Woman refuses Caesarean and child dies - Is a murder charge fair?

ixoy

Here's an interesting one from CNN :

SALT LAKE CITY, Utah (AP) -- A pregnant 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.

An autopsy found the baby died two days before its January 13 delivery and that it would have survived if Rowland had had a C-section when her doctors urged her to, between Christmas and January 9. The other baby is alive, but authorities had no further information.

The doctors had warned that without a C-section, the twins would probably die, authorities said. 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.

Court documents give no address for Rowland, and she isn't listed in area telephone books. An attorney was to be appointed for her Friday, Morgan said.

The charges carry five years to life in prison. Rowland was jailed on $250,000 bail.

According to the documents, Rowland went to LDS Hospital in Salt Lake City in December to seek advice after she hadn't felt her babies move. A nurse, Regina Davis, told police she instructed Rowland to go immediately to one of two other hospitals, but that Rowland said she would rather have both babies die before going to either place.

On January 2, a doctor at LDS Hospital examined Rowland and recommended an immediate C-section based on an ultrasound and the babies' slowing heart rates. Rowland left, the doctor told police.

The same day, Rowland allegedly saw a nurse at another hospital, saying she had left LDS Hospital because the doctor wanted to cut her "from breast bone to pubic bone."

A week later, Rowland allegedly went to a third hospital to verify whether her babies were alive. A nurse there told police she could not detect a heartbeat from one twin and advised Rowland to remain in the hospital, but Rowland allegedly ignored the advice.

In January, the state Supreme Court ruled that unborn children at all stages of development are covered under the state's criminal homicide statute. The law exempts the death of a fetus during an abortion.

The law has been used to prosecute women who kill or seriously harm their babies through drug use; it has never been used because a woman failed to follow her doctor's advice, said Marguerite Driessen, a law professor at Brigham Young University.

"It's very troubling to have somebody come in and say we're going to charge this mother for murder because we don't like the choices she made," Driessen said.

This is not an abortion issue folks, so do you think the mother deserves a murder charge? I think a charge of negligent homicide is spot on. Her actions are incredibly selfish and I've no sympathy for her. Anyone care to argue differently?

Stark

Hmm, definitely rather selfish. Although I'd probably be scared ****less too if I heard some of the stories about C-sections going badly and was under the impression that I could have one forced on me. It's a brutal surgery IMO, I'm surprised it's so routine.

Ste.phen

I think if it had just been one doctor recommending it and she refused for whatever reason it'd just be a tragic "what if".
Looking at that story however, it seems that she went to 3 seperate hospitals, all told her to have a ceasarian, and she ignored them all, I think thats just reckless, especially if it was (as the prosecution allege) she refused on purely cosmetic reasons.

(i.e "sure my baby could die, but i dont want a scar")

Particularly worrying is

A nurse there told police she could not detect a heartbeat from one twin and advised Rowland to remain in the hospital, but Rowland allegedly ignored the advice.

That to me looks like:
"it looks like one of your babies has died, stay, let us do a ceasarian, it doesnt look good."
"no, i might get scarring, whaaa"

Not that having a ceasarian looks like a lot of fun or anything...

seamus

The doctors had warned that without a C-section, the twins would probably die, authorities said. 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.

Says it all really. If there had been other motivations, such as a serious risk to her own life (anaemia, high blood pressure, etc etc), then no problem.
To sacrifice a life for your vanity is despicable. I don't know if I'd go with the murder charge, but the laws of that state seem to be quite clear.

TBH she sounds like either a fruitcake or white trash. If the latter, locking her up isn't going to be a great loss for the world.

Great topic.

Zulu

quote: "The doctors had warned that without a C-section, the twins would probably die, authorities said. 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."

If that really was her motivation, the shallow cow shouldn't be allowed have children.
To put personal appearances above the life of even a stranger is despicable, let alone your own child!

...She will rot in hell for her choice.

simu

It's her body, her choice. You think she should be forced to have her stomach sliced open? Urgh, how horrible!

ixoy

Originally posted by simu
It's her body, her choice. You think she should be forced to have her stomach sliced open? Urgh, how horrible!

They also sew it back up afterwards, you know? So would you let someone die rather than risk a scarring on your body? Especially if you were responsible for that person?

Imposter

I agree that it was incredibly selfish but I'm not so sure about the murder charge. Looking at what the article says about the law, namely:

In January, the state Supreme Court ruled that unborn children at all stages of development are covered under the state's criminal homicide statute. The law exempts the death of a fetus during an abortion.

it would appear the rights of the mother should not be considered. For me that is a flaw in the ruling above and I think it then boils down to what side of the abortion dabate your opinions fall on as to whether she's guilty or not.

simu

They also sew it back up afterwards, you know? So would you let someone die rather than risk a scarring on your body? Especially if you were responsible for that person?

It should be the woman's choice - if she refuses, you can't lock her up and force her to take surgery she dosen't want to. There are 6 billion ppl on the planet - we're hardly running out of people! Plus, it's not just the scarring. it takes weeks to recover as well.

tribble

Hold on a second folks.

We don't have enought info here.
When she said

nurse told police Rowland said a Caesarean would "ruin her life"

- If she was a model then indeed it would ruin her life. In some jobs its Game Over if you are blemished.

Too bad, you say? - Hey I don't see any of you guys heading out on volunteer posts to Africa to help starving babies... - and even if you did it would be only a small portion of you life, hardly career breaking.

tribble

ps. i play devils advocate here to stir debate - nothing more.

seamus

Originally posted by tribble
Hold on a second folks.

We don't have enought info here.
When she said - If she was a model then indeed it would ruin her life. In some jobs its Game Over if you are blemished.

I still wouldn't call it a valid point. That would be quite similar to "I have a child on the way, but I have such a high-pressure job, that there's no way I could support the child. Since I wouldn't be able to return for at least 16 years, it effectively means the end of my career. Time to get rid."
Now, abortion issue aside, she's perfectly in her right, but not when the child is ready to be born. It would be like her employer telling her just before the birth that she can't stay there, and *then* deciding it's time to get rid. Eh...no. Complications? Tough. Shit happens. Besides, she's 28. Models don't have careers based on one aspect of their looks. If she was a model in our perfectly theoretical situation, she has, at extreme most, 10 years left where she'll model bikinis and belly tops.

Kev

What about women who choose to have their babies at home, if something goes wrong there is no medical backup, should they be done for murder or negligent homicide ?

ixoy

Folks, if you follow the link, you'll see she is not even close to being a model.

Comparing it to abortion is invalid. Abortion is not allowed at the stage these babies died at and it's certainly closer, surely, to being a fully realised person at this point. The fact is that the woman was repeatedly informed of the threat and her only defense was about scarring - not about health risks, ability to raise the child, et cetera. Her inaction, with the knowledge she had, directly led to the death of another. This seems a clear case for negligent homicide.

Stark

Did she actually claim vanity reasons? I've heard that in quite a few cases the scars can be quite painful, and can lead to difficulties moving the affected areas, ie: someone might not be able to walk properly after an c-section.

Also a c-section reduces the changes of a subsequent vaginal birth being successful.

Zulu

Originally posted by simu
It's her body, her choice. You think she should be forced to have her stomach sliced open? Urgh, how horrible!

It is her body, and it was her choice.
She chose not to have a scar and her baby lost its life.
I would gladly suffer a scar to save any member of my family.

She was selfish. This wasn't an abortion. Thats a different issue.
She chose not to be scared, and her child had to die.
What sort of mother chooses her vanity over her childs life?

Selfish, and cowardly. Vain, and irresponsible.
That is a horrendous action. How anyone can condone it is incrediable.

Zulu

Originally posted by k.oriordan
I've heard that in quite a few cases the scars can be quite painful, and can lead to difficulties moving the affected areas, ie: someone might not be able to walk properly after an c-section.

Also a c-section reduces the changes of a subsequent vaginal birth being successful.

This is true - but any mother I know would gladly suffer that for the life of her child.
On that point - my own mother was given the choice between me or her at my birth. I am here. Unconditional love - a true mother.

FYI: the surgeon save both of us. Thank god, and god bless him.

ixoy

Yes and I also was brought into this world by Caesarean section so I'm not much in the mood to tolerate the vanity of a woman spoiling the life of a child.

Imposter

Originally posted by Zulu
She was selfish. This wasn't an abortion. Thats a different issue.

Yes she was selfish but IF her life was in danger wouldn't it boil down to the same argument as abortion? If that was the case she would also have to have the C-section or else it could be classed as murder by what is written of the law above.

Zulu

Originally posted by Imposter
Yes she was selfish but IF her life was in danger wouldn't it boil down to the same argument as abortion? If that was the case she would also have to have the C-section or else it could be classed as murder by what is written of the law above.

IF her life was in danger - then I wouldn't have a problem.
IF her life was in danger, no one would have a problem.
...but it appears that this was for vanity reasons. I have a massive problem with that. Its immoral.

Imposter

Originally posted by Zulu
IF her life was in danger - then I wouldn't have a problem.
IF her life was in danger, no one would have a problem.
...but it appears that this was for vanity reasons. I have a massive problem with that. Its immoral.

But is one a reason for a murder charge and the other not? If you read the original post both would be reasons for a murder charge.

meatball

Wow, I had no idea this board was a little corner of Youth Defence. Maybe all of you nutcases should move to Salt Lake, where you could get all religious 'n straight edge all you want.

If I want rid of a parasite in my body, it's gone, and nobody will tell me otherwise. That it has a level of mental development below that of a rat should make it acceptable to anyone who hasn't been mentally poisoned by Niamh Nic Mhathuna or whatever priest she's currently sucking off.

ixoy

Interesting. Here's a version from Fox News:

Woman Refuses Caesarean, Charged With Murder

Friday, March 12, 2004



SALT LAKE CITY — As Melissa Ann Rowland's unborn twins got closer to birth, doctors repeatedly told her they would likely die if she did not have a Caesarean (search) section. She refused, and one later was stillborn.

Authorities charged 28-year-old Rowland with murder on Thursday, saying she exhibited "depraved indifference to human life," according to court documents. One nurse told police that Rowland said she would rather "lose one of the babies than be cut like that."

The case could affect abortion rights and open the door to the prosecution of mothers who smoke or don't follow their obstetrician's diet, said Marguerite Driessen, a law professor at Brigham Young University (search).

"It's very troubling to have somebody come in and say we're going to charge this mother for murder because we don't like the choices she made," she said.

Court documents did not list an address for Rowland, and she is not listed in telephone books for the Salt Lake City (search) area. It could not immediately be determined whether she had an attorney.

Rowland was warned numerous times between Christmas and Jan. 9 that her unborn twins would likely die if she did not get immediate medical treatment, the documents allege. When she delivered them on Jan. 13, one survived and the other was stillborn.

The woman sought medical advice in December because she hadn't felt the fetuses move, documents said.

Regina Davis, a nurse at LDS Hospital in Salt Lake, told police that during a visit there, Rowland was recommended two hospitals to go to for immediate care. Rowland allegedly said she would rather have both twins die before she went to either of the suggested hospitals.

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.

The same day, a nurse at Salt Lake Regional Hospital saw Rowland, who allegedly told her she had left LDS Hospital because the doctor wanted to cut her "from breast bone to pubic bone," a procedure that would "ruin her life." The nurse also told investigators that Rowland allegedly said she would rather "lose one of her babies than be cut like that."

LDS Hospital can't comment on the case because of medical privacy issues and the pending court case, said spokesman Robert Pexton.

The doctor who performed an autopsy found that the fetus died two days before delivery and would have survived if Rowland had undergone a C-section when urged to do so. It was not immediately clear how far along Rowland was in her pregnancy.

She was charged in Salt Lake County with one first-degree felony count of criminal homicide. Rowland was being held on $250,000 bail at the Salt Lake County jail, and was scheduled to appear in court Tuesday.

If convicted, she could be sentenced to between five years and life in prison.

A spokesman for the district attorney, Kent Morgan, said Rowland is married and has other children, but he did not know how many.

"We are unable to find any reason other than the cosmetic motivations by the mother" for her decision, Morgan said.

Caesarean sections usually involve delivery through a surgical incision in the abdomen and front wall of the uterus. Dr. Christian Morgan, a family practice doctor who regularly performs C-sections at the University of Utah Health Sciences Center, said he had never seen vertical skin incisions performed at LDS Hospital for a first-time C-section.

"Even when you need to get a baby out in minutes, it can still be done in the bikini incision," Christian Morgan said.

What's most interesting are the following pieces:
* Rowland said she would rather "lose one of the babies than be cut like that."
* 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.
* "We are unable to find any reason other than the cosmetic motivations by the mother" for her decision, Morgan said.

The charge is criminal homicide and there's a pretty high bail on this one. There's also another paragraph there which could easily extend the debate here, namely:

The case could affect abortion rights and open the door to the prosecution of mothers who smoke or don't follow their obstetrician's diet, said Marguerite Driessen, a law professor at Brigham Young University/


... I still maintain that, in this specific case, the woman should be charged. Interesting point about the smoking however.

simu

The case could affect abortion rights and open the door to the prosecution of mothers who smoke or don't follow their obstetrician's diet, said Marguerite Driessen, a law professor at Brigham Young University/

This is why I don't think she should be punished. The fact that her reasons for refusing the C-section are shallow is irrelevant. If she is charged, a precedent would be set whereby pregnant mothers are responsible for the life in their own wombs and this could be taken to extremes leading to a diminshing of women's freedom. It does sound extreme that a woman would be punished for smoking during pregnancy or whatever but given the power of fundamentalists in the USA these days, it could happen.

The woman's life and wishes are *always* more important than those of the child in the womb. it's worth keeping women from becoming prisoners of their pregnancies even if it does meen the odd unusual case like the woman in thic case.

Zulu

Originally posted by Imposter
But is one a reason for a murder charge and the other not? If you read the original post both would be reasons for a murder charge.

Yes - very much so (not murder 1, certainly manslaughter or some such).
If the mother is in risk of life - currently that is acceptable by law, as a reason to abort the birth, and kill the child.
If the mother dosen't want a scar... thats VERY different.
Scaring and recovery are NO reason to kill a child about to be born (whatever about a feotus), that is a FACT in ALL pregnancys!

Zulu

Originally posted by meatball
Wow, I had no idea this board was a little corner of Youth Defence. Maybe all of you nutcases should move to Salt Lake, where you could get all religious 'n straight edge all you want.

If I want rid of a parasite in my body, it's gone, and nobody will tell me otherwise. That it has a level of mental development below that of a rat should make it acceptable to anyone who hasn't been mentally poisoned by Niamh Nic Mhathuna or whatever priest she's currently sucking off.

Your about as funny as a car crash.
This isn't about abortion. This is about a baby.

simu

Originally posted by Zulu
Your about as funny as a car crash.
This isn't about abortion. This is about a baby.

It's about women's long struggle to be treated as more than walking baby incubators.

Zulu

Originally posted by simu
This is why I don't think she should be punished. The fact that her reasons for refusing the C-section are shallow is irrelevant. If she is charged, a precedent would be set whereby pregnant mothers are responsible for the life in their own wombs and this could be taken to extremes leading to a diminshing of women's freedom. It does sound extreme that a woman would be punished for smoking during pregnancy or whatever but given the power of fundamentalists in the USA these days, it could happen.

The woman's life and wishes are *always* more important than those of the child in the womb. it's worth keeping women from becoming prisoners of their pregnancies even if it does meen the odd unusual case like the woman in thic case.

OK - let me get this straight.
Because the baby is in her womb - she can do what she pleases?

I ask you - in your opinion is it ok for a pregnant woman to take drugs?
Drink alchol?
Smoke?

...If you answer is yes to any of the above - I really hope your not a woman.


Before this veers off down the abortion issue, let me make it clear. This isn;t abortion.
Abortion is the womans choice (in my eyes), but it isn't abortion after x weeks (someone feel free to fill in the x).

Zulu

Originally posted by simu
It's about women's long struggle to be treated as more than walking baby incubators.

No it's not, Its about caring for your children!

That is an unbelievable attitude!

seamus

Originally posted by simu
It's about women's long struggle to be treated as more than walking baby incubators.

It's not like women are impregnated in a factory against their will. If this woman didn't want her children she should have had an abortion early on. The fact that she continued to carry the children and was apathetic about their survival tells me she's a moron and a danger to any future or current children she has.

Zulu

Originally posted by simu
It's about women's long struggle to be treated as more than walking baby incubators.

By that logic - it's ok for parents not to feed babies, because - it's about adults long struggle not to be treated and walking food vending machines!
:rolleyes:

Are you messing?

simu

Originally posted by Zulu
OK - let me get this straight.
Because the baby is in her womb - she can do what she pleases?

I ask you - in your opinion is it ok for a pregnant woman to take drugs?
Drink alchol?
Smoke?

...If you answer is yes to any of the above - I really hope your not a woman.


Before this veers off down the abortion issue, let me make it clear. This isn;t abortion.
Abortion is the womans choice (in my eyes), but it isn't abortion after x weeks (someone feel free to fill in the x).

I wouldn't recommend taking drugs and all but still, it's up to the woman to chose what she does with her own body. It's better that a minority of women do take drugs etc during pregnancy than all women having to try to eliminate all risk (impossible anyway) during pregnancy in case thay get thrown into prison if something goes wrong.

Roll on the day when the artificial womb is invented, all the same!

Zulu

Originally posted by simu
I wouldn't recommend taking drugs and all but still, it's up to the woman to chose what she does with her own body. It's better that a minority of women do take drugs etc during pregnancy than all women having to try to eliminate all risk (impossible anyway) during pregnancy in case thay get thrown into prison if something goes wrong.

Roll on the day when the artificial womb is invented, all the same!

Unbelieveable! You wouldn't recommend it!
Serious brain damage to the child. Major complications - but you wouldn't recommend it!
It is the responsibility of the mother to protect the child she carries. The child is relying on the mother.

I will agree with you on the artificial womb though - seen as there are poeple out there with attitudes similar to yours.

(again - abortion and mothers not wanting children is different issue)

seamus

Originally posted by Zulu
It is the responsibility of the mother to protect the child she carries. The child is relying on the mother.

I was going to edit my post to say that, but sure I'll reply.
IMO, in a country where a mother has the freedom to choose, then if the mother chooses to carry the child to term, she has a responsibility to ensure the health and well-being of the child while it grows inside of her. If she's not prepared to do that, she should abort.
That includes dietary responsibilities. Drinking and smoking are OK in very tiny amounts, although obviously it would be recommended to avoid heavy toxins completely. I'm not saying that she should surrender her life for 9 months, but be aware that she has a responsibility to the thing growing inside her so that when it does become human, it can live a rich life.

My 2c.

ixoy

Originally posted by simu
It's better that a minority of women do take drugs etc during pregnancy than all women having to try to eliminate all risk (impossible anyway) during pregnancy in case thay get thrown into prison if something goes wrong.

My you're missing the point. The risk in this case could have been eliminated. It was not unavoidable.
Your attitude that it's okay for some to do it is also similarly weak. You're trying to whip up a defence by using an extremist argument. No one here is saying that any woman who touches a cigarette should be placed in prison. This woman, by virtue of not terminating her pregnancy, made a very clear and conscious decision to continue with her pregnancy with the intent to deliver. There's a responsibility on her then to see the matter through. Even more so is that she knew that inaction would result in death. Using cigarettes is less arguable because it will not, as in this case, result in the death of a child.
The problem with this is extreme leftists try and point to the law as being unfair to the "right" of the mother whereas in this case the right of the child (it's gone beyond being a "foetus" in the terms of abortion) and the notion of human responsibility (gone in the day of compo culture) are ignored in shrill bleatings of propaganda.

Zulu

Originally posted by seamus
I was going to edit my post to say that, but sure I'll reply.
IMO, in a country where a mother has the freedom to choose, then if the mother chooses to carry the child to term, she has a responsibility to ensure the health and well-being of the child while it grows inside of her. If she's not prepared to do that, she should abort.
That includes dietary responsibilities. Drinking and smoking are OK in very tiny amounts, although obviously it would be recommended to avoid heavy toxins completely. I'm not saying that she should surrender her life for 9 months, but be aware that she has a responsibility to the thing growing inside her so that when it does become human, it can live a rich life.

My 2c.

Hear Hear!
Your 2c is worth it's weight in gold!
my point worded a little better

meatball

It's not a child, it's a fetus. It has an extremely low level of mental development and is not worthy of the same rights as an adult human. It certainly isn't worth limiting the rights of the adult human in whose body it currently resides.

Zulu

Originally posted by meatball
It's not a child, it's a fetus. It has an extremely low level of mental development and is not worthy of the same rights as an adult human. It certainly isn't worth limiting the rights of the adult human in whose body it currently resides.

Thats not true.
It is commonly accepted as a baby at nine months gyestation.

As for your comments relating mental development to human rights, dose that logic also apply to handicaped people, and 2month old babies?
Flimsy argument at best!

seamus

Originally posted by meatball
It's not a child, it's a fetus. It has an extremely low level of mental development and is not worthy of the same rights as an adult human. It certainly isn't worth limiting the rights of the adult human in whose body it currently resides.

You seem to have an extremely low level of mental development. Perhaps we should kill you because you're annoying us.

No, seriously, that means it's ok to decimate everything that's not human? Eliminate all plant and animal life. Let's leave nothing left but humans and buildings.
Weak argument, stop trolling tbh.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by simu
It's about women's long struggle to be treated as more than walking baby incubators.

What a load of crap.

The woman was advised repeatedly to have the procedure from January 2 - less than two weeks before the twins were born (one stillborn the other in an undetermined condition). So we’re hardly discussing an amorphous ball of cells, are we? The incubation was finished - they were trying to get them out. Two weeks later and we would be talking a clear cut case of infanticide. Or would you consider infanticide also acceptable simu?

dr_manhattan

Dayum! getting heated here already.
Cool it folks - this is the type of "news issue" that becomes a bandwagon with a big "either with us or against us" sign on it. No point getrting upset.

Now this:

" If I want rid of a parasite in my body, it's gone, and nobody will tell me otherwise. That it has a level of mental development below that of a rat should make it acceptable to anyone who hasn't been mentally poisoned by Niamh Nic Mhathuna or whatever priest she's currently sucking off.?"

is the type of irrational ****e that makes me ashamed that I campaigned for freedom of choice. Using the term "parasite" for a human foetus is scientifically incorrect, crass, vulgar and probably just trolling. Get a life for crying out loud.

How and ever: consider this.

I personally believe from what i've read that the mother is insane. However, that's just what I've read, and it wouldn't be the first time a woman was made to sound like a callous, ditsy killer when opther factors were mitigating.

Now, while I think that she's unbalanced, I'm not sure if I think she should be charged with murder.

Reproductive control is an issue which the conservative, fundamentalist right have been trying for years to bring into the law courts under "murder". I am not sure AT ALL whether or not any woman should be charged with murder for acts in relation to a child which her blood supply has kept alive for nine months. I'm not sure it's society's place to put a court in the womb, so to speak.

Now I'm sure that there's other statutes she scould be served under. I'm sure there's other ways that, if necessary, she could be punished.

But I'll put it this way: we live in a society that promotes stupid, lazy, selfish thought ACTIVELY. We also live in a society which enforces body ideals, especially on women, with ruthless efficiency. Anorexia, Bulimia, there's many, many psychological dosorders related to body ideal alone. Many more (munchausen by proxy for example) related to the pressures and stresses of having a child.

So when these stupid, lazy, slefish motiviations coincide with a difficult pregancy and a dumb, selfish mother, should we really start laying blame about the place?

before anyone starts, I am not excusing her actions. They *sound* (and I must emphasise "sound" - lket's remember this woman is a couple thousand miles away and we do not know the full story) completely insane. I am simply saying that I don't think a murder rap is warranted or indeed should be used.

This woman seems to me like someone who is utterly unaware of what she's done: Given that we are a kind of sick society, given that there are MANY people in the world who might even blame us, as citizens of the west, for all sorts of inhumanity, could we not be a bit slower to get on the old high horse about it?

Zulu

Originally posted by dr_manhattan
This woman seems to me like someone who is utterly unaware of what she's done: Given that we are a kind of sick society, given that there are MANY people in the world who might even blame us, as citizens of the west, for all sorts of inhumanity, could we not be a bit slower to get on the old high horse about it?

Dr_Manhattan - I challange you to a duel!

Surely you don't excuse ignorance?
Quick question because you are unaware that you killed someone - dose that make it ok?
(yes or no please)

dr_manhattan

Don't get me wrong, zulu (he said, choosing his pistol....lol)

Anyways, you got TWO one word answers out of me, noooo way am I shutting up for this one ;-)

I don't excuse ignorance. However I don't punish it by the most extreme available means, either: all I am saying is, this woman should not get a murder rap for this.

I mean, this is the kind of behaviour that makes people tut tut and talk about licenses to have children: I have no idea what should be done to stop this "type" of thing happenning, but one thing I am certain of is that i am opposed to laws that make women punishable for the deaths of children they carry. Simple as that.

Remember also, Utah has the death penalty. It's conceivable (no pun intended, ahem) that this woman could be executed by something akin to mob rule.

And in answer to your question: no I don't think people should be held responsible for deaths they do not know they have caused. But I do think there is a certain obligation on people to know where exactly they stand in the world.

For example, if two american Jews wind up wandering into a hardcore islamic militant camp in kazakhstan, I'm not saying they deserve to be killed because of percieved US zionist aggression, not at all: but i am saying they should know what is going on in the world.

And in lesser examples, to lesser degrees, if you get me. People in the west should not, for example, act all confused and "why us?" if they find themselves hated by people in developing countries. We in the west should know that our grandparents were thieves of the highest order: and so we should not be surprised when the people they stole from seem a bit... miffed at us. Until we give back enough resources for people to be educated, we can't expect them to know that we are not 100% behind our governments, no?

Anyways, i'm starting to blabla here. Long day. Gonna go drink a pint very soon and kiss the nicest lady in the world ;-)

Life is good sometimes.

meatball

No, actually it's still a fetus, to people who understand what the word means.

Originally posted by Zulu
As for your comments relating mental development to human rights, dose that logic also apply to handicaped people, and 2month old babies?

The logic that an entity’s rights should be proportional to its level of mental development should ideally apply to everything. Of course, it leads to conclusions that a lot of people find unpalatable.

Originally posted by seamus
No, seriously, that means it's ok to decimate everything that's not human? Eliminate all plant and animal life.

No, it doesn't. Quite the opposite. Much animal life has a level of mental development superior to that of a fetus, or child, or even an adult mentally handicapped person. We see fit to perform medical experiments on the great apes, but do the same to a tard and you will end up in jail. Odd.

Zulu

Originally posted by meatball
No, actually it's still a fetus, to people who understand what the word means

Why don't you just go ahead and quote the dictonary?
Everyone else recognises the fact that a child that late in gyestation isn't considered a fetous, hence in countrys where abortion is legal, they don't permit abortion that late in the pregnancy (unless there is serious life threatning circumstances).

...but go ahead and quote the dictionary, attempt to prove me wrong, and prove your point to no-one.

As for this comment...

Originally posted by meatball
The logic that an entity’s rights should be proportional to its level of mental development should ideally apply to everything. Of course, it leads to conclusions that a lot of people find unpalatable.

...really nice, informed point of view there. You should have a chat with the BNP - they hold a similar disregard to life.
:rolleyes:

The Corinthian

Originally posted by meatball
The logic that an entity’s rights should be proportional to its level of mental development should ideally apply to everything. Of course, it leads to conclusions that a lot of people find unpalatable.

Fair enough. Of course you then has to consider how one measures mental development. A hundred years ago measuring the distance between your temples generally did this. Now it’s done (even with animals) though statistically based tests.

Of course, if one accepts a purely utilitarian morality, what you say is quite reasonable. However, you seem rather happy to accept subjective data as absolute fact when making an evaluation. This would be an irrational position.

Zombrex

As far as I can see the woman refused to have an operation on her body, and because of that someone died. It is very morally low (espeically if she did it just for vanity reasons), but I am not sure how she can be charged with murder. If someone needed my kidney and I refused to give it to them would I be charged with their murder??

BTW The picture of her on CNN is scary as sh*t!!!!

Victor

Perhaps a slightly more balanced and informative article. I think the "cut like that" comment is telling, insofar as her impression may have been the intention has to nearly cut her abdomen in half. If shes had mental issues, that explanation may be more telling.

I'm nervous around surgical types (for me psychologically hospital = death) and nearly battered my chiropodist (foot doctor) when she took out a scalpel (to cut my toenail), because I thought she was going to cut me. Upscale toe to abdomen.

Murder? No. Some responsibility. Yes.

http://home.eircom.net/content/reuters/worldnews/2726981?view=Eircomnet

Woman who refused Caesarean charged with murder
From:Reuters
Friday, 12th March, 2004

SALT LAKE CITY (Reuters) - A Utah woman has been charged with murder after she repeatedly refused a Caesarean because she feared the scars and one of her twins was stillborn, officials say.

Salt Lake County prosecutors charged Melissa Ann Rowland, 28, on Thursday with criminal homicide after she was warned by doctors late last year and again in early January to get medical attention for the twins she was carrying.

The twins were delivered on January 13 and one of them, a boy, was stillborn.

"The charges, though unusual are justified," Kent Morgan, deputy Salt Lake County prosecutor said on Friday. "She was giving more weight to vanity than to the human life."

The woman declined the Caesarean section because she said she feared being scarred by the surgery.

"Even though she may not have intended to kill the child, she had a state of mind of utter callousness and indifference for his life," Morgan said.

The woman's attorney Michael Sikora told The Salt Lake Tribune that his client had a long history of mental illness and was first committed to a hospital at age 12.

According to court documents Rowland was told by physicians from three hospitals to have a C-section because her unborn children were in danger.

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

An autopsy found the baby died two days before delivery and could have survived if the recommended surgery had been performed, according to court documents.

McGinty

I was tempted to reply having read the first post only but glad I didn't and read all the posts.

Dr. Manhattan here, here. I agree totally with all you've said. I am totally opposed to this woman being charged with murder. Personally her mental health should have been accessed as soon as she refused on cosmetic grounds, someone should have counselled her. To just slap a conviction on her and throw away the key is a load of crap and slaps of simplistic thinking and simplistic actions to a complex situation.

Has anyone here actually had a c-section? I ask because I have and I was faced with a similar dilmena, however I personally didn't want to see my son die, but there are health complications with a c-section. When I asked what could be the implications if I go ahead, I was told I could have kidney and/or liver failure. I then asked what would happen to my baby if I didn't go ahead, I was told he could die. I didn't want him to die so I had the section, and whilst I don't regret my son for one second, I will not have another baby or go through that torture again, because for me it was. I haemorrhaged badly afterwards (which is common after c-sections) and it took me weeks to walk upright and months for the pain to go away. The only point I will agree with is that the scar is tiny and you would barely notice it as it runs along the bikini line. Cosmetic reasons would be the last reason to refuse a section based on my personal knowledge, yet having a section is no light matter either and I would hate if I was forced by law to have another one, and for those of you who will never, ever be faced with that dilemna, I believe you should adopt a more open mind to those who could be faced with it.

Yes it appears the woman was 'selfish' but we are only reading what has been presented by the media and their interpretation of events. Yes the women needs to be made responsible but a jail sentence is not the answer, because like what others have mentioned how far will the law go.

As to the stupid comments about the mental development of a baby, it is not relevant to this or any issue. At one time we were all at that mental devleopment, that is what life is about, ongoing development, be it physical, mental or emotional.

Tenshot

I noticed this story headlined on Google News and read some of the other articles about it. A more sympathetic view is at:

http://www.magicvalley.com/news/worldnation/index.asp?StoryID=8076

It includes the following quote attributed to the mother:

At no time did doctors tell her she needed an emergency procedure, she said, adding she would have had no objections to a C-section since she had two previous ones during the births of her other two young children, ages 7 and 9, who live with the parents of Rowland's estranged husband. She said she was never concerned about her babies' health because in all her hospital visits, she was told they had good heartbeats and were fine.

The last bit seems significantly at odds with what the hospitals are saying. However, if she'd had C-sections before, that would definitely rule out any concerns over cosmetic side-effects.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by McGinty
Personally her mental health should have been accessed as soon as she refused on cosmetic grounds, someone should have counselled her. To just slap a conviction on her and throw away the key is a load of crap and slaps of simplistic thinking and simplistic actions to a complex situation.

There may not have been any legal recourse for even making her take counselling. In so far as a conviction, as you suggested, there has not been any as yet - a successful plea of insanity may well be the ultimate direction that this case may take, after all. What has occurred is that the woman has been charged, not convicted, and this may well be as a result of there being no other options available to the authorities, rather than a simplistic reaction.

Yes it appears the woman was 'selfish' but we are only reading what has been presented by the media and their interpretation of events. Yes the women needs to be made responsible but a jail sentence is not the answer, because like what others have mentioned how far will the law go.

Upon reflection a simple charge of murder is possibly inaccurate. After all, one may use the same arguments were someone to refuse to donate a kidney to save the life of a relative. It might not be murder, however but it may well be something else.

Also, to say that incarceration is not appropriate is another matter again. Murder is not a black and white affair (outside of Alabama). It is often classified in many forms, such as manslaughter, wrongful killing, premeditated homicide and even honour killing. A drunk driver may kill someone on the road, but it’s not exactly the same as an assassin coolly killing their target - nonetheless, both are criminal offences that require punishment.

So while we may not ultimately be discussing murder that does not mean that a crime was not committed. The woman may be as culpable as a drunk driver who killed someone, not because they wanted to, but because of selfish irresponsibility. If so, then law and punishment is appropriate.

As to the stupid comments about the mental development of a baby, it is not relevant to this or any issue. At one time we were all at that mental devleopment, that is what life is about, ongoing development, be it physical, mental or emotional.

Meatball appeared to present that rather amoral and utilitarian approach. However, as I attempted to point out, even if one accepts the philosophical basis of what he said, his reasoning was ill considered even on that level and based more on anti-Catholicism than anything else.

simu

Wow it's easy to shock people around here!

What I am saying is that if you start prosecuting women like this, there is no knowing how far people will go with the trend, especially seeing the strong current of religious fundamentalism in some states of the USA these days. Who's going to decide what responsibility is? what happens if jilted lovers start try to frame women who are carrying their offspring as revenge? What happens if you take drugs before you know you are pregnant? Will women have to take out damage insurance when they get pregnant?

Woemn have won the right to be autonomous individuals in most Western countries but it's not a given yet. Who is to say the whole thing dosen't swing back? This is why I am very wary about this woman being imprisoned/sued.


Many people here would prefer to get all upset about the poor little cuddly babies. :rolleyes: