It does not sound like that at all. I do not understand how you could come to that conclusion from what I posted earlier, or from the cites that I posted less than five minutes ago and which I seriously doubt you have read yet.
Thanks for the cites.
I don’t think triplets makes a whit of difference as far as the ethics of the case, but I do think it’s interesting that that detail is present in some narratives and not others.
FWIW, the triplets thing was present in every mention of this case that I was able to turn up, although to be fair, a lot of them seem to just be copied and pasted from one or two original journal articles.
Your cite says they refused to have a C-section “based on religious grounds.” What am I getting wrong?
The second cite does say that. The third one, however, indicates:
I see no basis for arbitrarily choosing one cite as more believable than the other one.
I find the religious nuttery far more believable. Neither objection is valid, though.
If she’s going back to Nigeria, yes, that’s basically the situation. Care to sponsor her long-term residency in the US? No? Then shut up.
[
It’s not valid that they’re concerned about returning to a part of the world where neither safe birth control nor safe c-sections are routinely available?
It’s not a valid excuse to kill three babies. No. Of couse not.
And there’s no way they’re going back to Nigeria anyway. Who do they think they’re kidding. Nobody goes back one they get here.
Oh, please - you’ve never heard of deportation? Not everyone here gets to stay here.
And, given the story involved, I’m not entirely sure that the c-section was required in the sense that somebody would have died without it. It seems the doctors determined that c-section was somehow necessary in the second trimester - was that due to medical issue, or to a belief that all multiples should be c-sections (despite the fact that women have successfully vaginally delivered triplets in the past)? And does anyone else find it disturbing that neither the woman nor her husband was informed of the court order mandating a c-section? That gave the NO opportunity to seek a second opinion, even though the decision was made months in advance.
Really, there is so much wrong with that case.
!. Your position seems to be that birthing triplets vaginally means that the triplets will die. And risky as triplets births are, this is not necessarily true.
-
Yes, people do come to the U.S. temporarily and then go back. This happens all the time. We don’t have enough information on the parents, but what if they were on student visas?
-
This was in 1984, so it think it is far more likely that she got a classical incision than a bikini cut. Hence, really likely to rupture.
For me to really opine on the doctor’s decision. I’d like to know how the triplets were positioned and if any shared a placenta. Ultrasound was available in 1984, no? From the limited information we have here, I am suspecting that the doctors just said triplet birth=c-section.
Because doctors are eeevilll, so we must assume the worst. No way it could have been an informed and correct decision.
Well, no, which is why I’d like to know the justification behind their decision.
With those two sentences, you are arguing a position no one here has taken.
They had three anchor babies. The chances of deportation were low to non-existent.
Who are you, with all your non-expertise, to second guess the doctor on the scene from the internet 27 years later?
By law, the doctor can’t tell you. It’s not your business.
As long as people take the position that c sections are always safe and always necessary, they’re the ones in the delusional/myopic camp with the immunizations=autisms crowd. I’ve provided a cite to the rise in mother mortality linked to c sections, which everyone ignored. I’ve also explained how my wife was rushed into a c section and suffered a life-threatening pulmonary embolism, which Dio somehow believes supports his thesis that hospitals are never anything but bastions of medical perfection. You’re assumption is that c sections are never done unless they are necessary, that they only save lives. Neither of those are true, as even the mildly curious will discover by googling the damned thing.
Also, just to be even handed, anyone who drinks castor oil to induce [has extremely poor judgment] and has only read the opinions of [unscientific] people on the topic. There is no medical evidence that [laxatives] helps induce labor. *Note that I have read the pseudomedical explanation and know it to be false.
Is either side prepared to admit evidence into their argument?
I don’t take that position. I’m objecting to the position that C-sections are never warranted. From what you told me, it was necessary in your case. You said your baby would have died without one, so I’m not eally getting how you’re saying your wife was “rushed” into something that you also say was necessary.
I said the baby may have died without it… we’ll never know.
Ah ha ha! Around the same year, a good friend of mine had her entire family sent back to an African country, despite the FOUR children they had who were American citizens. They’re all back here now, but the kids didn’t set foot back on the soil of their native country until they came of age.
Uh, yeah. That part I had not known before, either. Truly horrific medical ethics there.