“I have no problem with subordinating a woman’s right to controlling her own body and refusing to have serious abdominal surgery which presents risks of infection, significant complications which can eliminate her future fertility and death to the rights of an unborn child.”
“I have no problem with criminalizing self-autonomy, so long as the person being prosecuted has a uterus.”
Congratulations, you’ve just signed on to relegating women into second class status based upon their reproductive capabilities.
So it was correct and appropriate that blacks had no rights, then had only limited rights, and then had their “rights” exercised under official separation because it reflected the desires of the majority?
It was correct and appropriate that women were effectively the property of their fathers, then their husbands, because it reflected the desires of the majority?
It was correct and appropriate that mentally competent adults be denied the ability to marry one another based upon their races because it reflected the desires of the majority?
It’s correct and appropriate that mentally competent adults continue to denied the ability to marry one another based upon their genders because it reflects the current desires of the majority?
You’re an American. Take a look at the foundational documents of your nation. Rights do not come from the consent or will of the majority. Rights are endowed in each of us from birth as an extension of our humanity. Your “ideal” is nothing but an endorsement of the most oppressive and self-serving brand of tyranny.
VBAC is not exactly “common” - it’s still a sub-set of the of the sub-set of women who have had C-sections. And a lot of doctors are strongly against allowing them at all because of potentially catastrophic side-effects.
Actually, this might even explain some of the problems around this situation. One of the possible complications of VBAC is a ruptured uterus, a true medical emergency. In such a situation, they might have to go in quickly, and that might involve a vertical cut. I wonder if it wasn’t so much that this woman was told she needed a C-section as she was told if she didn’t she might have a uterine rupture and require this sort of drastic surgery. She might have gotten confused or paniced at that point, thinking the doctor said would have to instead of might have to.
Because doctors aren’t always right.
Some doctors are far more eager to perform a C-section than others.
Because C-sections are major surgery and on a certain level it’s normal to not want to be cut open. (Many of us surpress this survival impulse when we realize that surgery is necessary, but that doesn’t mean we’re happy about it)
If you present people with “choices” but only permit them to make what YOU think is the “right choice” then you have given them no choice at all.
But it wasn’t necessary – at least not as the doctor presented the situation. From what information we’ve been given, the doctor said BOTH babies would die without a C-section, but one of them is apparently alive and healthy, so he was wrong at least to that degree. Also - was a C-section necessary to save both? Was it even possible to save the twin that died? Could delivery have been induced rather than resorting to surgery? Were any alternatives even considered?
Yes, sometimes C-sections ARE necessary… but it’s a dirty little “secret” that many are NOT necessary and the woman could have delivered vaginally.
IF all these situations were absolutely clear-cut that would be one thing - but they aren’t. Doctors are not all-seeing and all-knowing. They aren’t always right. They make mistakes. They mis-diagnose. They have personal biases.
But most of all I am troubled at the idea that someone could be compelled to undergo major surgery for the benefit of someone else, or else be charged with murder. That’s a horrible precedent to set.
Let me put forth what will probably be a very unpopular idea - that while a woman is pregnant, she is responsible for the life in her, not just her own, and as such, needs to make decisions not just based on what she wants. I realize that our North American society is very much about “if it feels good, do it,” do nothing for other people if it inconveniences yourself, and the “I got mine” mentality, but as a pregnant woman, you have made a decision to become responsible for another life, and as such, maybe your own rights need to be attached to those of the life within you. I consider responsibility to be the Siamese twin of rights - you can’t have one without the other.
That said, I also hate the idea of forcing women to have invasive procedures because of the fetus inside them. I think these situations need to walk an extremely fine line between the rights of an adult human and the right of a new human to be protected until it is old enough to protect itself. In a perfect world, women would always do what was best for their fetus. In the world we live in, people are selfish and horrible, and do selfish and horrible things, and we can’t always protect the helpless from the ones who are supposed to be looking after them.
The first thing I noticed about people’s reactions to this tragedy was the assumption that this unfortunate ( and unfortunate-looking ) woman was making a selfish choice. She had been informed several times that her babies needed sectioning and she refused each time.
I first heard this story sitting in the nurse’s lounge at the 4th larger birthing center in California. This woman’s ignorance and fear was evident and several nurses wondered aloud how she could be so mistaken as to believe she would be cut open from breast to pubic bone.
I have prepped women for c/sections and said “It’s a birthday party!” to have them look up at me ans say “Really? I’m having my baby today?” I ask why they came to the hospital this morning and they say because their doc told them to. Then I have to drag a grumpy surgeon into the room to review her consent—which she already signed.
I’ve been standing next to a surgeon exlplaining why this procedure is necessary and watch him leave and my patient comments she wishes the doctor would tell her what’s going on.
You can inform people but you can’t make them hear or understand you. Some are so panicked/frightened/determined they CAN’T hear your information. Some don’t want to hear you.
Cyn, OB/GYN RN who has explained in minute detail, in layman’s terms, all manner of OB procedures to all manner of people, mostly pregnant ones.
Any comment? Any comment? Do ya mean if more of us had had two c-sections, we’d understand the TRUE issues at debate here? We’ve been going on for three pages because we don’t get it?
Blonde, the issue here is not whether or not she should have had the c-section. The issue is that she is being prosecuted for murder. She’s not being prosecuted because she willfully and with malice aforethought deliberately took action to end someone’s life. She’s being prosecuted because she didn’t take an action that might, possibly, maybe have saved a life while endangering her own. That warrants a whole hell of a lot of comment, IMHO.
The moral issue here is whether or not someone is obligated to risk their own life to possibly save another, as well as whether or not someone has the right to refuse medical procedures that might benefit someone else. Most of us agree that yeah, barring serious health concerns she really ought to have had the surgery. Very few of us, however, agree with tying someone down and forcibly performing surgery on them, or with coercing someone into having surgery they would otherwise refuse.
That would be just fine IF all pregnant women actually did “choose” to become pregnant.
The real truth is that a LOT of pregnancies are unintentional. The most extreme situation is pregnancy resulting from rape - you can’t tell me she decided to have that happen, or that she’s going to be thrilled to be pregnant under those circumstances. Beyond that - no birth control is perfect. Accidents do happen and a lot more of us are “accidents” than we’d like to admit.
Complicating things further - a woman has no way to know she’s pregnant at the moment of conception - there’s a period of several weeks, if not a couple months, where she doesn’t know she’s pregnant and therefore isn’t even aware of her “choice”. Should a woman be prosecuted for drinking a glass of wine in her first two weeks of pregnancy, when she was unaware she was pregnant? For taking medication prescribed by her doctor during that time period?
Granted, at a certain point it should be obvious a baby is on the way… but what if she doesn’t want the baby? What if she wanted an abortion, but either couldn’t get the money together, or couldn’t get to a place where she could obtain one, or she’s one of those rare women who don’t realize they’re pregnant until she’s months along and it’s now too late for a “simple” abortion… now she’s stuck with having a kid she doesn’t want, and maybe went to considerable effort to prevent but wound up having anyway.
Had an on-line acquaintance who was paralyzed in a motorcylce accident - she had to go through quite a few doctors before she found one that would help her get birth control. (Yes, women in wheelchairs DO have sex! And they can be just as fertile as able-bodied women.) When one of her dates turned into a date-rape she was at a distinct disadvantage for running away or fighting him off. So she wound up with an abortion - she didn’t “choose” any of that.
What about women who don’t have health insurance, but also have little money – who pays for their prenatal care? She could be the most responsible woman in the world, wind up pregnant when she didn’t intend to, and want to do the right thing but if she hasn’t got insurance or money the odds of her getting proper prenatal care are very low. Should that be a prosecutable offense?
It’s all very well to say women should be “responsible”, but the real world is pretty darn messy. Yes, some women really do choose to become pregnant, some go to a lot of effort to achieve that state. And a whole lot more don’t choose to become pregnant, but do anyway.
I don’t want to put forth the notion that women shouldn’t have final say over their own bodies, or that they should be forced to have surgery (that’s a chilling thought) because some doctor says that it’ll help the baby. But it seems to me that if a woman is pregnant, no matter whether or not she wants the child or not (or if she changes her mind mid-pregnancy, whatever) that if she were a decent woman, she’d try not to mess up this new life more than possible. (Barring screwing up her own health in the process, naturally.)
I know you’re not saying that it would be okay for a woman to be neglectful during an unwanted pregnancy. I know that you’re not suggesting that at all.
But I don’t see the connection between unwanted and wanted when it comes to trying to behave decently. Even if a woman is raped, does that mean that she could take drugs and behave as if the kid’s welfare didn’t matter, because she didn’t want to be pregnant—that it wasn’t her choice? Of course not. It’s not the kid’s fault that the woman was raped. Why take it out on the kid? That’s not a decent way to behave.
I just want to emphasize that doctors have been known to perform c-sections for reasons such as wanting convenience for themselves, fear that failing to operate will result in a lawsuit, even if it is actually riskier than vaginal birth, and plain old faith that what they were taught (intervention, surgery, and technology are good, while a woman’s body is not to be trusted) is correct, despite scientific evidence to the contrary. I imagine most doctors, if not all, do not consciously realize these underlying motivations, but they appear to be there nonetheless. Also, interventions like induction and epidurals tend to lead to c-sections in cases where they would otherwise not be used.
Given all that, even the most educated, well-informed, intelligent, and selfless mother may want to refuse a c-section advised by a doctor. I did everything I could to avoid a c-section because I wanted to reduce the risk to my baby, and in a low-risk pregnancy, vaginal birth is generally better for all concerned than a c-section.
It is truly terrifying that my careful research into risks and benefits, my autonomy over my own body, and my informed efforts to do the best for my baby could be trumped by the opinion of a doctor who’d never met me before, and was motivated by fear of lawsuits, and a desire to get to the golf course on time.
I just hope the pregnancy police never find out how much ice cream I ate while I was pregnant - I’ll probably be charged with abuse and neglect.
…many of which are caused by the use of tocolytic medications. Some risks to future pregnancies (placenta accreta, spontaneous uterine rupture before or during labor, increased risk of stillbirth) are a simple face of having been sectioned, whether one attempts VBAC or not. However, I have not noticed a trend toward a reduction in primary cesarean surgeries because of these future risks. Instead, I see doctors offering more primary cesareans, for any or no reason. I bet a large percentage of women who have cesareans are not aware of the risks they’re placing themselves at for future pregnancies. And this is not helped by OBs attempting to get informed consent during labor, when women may be exhausted, sleep-deprived, and plain old out of their head with pain.
You know, it has come out now that the woman had already had one or more cesarean births. What are the chances that she had been traumatised during one or more of these? It happens a lot. Some women lose anaesthesia during their surgeries (I know three of these). Some feel traumatised for other reasons (I was one of these). The idea of going under the knife again for any reason was enough to send me into absolute panic and near-hysteria during my last pregnancy.
For liability reasons in many parts of the country, if you’ve had a cesarean for ANY reason, you will NOT be permitted to attempt VBAC in a hospital. Period. If some doctor had told me “Well, you’ve had 2 c/s already, too bad for you, you got pregnant again, you’re going to have to have another surgery like that,” would have been enough to make me want to take my chances and go into the woods under a tree to deliver…anything not to have to experience that again. Fortunately, I was lucky enough to find a doctor who had compassion for me. (I had a successful VBA2C).
And some will play the ‘Dead Baby Card’ to try to force your compliance.
I’m still baffled, still, by this two-week window she was given. If the situation was so dire, why was she given a two-week window?
I’m distressed by the fact that news articles keep making a big deal about the fact that she refused major surgery because she’s mentally ill - implying that any sane woman in this situation would have simply flung herself flat on the nearest bed and said “Go ahead and cut me open!” regardless of other factors, previous experiences, or mitigating circumstances.
Now, here’s my story: I wanted a VBAC so badly after my (created necessity, traumatic, wound up in counselling because of it) primary cesarean. But my second (twin) pregnancy was complicated. It went from normal to risky, risky to high risk, high risk to hospital bedrest…and then baby B was in distress, baby A was presenting badly, and I got my head on straight, had a heart-to-heart talk with the OB in charge of my care, and made damn sure that I was a part of my twins’ birth, even if it had to be surgical…I had the surgery: they talked to me the whole time, they told me what they were doing every step of the way, they kept me a partner in the process. It was as good an experience as such things can ever be. It sucked. But my babies were okay, and I have no bad memories about the experience.
But I DIDN’T want another one, when I got pregnant unexpectedly with #4. I worked my butt off making sure everything was in order before I went into labor, to give me as good a chance as I could have before I went into labor. I wanted to be certain that if it didn’t work, at least we’d know we’d tried everything that could be tried, and surgery was truly necessary.
I’m probably projecting, but I think I understand this woman allegedly saying that a cesarean would ruin her life. Mine made an emotional wreck out of me. And I’m hardly alone in that.
(I do not think this excuses her. But I think I may understand her all too well.)
If we got to the point where women could be forced to have a c-section, I’d honesly have my tubes ties. In fact, I’m so afraid of a surgery as it is, I’ve given thought to not having children.
The reason is anesthesia doesn’t work on me too well. I am almost completely unresponsive to local anesthetic (including things like dental novacaine, and whatever they shoot you will when you get stitches or a broken bone set). I have said to every dentist and three ER docs “Just do it, or we’ll be here all day”. I experience some numbness with very high doses, as 15 shots directly into the nerve took the edge off during a root canal. I metabolize general anethesia very fast. I woke up during oral surgery, and was clear headed and walking around within 5 minutes of being taken to ‘recovery’ My mother has the same problem. The epidural she got during my birth had no effect. They knocked her out to tie her tubes and she woke up in the middle-- and I do mean awake. The experience was so traumatic for her that she’s proclaimed she’ll die of whatever disease or cancer she gets, but she will not got under the knife ever again.
Doctors are extremely skeptical when I explain this to them (especially dentists, who tell me I’m just experiencing 'a little pressure). I’m so afriad I’ll get railroaded into abdominal surgery by a doctor who insists it’s ‘just pressure’. The idea that I could be legally forced makes me sick.
Here’s a thought. People are reviling this woman, because she refused to have a surgery done to her body. They are putting forth the thought that she must not have cared somehow. Yet, she was in the state of Utah because she was giving up the babies for adoption. That, to me showed a concern for them. So, if she did care for them, maybe it really was ignorance, or unreasoning fear of surgery as some have stated they have experienced firsthand?
Exactly. I do not fully understand the workings of the US Justice System, but it strikes me that this case is idealogically or politically motivated.
Also: this will sound as cruel as hell, but it’s not meant to be: the photo of that woman is surely testament against her being motivated by vanity or appearance. Even taking away the ravages of what that poor woman had been through, there is no way that she is some vain, selfish bikini babe.
See, we’re all arguing with logic and reason here. And people - particularly people under stress - are not logical beings. Whenever you’re dealing with a person you’re also dealing with emotion.
You are correct - a woman pregnant with an unwanted child should safeguard the life of that child. Even if she was pregnant due to a rape - but while I can’t condone it, I can understand a woman being so angry or desiring of revenge that she does neglect or harm the resulting child. It’s not right, but it does happen and the reasons are understandable even if we don’t approve of them.
The law recognizes that emotion is a factor - that’s what we recognize a different degree of murder depending on circumstances. Pre-meditated is seen as far worse than, say, killing someone who was molesting your child. I couldn’t condone someone executing a child molester out of hand, but I could certainly understand their impulse to do so, particularly in the heat of the moment when they first find out about the crime.
So yes, I agree with you, if a woman is pregnant and intends to carry to term (or has to, due to how far along she is) she should act responsibility to protect the life within, even if she’s going to give the child up sight unseen at birth. But as I said, reality is messy and it doesn’t always happen that way.
How long it has been since the C-section is also a significant factor. A woman who is delivering less than two years post-C-section really is at much higher risk than a woman delivering 10 years after the C-section.
Then there’s variability in healing - some women heal better than others. It may be that a woman had a C-section done to an excellent standard, yet still did not heal quite as well as average and her best option may be to just plan on another C-section. For her that may be the lowest risk option. In another case, a woman with a C-section in her past may be at lower risk with a VBAC than another woman with no C-section history because of pregnancy complications. Each patient really does need to be evaluated separately.
For darn sure, I don’t think the women scheduling elective c-sections for their own conveninence are thinking this way.
And really - if this woman is condemned for not wanting a scar (although I’m not at all convinced that’s the whole story), why aren’t those elective C-section women condemned for what they do? Isn’t that vanity as well? Isn’t it just as stupid to insist on an unneeded C-section as to refuse a needed one?
Not that I’m anti-ceasarian. I think it’s a great thing we have a tool that can prevent deaths and horrible outcomes in some cases. I have a sister who in her second month of her first pregnancy was told she could not deliver vaginally and that all of her children would be born c-section. She had some sort of anamoly that in the bad old days would have killed her. I’m happy she’s here. I’m also happy my other sister was able to deliver all her children vaginally. What it comes down to is doing the right thing for all involved, and sometimes, that isn’t easy or obvious.
Very observant, Istara. As soon as I heard the word “Utah” I thought the same thing. Politics (everything, really) in Utah is dominated by the Mormons. But that could easily turn into a whole 'nother thread.
Except that this is not being done. Women are NOT being “evaluated separately” as patients. Doctors are refusing categorically to attend attempted VBACs. Hospitals are refusing to allow them to occur within their walls. No evaluation of individual cases. Just…no. It doesn’t matter why the c/s occurred, or whether the reasons are likely to recur. Just this: you’ve had a c/s before, and you’re pregnant again. That dooms you to surgery again to end your pregnancy. Period.
And how, pray tell, are they going to evaulate? How are you going to determined that one woman didn’t heal very well, and another did?
Now, when I had my VBA2C last July, I even went so far as to educate my OB on the use of ultrasound to measure the thickness of the uterine scar (which she was not up on) and had mine measured. Based on the few clinical studies that exist, we both determined that my risk of scar deshience, let alone catastrophic rupture, was no higher than any woman with an unscarred uterus (it was 1cm thick). However, we were careful also - no oxytocin, no prostglandins, absolutely no misoprostol. I was required to have CEFM which changed to internal monitoring when baby moved low and her heart tones could not be reliably heard. I had previously resisted the idea of internal monitoring, but I assessed the situation as best I could at the time (considering I was in hard labor and trying not to push at 5cm): I didn’t want them to start talking fetal distress/surgery when in fact they simply couldn’t hear her heart tones. But the point is, my doctor and I worked together to determine my risk, and we both felt it acceptable. If however my scar had measured considerably thinner, I might have chosen ERC - particularly if it had been closer to the 4mm measurement at which point up to 16% of women will experience uterine rupture.
Thank god for my doctor. She looked at me as an individual. I made damn sure she did so, also. But her hospital also allows VBACs.
I’d be curious to find out whether the hospitals she went to have ‘no VBAC’ policies. In her case, from what I’ve heard, extenuating circumstances warranted the decision to cut, but what about about other women who birth there?
But the thing is, I think most of us can see the reasoning behind wanting to kill a rapist or child molester because they actually did something. A baby in the womb did not, and could not.
But I agree that we are all irrational creatures and will be unpredictable at times. But still—I think there’s a huge difference between lashing out at someone who actually did something bad, and lashing out at an innocent and completely vulnerable third party. Not that I am saying that we should lock up and throw away the key when a woman flips out while pregnant. I’m just saying, it’s not the same as trying to kill a child molester.