The problem with that argument is that even if a fetus were, at some point, given the full rights of a human being, you’d still have to prove that one person can be forced to undergo a major medical procedure for the (possible) benefit of another.
That is not a can of worms that should, in my opinion, ever be opened.
Yeah this is one hurddle but I believe there is still another. I will research the topic under Utah law and then make another post.
Now she says that she never refused a c-section. Also the babies and her tested positve for cocaine. Also, though she was advised that she had to get a c-section much earlier, the baby died only 2 days before birth.
You want her punished? The cocaine use charge seems pretty good for that. A decent prosecutor given a positive blood test should be able to get a long sentence out of that alone even if she were not pregnant. Also charges based on her endangering her children by using cocaine could halve been brought instead of this murder by c-section refusal. This prosecutor decided not to do this. He cares less about just seeing her punished than he does about trying to get a legal precedent for charging mothers who don’t follow doctors orders. This is straight about all women, not about punishing her.
If she denies having been offered a c-section:
a. Either she wasn’t and the doctors and nurses are covering their collective asses.
b. She did refuse but can’t remember.
c. She is lying.
Well, she could be lying, but having history or mental illness, having used drugs, and hell, just being under the influence of pregnancy can put one in a state where not remembering such an important thing is possible. If she were in such a state, she well might not have been leagally competant to make decisions for herself. If that is the case she should not be found guilty.
If the doctors were so concerned about this, why didn’t they use established procedures to try to compel her to a c-section. Either they missed that she needed to have the c-section, or they did not care all that much. If they did not recommend it then, is is possible they are just lying about that now? Record should show one way or another, but then medical records can be forged. Legal records would show any previous attempt to compel her as well.
The actual death was about 2 weeks after the doctors allegedly warned her to have a c-section. This can be huge in gestational developement. If it was not near term for her, her decision could have actually helped the surviving twin. When was she actually due? How long before that did she refuse to have a c-section? Did they do the tests to see if their lungs were ready? Did they try to induce labor? If not, why not? There are ways to help ripen the cervix and try to get labor going. Were any of these offered as alternatives and if not why not?
The audio interview is available. I’d like other’s opinions on what she has to say.
Exactly. This is about exerting control over women and their reproductive choices, exalting their fetuses above them through legally coercive means, protecting bad doctors and destroying the real lives of real women who experience the worst kind of tragedy.
This prosecutor needs to be Pitted. I just haven’t the strength.
Great post. I completely agree.
Purely pragmatically, from the POV of ‘the best interests of the children,’ levelling murder charges against women who contradict doctors orders is a very bad idea.
My first impression is that is the worst interviewer I have ever heard. She should be fired. My second is just confusion. The mother said (a) the doctors did not advise her against a C section and that (b) she had a C section anyway.
I guess we will have to wait and see what happens.