# Blonde, come on down, explain yourself if you can! **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [March 13, 2004, 7:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blonde-come-on-down-explain-yourself-if-you-can/234056 "2004-03-13T07:40:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2004, 5:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blonde-come-on-down-explain-yourself-if-you-can/234056/81 "2004-03-15T05:43:51Z")
Please consider that doctors don’t always know what is best. Physicians can disagree. There is no evidence yet that the baby would have lived if she had had the c-section C-sections are major surgery and involve risks to the life of the mother (just as vaginal childbirth does). If the mother died from the surgery that was forced upon her, the doctors should be held responsible, certainly. Should the law makers? What if the mother was forced to have the C-section and the baby died anyway. Could she sue for pain and disfigurement? Would she have to pay the expense of surgery? Why wouldn’t this lead to doctor shopping until the mother-to-be finds one who agrees not to perform a c-section against her will? Why is it all right to force a woman to have surgery to save the life of the baby but not okay to force you to donate a kidney to save the life of a child? I also hate slippery slope arguments, but I really don’t see the standard of difference here. Just a few corrections on this particular case. She had already had C-sections before and had the scars. She was not 9 months pregnant when she was told to have the c-section. ---
**Author:** ![Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d07c76/32.png) [@Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Age_Quod_Agis)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2004, 6:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blonde-come-on-down-explain-yourself-if-you-can/234056/82 "2004-03-15T06:01:03Z")
> [@Zabali\_Clawbane](#): > > **Age Quod Agis** Serious question for you here. What part of “I don’t want to be **cut** like that.” implies a fear of a scar to you? To me, it implies a fear of _ **cutting** _ otherwise known as surgery. Not even in the second hand quote from the nurse in the linked articles is the word “scar” attributed to her. So, rethink your opinion on the woman’s motives a bit, eh? (Yes, I think she’s reprehensible, and made a wrong choice. I do pity her though.) All due respect, but I’m not the one attributing motives with no basis. The quote from the article you linked says: > [@](#): > > A nurse told police Rowland said a Caesarean would “ruin her life” and she would rather “lose one of the babies than be cut like that.” > > “We are unable to find any reason other than the cosmetic motivations” for the mother’s decision, said Kent Morgan, spokesman for the district attorney. Nobody with any knowledge of the facts of this case seems to have any evidence that the mother was actually concerned about her life, or about the pain of the surgery, or that she just didn’t believe that her unborn children were in jeopardy. However, although you apparently didn’t realize it, the mother has come forth to [dispute the account that she was only concerned about potential scars](http://us.cnn.com/2004/US/West/03/12/mother.charged.ap/). [Warning! Horribly unflattering picture alert!] The linked article is pretty good for a few reasons. First, it points out that she hasn’t been charged with murder, but with “depraved indiffference to human life,” which is a charge less than Murder 1. The article also lends credence to **Lamia** ’s prescient theory that the mother may be suffering from some form of mental illness. According to the article, the mother has “a long history of mental illness,” and: > [@](#): > > Her attorney, Michael Sikora, called a C-section major surgery and told the Tribune “it would come as no surprise that a woman with major mental illness would fear it.” But noticeably absent from the article is any mention of an alternative theory for why the mother would refuse surgery. > [@Zabali\_Clawbane](#): > > However, I DO NOT like any hint that one genders bodily automony will be/is being compromised. And I think that pregnancy and parenthood implies that some measure of autonomy _should_ be compromised. It’s one thing to decide to have an abortion. But if you decide that you’re going to have children, the law should imply some measure of responsibility for the well-being of those children. If you’re not going to be responsible for them, then you shouldn’t have them. ---
**Author:** ![Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d07c76/32.png) [@Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Age_Quod_Agis)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2004, 6:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blonde-come-on-down-explain-yourself-if-you-can/234056/83 "2004-03-15T06:11:41Z")
> [@Zoe](#): > > There is no evidence yet that the baby would have lived if she had had the c-section [Incorrect](http://us.cnn.com/2004/US/West/03/12/mother.charged.ap/). From the linked article: > [@](#): > > The doctor who performed an autopsy found that the fetus died two days before delivery and would have survived if Rowland had undergone a C-section when urged to do so. > [@Zoe](#): > > She had already had C-sections before and had the scars. She was not 9 months pregnant when she was told to have the c-section. The first is a good point. It wouldn’t make any sense for her to fear scars from a C-Section if she already had those scars. But it also makes no sense for her think that she’d have been split from breastbone to pelvis in a C-Section, as she alleges she was told. I’m not sure that your 2nd point is correct. The woman was advised that she needed a C-Section to save the babies’ lives on January 2nd. She gave birth to them on January 13th. The babies could have been born premature, but I haven’t seen any evidence of that, and in fact, the evidence leads to the opposite conclusion because it was their size through development that caused the danger to their lives (they were growing so large in her womb that they were being smothered). I think it’s reasonable to conclude that they were born in the 9th month of pregnancy. By the way, my spelling of “indifference” below is actually a little-used spelling from Old English, in which the use of multiple f’s was proper to emphasize the nature of the indifference. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2004, 6:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blonde-come-on-down-explain-yourself-if-you-can/234056/84 "2004-03-15T06:21:57Z")
**Age Quo Agis** , I think some of the information on that link _may_ no longer be correct. I think it was posted at the other site, so I believe that the OP has probably read it. My understanding from the radio interview with the mother was that she was charged two months ago with _reckless endangerment_ for the twin that lived (and has been adopted) and that she has been in jail for two months now. The murder charges are either in the works or have been finalized. She had also been charged a few years ago with _reckless endangerment_ of another child. Mental illness is explanation enough in some situations. I don’t know if that applies for her. A study published in the _Journal of the American Medical Association_ says that women who have c-sections are twice as likely to be re-hospitalized within 60 days of the baby’s birth. > **[WebMD - Better information. Better health.](https://www.webmd.com?src=Inktomi&condition=Home_&_Top_Stories)** > > The leading source for trustworthy and timely health and medical news and information. Providing credible health information, supportive community, and educational services by blending award-winning expertise in content, community services, expert... > [@](#): > > For the study, Mona Lydon-Rochelle, MPH, PhD, and colleagues from the University of Washington in Seattle, examined medical records of more than 250,000 new mothers. They found that the primary reason for rehospitalization among women with cesarean sections was infection of the uterus. Other reasons women with C-sections needed to be rehospitalized included bleeding, gallbladder disease, genitourinary complications, problems with the surgical wounds, blood clots, and appendicitis. The study goes on to suggest ways to avoid unnecessary c-sections including mid-wivery and seeking a second opinion. If women don’t go to the hospital and a baby dies, will they be charged with murder? I have read in other sources that some doctores seem to have consistently higher rates of c-sections despite the additional risks to the mother. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2004, 6:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blonde-come-on-down-explain-yourself-if-you-can/234056/85 "2004-03-15T06:54:25Z")
> [@CrankyAsAnOldMan](#): > > Yeah, but you’d have her rights ended as soon as a feller slipped her the high hard one. > > There are plenty of people who believe life begins at conception–it doesn’t naturally follow that any sexually active woman automatically loses key rights. uhm I specifically said " I don’t believe that a woman gives up all her rights when she has sex." In my opinion a feller doesn’t slip her the hard high one. She along with her mate consent to having sex and in my opinion they both undertake the responsibility to raise and care for a child if one should arise. Whether I think that the government should force people to live up to these standards is a whole other can of worms. I think that if a woman chooses to carry a child to term she should be legally required to make reasonable effort towards the health of the child. Once the child has reached viability outside the womb the woman should be legally required to make every reasonable effort to ensure that the child is born healthy. In this case refusing a C-section becuase she doesn’t want a scar is not making a reasonable effort to ensure the childs healh. ---
**Author:** ![Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d07c76/32.png) [@Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Age_Quod_Agis)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2004, 7:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blonde-come-on-down-explain-yourself-if-you-can/234056/86 "2004-03-15T07:09:14Z")
> [@Zoe](#): > > **Age Quo Agis** , I think some of the information on that link _may_ no longer be correct. Thanks for the additional info. I’ll check it out. > [@Zoe](#): > > If women don’t go to the hospital and a baby dies, will they be charged with murder? I hope not, and I sincerely doubt that prosecutors are suddenly going to lose their minds and start prosecuting every woman whose child dies in utero. I think it’s a pretty big leap from this situation to a global rule that women must undergo C-Sections whenever recommended by their doctors. But your point is taken. ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2004, 7:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blonde-come-on-down-explain-yourself-if-you-can/234056/87 "2004-03-15T07:17:22Z")
I am not an attorney, but I have found a court case in which the woman’s right to refuse c-sections _even when the fetus is viable_ has been upheld. It makes for some really interesting reading and addresses some of the arguments raised here: [http://www.skepticfiles.org/aclu/10\_01\_90.htm](http://www.skepticfiles.org/aclu/10_01_90.htm) It includes not only information on the ruling of the court case, but the following statement from the American Medical Association which offered a brief as a friend of the court. The Boad of Trustees of the AMA concluded that judicial intervention…: > [@](#): > > “is inappropriate when a woman has made an informed refusal of treatment designed to benefit her fetus.” Uncomfortable with an “absolute rule,” the AMA policy does suggest that “if an exceptional circumstance could be found” it might be appropriate for a physician to seek judicial intervention. Such a circumstance would only exist where medical treatment “poses an significant or no health risk to the woman” (such as oral administration of a drug which would cause no ill effects in her own body), entails minimal invasion of her bodily integrity and would clearly prevent substantial and irreversible harm to her fetus." In other words, they _might_ under special circumstances get a court order to make you take a pill, but the AMA does not support any forced invasive procedures. Also, from a Court of Appeals Case in Tennessee: > [@](#): > > “Even after viability, human embryos are not given legal status equivalent to that of a person already born.” Has the SCOTUS overturned these rulings? Also, **Q.E.D.** , is the Supreme Court currently considering overturning Roe v Wade? Controversy among citizens does not mean controversy within the court itself. It is the law of the land. Thanks, **Age**. Interesting comments. ---
**Author:** ![Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d07c76/32.png) [@Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Age_Quod_Agis)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2004, 8:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blonde-come-on-down-explain-yourself-if-you-can/234056/88 "2004-03-15T08:01:04Z")
> [@Zoe](#): > > Has the SCOTUS overturned these rulings? Great cites, **Zoe**. I’m pretty sure the SC has not overturned these rulings. In fact, Roe v. Wade discussed a sort of sliding scale of fetal vs. female interests (the woman has an absolute right to an abortion up to the viability of the fetus, and then the fetus’s interests increase in relation to the woman’s) in which the woman’s rights are always greater than the fetus’s. Meanwhile, a case released at the same time (Doe v. somebody whose name escapes me) seems to stand for the proposition that women have a right to an abortion even after the viability of the fetus, and definitely have a right to an abortion any time the woman’s health is at stake. Later cases defined “a woman’s health” to include her physical _or emotional_ well-being. So right now, a woman has a right to an abortion any time her emotional well-being is jeopardized, even after the fetus is viable. Of course, the Supremes have a way of interpreting earlier precedent “creatively,” so we can’t be sure what the Supremes mean until they actually say it, and then sometimes we still can’t be sure. I’m sure there are plenty of experts hanging around in here and GD that can better tell you about the status of SC precedent. Maybe we’ll even be graced by **minty** or **Sua** or **Dewey** , whose opinions are almost as valuable as the Supreme’s decisions themselves (except for the fact that the triumverate so often contradict each other). > [@Zoe](#): > > Also, **Q.E.D.** , is the Supreme Court currently considering overturning Roe v Wade? Controversy among citizens does not mean controversy within the court itself. It is the law of the land. You’re right. The Supremes aren’t currently considering any cases that would likely overturn Roe v. Wade. Personally, I don’t see it happening anytime soon, if ever. The value of precedent is just too great, and Roe has become established law to nearly the same extent as Miranda. I think there’s a possibility that it might be toyed with a little (for example, if the Supreme Court makeup changed drastically, I think they could “elucidate” their prior decisions in more restrictive ways, like requiring waiting periods before abortions, and things like that). But I have a hard time taking seriously any contentions that Roe is in any danger of being overturned. > [@Zoe](#): > > Thanks, **Age**. Interesting comments. Hey, _you’re_ the one edifying _me_. So thank you. ---
**Author:** ![CrankyAsAnOldMan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crankyasanoldman/32/11670_2.png) [@CrankyAsAnOldMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CrankyAsAnOldMan)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2004, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blonde-come-on-down-explain-yourself-if-you-can/234056/89 "2004-03-15T13:59:57Z")
> [@treis](#): > > uhm I specifically said " I don’t believe that a woman gives up all her rights when she has sex." But you have her giving up some of them. And this just goes too far for me. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blonde-come-on-down-explain-yourself-if-you-can/234056.md?page=4)