Woman charged with murder after refusing C-section (page 4)

simplesally

On Jan. 2, a doctor at LDS Hospital saw Rowland and recommended she immediately undergo a C-section based on the results of an ultrasound and the fetus' slowing heart rates. Rowland left after signing a document stating that she understood that leaving might result in death or brain injury to one or both twins, the doctor told police.

It seems to me that since the doctors knew what would happen to the babies....well, they were also negligent in not informing authorities and getting a court order to either induce labor or perform a C-section. They sure know how to get court orders when JWs refuse blood treatment for their children.

Badger

I noticed that too, Sally...I'm not supportive of the JW's blood policy, but it makes more sense than this woman's reason. A court order would have been easy to grab.

jgnat

talesin, I don't mind your correction of the facts. I wrote blindly, without checking this time. For me, that massacre is a memorial for how the mentally ill are shunted aside and ignored, not dealt with, in our society. That is my particular bailiwick. He might as easily separated people with freckles and blown them off, depending on his particular delusion.

I agree with what someone else said, that this woman must face some consequence for her behavior. If she is mentally ill, get treatment for that. Let's not create another baby for grandma and grandpa to raise.

patio34

This is very perplexing and I've benefitted from reading everyone's posts.

Of course, it's horrendous and the woman is definitely "bad," and shouldn't be raising children.

On the other hand, does this open the door a bit more for the government to tell women what they have to do with their bodies? Is it the government's place?

I think a trial is a good thing to hammer all of this out and I'm glad we have courts to settle these hugely important issues that can have great impact on society as a whole and not just the one individual.

Pat

chappy

Something is seriously wrong with the justice system in this country. Why should this woman be charged with murder when it would have been perfectly legal for her to abort the fetus at 7 or 8 months? If she were suffering from say, depression, she would have had legal justification due to "health of the mother"; plus it would have been much more humane to deliver all but the head, gouge an instrument in the back of the neck creating an opening and insert a tube to suction out the brain. This of coarse wouldn't be murder; just her exercising the right to control her own body. No C-section, no scar, no child....perfectly legal.

How do you spell Hypocritical folks???

chappy

patio34

Hi Chappy,

Good point. But are partial-birth abortions legal? I didn't think they were.

At any rate, abortion is not the topic of this discussion, but I wasn't advocating abortion either (I hope I didn't give that impression).

I don't think it's comparable completely to this demanding an operation on her. Besides, I don't know what the government should be doing in this. That's the reason for my opinion about courts.

Besides, where do you think that it would end? It could be carried on much further if the government claims rights over a woman's body.

Pat

patio34

Hi Chappy, Just an FYI about partial birth abortions:

The case stems from a battle over the Partial-Birth Abortion Act, which was passed by Congress last year.

The act, signed by President Bush last year, bars a procedure referred to by critics as partial-birth abortion and by medical organizations as "intact dilation and extraction."

This is at: http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?BRD=1994&dept_id=226374&newsid=11083157&PAG=461&rfi=9

Patio

chappy

The law now makes exeption for the health of the mother. Problem is anything, including depression, can be construed as detrimental to the mothers health. The Justice Department has been attempting to view the records of women who have had D and C's in the last several months to verify if there were "valid" reasons for the proceedure. They have not met with success. Any way you look at it, a viable human is "terminated", ie: murdered via this proceedure. My point was why is this proceedure not considered murder and the C-section case is? Like I said...hypocritical!

chappy

patio34

Hi again Chappy,

Good point, and I don't know why the disparity exists. But it seems to be more complex than A and B it seems to me.

But I don't know where I stand--I just don't like the government dictating what should be done in all cases and, while this case is very blatant, it gets into a lot more areas if a precedent is set. So, I'll just quietly go away and be quiet for now.

Pat

wednesday

It seems odd to me, they knew this woman was mentall ill, why not get court order and do the c-section and take the babies away from her? Our judical system is really a mess, no clear lines.

Woman charged with murder after refusing C-section

Share this