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.
All due respect, but I’m not the one attributing motives with no basis. The quote from the article you linked says:
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.
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:
But noticeably absent from the article is any mention of an alternative theory for why the mother would refuse surgery.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Thanks for the additional info. I’ll check it out.
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.
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:
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…:
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:
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.
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).
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.
