Woman arrested for refusing a C-section

[HBox]

Woman arrested for refusing a Caesarean. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4509692/)

A woman who allegedly ignored medical warnings to have a Caesarean section to save her twins was charged Thursday with murder after one of the babies was stillborn.

Prosecutors said Melissa Ann Rowland, 28, didn't want the scars that accompany the surgery.

I don't know what to think about this one. In fact, I don't want to think about it at all. I'm sitting this one out. If anyone else wants to discuss, feel free. I'll be sitting in the corner quietly.

http://members.aol.com/joepersico/myhomepage/sig1.jpg?mtbrand=AOL_US

[furie]

wow. this is a tough one.


<img src="http://tseery.homestead.com/files/tucan.gif">
Thanks M.

[Heavy]

Shes an awful, awful person. I dont click links, did she actually say she wouldnt do it because of the scars?

http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=JohneeWadd
A proportionate amount of props are equally distributed to my nigga's Fluff, Alexxis, CanOfSoup15, WWFallon and Katylina
HORDE KING FOREVER!!!
ORACLE NEVER!!!

[Arienette]

wow. this is crazy, and not really so tough, in my opinion.

normally, i'm all for a woman's right to choose what she does with her own body. but this goes way beyond that. first, the article says that there was no reason other than the cosmetic one why this woman refused to have the c-section. that is not a good enough reason to ignore medical advice. the doctors told her that her babies would probably die without the c-section. if you don't have a compelling reason not to (like if it would threaten the mother's health, for example), then you should be required.

second, the woman's right to choose what she does with her body thing really doesn't work here. she decided what to do with her body when she became pregnant and carried the babies to term. if she didn't want to subject herself to the possibility of needed a c-section, she had opportunities to avoid it by either not getting pregnant in the first place, or having an abortion early in the pregnancy. she didn't, and once she made the choice to keep the babies, she took on the responsibility to look out for them.

third, in my opinion, this is murder. unlike the abortion debate, i don't think anyone would argue that a baby a few days before the due date is not viable. she knowingly ignored the advice of three different doctors, all of whom told her that this would save her childrens' lives. and, while the law doesnt always require people to help others in danger, when there is a close relationship like the one here, there is a legal duty to help.

i can see the other side. and there are some decent reasons (which i'm sure will come out in later posts in this thread) saying that she shouldnt have been arrested. it just seems to me that they're not nearly as strong. and if she's not guilty of murder, she's definitely guilty of something.

and, the article didn't mention it, but i really, really hope they're not giving her custody of the baby that lived...

<center><img src="http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/aricheat.gif" height=100 width=300</img><br>the moon, it leaves silver but never sleep
and then the silver turns to gray
oh, stay with me, arienette, until the wolves are away
</center>

[ADF]

No, she didn't say it, but the prosecutors are alleging that was her motivation.



A nurse told police Rowland said a Caesarean would "ruin her life" and she would rather "lose one of the babies than be cut like that."

"We are unable to find any reason other than the cosmetic motivations" for the mother's decision, said Kent Morgan, spokesman for the district attorney.


Something's certainly wrong with her. I wouldn't mind her seeing some jail time.

<center><img src = "http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/samurai2.gif"><br>I'm so glad the cheat is not dead.</center>

[HBox]

I said I would sit this one out, but I guess I lied. The more I think about it, the more this lady pisses me off. But it brings up more issues. Is it more acceptable to kill a fetus at 3 months rather than 8? At 1 than 3? And do the reasons really matter? If a girl just isn't ready for having a kid, does that make it right? I don't know. Despite my progressive nature, it's these problems that I could never personally get around.

http://members.aol.com/joepersico/myhomepage/sig1.jpg?mtbrand=AOL_US

[Arienette]

Is it more acceptable to kill a fetus at 3 months rather than 8? At 1 than 3?it depends who you ask. for someone who is pro-life, there is no difference - it's always murder. i think there is a real difference between the months. when the fetus is not viable, you really can't kill it. i don't want to get into a debate over that, though.. there are plenty of threads devoted to it.

And do the reasons really matter? If a girl just isn't ready for having a kid, does that make it rightit absolutely matters. if having a medical procedure that would probably save a baby who would probably die otherwise would put the mother's life in danger, i'd say that would be a pretty good reason to refuse to have it done. scars? hell no. of course it matters.

<center><img src="http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/aricheat.gif" height=100 width=300</img><br>the moon, it leaves silver but never sleep
and then the silver turns to gray
oh, stay with me, arienette, until the wolves are away
</center>

[HBox]

it absolutely matters. if having a medical procedure that would probably save a baby who would probably die otherwise would put the mother's life in danger, i'd say that would be a pretty good reason to refuse to have it done. scars? hell no. of course it matters

You're right. I should have been more clear. This is why I hate abortion!............ as an issue.

http://members.aol.com/joepersico/myhomepage/sig1.jpg?mtbrand=AOL_US

[TooCute]

What if the baby hadn't died? Would the charge her with endangering the welfare of a minor?

What if she had objected to a c-section for a reason that wasn't cosmetic? What if she hadn't given anyone any reason? Would she still have been charged?

I don't know, I think it's a little scary that they charged her with murder.

<img src="http://www.chaoticconcepts.com/bans/toocute3.gif">

[HBox]

There's a lot more to this story.
First, the woman claims she had already had two previous C-sections, and did not refuse them because of the scar. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3504720.stm)

Secondly, she has a history of mental illness, is living on Social Security, and was about to be evicted. (http://www.sltrib.com/2004/Mar/03122004/utah/147031.asp)

And just from the looks of her, I doubt she's so caught up with looks that she couldn't handle the scar.

http://members.aol.com/joepersico/myhomepage/sig1.jpg?mtbrand=AOL_US

[JerryTaker]

Secondly, she has a history of mental illness, is living on Social Security, and was about to be evicted.


so she should have been sterilized in the first place, or been given an IUD so she couldn't burden society with her spawn, or with a hideous story that the right-wingers are going to clamp onto with the jaws of (pro-) life to further thier agenda.


<IMG SRC="http://afs30.njit.edu/~gsm2321/gimliwall.gif">

Nothing we've shared means a thing
Without you close to me
I can't live without you

[FUNKMAN]

one question that may have some validity and may sway it in her direction is:

could the doctors guarantee 100% that the child would have lived via c-section?

<img src="http://img18.photobucket.com/albums/v53/monster6sixty6/guests/fm_sig.jpg">
sig by #1 Monster

[A.J.]

the jaws of (pro-) life

Good one. :)

<IMG SRC="http://www.silentspic.com/images/sighost/ajdcsig.jpg">
A Skidmark production.

Red Sox Nation

[sr71blackbird]

http://news.google.com/news/en/images/t.http.3a.2f.2fwww.2esltrib.2ecom.2f2004.2fMar.2f0 3122004.2futah.2f.2e.2e.2fimages.2fwn.5frowland.2e jpg.jpg

I hope she wakes up with her uterus hanging out.

<center>
http://www.chaoticconcepts.com/randomizer/random.php?uid=8 </center>


<center><B>My Thanks to Just Jon, Reefdwella, ADF, Monsterone and Katylina for the sig-pic help and creation!</B></center>
<marquee behavior=alternate><font size=1>( o Y o )</marquee>

[HBox]

I hope she wakes up with her uterus hanging out.

Did you read any of those articles, or just look at the pictures?

http://members.aol.com/joepersico/myhomepage/sig1.jpg?mtbrand=AOL_US

[sr71blackbird]

Not really, just judging the picture and whats written above about it. Shes guilty in my book. She had other C sections?? Obviously she is either deranged or mentally unfit to procreate.

<center>
http://www.chaoticconcepts.com/randomizer/random.php?uid=8 </center>


<center><B>My Thanks to Just Jon, Reefdwella, ADF, Monsterone and Katylina for the sig-pic help and creation!</B></center>
<marquee behavior=alternate><font size=1>( o Y o )</marquee>

This message was edited by sr71blackbird on 3-12-04 @ 8:50 PM

[Mike Teacher]

That the baby/fetus/proto-human whatever was not born yet throws it into an entirely different legal area from what I know about this, but Bioethics has been a explosive, fascinating field, and a classic involves...

Parents refusing medical treatment for their kids on religious grounds. Historically, the doctors hands seemed tied. The parents, being legal guardians, and all that... so, for some who professed a religion where, say, 'bodily invasion' of any sort, ie. surgery, was against their religion, and they could refuse treatment. And some kids died. I guess the 'in loco parentis' didn't apply when said Parents are right there.

More recently, courts have decided in cases that an MD can make the call regarding the welfare of the child.

Say, a kid comes in, is in pain, and it takes one touch to feel the appendix is about to burst, and the parents say, 'Do what you wish, but you can't cut him. No Surgery. Zero.' This has happened. They look at his white count and it's through the roof and if it goes he's gonna die of septic shock barring [pun definately intended] an act of God. Here, the doctors opinion that the child is in imminent danger, the MD can supercede the religious rights and wishes of the parents; meaning doctors can indeed prescribe treatment against the strong objections of the parents.

How this applies to the above? Beats me.


<IMG SRC="http://members.aol.com/miketeachr/newsig">

[CYYYFYYY]

Put her in jail. The good thing is she would have been a crappie mother and chances are her kids would have been mass murders so in reality chances are she saved lives...... YEP I HAVE ISSUES

Everyone Loves CYYYFYYY
I am just a Simple jewish Boy
from the Lower east Side
I am the CYYYFYYY

[Alice S. Fuzzybutt]

This woman fell through the proverbial "cracks."

She was mentally ill. Her doctors most likely didn't have had all her records. True, the medical staff should have recognized her dementia but they didn't. Will her doctor's, therefore, be held responsible? Unlikely.

It's tragic, but what chance did that child have to begin with?

Arrest her? What good will that do? She didn't know any better. As far as I know, it's still legal to conceive in this country regardless of mental capacity.



<IMG SRC=http://atamichimpo.50megs.com/images/deathmetalfuzzybutt.jpg>

She said Jesus had a twin who knew nothing about sin.

[monsterone]

What if the baby hadn't died? Would the charge her with endangering the welfare of a minor?


toocute made a great point and has had me thinking since i read it last night. plus hbox's articles shed some more light to the subject.

and i guess everyone has free will regarding their own bodies. if a mother-to-be chooses to smoke crack throughout the pregnancy, and the baby is born stillborn, is she guilty?

<center><img border=1 src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=monsterone01"><br></center>

<center>
<font color=green size=7>M_O¥E.</font>
moe & steels, you
are greatly missed... you too
horde king
<font color=black>"what did the five fingers say to the face?"</center>
[color=White]

[Heavy]

it's still legal to conceive in this country regardless of mental capacity.


I said along time ago that abortion should be mandatory in certian situations, and this is one of them. Yea yall think its fucking rediculous and extreme, but Godamn it would clear up a lot of shit and future fucked up people in this world. There is noway any drug addict should be allowed to carry a baby, theres no way a mentally fucked up chick should be allowed to carry a baby. This is an issue in which I could give a fuck less about civil libertieas or any other politically charged points you want to throw at me. I saw Cops the other night and some 24 y/o chick had 7 kids, all living with different people and she was on herion. They should have ripped her fucking womb out after the 2nd one, if they did there would be 5 less hoookers and rapists on the street in 15 years from now.

http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=JohneeWadd
A proportionate amount of props are equally distributed to my nigga's Fluff, Alexxis, CanOfSoup15, WWFallon and Katylina
HORDE KING FOREVER!!!
ORACLE NEVER!!!

[TheMojoPin]

WOW.

I'm picking up HBox's dropped promise and staying way the fuck back on this one.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD >> "You might tell some lies about the good times we've had/But I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

[Arienette]

could the doctors guarantee 100% that the child would have lived via c-section?i don't know how much that actually matters. from the initial article, anyway, it seemed that the doctors were quite confident that having the surgery meant the child would live. of course nothing's ever 100%. no one should be held to that kind of standard. but i think any sane, caring parent would take a doctor's advice of that strength to heart.

Parents refusing medical treatment for their kids on religious grounds. Historically, the doctors hands seemed tied. The parents, being legal guardians, and all that... so, for some who professed a religion where, say, 'bodily invasion' of any sort, ie. surgery, was against their religion, and they could refuse treatment. And some kids diedit's true that, as far as i know, doctors can't go against this sort of thing. however, there have been a number of instances in which the parents were subsequently held liable for refusing necessary medical treatment for their kids. that's what should happen here, too.

if a mother-to-be chooses to smoke crack throughout the pregnancy, and the baby is born stillborn, is she guilty?you know, i was actually thinking of this same example when i posted initially, and i left it out so as not to confuse things further. but, now that you've brought it up.. i say yes. i'm not sure if she's guilty to murder, or some lesser crime, but i definitely think that a person who goes against medical advice and does things to endanger the life of their developing child is guilty.


<center><img src="http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/aricheat.gif" height=100 width=300</img><br>the moon, it leaves silver but never sleep
and then the silver turns to gray
oh, stay with me, arienette, until the wolves are away
</center>

[sleepyeyed_Jynx]

I don't know what to say. If I say I'm not for abortions I get called a conservative, and in other things I'm called a liberal. I can't be labeled since I can't fit either viewpoints certainly. But I can say this, 3 months or 8, and in this case, during labor, this lady was being selffish. To let a life go because of a scar is just disgusting. This story is so drepressing.

<IMG SRC="http://tseery.homestead.com/files/thejynx2.JPG">
"The Revolution will not be televised!"

[Melrapuo]

She was allowed to do whatever she wanted unless it was something that would endanger the safety of her unborn children. Now, the doctors said that a C-section would save her children, but she ignored it. So, she is responsible for murdering her children. If she intended on actually losing one of her children rather than getting the C-section, then it's murder. If she just didn't want the C-section, but hadn't intended to actually lose one of the children, then its manslaughter. She didn't opt for an abortion, so I'm not sure if she actually wanted to have her kids killed. But, then again, she's apparently nuts, so who knows.

<img src="http://img1.photobucket.com/albums/1003/mikeyboy/melrapuo_sig.jpg">
Thanks to Mikeyboy for the Sig
YANKEES FAN SINCE BIRTH!