, and so much faith in the intention of the person hired to simply deliver the child. Malpractice insurance exists for a reason, and it is catastrophically expensive for obstetricians and midwives for that reason.

I can’t imagine any woman electing to get pregnant in the first place under your grand plan that the woman loses all rights over her own bodily integrity upon pregnancy. That one person’s opinion should automatically usurp the most basic rights over a person by law, under penalty of criminal incarceration is such a vile concept I can’t begin to comprehend it.

That's why I posted an example of a woman following a doctor's order and (probably) dying from the drug, which you've largely ignored in order continue making blanket statements that fit your pro-life world view. Other women may want to refrain from using blood-thinning drugs in the future and, as far as I can gather from your statements, are automatically suspect to criminal intent.

I'll say it again: the abortion issue doesn't apply to competent women who want to give birth. Despite assurances that you mean to be fair and just by pitting a fetus' rights against its mother you're actually advocating the other side of the tarnished coin that supports eugenics. State-mandated laws or programs controlling reproductive rights/health are irrevocably WRONG, whether it's forced abortions, sterilizations, artificial insemination, or disavowing a woman's right to determine what course of medical action to take is in her best interests throughout her pregnancy.

With regard to all knowingly pregnant women, I assume you mean all periods of pregnancy, from conception to birth; I can certainly recognize that is consistent with your beliefs in that you feel the life of a child is to be protected at all times and under all circumstances. There was another thread on abortion in A.D. recently being discussed here and you might want to weigh in there if you feel so inclined. My own thoughts on the matter are fairly congruent with what Ann Druyan and the late Carl Sagan had to say in an article on the issue in their article here. With regard to our beliefs as to whether or not a pregnant woman must follow the orders of her doctor under threat of criminal prosecution, it seems that scope and circumstance probably greatly influence the hypothetical "scenario" we each envision in our perceptions. I imagine a scenario where a woman and a doctor have a discussion and a severe difference of opinion as to whether or not a certain course of action is the best choice, be it surgery, special drugs, or otherwise. From your posts, I get the impression you're imagining a scenario where the doctor makes a valid and beneficial medical recommendation, and the mother carelessly disregards it for the worst of reasons, i.e., some self-serving reason to avoid being burdened or inconvenieced in anyway, with the child's life in jeopardy.

The problem I see with trying to legislate or enforce some sort of criminal responsibility in this matter by giving the doctor the power to force the mother to do as he or she directs is that the facts in each instance are usually going to be fuzzy and uncertain, both at the time of birth and later if we're talking about court proceedings. Even if it is later determined with absolute certainty that the doctor was 100% medically correct, and the mother was 100% wrong, how are you going to parse out the intentions and beliefs of the parties? Setting aside the example of a callous and indifferent mother who wouldn't even be willing to take aspirin if it was going to save the life of a child, what about the mother who believes she is right and that she is making the right decision, after weighing the benefits and risks to herself and the child? Even if she turns out later to be wrong (assuming that you can conclusively prove that), doesn't her intent control whether or not she is guilty of intentionally willful and reckless negligence? And as Mrs. Pigpen addressed, what if it is the doctor who got it wrong? Surely the doctors have good intentions, but if the end result is the same (more harm to the child and/or mother), shouldn't we hold the doctor criminally responsible as well? If we are going to forgive the doctor because he or she believed they were making the right decision and that was their intent, then how can we criminally prosecute the mother for the same intent?

I would assume your answer would be that in both of those scenarios, we should not prosecute, and that they should both be forgiven; that you are primarily concerned with the rare and unusual scenario of a mother who is truly reckless and indifferent, who knows she is making the wrong decision and deliberately intends to unnecessarily risk the life of her own child. I can understand your concern. But you are talking about taking away the rights of all women, at all times, to choose what they believe is the best course of action with regard to their pregnancy, their health, and the health of their child. To give that unbridled discretion to the woman's doctor, and have the doctor's order carry the threat of criminal prosecution if the woman does not obey. All in an effort to ensure that in the unlikely scenario a mother is truly reckless and indifferent, the law will intervene and force her to do the right thing. Is this really reasonable? To sacrifice the self-determination rights of all pregnant women, in order to prosecute a small minority of the truly guilty? If I've misunderstood you, please let me know.

I can see your reasoning, but my views are more strict. First of all, I'm sure you are right that a woman and doctor disagreeing about what is best is much more common than a woman knowingly neglecting her unborn child. However, I don't think that a woman uneducated in the medical sciences has any basis on which to argue with her doctor. I know doctors make mistakes just like the rest of us, but I am sure that despite this all of you will agree with the following statement: A pregnant woman faithfully following all the instructions of her doctor, even if she doesn't understand or agree with them, is much more likely to give birth to a healthy child then if she disregards her doctor's instructions because she doesn't agree with them or understand them. If you agree with this statement, as I hope you have the sense to, then it is to be held that when in doubt, trust the doctor.

It has already been established that if a woman knows she is neglecting her child, she is to be legally responsible. This leads to the following question: If a woman has been given instructions by her doctor, but she does not agree with them for whatever reason, is she legally responsible to act as instructed anyway? The answer, of course, is yes. As I have said earlier, a child's health must not be put in danger by the mother's stubbornness. By "stubbornness" I include refusal to act as instructed by her doctor because she and her doctor disagree. A woman can argue with her doctor once she devotes her life to the medical sciences, not before.

I would agree that if a woman doesn't agree with or understand the advice of her doctor, that it would be in her best interests to trust the doctor. I can not see a reasonable basis, however, by which we then legally take away her choice, and criminally prosecute her.


I think you've slightly modified the concepts here. A parent who neglects their child, say by leaving them home alone at a very young age unsupervised, and failing to feed them, commits willful neglect. A parent who takes their child to the doctor for a problem, receives advice on various medical options available, is given a strongly recommended choice by the doctor, and then proceeds to make a different decision as to what they think is best is not automatically guilty of neglect. By your reasoning and to be consistent, should a law also be passed that anytime a parent brings a child to a doctor, the doctors advice and orders must be obeyed explicitly by the parent, or the parent will be criminally prosecuted? If your answer to that is "no," then why should a pregnant mother be forced to obey her doctor's orders under threat of criminal prosecution?

You've gone from 'should' to 'established.' I won't quibble with blatant neglect like smoking cigarettes, but can you cite any case that establishes a tie between neglect and difference of opinion?



Well, I'm glad at least female medical professionals, specifically obstetricians, are not bound by the same unknown rules as other pregnant women.

Yes, it is good to know that a woman could (theoretically) hope to argue on her own personal behalf if she studied the right subject. I'm curious who would "win" if, say, a nurse/midwife is under the care of an obstetrician. I guess then the one with the highest degree "wins".

Although I agree with you that normally a person who disagrees with their doctor and doesn't do as their doctor says shouldn't be prosecuted. I believe, as you seem to, that one should not be prosecuted for bringing harm to oneself.

The exception is when someone elects to disobey their doctor and in the process puts another person at risk. This occurs when a pregnant woman fails to follow her doctor's instructions for any reason. We know that a person who unintentionally and recklessly harmed or caused the possibility or harm to another is guilty of reckless endangerment. I ask you then, why should a mother who endangers her child by disobeying her doctor be innocent? This applys equally regardless of whether or not the child has been born. A parent who doesn't give their three year old child necessary medicine because they disagree with their doctor is putting their child's health in danger. That would make them just as guilty.

Just to be sure, so that I correctly understand, you therefore support amending the law such that when an adult brings a child to the doctor, the adult must obey the doctor's orders, or face criminal prosecution? That in order to pre-empt the actions of an extremely small group of irresponsible parents, the rights of all other parents are to be sacrificed?

Lets say you have a seven year old son who has a medical problem and you take him to the doctor. The doctor is knowlegable, examines him, discusses several courses of action, and strongly recommends one. You consider the situation carefully, and decide on a different course of action. Do you agree that you should not have the right to make that decision, that the law should be enforced such that the doctor decides (not you), and that if you resist you are subject to criminal prosecution?

Wow -- you sure have a lot of faith in Western Medicine.

I'm afraid I don't share that faith with you. Everytime I have gone to a doctor with a problem, they have been unable to help me. The only exceptions to this are dental visits. While that doesn't mean they might not be able to help in the future, it doesn't give me much confience in the ability of someone to always be making the right choice when deciding what should happen to MY body.

I have also worked at a law firm that did a lot of malpractice, and you would be amazed how often doctors can be wrong.

I have gotten much better results by studying other methods and using them myself or seeking alternative medicine.

Nutrition is a good example -- most med students recieve 3 hours of nutrition training (at least this was the case as of the early-90s, it may have changed since then). I have spent many hours reading and learning about nutrition, and therefore feel far more qualified to make decisions on that issue. Would you then prosecute me as a pregnant woman for not eating as the doctor suggests if the child does not turn out perfectly?

You are also disregarding a mother's intuition on what may be right for her body and her baby.

Doctors, doctors, doctors. They have not understood the first thing about females and their intuitive sense, nor thier bodies. In the past 'doctors' have recommended that 'promiscuous females' have their inner parts ripped out to control their 'sickness' (funny noone has ever recommended lopping the penis off to control male sexual promiscuity). The practice of 'total removal' is still rampant today when any woman has 'female problems'. Lopp off a breast, cut off and remove the problem part, all of it, or it be the entire uterous, even if its a small lump tumour, it gets a full, levelelled removal. This is a SICK misunderstanding in the male dominated medical community, has been for a long time...women are looking for better way to understand and keep their parts and preserve their overall ( hormonal and sexual) health.
Many women have responded to this by educating each other and NOT listening to many doctors. Many have turned their personal health problems around by nutrition, exersize, sweats, natural and herbal as well as spiritual therapies. Many have demanded a better health system of less invasionary practices and now we have only 'some' proactive, reduced invasion physicians. Many have been able to keep themselves intact by looking for a better way. Finally for example, lumpectomies, just the removal of the tumor and not a whole breast became a more common procedure.

A doctor might tell you your child has a strong possibility of birth defects, often not true, as of one couple I know on this board. You have that choice to take that chance. Its not a science but a crap shoot still by any stretch as any pregnant female knows these days. WHY take side effect drugs unless you think its the right thing to do? Each an every woman or couple has the right of this choice.

I have seen a few doctors in my time. One told me that if I didnt have knee surgery I would be crippled eventually, that was 20 years ago, Im still walking without a problem in the least and never has been an issue after what was a minimal injury of the time.

Doctors are not GODS, no matter how they see themselves. There is no way, no matter how minimal that a female carrying a baby should be forced to have any medical infringement or surgery against her better judgement, personal or religious beliefs.

The AMA is, for the most part against nutritional, herbal and otherwise alternative methods that go against doctors total control over patients. They actively work against mid-wives and natural health (preventative) practitioners, but often they (doctors) are not educated in preventative health/illness measures. There is very little understanding of how prevention works or that the body is designed to heal itself with the right input, time, and nutrients and herbs, lifestyle changes, not harmful drugs which focus on the symptom and not the cure.
Its not to say that doctors are uneccessary, they can do miracles in transplants, major damage, etc, and when a pregnancy is in danger might have very viable options. However, such as if a cancer patient desires to use or not to use chemo, which basically kills the patient while trying to kill the disease, the patient has the choice, so much so a woman carrying a baby should NEVER be obligated to undergo a (particular) doctors recommendations , not ever legally obligated to do so.

I am basically vegitarian. What if my doctor thinks by HIS philosophy I am endangering my child and reports me to authorities? What if he wants to put me on a medication and I am worried about the side effects and refuse? What if he says, your baby will be born with major side effects and so I should not carry to term, but I ignore him, am I criminal for bringing a defective child into the world?
Legally, is doctor GOD? What if he is wrong, what if I am right? I have more right in these decisions and the consequences.

Children are not property of the state in the U.S.A. We cannot say that we live in a free nation yet think the government (or doctors) can get involved in our childbearing. If not, than the government must take care of all children born and assure them a good life, if women become vessels for the state then the state must pay for births and raising, basically communism or communist fascism.

In a free nation, our bodies are our own, we may eat carrots not beef no matter what a doctor says, choose not to take drugs, not to have surgery, birth children with hadicapps, or go against doctor gods and take our chances, sometimes maybe by our own death to save a child or sacrifice a pregnancy to save ourselves as adults. Its not a nanny state as much as many would like it to be without the ultimate repsonsibility for that philosphy. Strange its usually pro-life conservatives that want to control birthing yet are against supporting the children once in the world. Irony at its best.