Cesearian sections, abortions and christian science

[JAbuchan08]

I very much believe that to deny medical treatment to one's child, especially in a case when that child's life is in danger. US courts have upheld child abuse, neglect and child endangerment convictions in cases when religion was identified as the justification. Although I don't want to jump to conclusions in regards to the woman who refused the cesearian section I question whether she had the right to refuse medical treatment. If the child was due it is an infant in my mind and not a fetus, therfore deserving of medical care. Whatever the full circumstances, this case appears outrageous on its face - expect an equally outrageous backlash.

[damnraddem]

1. Once a child is born in the U.S., it is a citizen, with rights.

Not before. What one has before is a woman making a decision about medical procedures on her own body.

[lapislzi]

4. Presumption of viability

In the main, I agree with you. However, I think there comes a point in a pregnancy where the presumption is that a live child can be delivered that can survive without extraordinary intervention. It's still not legally a person, but I think that ethically this must be taken into consideration.

What thought?

[iverglas]

19. if you can explain

... what your "ethically" has to do with an individual's right to life, and how she chooses to exercise that right, and how it might be "ethical" to deny her that choice, they you go ahead and take a shot.

For exactly what purpose do you suggest that the "presumption of viability" of a fetus "must" it "be taken into consideration"??

This situation as absolutely nothing to do with whether the fetus is a "person" or not (although of course it is not). It has to do with whether a person may be compelled to submit to medical "treatment" she does not wish to undergo.

For the life of me, I can't figure out why this is such a difficult concept for some people to grasp. YOU or I or WE or THEY might consider it "unethical" not to jump into the icy Atlantic to save a little boy's faithful dog, but neither your nor I nor we nor they may compel anyone else to do it, or punish him/her for not doing it.

We may not even compel anyone to do it when the object of the desired rescue is a human being. We may not compel anyone to do something that endangers his/her health or life if s/he does not want to do it. Period. Not unless we have some humongous overriding compelling reason that provides justification for doing so (which would be the case for military conscription).

We do not compel people, not even parents, to so much as donate blood to save the life of someone else.

Is it unethical not to donate blood that would save the life of someone who will otherwise die? Sure. Probably. In some circumstances. In my opinion.

So why aren't we all gathering round for a good witchhunt to get all the non-blood donors rounded up and stick needles in their arms? (Leave me out of it; I ate beef in the UK in 1984, so I'm barred in Canada.)

Why are we singling out an obviously unfortunate woman whom none of us knows for this vilification?

Why isn't every single person who's nattering away here about how "unethical", or whatever else it was, for this woman to make the choice she did, down at the local hospital getting prepped to donate a kidney to a dying child? Hey, Walt Starr, where are you?

Why do people have such an overwhelming urge to pontificate about other people's "ethics"? And start yet another thread about them ...

.

[lapislzi]

38. For the record, I don't believe anyone should be forced to undergo surgery

against his or her will. I should have made that clear.

I was merely throwing out the ethical football, so to speak, about the viability of fetuses, and whether this should be considered when decisions are made by both medical professionals and parents. And I think the answer is going to be different for every individual and in every case. Now, you're going to say I'm practicing situational ethics here, but I'm really not. You make a choice. The health of the mother (for instance). You make a heirarchy of choices. The health of the mother, the health of the fetus...and so on. It is not situational at all.

You can't legislate ethics, and you can't force people to behave ethically. But it is precisely these gray areas that cause us so much trouble. I have no answers; only questions.

To conclude, the only case where I believe it would be OK to perform surgery on the mother without her permission would be if she was in a coma, which she clearly was not. And even that presents problems.

This is why I'm not in medicine. I'm just a poor writer (who also ate beef in the UK in 1984 and therefore cannot donate blood, much to my annoyance).

[Roaming]

7. But the baby's body is separate from the woman's...

It has its own blood supply, bodily functions from breathing to urination, etc. It DEPENDS on the mother for its life, but it is NOT actually a part of her body...

[Walt Starr]

9. That doesn't matter

If the requirement is physically cutting open the woman's body, she is 100% within her rights to refuse.

[donsu]

2. she made the choice to not have the c-section - that is her right

it was her body, her fetus, her life.

a fetus is not viable until it is delivered and survives the delivery. at that, another wk. of life has to go by to see if the infant will live on.

life is not a bowl of cherries. pregnancy and delivery are life threatening events. keeping a newborn infant alive is the next crucial event. anything can happen.

to call this woman a murderer is insane.

[JAbuchan08]

3. My opinion isn't set,

and I know that C-sections are dangerous, if I had to choose between saving the mother's life and saving the baby's I would choose the mother, and I know there are no guarantees that the woman would have come through the C-section okay, but I still have some reservations about someone making that decision when the birth is imminent. That's where the issue get's a bit mucky for me. I've always described my position as "life does not begin at conception, and neither does it begin at birth." If one accepts that hypothesis than you're faced with a question of whether the health of the child or the health of the mother is more important. Well in this matter I'll take the part of the Elephant in times of drought - you can always make more babies. Assume then (hypothetically), that the health of the mother is not at risk (except for the addition of a rather nasty scar) does the child deserve to be born? Assume the mother was going to go through the birth until she found out that she would have to have a ceserean, than what? I know all operations are dangerous, so I don't expect you to conceed that this particular individual was wrong, and I don't know all the facts of the case, but is human life not conferred upon us until our heads have been pushed through a vaginal canal? Is it the light and sound that erupt around us when we peer out into the world? I'm sorry if I've been to strident, but I've never been black and white on this issue.

[lapislzi]

10. Ethically, the waters become muddy

during the third trimester. I mention earlier the "presumption of viability"--that is, the presumption that, if delivered, the infant would survive outside the womb without extraordinary intervention. I'm not making a judgement about it; I'm just saying that such a presumption exists, I think.

[iverglas]

21. well, you can stop right there

I've always described my position as "life does not begin at conception, and neither does it begin at birth." If one accepts that hypothesis than you're faced with a question of whether the health of the child or the health of the mother is more important.

What your position is, or how you describe it, is just of no consequence.

YOU are not faced with ANY question re the health of the fetus (or child, after it is born) vs. the health of the woman (that's "woman"; she is not a mother unless she has children, and her status as "mother" is entirely irrelevant to this issue, in that case).

That is a question facing THE WOMAN, not you. And it is up to her to decide, because the decision affects HER, not you.

If you ever have to make the decision for YOURSELF, you may of course feel entirely free to make whatever choice you like.

... I don't know all the facts of the case, but is human life not conferred upon us until our heads have been pushed through a vaginal canal? Is it the light and sound that erupt around us when we peer out into the world? I'm sorry if I've been to strident, but I've never been black and white on this issue.

If only you could explain what "this issue" has to do with the actual issue in the case in question, which is whether a woman may be compelled to submit to intervention in her pregnancy/delivery that she does not want, and whether she may be punished for refusing to follow advice regarding her pregnancy/delivery.

That's the issue, not whatever you're on about.

I just can't think of any other situation in which so many people would be so eager to tell someone else how s/he ought to exercise his/her rights, let alone to propose that s/he be denied the ability to do so, or punished for doing so.

.

[lapislzi]

5. Disagree on the "viability" claim

Fetuses are viable virtually any time during the third trimester. Often extraordinary measures are required to keep them alive, but they can and do survive.

How did you come up with the "one week's survival" litmus test?

[donsu]

14. from a time before modern medicine and/or from a country or place

that has little or no medical help for preg. woman. you know, real life.

the mother's milk has to come in and be plentiful and rich enough for the infant. the infant has to be well and have nothing wrong with it, etc. etc. nothing is ever a sure thing in pregnancies or deliveries, or infant survival.

[lapislzi]

15. well, where do you draw the line?

(I'm in agreement with you regarding the woman's refusal of the procedure, by the way)

But...there ain't no sure things except death. There are days when I wonder whether my 10 year old will survive to adulthood (and she's one of the smarter specimens).

My construct of the presumption of viablility is just that. It's a hypothetical, but so's everything.

When you get right down to it, it's frankly remarkable that we're here at all!

[JAbuchan08]

6. Was the baby stillborn? I seem to have scanned over that subject line

if the baby was already dead this would put this in the class of the Jeb Bush's guardianship thing.

[Walt Starr]

8. If the procedure offered involves surgery

the choice liew 100% with the mother.

A christian Science woman is 100% within her rights to refuse to undergo surgery even if it means she will definitely lose the child.

Government forced surgery was the soprt of thing Mengele did.

[Roaming]

11. What about a mother's choice to use heroin, drink alcohol, etc.?

If a woman is an addict and is destroying her baby in one of these ways, the government has (I believe rightly) intervened to save the life of the baby.

If a woman fed her newborn baby alcohol or injected it with heroin, the result would be the same...

[lapislzi]

13. Not the same thing at all

Refusal of a surgical procedure on oneself is nothing remotely like injecting a living (and legally distinct) human being with a toxic substance.

First you talk about using alcohol during pregnancy, then you talk about injecting a baby with heroin. Anybody notice a slippery slope here?

[SemperEadem]

16. non sequitur

the two examples aren't even comparable.

If a woman is an addict, she's got an illness. The government certainly sees no reason to aid people like her in kicking her substance abuse. Interesting that they should be so overly concerned about the welfare of a child they'd much rather starve to death or expose to danger once it's born... social programs wouldn't be what they are now if that wasn't the case.

[oldcoot]

22. Exactly

The government can intervene if parents refuse to provide medical treatment for their children. However, I have never heard of a single case where one of these parents was forced to donate an organ to save their child.

[Ilsa]

12. Don't buy into the infallibility of doctors when it comes to this stuff.

Sorry, I don't have the documentation for it, but women have refused C-Sections before and their children have lived to tell about it!

There have been some cases of court-ordered C-Sections where women left the hospital and gave birth vaginally to healthy babies. You cannot assume the the doctors always have the ultimate authority in every single one of these cases. Doctor's advice is only advice; they are not infallible. Even the head of the American College of OB/GYN's said this on NPR the other night. He said this is a decision that must remain the mother's.

IMO, they cannot justify charging this mentally ill woman with murder without also charging the hospital and her doctors.

[SemperEadem]

18. No kidding...

they'd be the first to say "I'm not God" when it goes wrong...

[Alenne]

17. Do you support performing surgery on unwilling people?

Do you support being forced to give blood or organs to save the life of someone who needs it? Or is being forced to have surgery only reserved for pregnant women?

[Roaming]

20. This is a real tough one to reach a conclusion on for me...

If a parent fails to seek appropriate medical treatment for a child, then the parent is usually held responsible. There have been real sticky issues surrounding religious refusal for treatment, and some courts have ordered it.

I believe a baby is a child, too, a separate individual from the mother, even though he/she is inside the mother, so the question is a difficult one to answer. As another poster stated, doesn't a woman does have the right to refuse a C-section... I'm still struggling with this one.

[Alenne]

31. If you have to cut the mother open to get to the child

then it is not a separate individual from the mother.

[noiretextatique]

23. answer: this only applies to pregnant women

:shrug: clearly, a lot of people think pregnant women shouldn't have the right to determine what happens to their body.

[Roaming]

24. Again, we're not talking about just one body here--it's the woman's

body and the body of another human being -- the baby.

[noiretextatique]

26. the baby can't decide whether or not to have surgery

the only body that will be cut open is the woman's. the state cannot force her to submit to having her body cut open.

[iverglas]

34. you can just keep reciting it all you want

it's the woman's body and the body of another human being -- the baby.

And you can say "the moon is made of green cheese", and any other strange and wonderful "fact" you might wish to proclaim.

What you're saying is nonsense, no matter how many times you utter it.

And even if it were not nonsense, I don't think that you have yet responded to the suggestion that if pregnant women may be cut up and open for the benefit of this other "human being" of yours, or charged with homicide for refusing to submit, YOU could be charged with homicide for every person who dies who would (in a doctor's opinion, of course) have lived if you had donated your blood, bone marrow or kidney.

Is it just pregnant women you wish to enslave to other people's needs (i.e. if there were another person in this equation, as you claim) and make into criminals if they resist, or are you volunteering? When would be a convenient time to arrest you?

.

[Alenne]

33. It is truly unbelievable. nt

[Columbia]

25. Valid claim, however...

I don't think this case is the most appropriate to argue with. It is reported that the woman refused a C-section that the Dr. believed was necessary to ensure viability of the infant's life soley because she did not want the cosmetic scar. Not really the most sympathetic character.

[noiretextatique]

27. actually...you should read more about the case

apparently her concerns were more than cosmetic. but that is the "spin" being sold to the public by those interested in blurring the issue.

[plurality]

29. that is media spin

they plastered the news saying she did "want to be cut like that" and that it would "ruin her life." what she was refering to was being cut "breat bone to pubic bone." ever disect a frog/rat/pig fetus/cat in high school? that was the incision she was refering to. complete vivisection, her entire abdomen being opened. even open heart surgery doesnt go down to the pubic bone.


edit: whoops. this is veganwitch.

[iverglas]

32. gee, unsympathetic characters

It is reported that the woman refused a C-section that the Dr. believed was necessary to ensure viability of the infant's life soley because she did not want the cosmetic scar. Not really the most sympathetic character.

Imagine if someone used a statement like that in discussing the famous second amendment "rights" of USAmericans ...

Somebody I know would be squealing like the proverbial speared porcine.

Do only "sympathetic characters" get to resist assaults on their bodies? Does anyone have to present ANY reason for resisting an assault on his/her body? Will you volunteer to be the arbiter of the reasons that pregnant women present? And may I then judge whatever reason you might want to present for resisting a violation of your rights, or for exercising them?

I guess if it becomes the law in the US that pregnant women may be compelled to submit to life-threatening surgery on the whim of a physician (on pain of criminal charges), that concealed-firearms-carrying business might become more attractive ...

.

[Columbia]

37. Well, gosh

No one is advocating any restriction of rights as you suggest. No reading between the lines is necessary. Disregard for the life of a baby because of fear of a scar will not cause an outpouring of sympathy. Why else do you think it is such a big story? It is because the majority of the public would be shocked at the reasoning given for her refusal to have the C-section. Regardless, at no point did I say that she was not in her rights to refuse medical treatment.

You know, you and I would not have such a dichotomy in views if you defended all rights so strongly as you do this one.

[oldcoot]

35. Who cares if she is sympathetic?

Fortunately, our legal rights are not determined by whether or not people like us. It does not matter if Rowland is a "good" person or a "bad" person. She has the same rights of every other American citizen. If she loses these rights, then we are all in trouble.

If a jury convicts of Rowland of murder and the courts uphold this conviction, then the courts will have established a very bad legal precedent. Other pregnant women, including "sympathetic women," may discover that they have lost the right to make medical decisions for themselves. If a doctor is not happy with his or patient's behavior, he or she can simply go to the courts to force her to behave. For example, let's pretend that a woman decides that she wants natural childbirth after visiting her doctor. Unfortunately for her, her doctor does not believe that natural childbirth is safe so he (or she) decides to report the patient for child endangerment. Should this woman go to jail for daring to disagree with her doctor?

For more information about this case, see: http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,595048573,00.html .

[Columbia]

36. I never argued to the contrary

Only saying that the average person is not going to be sympathetic to this woman and to reproductive rights in accordance.

[iverglas]

39. so heck

Why not just perpetuate the spin that portrays her as "unsympathetic", eh?

Was there a point somewhere?

.

[Columbia]

40. Umm, because she is?

Did you have a point or do you just like responding to all my posts?

[Djinn]

28. so they should

have anaethetised her and cut her open against her will?????

[plurality]

30. duh!

/sarcasm

[kiahzero]

41. Um, no.

First of all, if the state felt that way, they should have initiated court cases beforehand - it's too late to force the surgery now, and the woman can't be prosecuted for the State's inaction.

Secondly, the right of informed consent applies to childbirth. This wasn't "Have this operation, or the child will die, with 100% certainty." The doctor recommended the cesarian section, since it would increase the probability of the child being born.

Third, the State can't compell someone to have surgery at all, unless it can demonstrate that he/she is incompetent to make the decision for him/herself. Again, it's too late to force the surgery now, and the woman can't be prosecuted for the State's inaction.

A cesarion section has risks, just like any other surgery. Just ask Angela Carder... or not, since she's dead because of State-mandated surgery.

[SarahB]

42. Again- Women are at 4-8 times the risk of death with a c-section

It's not a black and white issue because of this women. However, it is statistics. The US does 11-16% more c-sections than the World Health Organization recomends for optimal outcomes for both mother and baby.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1226843