Hospital sought court order to force C Section

Lyaiera

clairefontaine wrote: »

the unborn's right to life is a religious, a Catholic ethos.

Ok. It's plain you're in favour of a term child dying. Fair enough. I find that as reprehensible as Christianity.

eviltwin

Candie wrote: »

Me too, but I think a full-term foetus has to have some considerations too.

It's where those rights conflict that the line is fuzzy.

I don't totally disregard the rights of a full term baby but as I have mentioned before I feel uncomfortable with the idea of a woman being forced to have surgery she doesn't want. I would be worried where it ends and what women could be forced to do in order to protect their babies.

Princess Peach

clairefontaine wrote: »

Why would that be about religion and the state?

This particular case is about religion because it, according to the hospital rep was about a woman's constitutional right to refuse treatment vs the unborn's right to life, and the unborn's right to life is a religious, a Catholic ethos.

If you look at the language, it had NOTHING to do with saving the woman's life at all.

There really isn't a lot of information given on the article, but it does state not having the surgery was risky for both mother and child. As it didn't ultimately go to court we can't really make much assumptions on what the ruling would have been or how the mother's health would have been taken into account.

In my opinion anyway, in a late term pregnancy I think intervention is necessary if it saves a baby and doesn't hugely affect the health of the mother. I understand an adult has the right to refuse surgery themselves but at this stage of a pregnancy I would support the same level of intervention as to the examples given of other cases about children and parents refusing treatment.

It is tough to comment on this one without all the information about the medical conditions and consequences.

clairefontaine

Princess Peach wrote: »

There really isn't a lot of information given on the article, but it does state not having the surgery was risky for both mother and child. As it didn't ultimately go to court we can't really make much assumptions on what the ruling would have been or how the mother's health would have been taken into account.

In my opinion anyway, in a late term pregnancy I think intervention is necessary if it saves a baby and doesn't hugely affect the health of the mother. I understand an adult has the right to refuse surgery themselves but at this stage of a pregnancy I would support the same level of intervention as to the examples given of other cases about children and parents refusing treatment.

It is tough to comment on this one without all the information about the medical conditions and consequences.

Well see there is the rub. Intervention is not all its cracked up to be. There are risks in surgery too and "hugely affect the health of the mother..." well that could mean anything.

Sections are still surgery and with surgery comes risk. This woman already had one and who knows what happened with that one to make her adamant about not having another one.

I think you are in very dodgy territory when you lose consent over medical procedures.

eviltwin

eviltwin wrote: »

I don't totally disregard the rights of a full term baby but as I have mentioned before I feel uncomfortable with the idea of a woman being forced to have surgery she doesn't want. I would be worried where it ends and what women could be forced to do in order to protect their babies.

Not all women would be protecting the babies though, some would be endangering their lives.

There are people who's children have died from measles complications, because they insisted on treating them 'naturally' instead of allowing medical intervention. Their adherence to their ideology was not in the best interest of their children, although I'm sure they believed it was.

There could conceivably be an occasion where a mother is so ethically opposed to C-section or other intervention, that the life of the baby is endangered so the woman can exercise her right to choose the treatment. Thats the scenario I'd be most concerned about, that a baby would die because the mother insists she knows best, against all logic or best medical advice.

I thought of this because I personally know someone who's child almost died (not in Ireland) because although the parents suspected meningitis, they elected to treat the child with herbal remedies instead of seeking the prompt treatment needed. Eventually they did seek treatment, but it was too late. The child didn't die, but is brain damaged and disabled.

The same mother had previously elected to give birth at home - as is her right - against medical advice, after complications in her first pregnancy. There was a problem with the delivery and only the fast action of the paramedics prevented a tragedy.

There may be some pregnant women who are so terrified of a section that the fear leads to a fatal delay in the child being delivered. I don't envy the doctors dealing with those situations.

In short, doctors do not always know best. But mothers don't always know best either, so it's never going to be a black and white situation where one's rights should always supersede the others.

The default should always be that the mothers rights come first, but there are going to have to be exceptions, unpalatable as that is.

eviltwin

Candie wrote: »

Not all women would be protecting the babies though, some would be endangering their lives.

There are people who's children have died from measles complications, because they insisted on treating them 'naturally' instead of allowing medical intervention. Their adherence to their ideology was not in the best interest of their children, although I'm sure they believed it was.

There could conceivably be an occasion where a mother is so ethically opposed to C-section or other intervention, that the life of the baby is endangered so the woman can exercise her right to choose the treatment. Thats the scenario I'd be most concerned about, that a baby would die because the mother insists she knows best, against all logic or best medical advice.

I thought of this because I personally know someone who's child almost died (not in Ireland) because although the parents suspected meningitis, they elected to treat the child with herbal remedies instead of seeking the prompt treatment needed. Eventually they did seek treatment, but it was too late. The child didn't die, but is brain damaged and disabled.

The same mother had previously elected to give birth at home - as is her right - against medical advice, after complications in her first pregnancy. There was a problem with the delivery and only the fast action of the paramedics prevented a tragedy.

There may be some pregnant women who are so terrified of a section that the fear leads to a fatal delay in the child being delivered. I don't envy the doctors dealing with those situations.

In short, doctors do not always know best. But mothers don't always know best either, so it's never going to be a black and white situation where one's rights should always supersede the others.

The default should always be that the mothers rights come first, but there are going to have to be exceptions, unpalatable as that is.

There is a difference I feel between the rights of the unborn child vs the born one. Once the child is a seperate entity from the mother then he or she should be treated as an individual but until then I do feel the mother should come first.

I know I am probably in the minority with that and I don't feel entirely comfortable saying it but I can only be honest. As for where it ends would people feel pregnant women should be prevented doing anything that could be considered risky ? Because that's what I would be worried about.

meeeeh

clairefontaine wrote: »

Why would that be about reliugion and the state?

This particular case is about religion because it, according to the hospital rep was about a woman's constitutional right to refuse treatment vs the unborn's right to life, and the unborn's right to life is a religious, a Catholic ethos.

If you look at the language, it had NOTHING to do with saving the woman's life at all.

Are you seriously suggesting that the countries who have atheist or any other ethos wouldn't take in consideration rights of full term baby?

clairefontaine

Candie wrote: »

Not all women would be protecting the babies though, some would be endangering their lives.

There are people who's children have died from measles complications, because they insisted on treating them 'naturally' instead of allowing medical intervention. Their adherence to their ideology was not in the best interest of their children, although I'm sure they believed it was.

There could conceivably be an occasion where a mother is so ethically opposed to C-section or other intervention, that the life of the baby is endangered so the woman can exercise her right to choose the treatment. Thats the scenario I'd be most concerned about, that a baby would die because the mother insists she knows best, against all logic or best medical advice.

I thought of this because I personally know someone who's child almost died (not in Ireland) because although the parents suspected meningitis, they elected to treat the child with herbal remedies instead of seeking the prompt treatment needed. Eventually they did seek treatment, but it was too late. The child didn't die, but is brain damaged and disabled.

The same mother had previously elected to give birth at home - as is her right - against medical advice, after complications in her first pregnancy. There was a problem with the delivery and only the fast action of the paramedics prevented a tragedy.

There may be some pregnant women who are so terrified of a section that the fear leads to a fatal delay in the child being delivered. I don't envy the doctors dealing with those situations.

In short, doctors do not always know best. But mothers don't always know best either, so it's never going to be a black and white situation where one's rights should always supersede the others.

The default should always be that the mothers rights come first, but there are going to have to be exceptions, unpalatable as that is.

Yes that does happen.

I also know a woman who nearly died in hospital because she caught mrsa after her section and would have left an adolescent daughter and her newborn son parentless, probably left to a life of foster care.

And I know someone else who's child was referred to a surgeon who has two childrens' deaths on his record.

So we all know people who are examples that counter whichever side you look at.

clairefontaine

meeeeh wrote: »

Are you seriously suggesting that the countries who have atheist or any other ethos wouldn't take in consideration rights of full term baby?

In the US, they prioritise in the constitutional right to refuse medical treatment first. The only way medics can override this is if they deem you as insane.

Can you name another country in the west where "the right to life of the unborn" comes into play?

XxMCRxBabyxX

clairefontaine wrote: »

And I know someone else who's child was referred to a surgeon who has two childrens' deaths on his record.

Nearly every surgeon will have deaths on their records. That doesn't make them a bad surgeon. Death is a risk of every surgery.

I think the hospital were right to do what they did. A full term baby has as much of a right to life as its mother. They hospital were clearly concerned if they took a case. They wouldn't have done it for nothing.

XxMCRxBabyxX

clairefontaine wrote: »

Can you name another country in the west where "the right to life of the unborn" comes into play?

Fetal Rights

One of the examples given is quite significant here:

Melissa Ann Rowland of Salt Lake City, Utah was charged with murder in 2004 after her refusal to undergo a caesarean section resulted in one of the two in her twin pregnancy being stillborn.[17] Rowland was later sentenced to 18 months probation as a result of secondary charge of child endangerment.[18]

clairefontaine

clairefontaine wrote: »

And I know someone else who's child was referred to a surgeon who has two childrens' deaths on his record.

Which doesn't mean that it's his or her fault. No surgeon is infallible, because all surgeons are human beings.

Morag

Association for Improvements in the Maternity Services, Ireland

https://www.facebook.com/aims.ireland

So, there you go - looks like 13 days over EDD, previous section, and fetal positioning were the reasons noted on the affidavit by Dr Ahmed Osama Aiat.

It appears that the Judge was not informed of precisely what that risk is.

The risks of rupture are as follows:
2.3% for those women who had labour induced.
0.7% for those who had spontaneous labours
4.5% for those who had prostaglandin inductions
0.8% for those with a previous caesarean scar
3.7% for those with two caesarean scars
8% in those with a bicornate or septate uterus who had been induced with prostaglandin gel (one of these cases had oxytocin as well).

It is induction and acceleration that increases significantly the risk of rupture. If you have a spontaneous labour there is a very marginal increase in risk compared with women who have no scar or 1 in 1000.

It is high time Irish women stared sueing for assault. Did you all know a woman in the uk won 36,000 for a forced caesarean?

http://www.aimsireland.com

clairefontaine

clairefontaine wrote: »

So we all know people who are examples that counter whichever side you look at.

Well I'm trying to see it from both sides. I think the mothers rights should be prioritised, but there will be times when its morally right for the mothers rights to take second place. I can't accept any concept of a full term baby having no rights, I find that position abhorrent by my personal moral code (I have no religious influences).

Put the baby's rights second and it'll pay with its life in this case. Put the mothers rights second and although that would be a trauma, and I'm not downplaying the seriousness of that, but she will (in all likelihood) survive.

Give no consideration to either's right to life, and it's apparently very possible both will die.

I know what option is the lesser of all those evils in my personal cost/benefit breakdown.

clairefontaine

XxMCRxBabyxX wrote: »

Fetal Rights

One of the examples given is quite significant here:

Ah Mormons.


I had read about things like this a couple of years ago where some southern states were trying to prosecute pregnant women for drug use.

Then they also passed a law that if you shoot a pregnant woman you get a double homicide charge.

This is particularly frightening:

"No U.S. state has enacted a law which criminalizes specific behavior during pregnancy, but, nonetheless, it has been estimated that at least 200 American women have been criminally prosecuted or arrested under existing child abuse statutes for allegedly bringing about harm in-utero through their conduct during pregnancy"

So there are no laws enacted but they are getting arrested anyway and prosecuted for laws that dont exist. That's nuts.

meeeeh

clairefontaine wrote: »

In the US, they prioritise in the constitutional right to refuse medical treatment first. The only way medics can override this is if they deem you as insane.

Can you name another country in the west where "the right to life of the unborn" comes into play?

Every country that does not allow abortion after certain age. So in every country I know.

Edit: as far as I'm aware in this case was also a risk to mothers life, so I don't know from where the idea that baby's rights took priority. Unless someone knows a bit more then I do about the court case.

clairefontaine

Candie wrote: »

Well I'm trying to see it from both sides. I think the mothers rights should be prioritised, but there will be times when its morally right for the mothers rights to take second place. I can't accept any concept of a full term baby having no rights, I find that position abhorrent by my personal moral code (I have no religious influences).

Put the baby's rights second and it'll pay with its life in this case. Put the mothers rights second and although that would be a trauma, and I'm not downplaying the seriousness of that, but she will (in all likelihood) survive.

Give no consideration to either's right to life, and it's apparently very possible both will die.

I know what option is the lesser of all those evils in my personal cost/benefit breakdown.

And there we are....back to the at what point in gestation does the baby start having rights that supercede the mother's right to consent over her body.

XxMCRxBabyxX

clairefontaine wrote: »

And there we are....back to the at what point in gestation does the baby start having rights that supercede the mother's right to consent over her body.

IMO: The point where a child has high (85% - 100%) chance of living outside of the womb. 8/9 months I suppose. I don't see that as unfair.

The mother has a right to consent over her body but intervention should be done if she is willing to risk her child's life by evoking those rights.

clairefontaine

meeeeh wrote: »

Every country that does not allow abortion after certain age. So in every country I know.

Edit: as far as I'm aware in this case was also a risk to mothers life, so I don't know from where the idea that baby's rights took priority. Unless someone knows a bit more then I do about the court case.

No. The "right to life of the unborn" is not concerned with the age of the feotus, it is a life from conception. It has nothing to do with after a certain amount of time in gestation.

Elective abortions are prohibited in many countries after a certain period of time, but abortions are allowed in many countries later if the life of the mother is in danger, except of course Ireland, where Savita died right?

clairefontaine

clairefontaine wrote: »

And there we are....back to the at what point in gestation does the baby start having rights that supercede the mother's right to consent over her body.

It can never be black and white, and the whole issue of rights hierarchy is as grey as it gets.

Pregnant women should generally come first, no question.

But no one should have the right to wantonly destroy a 9 month old, viable baby - not that I think that would ever be a common scenario.

clairefontaine

Candie wrote: »

It can never be black and white, and the whole issue of rights hierarchy is as grey as it gets.

Pregnant women should generally come first, no question.

But no one should have the right to wantonly destroy a 9 month old, viable baby - not that I think that would ever be a common scenario.

It wasnt a destiny, it was a risk in this case. We don't know what percentage the risk was.

Would you be outraged if the risk was 1%? .05%? 10%? of the baby's life being compromised? BEcause I don't think its a question of wontonly destroying a full term infant, but more a question of risk assessment and trust.

Do you think if she took that risk and something did happen she should be criminally prosecuted?

I'm not asking you this to pester you by the way or because I don't believe you or even because I disagree with you, but just to flesh out where you stand with it.

pwurple

eviltwin wrote: »

I would be worried where it ends and what women could be forced to do in order to protect their babies.

I don't believe that such an exceptional case is enough for the slippery slope argument.

From reading other court reports I got the impression the risk was to the mother due to rupture, rather than to the child. But the tabloids won't let the truth stand in the way of a good story.

meeeeh

clairefontaine wrote: »

No. The "right to life of the unborn" is not concerned with the age of the feotus, it is a life from conception. It has nothing to do with after a certain amount of time in gestation.

Elective abortions are prohibited in many countries after a certain period of time, but abortions are allowed in many countries later if the life of the mother is in danger, except of course Ireland, where Savita died right?

Yes and your point is? Mothers right to life trumps but in this case there was more risk to mothers life if there is no c section.

irishgirl19

Why she didn't get it in the first place is beyond me

clairefontaine

Well in that case then let the Irish state and the doctors decide for Irish women exactly how they should give birth. It's pretty much how it stands now anyway.

Very interesting link Morag provided.

This is an excerpt from its home page.

"Midwives who make an individual assessment, that the mother and baby are safer birthing at home than in a hospital setting, despite falling outside generalized guidelines, are punishable by law with a €60,000 fine and/or a 10 year prison sentence. Women who make an informed decision, against the uninformed terms, are threatened with having their midwife barred from attending them in childbirth and having their baby taken into State custody at birth."

http://www.aimsireland.com/homepage/?topic=home

meeeeh

clairefontaine wrote: »

Well in that case then let the Irish state and the doctors decide for Irish women exactly how they should give birth. It's pretty much how it stands now anyway.

Very interesting link Morag provided.

This is an excerpt from its home page.

"Midwives who make an individual assessment, that the mother and baby are safer birthing at home than in a hospital setting, despite falling outside generalized guidelines, are punishable by law with a €60,000 fine and/or a 10 year prison sentence. Women who make an informed decision, against the uninformed terms, are threatened with having their midwife barred from attending them in childbirth and having their baby taken into State custody at birth."

http://www.aimsireland.com/homepage/?topic=home

And?

clairefontaine

clairefontaine wrote: »

It wasnt a destiny, it was a risk in this case. We don't know what percentage the risk was.

Would you be outraged if the risk was 1%? .05%? 10%? of the baby's life being compromised? BEcause I don't think its a question of wontonly destroying a full term infant, but more a question of risk assessment and trust.

Do you think if she took that risk and something did happen she should be criminally prosecuted?

I'm not asking you this to pester you by the way or because I don't believe you or even because I disagree with you, but just to flesh out where you stand with it.

I'm not talking about this case there in particular there. I'm talking about the general concept of:

a) a full term baby having rights/no rights/or rights always superceded by those of the mother

and

b) The rights of the mother to do nothing, or do act in a way that perhaps deliberately/wantonly, or perhaps ignorantly/inadvertently put the baby at risk of injury or death.

Tbh, I'm not sure exactly where I stand. I believe the mothers rights will almost always supercede those of an unborn baby, even those at full or almost full term.

But I also believe a viable baby of almost or full term has rights too.

What I've yet to figure out is where the lines are drawn, but I think thats going to be too variable to have a hard and fast rule. It's going to have to be decided on a case-by-case basis, which unfortunately means the courts will have the final say in some cases.

Sadly, there will always be exceptional cases where the rights conflict because the world is a contrary place.

clairefontaine

Well I think it's been demonstrated pretty clearly that Irish women in maternity have no rights, between this case, the link morag provided and the Savita case, kind of prove that don't they? The state supercedes the mother.

Best interest of the child = whomever the expert in the room is. If you look at the risk assessment on the chart that morag provided, some are very minimal and if you know about the rising c section rates across the west, you might see this as part of a bigger picture and might get why this might not be deliberate negligence on the part of a mother who refuses a section.

The wider contexts of maternity care come down to women cannot be trusted with their own bodies and doctors are getting more nervous about natural births.

clairefontaine

clairefontaine wrote: »

Well I think it's been demonstrated pretty clearly that Irish women in maternity have no rights, between this case, the link morag provided and the Savita case, kind of prove that don't they? The state supercedes the mother.

Best interest of the child = whomever the expert in the room is. If you look at the risk assessment on the chart that morag provided, some are very minimal and if you know about the rising c section rates across the west, you might see this as part of a bigger picture and might get why this might not be deliberate negligence on the part of a mother who refuses a section.

The wider contexts of maternity care come down to women cannot be trusted with their own bodies and doctors are getting more nervous about natural births.

I don't know. I think Morag's link could also be interpreted to display that if you take unnecessary risks, against advice, you are behaving recklessly and endangering your patients child, and you will be held accountable.

I don't think midwives, with their less comprehensive training, are better positioned to call all the shots than an ObGyn, although they definitely seem to have a more powerful lobby because the public perception of nurses and midwives is more positive than it is of doctors. That risk assesment is a guideline, individual cases are just that, individual. If I was in a high risk pregnancy situation, I would certainly want my decisions informed by, and my care to be directed by a consultant, not a midwife.

Rising C sections aren't only doctor-led, the number of electives requested by women not willing to give birth vaginally has increased hugely (read some article a while back), but also rise because risks are identified and sections also identified as a means of minimising them, most women who refuse, the overwhelmingly huge majority, won't be taken to court and forced to comply.

Yes, its possibly a form of protection for docs to try to eliminate risk to themselves by promoting sections, but I firmly believe most docs have their patients welfare at heart, and act accordingly.

I think your comment on experts belies a bias, and while current thinking changes and evolves, most professionals do the best they know how to do at the time they're doing it. Blind faith in your doctor is never a good thing, but blanket suspicion is just as bad.

Lastly, I hate Savitas name being invoked everytime women's health is under discussion, and the assumptions about her care that are made. When the full report is available I'll condemn or commend or whatever, but when only one side of the story is available I'm not going to jump to conclusions about fault and blame. The situation is, I imagine, much more nuanced than she was allowed die because Ireland is in thrall to the CC.

I also think that hyperbole like 'women have no rights in maternity' is just that. And I think it's unnessarily scaremongering. Posters on this thread have commended their maternity care, and their experiences are every bit as valid as those who's experiences sadly weren't.

clairefontaine

I suspect forced c-sections is going to be a new topic in reproductive rights especially for vbacs, probably the tensest fighting ground. Or hospitals will just ban them.