If abortion is made illegal because the fetus is a person. every miscarriage would have to be investigated as “potential murder.” Maybe the pregnant woman had some wine, a cup of coffee or an aspirin, or “thought bad thoughts.”
Wow. I hope a parent who is dead isn’t prosecuted for anything.
It’s quite true that what is described in the OP is not a miscarriage. Are we going to allow DIY abortions? Aside from the fact that the woman was past the date for a legal abortion in Indiana (Indiana is really crappy in that the date for a legal abortion for a fetus with a non-lethal defect is about one week after the earliest possible date you can find out about non-lethal defects, so there’s a real rush and urgency-- and if someone screws up your test, you can miss the date to abort a fetus with a trisomy or chromosomal deletion, or something else considered non-lethal, like MD), a DIY abortion is practicing medicine without a license. You can end up with a live but very damaged baby, or a dead woman.
If someone wants to come up with a safe and effective form of a DIY abortion, I will be all for it, but it doesn’t exist now, and people shouldn’t be making it up as they go along. I know lack of access can make people desperate, but as long as it’s illegal, it’s illegal. I’d rather work toward making things better in the real world, than making excuses for people who just do whatever they want.
And yeah, the prison sentence is extreme. But if she’d gotten probation and community service, that would have been appropriate, I think. I hope this gets dismissed on appeal.
You should check your trust levels.
Google search for “forced cesarean Washington” brings up a cite quite easily.
Presumably the reason you haven’t heard of it is that the case is quite old. Nonetheless, utterly horrifying.
Given that the article’s authors were investigating over 400 incidents, they’re not obliged to cite the exact same ones in both their journal articles and their blog posts.
I didn’t take the Googling step you did. Thank you for having done that.
According to the Paltrow/Flavin opinion link I distrusted (see #19), the cesarean was done against the wishes of the pregnant woman, Angela Carder.
But according to editorial and opinion articles I found from the New York Times and Washington Post respectively, and even though they were written by advocates who wish the Cesarean was stopped, Ms. Carder’s wishes were in dispute:
Mrs Carder was too heavily medicated to make her own wishes clear
It wasn’t clear that Carder, who was sedated, wanted to deliver via a Cesarean section . . .
That’s enough for us to distrust Ms. Paltrow and Flavin’s account. But there is more.
Angela Carder was close to death from pre-existing cancer. I think that the great majority of women with end-stage terminal disease would want the baby to be born even if this might slightly decrease their life expectancy, as here. And before she became too sick to direct her own care, that’s just what Ms. Carder wanted:
It was her family that wanted to put Angela Carder’s welfare above that of her fetus. So this does not sound to me like a case that started out being a matter of feminism vs. pro-life. It started out being one where the wishes of an unconscious pregnant woman conflicted with those of her family, and of the physicians closest to the case. Maybe if she was conscious, Angela Carder’s family and doctors could have convinced her into changing her priorities. But this is true of any medical advanced directive where there are people who, perhaps for good reasons, don’t want to follow it.
Advocates on both sides twisted this tragedy to make a political points about culture war issues.
There’s a big mistake in my last post.
The Wikipedia quote means the opposite of what I supposed. It is unsourced and so shouldn’t have be used at all.
This gives what looks like an objective summary of what can be called Angel Carder’s advance directive regarding her pregnancy:
This sort of reminds me of an SVU episode where a girl tries to obtain an abortion but can’t (she’s past term–the abortion clinic she went to was really a pro life organization stringing along women), so her boyfriend kicks/beats her (the girl allows him to, and she takes part in trying to abort the fetus). They’re both prosecuted, but I never understood why. She wanted to abort it. It would have been legal to have gotten an abortion, but they were committing feticide by doing it themselves? I couldn’t wrap my head around that.
Unless I’m misunderstanding something, didn’t you just say that she was past term, therefore not able to legally get an abortion?
[QUOTE=arquvan]
And has a man ever been charged of murder if he beat a woman and it caused a miscarriage?
[/QUOTE]
Yes. Robert Davis. California.
(To be perfectly fair, he shot her, she lived, fetus died).
Immediately after childbirth, the mother should be given a symbolic pair of scissors and something to represent the umbilical cord, and she can either cut it or not. If she cuts it, the baby is proclaimed alive. If she does not, it is not.
It’s how things work for my kitty cat. She gives birth then decides which ones are live births.
I’m OK with Roe v Wade as a social compromise. But absolutely no criminal consequences to the mother for anything that does or does not happen to a baby, fetus, embryo, etc prior to birth. Period.
Well, if she gets charged with murder for negatively interacting with a fetus prior to birth, then he needs to be charged with murder also.
I interpreted that as that particular clinic being unable to do it, but I figured another clinic might be able to. I assumed New York would have fewer restrictions on late term abortions. Googling, though, I see past 24 weeks, it is illegal. OK, that makes sense…
But after childbirth, the baby doesn’t need its mother to survive. Someone else could take care of it, nurture it, etc. Why would you be against someone else caring for the child? Why should the baby be put to death just because it had the misfortune of being born to a bad mother?
And thank-you for having a reasonable discussion on the subject.
I will certainly give you that those extra links are more nuanced than the Paltrow/Flavin study. But even given those, I think their summary of the case is still reasonable. The “unclearness” about Angela’s wishes appears to boil down to the doctor’s conviction, opposed to the opinions of all her close family members, that she might have agreed to the surgery, if still capable of communicating. I certainly can’t see any claims from anyone, anywhere, that she at any point made a positive statement consenting to possible surgery. And her baby was a wanted child - it was its own father and grandparents, faced with the awful decision of whether to preference Angela’s life or the baby’s, who chose hers. They had a right to do that. I see no reason to prevent them from making that decision - they were the next of kin of both actual affected parties.
If Angela had actually wanted a Caesarian under the circumstances where she was in rapid decline, the hospital could have got an advance direction from her to that effect, while she was still conscious. Given that they clearly wanted to do the operation, I find their failure to get clear consent from her in advance frankly suspicious, and indicative that she actually didn’t want it.
And, of course, subsequent courts ruled that the judge had decided improperly, and was using criteria other than ‘does she consent to this’, when he shouldn’t.
Your welcome.
There’s a smidgen more information here:
http://academic.udayton.edu/lawrenceulrich/inreac.htm
Some of this does have to do with one’s expectations of what must have been thought and said, given lack of transcripts, or a signed advance directive. Cesareans are very common in the US. And – I know you didn’t see this before – Ms. Carder said she wanted to have the baby when it reached 28 weeks.
Here’s some context, as I see it: George Washington University is no Harvard. But it has a much better than average hospital. It is where the President of the US goes if taken seriously ill at home. It is not a right-wing institution.
It is moderately implausible that Ms. Carder would have thought, on her own, that she could have a vaginal birth induced at 28 weeks. But I find it extremely implausible that a major medical school obstetrician, at the institution’s primary teaching hospital, would give a mother the impression that this was going to be a vaginal birth at 28 weeks.
Their summary states that:
This is about an dying expectant mother who wanted to live long enough to hold her baby. Given that, I don’t see how the summary could be more deceptive.
There’s no documentation of Angela Carder objecting to anything other than dying. Flavin/Paltrow, and I see from googling, other feminists, twisted a tragic impossible situation that had to do with whether 26 1/2 weeks was too early to attempt birth into a morality tale for bashing political opponents. Of course, the same is true on the other side.
Previous links indicate that the physicians disagreed. And what they disagreed about wasn’t whether women should be forced to have cesareans against their will. What they disagreed about was how viable the fetus was.
Is every miscarriage investigated in jurisdictions where feticide is a crime?
I read the article. It’s heartbreaking isn’t it? I’ll agree the study authors certainly aren’t going out of their way to put in any mitigating factors. Nevertheless:
“After a hearing that lasted less than a day” -check, although you might think it unfair of them not to say why it was so rushed. But rushed decisions are bad decisions, often.
“a court issued an order requiring a critically-ill pregnant woman in Washington, D.C. to undergo cesarean surgery” - check
“over her objections.” This is the controversial part. Nevertheless…
There’s certainly objecting going on there. Maybe wavering, but objecting nonetheless.
"Neither she nor her baby survived. " - again, check
I’ll accept that the pro-caesarian doctors probably thought they were “doing what’s best”. But it’s still awful that they would hire a lawyer to make statements like “the evidence clearly established that A.C. would have consented to the caesarean” (which the rest of the case doesn’t support at all), and to have a lawyer representing the baby’s interests as if they couldn’t trust the next of kin to have its interests at heart, (which the rest of the case also doesn’t support). They should have just let the poor woman die in peace … or not, since she lasted a little longer even with intrusive surgery than doctors said she was likely to without it.
On the subject of whether she’d consented to a caesarian at 28 weeks - that’s a much more plausible case to make. But a caesarian at 28 weeks actually is different to one at 26, and it’s reasonable for her to in effect say ‘well if it makes it that far, ok you can have it out, but I’m not going through that surgery just to have a baby that might very well die anyway, or have major health problems’. And that’s exactly the sort of decision that needs to be protected from doctors who’d rather, if their patient’s dying anyway, that they be “doing something” about it, even if from the patient’s point of view, if you’re dying anyway it’s much better to be allowed to do it without heroic interventions.
This is getting more into end-of-life issues than reproductive health issues. I have a good friend who’s a palliative care doctor and very immersed in the politics of end-of-life heroic interventions. And it’s known that doctors will do a lot more in the way of interventions than they’ll actually consent to have done to them when they are the ones looking down the barrel of a terminal disease … that they don’t actually value quality of life (and death) issues properly, but have this bias in favour of “doing something” - even if it’s something with a not very high chance of success.
We’re diverging slightly from the topic at hand, anyway. In the current case - quite different issues, still terrible. I don’t actually believe she ‘just had a miscarriage’. The evidence seems pretty good that she procured herself an abortion over the internet. But that’s not remotely in the ballpark of a 20-year-sentence act. The prosecution seems to have had two conflicting bites of the cherry. They’re accusing her of a) taking drugs to get rid of the baby - which they can probably meet the burden of proof on, but can’t possibly justify the sentence and b)having a live baby and then ditching it - negligent homicide if true, but I don’t see that the evidence proves that’s what happened. So they got a conviction based on a), and then a sentence based on b). Totally unethical.
Yes, and the more I google, the more heartbreaking it gets. This gives what feels like the full story in context, even though it is an extract from a book that has missing pages in hopes we will purchase:
Reading further, I do see that she did, after the judge had already reached a tentative conclusion, non-verbally indicate that she didn’t want a Cesarean unless done by the department chairman. And she knew that chairman wasn’t going to do it.* This likely was for a couple reasons, but the biggest one was that the chances of the fetus being born alive and growing up without major disability weren’t high enough. When the best expert said he couldn’t do the operation, because of the medical situation, her freedom of choice was gone. But it wasn’t gone because of a war against women. It was gone because metastatic cancer, treated for free at one of the world’s best centers, won.
Beyond that, the problem is America’s lawsuit culture. Hospital administration shouldn’t have been asking judges to make medical decisions. As for following the patient’s will, Ms. Carder was saying that, if the baby could be saved, it should be. Her wishes were necessarily controlled by what her doctors told her, which in turn was controlled by the cancer.
Looking at my first link in this post, there actually is another case that is a much better example for thinking about whether a woman should ever be forced to have a ceasarean:
My view is about this same here as before: If most physicians, close to the case, think a course is clearly indicated, there’s no need to second-guess them. That’s especially true at these sorts of hospitals where the doctors are on salary, so there is low risk they are just operating out of profit motives. The GW doctors should no more have been order to do a Cesarean against their medical judgement than the D.C. General physicians should have been ordered to attend an ill-advised vaginal birth.
What would happen in Australia if a full-term pregnant woman refused a Cesarean that medical staff agreed was not just advisable, but vital?
- You’ll see from the link that is was hard to find a doctor who would do the Cesarean, and that physician did it out of respect for the courts, not medical agreement.
If on the jury, I might have convicted on an abuse of corpse charge, even though I agree there’s lack of proof the baby was born alive. Even a dead dog shouldn’t be thrown in a dumpster.
Twenty years? That’s an example of why the US has the world’s highest incarceration rate. That rate is what I see as America’s worst human rights disgrace.
You’re correct.
I’m being ridiculous to propose that babies be put to death after birth (even immediately after birth) if the mother doesn’t choose to declare them to be alive.
Well, birth itself is a reasonable dividing line. And I’m actually OK with Roe v Wade as a social compromise, but only if abortions are available locally in every jurisdiction for 1st trimester abortions and regionally for whatever 2nd trimester abortions are necessary. And with full sex ed incorporated into elementary and middle schoool educational curriculum.
Good question, and I don’t know the answer, but I imagine that her wishes might be overruled by court order, same as in the US. And I’m not actually against that if there is very clear cut evidence that the woman’s decision isn’t passing the “reasonable person” test. That is, that she’s making a decision that no reasonable person would normally make.
For instance, there’s a case cited near the bottom of the Angela Carder decision, where a woman was refusing a caesarian for her placenta previa birth, and the doctors concurred this was nearly certain to cause the baby to die and 50/50 for the woman herself. In cases like that, I don’t have a problem with a court order - in cases where it’s possible for reasonable people to differ, I do.
Yes. Compulsory counselling and community service, for instance - that would have been reasonable.
News reports say the statute has been in place since 1979, but this is the first time a woman has been convicted of the feticide of her own baby. I don’t know if it’s an abberation, or the start of a trend. I hope the former.
SIDS is unexplained as far as I know. Parents shouldn’t be prosecuted over it. You think they should?