I pit the fetal personhood statute of Wisconsin for jailing a pregnant woman for no good reason

[iiandyiiii]

Here is the link.

In short, the woman told the clinic during a pre-natal visit that she was getting over a prescription drug addiction, using medication specifically designed for that purpose. She had no insurance, so she got the medication from a friend.

Two days later, she was arrested. The judge appointed no lawyer for her, but her fetus got a lawyer. She was ordered to spend 90 days in drug treatment.

So I pit the stupid law, the stupid legislature and governor that made it, and the unethical clinic that told the police medical information she gave them.

Pregnant women should not have to worry that being honest with a doctor could get them in legal trouble. And courts should not allow the supposed interests of a fetus trump the rights of the mother.

[RTFirefly]

And of course, the woman lost her job while being in treatment, so now she’s in much worse shape in terms of being able to support her child.

Good going, pro-lifers. I’m sure you’re proud of yourselves. :mad:

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

Wait… How the fuck did this woman not get a judge? I smell a lawsuit…

[WolfpackJeep]

Don’t I remember a case out of Illinois not too long ago where a woman went to a hospital with a suspected miscarriage, confided in a nurse that she hadn’t wanted to keep it at first but was actually looking forward to the baby, and got arrested after the nurse decided that the lady had tried to “harm the unborn baby”? Those ''personhood" people are some of the most fucked up ''pro-lifers" I’ve ever heard of.

Also, I think there’s a “personhood” amendment on the ballot in Colorado now.

[Bricker]

Is Suboxone a prescription drug?

Was she taking it under a doctor’s care – that is, did she have a prescription?

Was she willing to enter into a doctor’s care?

I am thinking the answers to those questions are yes, no, and no.

And I’m thinking that the safety of her unborn child was probably protected by the effect of this law.

Nothing in the “arguments” presented in the posts above have changed that thought.

[iiandyiiii]

@Bricker

Is Suboxone a prescription drug?

Was she taking it under a doctor’s care – that is, did she have a prescription?

Was she willing to enter into a doctor’s care?

I am thinking the answers to those questions are yes, no, and no.

And I’m thinking that the safety of her unborn child was probably protected by the effect of this law.

Nothing in the “arguments” presented in the posts above have changed that thought.

I think this fetus was not at any significant risk that justifies the clinic releasing private information. Further, I don’t think fetuses should get lawyers- especially if the mother doesn’t get one. And finally, the rights or interests of the fetus should never trump the rights of the mother.

In addition, I think the effect of this law will hurt a lot more fetuses than it “helps”- because it will send the message to pregnant women that being honest with your doctor can put your freedom at risk.

So, a bad law that I believe is counterproductive even in it’s goal. A bad law for women, a bad law for fetuses, and a bad clinic for violating confidentiality.

[slumtrimpet]

Very weird. According to the news article, she was forced into treatment because she declined to continue taking Suboxone (a drug that is “FDA pregnancy category C. It is not known whether this medicine will harm an unborn baby. Buprenorphine may cause addiction or withdrawal symptoms in your newborn if you take the medication during pregnancy.”). She also tested negative for everything but after admitting she had stopped Suboxone a few days prior to her prenatal visit.
Basically WTF? They wanted her to keep taking a drug that is contraindicated for pregnant women, or at best not recommended?

[Bricker]

@iiandyiiii

I think this fetus was not at any significant risk that justifies the clinic releasing private information. Further, I don’t think fetuses should get lawyers- especially if the mother doesn’t get one. And finally, the rights or interests of the fetus should never trump the rights of the mother.

In addition, I think the effect of this law will hurt a lot more fetuses than it “helps”- because it will send the message to pregnant women that being honest with your doctor can put your freedom at risk.

So, a bad law that I believe is counterproductive even in it’s goal. A bad law for women, a bad law for fetuses, and a bad clinic for violating confidentiality.

Isn’t confidentiality a creature of statute? That is, confidentiality – and its allowable breaches – arise from the law, yes?

I assume that if a clinic breached confidentiality to, say, reveal a pedophile’s on-going abuse, you’d be okay with that?

[Bricker]

@slumtrimpet

Very weird. According to the news article, she was forced into treatment because she declined to continue taking Suboxone (a drug that is “FDA pregnancy category C. It is not known whether this medicine will harm an unborn baby. Buprenorphine may cause addiction or withdrawal symptoms in your newborn if you take the medication during pregnancy.”). She also tested negative for everything but after admitting she had stopped Suboxone a few days prior to her prenatal visit.
Basically WTF? They wanted her to keep taking a drug that is contraindicated for pregnant women, or at best not recommended?

No. They wanted her to continue under a doctor’s care --that is, to stop self-medicating.

And she tested positive for buprenorphine hydrochloride – Suboxone.

[slumtrimpet]

@Bricker

No. They wanted her to continue under a doctor’s care --that is, to stop self-medicating.

And she tested positive for buprenorphine hydrochloride – Suboxone.

Yes, she tested positive for Suboxone (I did say “everything but”) which she claimed to have discontinued taking just prior to her prenatal exam.
I can understand wanting her to have further testing to insure that she actually had discontinued. I don’t understand forcing her to continue taking a drug (don’t care if it’s ‘under doctor’s care’ or not) that she had already stated she did not wish to continue - particularly since it’s a drug that is not beneficial to pregnancy. Hence my WTF?

[Fear_Itself]

@Bricker

No. They wanted her to continue under a doctor’s care --that is, to stop self-medicating.

And she tested positive for buprenorphine hydrochloride – Suboxone.

Well then, that’s different. No wonder they denied her Miranda right to an attorney.

[iiandyiiii]

@Bricker

Isn’t confidentiality a creature of statute? That is, confidentiality – and its allowable breaches – arise from the law, yes?

I assume that if a clinic breached confidentiality to, say, reveal a pedophile’s on-going abuse, you’d be okay with that?

Yes, this is my point- the clinic has to have a good reason to break confidentiality, and this was not a good reason. Undoubtedly, many doctors and clinics hear similar information (I’m talking about from pregnant women, not from pedophiles) every day but choose not to inform the police. In this case, not informing the police would be the correct decision.

[iiandyiiii]

@Bricker

No. They wanted her to continue under a doctor’s care --that is, to stop self-medicating.

And she tested positive for buprenorphine hydrochloride – Suboxone.

Which she freely admitted to taking prior to the drug test.

[Bricker]

@Fear_Itself

Well then, that’s different. No wonder they denied her Miranda right to an attorney.

Although she was read her Miranda rights, presumably to make admissible anything she might say while in custody, she wasn’t charged with a criminal offense. She was the subject of a “CHIPS” petition – a CHild In Need of Protective Services. She was, according to the state, placing her child in medical risk by the unsupervised self-administering of a prescription medication for which no doctor had assessed her suitibility or dosage, and the state was acting to remove her child from that risky situation.

She claims in her lawsuit that these kinds of petitions should also be recognized as ones in which she has the right to an attorney appointed for her, but that’s not what the Miranda case says, nor does any federal case say that. She’s claiming that federal caselaw SHOULD say that.

[Bricker]

@iiandyiiii

Yes, this is my point- the clinic has to have a good reason to break confidentiality, and this was not a good reason. Undoubtedly, many doctors and clinics hear similar information (I’m talking about from pregnant women, not from pedophiles) every day but choose not to inform the police. In this case, not informing the police would be the correct decision.

Who gets to decide what a “good reason” is?

You think it wasn’t a good reason. But I think it was.

How should we settle this dispute?

[steronz]

@Bricker

How should we settle this dispute?

Well, we can see what some experts think.

[QUOTE=Experts]
A disturbing trend in legal actions and policies is the criminalization of substance abuse during pregnancy when it is believed to be associated with fetal harm or adverse perinatal outcomes.

…

Although legal action against women who abuse drugs prenatally is taken with the intent to produce healthy birth outcomes, negative results are frequently cited. Incarceration and the threat of incarceration have proved to be ineffective in reducing the incidence of alcohol or drug abuse.

…

Seeking obstetric–gynecologic care should not exposea woman to criminal or civil penalties, such as incarceration, involuntary commitment, loss of custody of her children, or loss of housing.

…

The use of the legal system to address perinatal alcohol and substance abuse is inappropriate.
[/QUOTE]

There are references to plenty of studies at the bottom of that opinion.

I’ll admit that on first reading, I was inclined to side with the clinic’s assessment of the danger to the fetus. I’m not a doctor and I don’t know the specifics, and in general people self-medicating with prescription drugs seems like a really bad idea.

However, that opinion makes a compelling case, and they’re not even talking about prescription medication; they’re talking about alcohol and drugs that are well established to harm the fetus, and they still have shown, with science, that these laws are harmful. So that’s pretty much that, until there’s science that says otherwise.

Now, the clinic here may have been simply following the mandatory reporting laws as they exist, in which case they may get a pass. But the laws shouldn’t exist.

[iiandyiiii]

@Bricker

Who gets to decide what a “good reason” is?

You think it wasn’t a good reason. But I think it was.

How should we settle this dispute?

We should take everything into account. Not only is it a bad reason IMO, but it is counter-productive. This will hurt fetuses, because some pregnant women will be afraid that honesty with their doctors will get them arrested. This is bad for women and bad for fetuses.

[RitterSport]

@Bricker

Although she was read her Miranda rights, presumably to make admissible anything she might say while in custody, she wasn’t charged with a criminal offense. She was the subject of a “CHIPS” petition – a CHild In Need of Protective Services. She was, according to the state, placing her child in medical risk by the unsupervised self-administering of a prescription medication for which no doctor had assessed her suitibility or dosage, and the state was acting to remove her child from that risky situation…

She didn’t have a child. For example, if she had chosen to abort, she wouldn’t have been charged with murdering a child or conspiring to commit the murder of a child.

[Kinthalis]

@steronz

However, that opinion makes a compelling case, and they’re not even talking about prescription medication; they’re talking about alcohol and drugs that are well established to harm the fetus, and they still have shown, with science, that these laws are harmful. So that’s pretty much that, until there’s science that says otherwise.

Bricker prefer the law to science, because he understands the former, but the latter? Not so much.

[Bricker]

@steronz

Well, we can see what some experts think.

There are references to plenty of studies at the bottom of that opinion.

I’ll admit that on first reading, I was inclined to side with the clinic’s assessment of the danger to the fetus. I’m not a doctor and I don’t know the specifics, and in general people self-medicating with prescription drugs seems like a really bad idea.

However, that opinion makes a compelling case, and they’re not even talking about prescription medication; they’re talking about alcohol and drugs that are well established to harm the fetus, and they still have shown, with science, that these laws are harmful. So that’s pretty much that, until there’s science that says otherwise.

Now, the clinic here may have been simply following the mandatory reporting laws as they exist, in which case they may get a pass. But the laws shouldn’t exist.

It seems to me that the link you provide somewhat overstates the actual reported studies it refers to.

For example, your link says:

In one study, women who abused drugs did not trust health care providers to protect them from the social and legal consequences of identification and avoided or emotionally disengaged from prenatal care.

But that footnote (8) links to this study, which actually says a bit more:

@Women's perspectives on screening for alcohol and drug use in prenatal care

They avoided and emotionally disengaged from prenatal care, attempted to stop using substances that could be detected by urine tests before prenatal care visits, and shared strategies within social networks for gaining the benefits of prenatal care while avoiding its negative consequences.

That same study does not conclude that the legal system should not handle these issues – it simply suggests:

Considerations of the public health impact of screening for drug use in prenatal care should account for the implications of women’s physical avoidance of and emotional disengagement from prenatal care, specifically the direct effects of late, limited, and no prenatal care on pregnancy outcomes and missed opportunities for health promoting interventions.

Finally – are you saying that the law should be crafted as the result of studies? What should be the procedure if studies contradict one another? Should our elected leaders be replaced by academics?