Reply
Fri 12 Mar, 2004 07:41 am
Her body, her choice.
Abortion is a tough issue for me. I believe it's wrong and immoral. However, I also believe it's immoral for me to dictate what another person can do to their body.
If it was me, I would have had the c-section. But it's her choice whether or not to do it.
I'd like to call it murder, because she willfully through inaction caused the death of another. But realistically, it's not.
Is willful stupidity a crime? What about vanity?
This woman ignored medical advice because she didn't want the scar from a Caesarian.
Well, she got charged with murder.
Story here.
As I said, I have a tough time with this. . . it's the problem with trying to hold both sides of a two-edged sword.
No it wasn't murder. It wasn't a normal cesarean that was recommended... you should read the article.
L.R.R.Hood- The vertical caesarean section was popular before the advent of the "bikini" section. My brother and I were born that way, as so were many people born in my era. It leaves a much longer, and more obvious scar, than the bikini section.
I am curious as to why the doctor wanted to perform that type of surgery. I suppose that is one of the facts that we will never know, because of patient confidentiality.
Why should we know? I don't think we need to know. I few friends of mine, who are doctors, tell me that there can be serious complications with the cesarean. I don't blame her for not wanting to do it, whatever her reason.
This abortion issue is just way out of hand. I understand the partial birth abortion ban, but not any of the others.
I don't think it was murder, based on what was in the original article.
The article itself seemed to be presenting only the most 'scandalous' quotes. I'm guessing there's a LOT more to this story, and this woman is being at least somewhat misrepresented.
I can't go with murder either. Not even close in this case.
I think I should add that I care more about all of the children that are living, and don't have proper care. Lets focus on them, instead.
According to the morning newspapers, the woman had already had one Caesarian.
She has two other children being cared for by a grandmother.
Before she left the doctor's office in December, she signed a paper that she understood her refusal to have a Caesarian could either kill the twins or cause brain damage.
She has a history of mental illness.
I don't understand why the doctors didn't get a court order under the "clear and present danger to herself or others" rule.
I'm guessing a doc would be pretty nervous about something like that, noddy. Cuz she could sue the crap out of them.
A past dx of psych illness would certainly explain a lot. Really leaves the doc in a difficult place.
Noddy24, that's interesting info. Mental illness or not, though, is it really good to have more than one cesarian?
L.R.R.Hood - In the "old days" the wisdom was that a women should not have more than two longitudional "C" sections. It is less of a problem with the bikini operations.
The doctors were sure that the refusal to have a Caesarian would kill or damage the unborn twins.
They obviously were not sure as to whether unborn twins had rights under the "clear and present danger to herself or others" mantra.
Would that there had been a motherly (or fatherly), smooth-talking member of the medical staff who could have convinced this woman that the babys were more important than the scars.
There was not.
There was obviously also not a doctor well versed enough to explain the possibility of the bikini type to her. If she had a previous C section, I just dont understand really, excepting that she didnt want to go through that again for her own reasons.
The article also states they recommended her to go to other hospitals, which she refused. I know a few hospitals I would refuse to go to as well for different reasons each, she must certainly have her own reasons for this as well.
Isn't it difficult to heal from a longitudinal cesarian? Maybe she was concerned about that as well.
Noddy24 wrote:According to the morning newspapers, the woman had already had one Caesarian.
She has two other children being cared for by a grandmother.
Before she left the doctor's office in December, she signed a paper that she understood her refusal to have a Caesarian could either kill the twins or cause brain damage.
She has a history of mental illness.
I don't understand why the doctors didn't get a court order under the "clear and present danger to herself or others" rule.
Good points!
If she was mentally incompetent, how could she have given the hospital an informed consent, had she decided to have the surgery?
Is there a "father" in all of this?
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace