"Screw the twins" - I can't have a scar

The BBQ Pit
21

That’s a good point, and you just reminded me of something else.

My good friend did his pediatric residency in a state where there are, apparently, regulations about what sort of efforts must be made in the event of a premature birth. Maybe that’s true in all states, for all I know. But anyway, the law was set at something like 24 weeks. Well, after his rotation with a colleague through the NICU, his colleague said that if she went into premature labor at 24 weeks she would prefer to stay home and lose the baby naturally rather than go to the hospital and have her infant endure the risks and difficulties of a medical intervention. She felt that strongly about it–and not from a position of ignorance, either. Would she be a murderer? I suppose yes, to some people.

22

FWIW…details locally covered here

She had several (I count 4) interactions with health care professionals…who ALL told her what the story was…she ignored all of their warnings.

Oh well…her choice… :rolleyes:

23

I’ve had doctors whose SOP was to bring out diagrams, and draw on them without prompting, and give all the “gory” details of the surgery. The person who did my hysterectomy brought out diagrams when I asked a simple question about the surgery.

I’ve had others that you had to ask “What are the details of this procedure? Show me a diagram, and give details on medicines I will recieve.” This is what I had to do with the urologist I consulted about my fallen bladder. (The removal of the fibroid and my utereus seems to have greatly helped this problem, might have been the fibroid all along and not a fallen bladder.)

I don’t think she should be charged with murder either. Largely because it could be used as a legal precedent by prosecuters and lawmakers with a “political agenda” who want to make any abortion illegal.

24

I agree with beagledave here, the woman was told repeatedly by officials at three different hospitals what would happen. I just can’t see any excuse for this, sorry. As for the murder charges, who knows she’ll have to live with herself, regardless it was still an outrageous act of selfishness.

25

I think there really isn’t enough information to really pit this woman. I mean, this quote from the above link

(bolding mine) suggests to me that she had a bad experience at the specific hospitals where they advised a C-section. Also, refusing surgery is within her rights. I respect doctors, but they remain human and not all-knowing, all-seeing beings. Plus, her reasons are vague. How do we know she isn’t a hemophiliac? or has religious beliefs against surgery? Charging her with murder is extreme and a mistake, and obviously purely political in nature. I don’t see how the U.S. judicial system can force anyone to have a surgery.

26

I read the story as all three hospitals telling her the baby was at risk. I don’t know that all three hospitals sat her down and gave her C-Section 101.

27

Of course you have proof of this?

28

I read the story as “Once again she left and refused treatment after warnings that her babies are in danger.”

Sh was told, several times, that her babies were in critical danger and needed treatment. She refused treatment.

I can’t speak to the specific charge of murder.

I don’t know the statute in Utah, although I suspect that Mr Morgan of the DAs office might know just a teeeny bit more than those folks stipulating here (with no proof… related to the law in Utah, heh) that there is no way she could be charged with murder.

29

OK let’s look at the facts:

Coupled with:

Seems like a choice to me. Now I’m as pro-choice as they come, but I cannot see any justfication for her behavior. This isn’t about abortion, this was a woman told repeatedly, by different doctors at different hospitals, that her twins wer in real danger of dying if they didn’t take immediate steps. If this woman had been a Jehovan Witness who had refused the C-Section for religious reasons people would be screaming bloody murder all the way to page 3.

30

Stuffy It was an act of ignorance. Did you read my post with the quote in it, and the bolding added? She didn’t realize that a C-section involved ONLY a cut from about hip bone to hip bone. She thought she’d be cut “from stem to stern”, which is a dangerous prospect. Maybe she thought it would kill her, and didn’t want to risk dying, and not being able to raise her kids? She was STUPID yes, and she certainly should have asked questions. She THOUGHT she knew what the procedure was, and refused BASED ON THE KNOWLEDGE SHE HAD. (However faulty it was.) My question is: Did the nurse try to teach this woman what cut was used in a C-section, to persuade her to get one, or did she not do so? If the woman left the hospital, still ignorant as to what a C-section actually entailed, and so making her decision based on the information she had, then I don’t think she was at fault, and I don’t think she was selfish. Scared, yes. Ignorant, yes. Unwilling to ask questions of the doctors, yes again.

I’ll ask, how many of YOU ask the doctors questions about the medicines they prescribe to you on a casual “you’ve got an ear infection” type basis? Do you ask “Should I take my multi-vitamin with this?” or “Should I avoid any foods with this?” or ANY questions at all, or do you just blindly trust and take the medicines?

The point I am making is: Many people don’t ask any questions of doctors at all, so how could we expect this ignorant scared woman to do so, when most of us don’t ourselves? I think in this case, when someone shows such OBVIOUS ignorance on a medical procedure, that the nurse should have sat her down, comforted her, and EXPLAINED THE TRUE PROCEDURE in an effort to help her make an informed decision.

I also wonder, if the woman had been informed, and still chose not to take the risk (and for some it’s a bigger risk than others) of surgery, if she’d still be in the process of being prosecuted for murder? Where do we draw the line here? ANY woman who refuses a C-section, can be prosectuted, no matter how informed the decision, no matter what the reason? This person’s reasoning was flawed, but not as egotistical as the OP makes out. She was afraid of being cut “from breast bone to pubic bone”. Holy shit! I’d be scared, and maybe run too, if I had that prospect.

Get down off your high horse, and look at all the facts of this case before you call this person selfish people!
That is all…

31

Actually, I disagree with you Stuffy.

The “hard core” pro choice folks will point out that twins were in-utero, thus not open to the same protections/rights of twins out of utero. They might be upset if the Jehovah Witness denied a blood transfusion for a day old newborn…treatment for a 9 month old fetus…not so much.

32

If she’d offered some kind of excuse for it, I’m sure the media would be more than happy to report (and perhaps belittle) it. The point is, apparently she’s only said that she didn’t want to be cut like that because it’d ruin her life. I think (from the local link article) we can all see the woman is no stripper/hooker (okay, not likely to be, given her looks), so what was her real reason.

Also, many here have wondered if she was properly informed of the procedure. I find it VERY difficult to believe that THREE hospitals, facing a woman who desperately needs a C-section and is refusing it, would ALL fail to properly inform her of the procedure. (or at least attempt it… she might have refused to hear it).

As sick as her decision is, I have to admit that other Dopers’ suggestions of this setting a bad precedent are also scary. This woman deserves to be exposed as the lowest of the low, but perhaps I’m not so nuts about her being charged with murder. The idea of forced medical procedures is scary stuff. Next you’ll have parents charged with murder for refusing radical treatment for their terminally ill kids rather than letting them die peacefully at home.

33

Because she’s female. Only males are hemophiliacs. (There have been two or three cases in documented history of female hemophiliacs who died when they reached puberty and began menstruating, or so I’ve heard).
I disagree with her choice, but I still say it was within her right to refuse treatment.

34

Oh so being ignorant makes you excusable for immoral behavior. John Lee Malvo would have loved to have you on his jury. We don’t know that she wasn’t engaging in a bit hyperbole in her ‘stem to stern’ comment. Her latter statements indicate that she might have been familiar with the concept, that or unbelievably heartless. For that matter we have nothing to suggest other than that statement to so that she was scared of dying other than your supposition.

Each and everytime, but I’m a little anal about things like that YMMV.

We don’t know that they didn’t either, or if she even stuck around long enough to find out as it was apparent she was doctor shopping for a different opinion, and was in told directly that she shouldn’t leave the hospital in one instance.

Again I made no judgement on the murder charges.

I like my horse just fine, the view is pretty from here, hey look my house.

35

kind of strange to charge her with murder but she knew the risks and the doctor told her they would die if she didn’t have a c-section done. I think it was voluntary manslaughter.

36

I would think it’s pretty unusual to ask for a cite in the Pit, especially since whatever I give you, you will discount as only being an opinion. But you haven’t noticed the political controversy going on over the issue of fetal rights? It makes sense to me that something controversial in the legislative branch of government would also turn up for consideration in the judicial branch.

<upon preview>
Thank you, Guinastasia, I did not know that.

37

I got no problems with an opinion…Saying something like “I wouldn’t be surprised if the DA is doing this for political reasons” doesn’t need any supporting cite…and I wouldn’t request one.

Saying… obviously purely political in nature does. I would think you could tell the difference.

You’ve made a claim that it’s OBVIOUS that the ONLY (“purely”) reason that the DA is bringing these charges is to make political hay.

I was thinking you could back up a claim like that.

Guess not.

38

She visited the hospital four times, on the third visit, she told the nurse

so apparently no other hospital had troubled to teach this person before this. There is no statement one way or the other to show if the nurses at the 3rd or 4th hospital tried to educate this woman at all. Maybe she also feared the COST of such a surgery? (On top of the risks of being cut in the way the nurse quoted her as stating) Going into debt over medical costs could qualify in some minds as “ruining their life”.

Maybe she was taking an anti-coagulant? I know I’d be at serious risk of dying if I was in a car wreck, because I take large doses of an arthritis medicine that acts as an anti-coagulant. They made me stop taking it for two weeks prior to my hysterectomy, because of the risks.

The articles don’t state enough details, such as “Did the nurses try to educate the woman”. I’d almost say that if the woman was not taught what a modern day C-section actually was, that her reasons for not having one could just fall within the “medical concerns” catagory for refusal. There are SERIOUS risks involved with having the abdomen opened as the defendent described to that ER nurse, infection and death, not to mention complications during recovery.

On preview: Stuffy No, being ignorant does not excuse immoral behaivior, this does not make such “immoral” behaivior ILLEGAL. The laws for prosecuting murder are pretty stringent, and I just don’t see how what she did was murder WiTH THE INFORMATION YOU PROVIDED. In this country PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO REFUSE SURGERY. This is what the defendent did.

I ask again, where will the line be drawn? Will a diabetic mother be FORCED to have a C-section because continuing with the pregnancy puts the child at risk, because it puts the mother at risk? Where does the reasoning you seem to hold draw the line? The defendent in that news article was ignorant, but I don’t see the criminality of her actions. Immoral, maybe. Though even that is questionable.

I don’t agree with it, I too, ask questions of my doctors, even for a simple anti-biotic. However, many people are taught “Don’t question a doctor’s judgement, they are the professionals, you are not. They know their job, just do as they say.” Maybe this is why the woman didn’t even think to ask questions, becuase she thought the already knew what the procedure was, was afraid, and also didn’t want to question a “god”.

39

Origianally posted by me in this thread:

Just for those that missed it, this is one of the points I am contending with Stuffy who alleges that the defendent was “vain”. It’s not vanity, it’s a SERIOUS concern, and fear over a LARGE incision over an area that has lots of blood vessels and organs to be “nicked”, would take a lot of time to sew up, and would have a HUGE risk of infection, not to mention maybe post operatetive bleeding/infection, and just not “recovering” well from the surgery for whatever reason. Maybe she’d had horror stories told to her by people who’d had such a procedure, or who knew someone who did and witnessed what they went through.

There is no “proof” one way or the other that the 3rd or 4th hospital informed the patient about the treatment she needed. (Isn’t that a duty they have? Has the prosecutor looked into this, or did he just jump into action after his “knee jerk”?)

Since it was a nurse at the 3rd hospital who attributes the “breast bone to pubic bone” statement to the defendent, at least 2 hospitals failed in their “duty” to properly inform the patient about the treatments needed, and ensure that said patient understood what the treatment entailed. They have a duty to make certain people can make “informed decisions” about procedures, and it seems to me that they failed.

Hell, I had to sign a form in the hospital pre op, in the prep room (before they gave me drugs, heh) stating that I understood that having a hysterectomy meant I could never get pregnant or bear children!

This seems to indicate to me, that even small town hospitals are aware that there are some INCREDIBLY ignorant people out there, who need “second grade” vocabulary words used to explain things to them, so they can make an informed decision. Of course, the motivation was likely to cover their asses legally. Still, the logic applies.

40

Earth to beagledave…
This ain’t GD, it’s the Pit. Hence, what I posted was my opinion, just like how you are posting your opinions. Deal with it.