Eugene Volokh points to an AP story about a woman who, according to prosecutors, refused to have a c-section because she didn’t want to be left with a scar. Although neither Eugene or any of the other bloggers I’ve read have mentioned this, the woman says the story is not true.
“I’ve never refused a C-section. I’ve already had two prior C-sections. Why would I say something like that?” Ms Rowland said.
The facts of this case are, for now, too muddled to draw any conclusions from. The prosecutors say that her objections to a c-section were purely cosmetic, but a nurse claims Ms Rowland said the doctors planned to cut her “from breast bone to pubic bone”; if Ms Rowland had been given that impression, then she’d have more than cosmetic reasons to fear the operation. Ms. Rowland’s lawyer says she suffers from mental illness, and Ms. Rowland herself says she never turned down a c-section at all.
Like a law professor quoted in the AP story, I’m concerned about the precedent this case could set.
“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.
Eugene Volokh’s discussion is very worth reading:
I suspect that most (though not all) people would hesitate to find a woman guilty of murder when she aborts a child at gestational age 9 months because carrying the child (or having a caesarean) would cause her to, say, be permanently paralyzed, or would involve even a 25% chance of her dying. The question is whether the same should apply when we’re dealing with a caesarean, a serious surgical procedure and one that sometimes does lead to death and always leads to a nontrivial and somewhat painful recovery, but nonetheless one that in the overwhelming majority of all cases doesn’t cause death or serious permanent injury.
Finally, does it matter that medicine is an inexact science, and that a woman may well sincerely distrust her doctors’ assurances that (1) a caesarean is needed to save the child’s life, and (2) a caesarean would be safe for her? Is that another reason to leave the issue entirely up to the mother? Or would we say what the law often says as to parents’ other duties: Even if you sincerely believe that your child will get better if you just pray over him, instead of taking him to surgery, you may still be held liable at least for involuntary manslaughter (negligent homicide) even if not murder (reckless, knowing, or intentional homicide)?
As far as Eugene’s analogies go, I think the bone marrow example is far more on-target than the prayer case; a parent asked to take their child to the doctor in addition to praying, is not being asked to go under the knife himself.
* * *
If the woman was mentally ill – and that seems like a reasonable possibility – then I have to wonder, did anyone at any of the three hospitals she visited attempt to offer her treatment for her illness? And is putting her on trial – rather than getting her treatment now – really the appropriate public policy response?
* * *
It’s interesting to compare this case to a case I blogged about in January: A hospital sought (and got) a court order to perform a c-section on an unwilling woman, in order to save the infant. Fortunately, the woman left that hospital before they could enforce the court order. She wound up giving birth in another hospital, and gave birth to a healthy baby..
Nevermind the fact that c-sections are more desirable to many hospitals from a cost/profit angle.
So, scary, scary possible precedent.
is not being asked to go under the knife himself.
I’m only being nitpicky here because I know you know better, but what about parents who prefer feminine pronouns. Surely they exist as well… ;)
I agree; dangerous precedents are being set here.
Also, I have to wonder how much her location (UT) had to do with this event? Would it have happened in CA, say?
A bunch of rabid anti-choice types went ballistic at the suggestion of a dangerous precedent being set in a similar thread at Wizbang; I’ll say the same thing I said, and that Amp said: the facts are murky, at best.
And, where was the father of these twins? The most recent articles state she was estranged/divorced or had a boyfriend. I also had the same thought- was she mentally ill? The other thing that stuck me was that all her comments seemed really, really strange. The articles, so far, all appear VERY biased against her.
With the way hospitals and doctors are pushing c-sections these days, I’d say this is a very, very dangerous precedent.
I agree-go to this website http://www.witnessreport.com and you will see what I mean.
If you witness a rape, and do nothing, you can go to prison (depraved indifference). It’s my opinion, if you know you can save your child’s life and don’t, you should go to prison.
It’s also my opinion (as a parent) that this woman is a piece of human garbage. Maybe you have to have kids to understand this, but your health and happiness, even your very life, is secondary to your child’s needs.
I do reserve the right to change my judgment as more details of this case come to light. If this is a “pro-life (ahem) ANTI-CHOICE conspiracy, then…well…she’s some kind of freaking roe V. wade Rosa Parks…right? HA.
Can’t the media find a better picture of this woman? But then again…nothing screams “Baby Killer” like a nappy haired, lobotomy eyed, mouth-breather pic.
Quadratic:
Please go read the post at body and soul ( http://bodyandsoul.typepad.com/blog/2004/03/charges.htm ) and the responses to it.
Jean IS a mother and she certainly doesn’t believe that the mother who is being charged is “human garbage.” In fact, I believe she argues quite successfully that part of the problem is that society has, perhaps inadvertantly, treated her (and, imho, consequently her children) like garbage through its failure to adress her mental health problems.
Secondly, I disagree, as do many, that the mother in question “[knew] [she] could save [her] child’s life.” I have yet to hear it said that the doctors even claimed that a c-section was necessary to save either child’s life; by all accounts I have read, they simply advised the procedure.
As Plig says more eloquently than I could on Jean’s site:
“I don’t see how someone can be prosecuted for not following medical advice…. Doctors have been known to make errors in judgment and advice, and we patients must be allowed to take that into account.
I’m pretty sure that, if she’d chosen to have the surgery and had then died…the medical staff would be the first to plead that she had chosen the operation of her own free will (and had signed a disclaimer to that effect).”
Quadratic, this is the quote from that piece of human garbage:
“I’ve never refused a C-section. I’ve already had two prior C-sections. Why would I say something like that?”
And kindly stop your patronizing blather about how you can’t possibly care about kids unless you have them. Plenty of parents out there are pro-choice, and plenty of parents out there can sympathize with someone not wanting to be cut from the breastbone to the pubic bone–which is the impression a nurse said Rowland was given.
If you care so much about kids, maybe you can push for better housing, schools that are structurally sound and well-supplied, and healthcare for the kids who are already walking the earth.
There’s a really good commentary at Findlaw about this case, which talks about the uneccesarily high rate of C-sections in the U.S., and how prosecuting a woman for refusing to follow a doctor’s advice would make a rotten precedent, considering that doctors can be wrong.
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/colb/20040316.html
“And kindly stop your patronizing blather about how you can’t possibly care about kids unless you have them”
Thank you neko, I couldn’t quite figure how to say that without sounding like an ass.
I’ve always suspected that the parents who assert that people without kids can’t possibly care enough to make any type of informed decision regarding policies that affect children and parents are the type that didn’t care about polices affecting children until they became parents.
The type that voted against school bonds before they became parents, campaigned for school bonds once they became parents, and will likely go back to voting against school bonds once their kids have graduated.
You know, like the parents who were all up in arms because my local school district planned on putting the new high school in (gasp!) a residential area of all places. (Unruly teenagers walking down the street while my cute little kindergardener plays in the front yard? Never, you baby-hating politicians!) They, of course, changed their tune once they heard about all the fancy stuff that would be going into the new school, and then realized that THEIR kids would get to use all that fancy stuff in another few years, instead of being stuck at the old school.
And for anyone who thinks that I exaggerate, my bio teacher, who lived in the area, spent quite a lot of time complaining to the class about the location of the school, until the day he came in rhapsodizing about the equipment he would get to use if he was able to get transferred there.
Pingback: annatopia
Pingback: annatopia
Pingback: annatopia
Pingback: annatopia
Pingback: annatopia