Woman who attempted suicide while pregnant is accused of murder

[Malthus]

@wmfellows

It would seem to me that taking the position that a woman who tried to commit suicide must be prosecuted for murder (I do believe a capital crime in the US) would normally require a strong constitution so as not to be put off when people reasonably observe that prosecution of post-suicide attempts is a grotesque waste of state resources.

Would your opinion be the same in the case of a person who drives their car into the river with his or her newborn baby in the back - and lives?

I guess I don’t understand why murder-suicide ought to be considered an obvious “pass”.

Clearly, not guilty by reason of insanity is a possibility, as is some sort of diminished capacity defence.

To my mind, the most significant legal fact is whether the child was otherwise viable - that is, how far advanced the pregancy was. So far, for whatever reason, none of the links make it clear, though the impression given is that it was pretty advanced: I assume purely for argument’s sake that the child could have been born viably. If the pregancy was still within the range of legal abortion, no “crime” whatsoever has been committed; if the child was about to be born, the situation is really no different from infanticide generally.

However, nothing in the link posted and summarized by tumbledown struck me as particularly convincing, as follows:

• The language of laws regarding injury to pregnant woman that causes the death of the fetus she’s carrying makes it clear that they were designed to punish third parties who assault pregnant women (with or without intent to harm the fetus) not the women themselves.

While this may well be true, it strikes me as irrelevant to the basic issue - ought a woman who is close to birth be punished for an act she reasonably ought to know will kill the otherwise-viable child? It may well be she ought not to be charged under those particular laws.

• Using criminal law to punish a pregnant woman for things that she did/did not do (but should have) during her pregnancy based on pregnancy outcomes is both discriminatory and sets a horrible precedent of both unconstitutionally invasive monitoring of pregnant women (especially those in less than ideal home situations or those with any history of potentially complicating illness), It also sets the stage for an abrogation of doctor/patient confidentiality for pregnant women and de facto criminalization of medical issues that often cannot be traced to any particular precipitating event/circumstance

This is the nub of the matter, and probably goes far to explain why this case is controversial. However, it is clearly an argument by slippery-slope. The argument goes that this case ought not to result in punishment not on its own merits, but because it will be used as a wedge to undermine the rights of pregnant women everywhere.

However bad ‘de facto criminalization of medical issues that often cannot be traced to any particular precipitating event/circumstance’ may be (and it is pretty bad, admittedly), this is not the facts of this case.

• In this particular case, Ms. Shuai’s actions upon admission to the hospital would indicate that she was absolutely in a mentally resolute state upon admission, but had protective, not destructive intent toward the child, as shown in her agreement (after several days of treatment) to a c-section delivery and in her demeanor toward the child once born.

Post-incident remorse and “protective” feelings towards the alleged victim strikes me as a relevant factor for sentencing, not guilt.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Bricker

Do you concede that she took poison intending to end her life, and that she did so within the third trimester of her pregnancy?

Yes, but I’m unclear on where “guilt” attaches to that, or even that it should.

[wmfellows]

@Malthus

Would your opinion be the same in the case of a person who drives their car into the river with his or her newborn baby in the back - and lives?

Depends on the facts, but once the baby is outside the mother, there is a whole different game.

I guess I don’t understand why murder-suicide ought to be considered an obvious “pass”.

Suicide attempt.

[Malthus]

@wmfellows

Depends on the facts, but once the baby is outside the mother, there is a whole different game.

Suicide attempt.

See, this strikes me as simply odd - that killing a viable baby five minutes before birth ought to be a legal non-event, but five minutes after birth be murder punishable by the full force of the law.

I am most definitely pro-choice on abortion, because as far as I’m concerned a fetus is not a “person” until it develops conciousness and the attributes of humanity - disposing of it ought to be no more significant, legally speaking, than flushing sperm cells. The moment that a fetus crosses over to become a person can’t be pegged exactly … but certainly it happens at least some time before birth. Birth is no more a “magic moment” than conception, which is used by the anti-choice crowd as their marker.

Murder-suicide is pretty common - many parents take their kids with them. No doubt if they survive, and the kid doesn’t, many are filled with remorse. The fact that the parent wanted to kill him or herself should not in and of itself give them a pass.

[WhyNot]

The other thing that worries me is that if this woman is found guilty, and thus precedent is set in case law, is that there may be some other desperate, suicidal woman out there who takes an overdose of something, but then can’t be persuaded to seek medical help because she knows she may be found guilty and imprisoned if the damage may already done to her fetus. It may or may not be, but I’d be very reluctant to seek medical care even if I had second thoughts. If I’m already suicidal, I’d prefer death to imprisonment, and there’d be no talking me in to the ER to save me OR the fetus.

Deterrent goes both ways. In this case, it may end up deterring suicidal women from seeking medical care.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Malthus

See, this strikes me as simply odd - that killing a viable baby five minutes before birth ought to be a legal non-event, but five minutes after birth be murder punishable by the full force of the law.

It’s an arbitrary line, like any other. You can perform an act very close to a state border and not be a criminal but move five feet to the left, over the border, do the exact same act and suddenly you are a criminal. This doesn’t strike me as particularly baffling, nor a justification to eliminate borders.

[Bricker]

@Bryan_Ekers

Yes, but I’m unclear on where “guilt” attaches to that, or even that it should.

Gotcha. I just wasn’t clear if you were questioning the underlying facts or the application of the law to them.

I have no trouble at all imagining that there’s sufficient evidence for a diminished capacity defense, where she couldn’t form criminal intent due to her mental distress, or even a complete lack of criminal liability due to her being unable to appreciate the nature and quality of her actions.

I do think that if we remove that aspect of the equation, then her conduct violates the feticide law in Indiana. Whether such a law should exist is a question I’ll leave to the people of Indiana.

[wmfellows]

@Malthus

See, this strikes me as simply odd - that killing a viable baby five minutes before birth ought to be a legal non-event, but five minutes after birth be murder punishable by the full force of the law.

Nowhere did I write that deliberate killing of a viable baby is a legal non event.

Murder-suicide is pretty common - many parents take their kids with them. No doubt if they survive, and the kid doesn’t, many are filled with remorse. The fact that the parent wanted to kill him or herself should not in and of itself give them a pass.

When children are outside the womb, the menu of choices, and the fact two clearly separated human beings are interacting rather changes things.

[wmfellows]

@Bryan_Ekers

It’s an arbitrary line, like any other. You can perform an act very close to a state border and not be a criminal but move five feet to the left, over the border, do the exact same act and suddenly you are a criminal. This doesn’t strike me as particularly baffling, nor a justification to eliminate borders.

This also applies, although Malthus was putting words into my mouth.

[Malthus]

@Bryan_Ekers

It’s an arbitrary line, like any other. You can perform an act very close to a state border and not be a criminal but move five feet to the left, over the border, do the exact same act and suddenly you are a criminal. This doesn’t strike me as particularly baffling, nor a justification to eliminate borders.

This arbitrary point lacks justification.

It strikes me as the mirror-image to the (equally unpersuasive) argument advanced by the anti-choice folks: that the moment of conception “ought” to be the “natural” arbitrary dividing-line between human and not-human.

The problem is that, as with any gradual process, there is some point where the developing fetus becomes obviously “human”, but that point cannot be easily pinpointed. It certainly is not birth or conception. It probably happens some point in the third trimester …

[Malthus]

@wmfellows

Nowhere did I write that deliberate killing of a viable baby is a legal non event.

This also applies, although Malthus was putting words into my mouth.

So you agree with this, but not when I say it?

[wmfellows]

@Malthus

So you agree with this, but not when I say it?

No, don’t be silly. I was agreeing with Eykers observation regarding drawing lines.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Malthus

This arbitrary point lacks justification.

Oh. Does it? Okay, then.

[Malthus]

@wmfellows

No, don’t be silly. I was agreeing with Eykers observation regarding drawing lines.

Okay, I’m having trouble getting a bead on what you actually believe.

How about this - in your opinion, ought the killing of a fetus immediately pre-birth be a legal non-event, because it takes place on the right side of the “arbitrary line”?

[foolsguinea]

@WhyNot

The other thing that worries me is that if this woman is found guilty, and thus precedent is set in case law, is that there may be some other desperate, suicidal woman out there who takes an overdose of something, but then can’t be persuaded to seek medical help because she knows she may be found guilty and imprisoned if the damage may already done to her fetus. It may or may not be, but I’d be very reluctant to seek medical care even if I had second thoughts. If I’m already suicidal, I’d prefer death to imprisonment, and there’d be no talking me in to the ER to save me OR the fetus.

Deterrent goes both ways. In this case, it may end up deterring suicidal women from seeking medical care.

This is a good consequentialist reason to seek not to prosecute this sort of case.

[kanicbird]

This is a very special case. The woman was troubled to the point of killing herself and her child. Her actions only ended up only killed the child - this is very possibly the worst possible outcome for her. She will most likely feel the punishment for a very long time and she may feel the need to be punished by the state, but besides her own mental health there is no benefit to have her locked up by society, her crime will haunt her for a long time. Locking her up may be beneficial to her for a time as it will give her the comfort to feel she is paying that debt to her child.

In her best interest perhaps a sentence of her being locked up / house arrest on a voluntary basis until she feels like she can go free.

[foolsguinea]

I actually sort of agree with kanicbird. In an ideal world, that would be a good answer. Pragmatically, the justice system doesn’t work that way. But the mental health system may.

[WhyNot]

@kanicbird

In her best interest perhaps a sentence of her being locked up / house arrest on a voluntary basis until she feels like she can go free.

I’m very uncomfortable with taxpayers paying for penance prison, especially for a self-selected term of imprisonment.

While I agree with you that there is often a spiritual/religious/psychological need for penance before self-forgiveness and healing can occur, I think that’s a matter for this woman and her minister, priest(ess), rabbi, imam and/or psychologist. Any one of those professionals worth his or her salt can find some method of penance and atonement to suit the situation. (Me, I’d encourage her to, once she’s more mentally stable, work a suicide hotline for a while, helping other people who are emotionally where she once was. I’d point out that this is her spiritual duty and burden, therefore she is morally responsible for getting herself mentally healthy again so that she can assume the responsibility.)

[kanicbird]

@WhyNot

I’m very uncomfortable with taxpayers paying for penance prison, especially for a self-selected term of imprisonment.

While I agree with you that there is often a spiritual/religious/psychological need for penance before self-forgiveness and healing can occur, I think that’s a matter for this woman and her minister, priest(ess), rabbi, imam and/or psychologist. Any one of those professionals worth his or her salt can find some method of penance and atonement to suit the situation. (Me, I’d encourage her to, once she’s more mentally stable, work a suicide hotline for a while, helping other people who are emotionally where she once was. I’d point out that this is her spiritual duty and burden, therefore she is morally responsible for getting herself mentally healthy again so that she can assume the responsibility.)

While I understand your point, I find it very ironic that so much money is spent on punishment, and in this case where that system can actually help a person’s life it is too expensive to use.

[Skald_the_Rhymer]

@Qin_Shi_Huangdi

Yes it is murder and at any rate she’ll be granted her wish, so she should be happy.

Qin, I ask you this question in all seriousness. No mocking or irony whatsoever, I promise.

Do you think Jesus would share this attitude? Do you think he would approve of your uttering such a remark, or urge you to consider the mote in your own eye, and to find mercy in your heart?