Several days ago, I blogged about Melissa Ann Rowland, a woman charged with murder for refusing to have a c-section. Here’s a few more links about Melissa Rowland and her arrest.
First, for those who are interested, The Salt Lake Tribune article has a lot more background on Melissa Rowland’s life and mental state. (Via Annatopia and Body and Soul).
Body and Soul’s take seems exactly right to me:
But Kent Morgan, deputy Salt Lake County prosecutor and a spokesman for District Attorney David Yocom, said Rowland’s crime stems from the depraved indifference and utter callousness she showed toward her unborn twins.
There is indeed depraved indifference and utter callousness at the heart of this story, but it’s not Melissa Rowland’s.
* * *
Then, a post from Annatopia, where letters are not capitalized:
this is completely a what if situation, but here goes. what if our health care system could have provided melissa with weekly visits from a midwife during her pregnancy? what if melissa could have enrolled in government funded drug rehab without the fear of going to jail or losing her children? what if that rehab stint could have been followed up by in-home visits by a therapist or case worker? what if melissa had access to an optional, free shot of depo provera every three months as part of a nationwide family planning program?
Read (as, AATS, they say) the whole thing.
* * *
In comments, “Alas” reader Z*lda pointed me to this FindLaw commentary by Sherry Colb:
To undergo surgery to help another person – even one’s own child – is a decision currently left up to the individual in our society. Moral obligations to risk life and limb for one’s children are not enforced by the criminal law.
To select a subgroup – pregnant women – to face mandatory surgery is thus patently unfair. And in addition to embracing a double-standard, the advocate of forced C-sections must confront the wealth of data suggesting that the those who decide a C-section is necessary for a child’s wellbeing are consistently making errors that risk the lives and wellbeing of women and their babies.
If we wish to become a nation of good Samaritans, a step that this country does not appear poised to take at this time, we must make sure that the obligations of such a choice rest equally upon all of us. Otherwise, we risk subjugating a minority, and we systematically fail to assess the real-life costs and benefits of what we do.
In the interests of justice, the prosecution of Ms. Rowland should be dropped or dismissed.
Again, the whole thing, read the.
UPDATE: And a fourth comment – how did I miss this one, from Echidne?
Now change the sex of the person in question, make her name Melissa Ann Rowland, and her age 28 years, and change the circumstances into one where the mother refused a Caesarian section that might have saved her son’s life. The son died here, too. Should we accuse her of murder?
I wrote about this trying to create an identical case for a father: Imagine that 30-year old John Smith, with a history of mental illness, drug-abuse and living on welfare, has a child with fatal leukemia. The only cure is a bone marrow transplantation, and the doctors have determined that John Smith is the only feasible donor. He refuses the operation, because he’s scared of it, and the child dies. Is John Smith guilty of criminal homicide?
I think that this clarifies the issues considerably. But then I wrote this, of course…:)
Is John Smith guilty of criminal homicide?
Yes, and so is Ms. Rowland.
Well, the term “criminal homicide” (for either of them) makes be balk a little, but surely manslaughter and depraved indifference.
And the quote:
“A frightened, mentally ill, pregnant woman, living on Social Security disability benefits, facing eviction, the father of her children gone, went from hospital to hospital looking for help, and no one knew what to do for her or how to reach her. And because of that, she has been in jail for nearly two months and faces murder charges”
I thought she was in jail because she had cocaine and alcohol in her system at the time of the birth. This is, of course, a FACT, but maybe I’m just calloused and insensitive.
Quadratic,
(not that I’m sure why I bother, but…)
and if the parent in question had reason to believe that the doctor was wrong and/or the surgery would endager the parent’s health (thus placing any remaining children at risk)?
I’m assuming either way that you’d like to do with patient consent forms and the next time you go into the doctor you plan to simply take their advice at face value?
*sigh*
Sorry, scratch manslaughter, insert “wrongful death”
wrongful death: A “wrongful death” occurs when a person is killed due to the negligence or misconduct of another individual, company or entity.
Jenny,
“and if the parent in question had reason to believe that the doctor was wrong and/or the surgery would endager the parent’s health (thus placing any remaining children at risk)?”
Good questions. I don’t know how to address these “what ifs” though. I’ll leave those questions to future legislation. I can only speak to the case at hand. What reason, second opinion, or medical training did Ms. Rowland have to doubt the advise of her doctor? To my knowledge, she had “none” to all three points.
Also, Ms. Rowland can be brought up on murder charges simply for the presence of cocaine and alcohol in her system.
“I thought she was in jail because she had cocaine and alcohol in her system at the time of the birth. This is, of course, a FACT, but maybe I’m just calloused and insensitive.”
Actually, she did have trace levels of drugs in her system but that is not why she was jailed. She was jailed for not getting the c-section.
But thank you for bringing up another important point.
“Also, Ms. Rowland can be brought up on murder charges simply for the presence of cocaine and alcohol in her system.”
Then why bring up the c-section at all? If the murder charges could be brought due to the drugs–an almost certain conviction–why charge her based on the c-section, a conviction that might be iffy? As the story states, the fact of the trace levels of drugs in her system might only be used to bolster the other case.
“What reason, second opinion, or medical training did Ms. Rowland have to doubt the advise of her doctor? To my knowledge, she had “none” to all three points.”
Well, the reason has been spelled out.
From the post itself:
“A frightened, mentally ill, pregnant woman, living on Social Security disability benefits, facing eviction, the father of her children gone, went from hospital to hospital looking for help, and no one knew what to do for her or how to reach her.”
Quadratic – would you feel the same way about the bone-marrow transplant analogy if the person you refused to donate wasn’t the parent of the child? If it was another adult, maybe one not related at all?
Floyd,
“Well, the reason has been spelled out.
From the post itself:
A frightened, mentally ill, pregnant woman, living on Social Security disability benefits, facing eviction, the father of her children gone, went from hospital to hospital looking for help, and no one knew what to do for her or how to reach her.”
—These are not reasons for her action, these are excuses listed in an opinion on a blog, not pertinent to her depraved indifference for her baby’s life. And check your facts, she WAS jailed for having cocaine and alcohol in her system, the charges relating to the c-section came later.
“If the murder charges could be brought due to the drugs–an almost certain conviction–why charge her based on the c-section, a conviction that might be iffy?”
—-It remains to be seen which charges the prosecutors will decide to stick with. We may very well see the charges related to the c-section dropped, I doubt it, but maybe.
Ephiny,
“Quadratic – would you feel the same way about the bone-marrow transplant analogy if the person you refused to donate wasn’t the parent of the child? If it was another adult, maybe one not related at all?”
—I would say a stranger or another adult has the moral obligation to help, but this case is about the legal responsibilities, not morals. This is another “what if” that has no bearing on this case.
From Quadratic:
“—These are not reasons for her action, these are excuses listed in an opinion on a blog, not pertinent to her depraved indifference for her baby’s life.”
I’m pretty sure mental illness is a pretty good reason for her actions. I’m also pretty sure that fear as a motivator was very strong in this case. Both are very pertinent. Of course these things weren’t just listed on a blog they were reported in the actual news story from the Salt Lake Tribune: http://www.sltrib.com/2004/Mar/03122004/utah/147031.asp
From Quadratic:
“—-It remains to be seen which charges the prosecutors will decide to stick with. We may very well see the charges related to the c-section dropped, I doubt it, but maybe.”
From the AP story:
“Prosecutors brought a child-endangerment charge against Rowland over the drugs in the girl, but dropped it on Tuesday. Morgan said the evidence that Rowland used cocaine during her pregnancy will instead be used to bolster the murder case.”
Again, I have to ask why if the case regarding the drugs is such a strong case would they discard it in favor of the much less sure case regarding the c-section?
I would say a stranger or another adult has the moral obligation to help, but this case is about the legal responsibilities, not morals.
In that case, why not consider the fact that under the law as it stands, no-one may be forced to undergo surgery for another’s benefit against his will.
And also, the fact that to be a victim of murder or manslaughter under the law as it stands, a person must be… well, a person. As opposed to a foetus, which is not legally a person.
If you want to change the law, fine. But the law as it stands hardly supports your case.
Everyone talks about C-sections as if they are no big deal. They are, and they are over-recommended by doctors for multiple reasons. The other piece of the story is that she had already had two c-sections. This was in the BBC story.
My guess is that the first doctor she saw said they were going to have to do a different method of c-section, since she had already had two, and she didn’t understand what they were suggesting and got scared, so she bolted. And did so repeatedly because of the image in her head of her belly being cut open in a lateral incision.
But she kept going back to the hospital, so it is clear that she cared. How come now one could take the time to reach her? And how come the story talks about cosmetic reasons. As was pointed out, looking at a picture of her, it is kind of doubtful that her refusal was “cosmetic vanity”.
The real crime here is the fact that social services didn’t step in much earlier to help Ms. Rowland AND her children… but I guess that is part of the current compassionate conservative approach.
Quadratic: I would say a stranger or other adult has a moral obligation to help….
Hey Quadratic, I was just wondering if you’ve donated a kidney, a lung, and bone marrow yet. ‘Cause I’m thinking you have a moral obligation to do so. If I’m wrong, please tell me why.
I don’t think she really refused to have a cesarean section She’d had 2 before, and with twins the likelihood of negotiating a vaginal birth in the US would be slim–and she eventually DID have a cesarean.
What she must have refused was an immediate cesarean, preterm, before the onset of labor. Whether this was because she made a decision to let her son (who was already in trouble) die naturally, or the doctors just pissed her off until she fled, is impossible to tell with the information we have. It is also impossible to tell that her son would have survived if he had been removed immediately, or whether her daughter’s prognosis was improved by waiting.
Nick said:
And also, the fact that to be a victim of murder or manslaughter under the law as it stands, a person must be… well, a person. As opposed to a foetus, which is not legally a person.
Nick: In fact, the law in Utah has been modified so that fetuses are considered “people” to the extent that the death of a fetus can result in a murder charge. That’s how these charges against Ms. Rowland got brought in the first place: the new law.
I’m assuming the law was changed to allow for malpractice suits against negligent doctors who kill fetuses by accident… or for people who kill pregnant women and then the fetus dies, too. But there is also speculation the law was changed to be a step in the direction towards banning abortion (although currently, abortion is the exception to the Utah law).
In fact, the law in Utah has been modified so that fetuses are considered “people” to the extent that the death of a fetus can result in a murder charge.
Ugh, wasn’t aware of that.
God what a dreadful can of worms.
Krebs,
My sister had Hodgkin’s and needed a bone marrow transplant. I was the donor, so to answer your question, yes I have. It was scary, it hurt like a son-of-a-bitch, and yes it was my moral obligation. But that’s just anecdotal crap anyway.
I understand that all of you are terrified of the precedent this case may set. It threatens your pro-choice stance and I can sympathize, but a little baby, not a fetus, a little baby is dead because Ms. Rowland did not act responsibly.
Sam,
People have been falling through the social services cracks forever. A couple kids were beaten to death not far from my home city, even though social services were involved with the family. That was during Clinton’s administration. It’s typical for ideologues to blame Conservatives and George Bush, but it gets old.
Quadratic,
and yet you seem to be dealing with the what ifs of John Smith’s case just fine….
plus:
Since when are we discussing the charges of child endangerment due to drugs in her system? Do you hear anyone disagreeing with that part? Anyone who does is a little late, precedents have already been set with regard to habits that studies have proven to ALWAYS endanger the children that pregnant women are carrying.
The issue at hand is whether or not pregnant women automatically give up their right to make their own decisions about their doctor’s advice simply because they are pregnant. (Note Doctor’s ADVICE: the types of things you can get a second opinion about; as opposed to obvious stuff like: don’t take poison or try to abort the baby).
Because while you may believe that John Smith is guilty of murder, the courts have already decided otherwise, so if Ms. Rowland is convicted of child endagerment because she refused a C-section, that means that pregnant mothers, UNLIKE ALL OTHER PARENTS, are not only required to give up their rights regarding their own health and safety, AND their rights regarding the health and safety of their children, they are required to give these rights over to the STATE.
While my left-leaning views mean that I understand there often needs to be some sort of compromise between the rights of the state that is paying for schools and doctors and the parents and children who avail themselves of these services, even I don’t believe that this should extend to the state requiring that either my child or myself be subjected to surgery without my consent. Basic medical care, yes. Invasive surgery, no. The first can only help, the second always carries an inheirent risk; that is why patients must sign consent forms to begin with. In fact, that might be a good rule of thumb: if the procedure requires a consent form in order to protect the doctors from malpractice if something goes wrong, then the procedure is inheirently risky enough that the patient (or legal gaurdian of the patient) has the right to refuse such care without fear of prosecution.
How about this what if: “If a doctor says this will be a very difficult pregnancy and you should get complete bed rest for the last three months and the mother doesn’t and the baby is stillborn, is she guilty of murder?”
Keep in mind this article reagarding the comparative benefits and problems that come from doctor prescribed bed rest for pregnant women: http://www.usnews.com/usnews/health/articles/010917/bed.htm
I’d imagine that many of those who are concerned about Ms. Rowlands being charged for refusing a c-section are partly upset because they have read at least one of the many articles that have come out in the past few years that say similar things about c-sections in the US. One such example: http://www.usnews.com/usnews/health/articles/020805/5csec.htm
Funny, I read through this thread twice, and never did I see “ideologues” or anyone else “blaming conservatives and George Bush”. Me thinks someone has a bee under his/her blanket. Mayhaps a rather defensive bee at that.
Spot,
I am loathe to even justify your comment, but here is the end of Sam’s post:
“The real crime here is the fact that social services didn’t step in much earlier to help Ms. Rowland AND her children… but I guess that is part of the current compassionate conservative approach.”
Yes, I guess you could say I get a little defensive when people blame the current administration for all of the problems in our society. Doing so only shows your own ignorance of history, and it’s really just a tired argument.
Jenny,
“Since when are we discussing the charges of child endangerment due to drugs in her system? Do you hear anyone disagreeing with that part?”
Yes, read Amps first paragraph of the body and soul quote:
“Suddenly the narrative shifts a bit. A frightened, mentally ill, pregnant woman, living on Social Security disability benefits, facing eviction, the father of her children gone, went from hospital to hospital looking for help, and no one knew what to do for her or how to reach her. And because of that, she has been in jail for nearly two months and faces murder charges”
Body and Soul chose, not surprisingly, chose to ignore the simple fact that the woman was taking drugs during pregnancy and before labor.
And for all of you that want to give Ms. Rowland a pass because she is “mentally ill”, she can simply plead insanity and get off…right?
Melissa Rowland isn’t the first intrusive c-section. Remember Angela Carder? She had terminal cancer. The court ordered a c-section earlier than the time she had indicated she would allow intervention. The fetus died in two and a half hours and Carder died two days later. The TV show “L. A. Law” based an episode on this case, but allowed the fetus to live. I hate happy endings that knock the wind out of a case like that.
Ayesha Madyun was also court-ordered to undergo a c-section because a doctor feared infection. She had initially refused the c-section. After the c-section was done against her will, it turned out that her baby was perfectly fine. The doctor said “You don’t know that until it’s done.” Jessie Jefferson had placenta previa and was court-ordered to get a c-section she didn’t want because doctors feared infection. She refused, fled the hospital, and vaginally gave birth to a healthy, uninfected baby.
The point is that pregnant women are being forced to undergo coercive, intrusive medical procedures against their will. This is an abuse of medical and state authority. See Tom Paine’s article, Coercive Medicine: “Today both the law and medicine agree that coerced medical interventions on pregnant women are an abuse of medical and state authority and that while pregnant women do not always make the right decision, in America, it is the person on whom the surgery is to be performed who gets to decide. In spite of this, Utah prosecutors apparently think that a pregnant woman who exercises her constitutional and common-law right to refuse medical advice can be arrested for murder. This is not only a clear misuse of the law, it is dangerous to children and fundamentally dehumanizing to pregnant women and their families.”
Quadratic wrote:
“here is the end of Sam’s post:
–“The real crime here is the fact that social services didn’t step in much earlier to help Ms. Rowland AND her children… but I guess that is part of the current compassionate conservative approach.”–
Yes, I guess you could say I get a little defensive when people blame the current administration for all of the problems in our society. Doing so only shows your own ignorance of history, and it’s really just a tired argument.”
Nowhere did Sam blame the current administration. He mentioned the “current compassionate conservative approach”. You do seem to have a bee in your bonnet.
Quadratic also said:
“Body and Soul chose, not surprisingly, chose to ignore the simple fact that the woman was taking drugs during pregnancy and before labor.”
As I pointed out above, so what? The drug charges were dropped and relegated to possibly maybe being used to back up the charge based on her refusal to get a c-section (casting at least in my mind serious doubts as to whether the drug charge is strong enough to hold up in court). You keep accusing us of ignoring the facts of the case but you seem very eager to ignore those facts yourself.
Quadratic continued on with:
“And for all of you that want to give Ms. Rowland a pass because she is “mentally ill”, she can simply plead insanity and get off…right?”
So who’s talking about giving her a pass based on her mental illness? The mental illness is important because it changes every aspect of the case. Whether she can “plead insanity and get off” (a popular phrase that actually masks what an insanity plea accomplishes) is not at issue here. At issue is the double standard we apply to cases when a woman’s reproduction is involved. That she was mentally ill should have set into motion a whole series of actions and reactions on the part of hospital and social services professionals–none of whom could be bothered to reach out to this woman and help her–a clear application of the term depraved indifference if I’ve ever heard it.
Now, after the fact, all of a sudden the hospital staff and the DA are suddenly concerned over the death of a child they couldn’t be bothered with before.
Regardless of her alleged mental illness, a person has the right to refuse a medical procedure. Period.
Quadratic:
I meant to say that I don’t see anyone disagreeing with the idea of prosecuting a pregant mother for endangering her child through drug use. I’m sorry I didn’t make that clearer.
Re: Body and Soul: why don’t you go ASK Jeanne what she thinks of the charges instead of spending several posts commenting on your assumptions as to why she failed to mention them.
I stand by my assertion that most people commenting on this case (that I’ve seen) are concerned about the precedent being set by prosecuting a woman for refusing a c-section. Since, as Floyd pointed out THE DRUG CHARGES HAVE BEEN DROPPED, but people are still talking about the case, I don’t think I’m going off on a limb here.
In short, I’m still confused as to what the hell your point is regarding the drug charges.
With regard to what makes this case UNIQUE….
I’m not concerned about the precedent being set with regard to a woman’s right to an abortion or contraceptives. Its possible for abortion to remain legal during the first trimester, but still prosecute third parties who harm women who are pregnant in their third trimester for having harmed two seperate people. Case in point: California will not try to ban abortions any time soon, but Scott Peterson has been charged with the murder of his unborn son as well as the murder of his wife.
What I AM concerned about is the precedent this case sets with regard to the rights of parents and patients; mothers and pregnant women in particular. If it is legal to prosecute a mother for refusing a c-section (a procedure that has come under fire in recent years as being over-prescribed) then where does it stop? Does any patient have the right to refuse their doctor’s advice? Do parent’s ever have the right to refuse the advice of their children’s pediatrician? Does it matter if the procedure is invasive or not? If the child is in danger of dying or not? Does it matter if the advice involves a procedure that doctor will perform, or just a change in lifestyle or habit? Does the age of the child matter? Should we revoke the right of parent’s to have DNR’s for terminally ill children and leave the decision to the doctors? If parents can be prosecuted if they don’t follow the doctor’s advice, can doctor’s then be held responsible if the parent’s do follow the doctor’s advice and the child is harmed? Can parent’s be prosecuted for simply refusing surgery, or do we need to wait and see how it affects the child? If the latter, doesn’t his give the prosecution the benefit of hindsight, something the parent did not have at the time? Should the prosecution rest on only the advice of one doctor, or do we need multiple concurring opinions? Do these multiple opinions need to be actually given to the patient or parent, or only to the jury?
Needless to say, convicting Ms. Rowland would open a big can of “what if” worms, and anyone who thinks that Utah is doing the right thing should be prepared to deal with them.
I can’t say how this prosecution is going to succeed in court whatever the detail of Utah law is. She didn’t (as people keep saying) refuse a c-section. She initially refused a c-section but later consented and one live chld and one dead child was delivered by c-section. She was initially offered a c-section because one child’s heart beat could not be detected. How can she be responsible for the death of a child that is already possibly dead? How can the survival of the child that died be contributed to her actions beyond reasonable doubt? There is plenty of medical evidence that would suggest that the child that died could have died anyway. How could she know (given her mental state and the nature of the advice that she received) whether her actions were truly endangering a child that she may have been told was already dead?!
I know this is something of a tangent, but..
I was just wondering why anyone would assume that the patient was adequately informed about the condition of her unborn children while in an emergency room.
Have you never been to the emergency room and waited… and waited… and waited to hear something?
I accompanied my father to the emergency room. Tests are taken. We waited. Nurses tell you they can’t explain, you need to wait for the doctor. You wait. You wait.
Emergency room personel focus on people with immediate urgent problems. Gun shot wounds, heart attacks, and similar problems are dealt with rapidly. Other people wait, and get information slowly, and in snippets, if they get any at all.
The news paper article I read quote one nurse. No matter what one nurse thinks this woman said, we do not infact know what exactly any doctor may told the woman specifically. We certainly don’t know what the woman understood the doctor to be saying. (Except that, based on the quote supplied by the nurse, she totally misunderstood the size of the incision made during a C section.)
It is not unlikely that, even if, one can be convicted of murdering your unborn child in Utah, it may turn out that she may be innocent, both morally and legally, based on being inadequately informed.
Lucia,
I worked a critical care unit for 6 months, and I know what you are talking about when you mention the horrible wait, and the anxiety of waiting for answers.
You mentioned, in a list of things that get priority in an emergency room, gunshot wounds and heart attacks. (I might add that unless you are clutching your chest and actively dying on the table, they just hook you up to an EKG and move on, but anyway) You can add fetal distress to the list of code: right fucking now.
Though your scenario is certainly possible, it’s highly unlikely. It’s a safer bet that patients are adequately informed more often than not.
And don’t forget the release form she signed stating basically “if you don’t let us help you, your babies could die.”
I’m starting to side a little more with the objections most Alas contributors have on this issue. It’s far to mucky a slope to start going down letting the state tell people what to do in medical situations. Or maybe I just read this blog to much…who knows.
In contention with this evolving opinion, I have a moral gut reaction of disgust for Ms. Rowland’s decisions. I saw people like her from time to time, suspicious of doctors, uncooperative, acting like you are infringing on their rights by trying to save their lives. I know the disgust and helplessness the nurses and doctors involved must have felt when Ms. Rowland signed the release papers and left. They are the true humanitarians in this story.
Quad – I’m surprised you continued your argument after you said this:
Sorry, scratch manslaughter, insert “wrongful death”
So you’re saying this is a wrongful death case? Do you know what the difference is between wrongful death and manslaughter or negligent homicide? The same difference between, say, sexual harassment and sexual assault – in that in both cases the former is a civil matter, the latter criminal. Meaning that a person’s rights cannot be taken away for wrongful death (ie imprisoned, put on probation) but a private party can sue another party for wrongful death and receive compensation for damages. If Rowland is guilty of wrongful death (and that’s still a big “if”) then why the hell is she being prosecuted for murder?
Raz,
Doh! I should have known that wrongful death is a civil matter. Thanks for clarifying it for me.
But did you read my last post:
“I’m starting to side a little more with the objections most Alas contributors have on this issue. It’s far to mucky a slope to start going down letting the state tell people what to do in medical situations. Or maybe I just read this blog to much…who knows.”
I don’t know why she’s being prosecuted for murder. I’m starting to think it’s a mistake. Election year in a majority pro-life constituency maybe?
I’ll admit I could be wrong about the priority given to foetal distress, having never worked in an ER.
And I do sympathize with hospital workers who believe they can help, but whose advice is ignored.
However, as the the meaning of the paperwork indicating she had been warned her child might die? I can’t say I know wat that means– and I base this on personal experience. I don’t based it on “what seems likely”.
When my father went to the ER several months ago with what turned out to be acute angina. He was hooked to monitors.. and ignored for 6 hours. Several people came in and took blood. He never saw an actual doctor. He finally unhooked himself and left.
When he left, he was asked to sign a paper including all sorts of liability waivers let he, ahem…..understood that he had been informed that he might… quite likely… die!
My father can be curt … especially when he has not been allowed to go to the bathroom for 6 hours. (Hooked on a monitor.. but you no…) He tells me he asked the nurse asking him to sign if anyone had diagnosed anything to suggest he was likely to die. To which she gave the standard nurses response that she was not a physician… and he’d have to wait to see one!!!
When Dad got home, he phoned his primary care physician. Such was the “urgency” of his need, that the hospital had not phoned her, nor her service. (And yet, they had him sign paper work advising *death might be imminent.*)
Dad went to see her the next day, she obtained records from the hospital. No major health problems were indicated. All tests were normal. No physician has diagonized anything to suggest death was imminent or likely.
Dad’s doctor diagnosed severe angina.
My interpretation of the paper work advising him he understood that death might be imminent?? NO ONE had made any such diagnosis. (And.. no one had suggested any such thing on any of his charts.)
It was a routine liability waiver….
So, does the paper work she sign suggest she was adequately informed? I don’t know. I’m waiting to read more.
Regarding “fetal distress”: I sat for 10 minutes alone in a bed hooked up to a fetal monitor in a triage area, watching my son’s heartrate drop while my husband went running around trying to find someone to come check what was going on with me. It was right before shift change. I had presented at the hospital on my doctors instruction after not having felt any movement from the baby in several hours.
This was in a “good” private hospital too. So yeah, it’s entirely possible that a woman could present with signs of fetal distress and get blown off. (Us pregnant gals are all hysterical, dontcha know.)
Warning! Anecdotal story to be related:
Earlier this week, a (pregnant) friend of mine went to the emergency room in great pain. She was there for hours before a doctor finally diagnosed the problem as (and I may have the term wrong) a weak cervix. By the time the doctor showed up it was too late & both babies were lost.
So the question is, which anecdotal evidence more reflects reality in the US? Quadratic’s or this story? I have no idea, but it’s clear that “fetal distress” is not of the highest priority in all hospitals. Maybe we can cross that off right fucking now?
If we want to talk about how much the medical profession values poor pregnant mothers on welfare, I’ve got a story-and-a-half to tell.
I had eclampsia several months before they finally detected it, at which point it had turned into HELLP syndrome, the number one reason why women still die in childbirth today. Although I complained of not feeling “right” for months, they told me I had heartburn and sent me home with Maalox samples. By the time they caught it, my liver was within 24 hours of rupturing.
Although I pursued quality prenatal care, I was often cast aside, even as I tried to advocate for myself. When the pain and discomfort got too difficult to bear, I went to the hospital and was turned away twice before they admitted me three days later (under my shrill threat of lawsuit). My boy was born two full months early after they induced labor. While most HELLP syndrome patients see an immediate turnaround, it took me two weeks to get even close to normal. Thanks to my doctors’ negligence, I have a permanently damaged liver – drinking alcohol is a no-no and prescribing medication is a nightmare. Oh yeah, and I’ll be anemic for the rest of my life.
This, too, was a private hospital known for their quality care.
If one of us had died, who would be accused of murder? Me for unsuccessfully trying to navigate the unsympathetic system, or the doctors for refusing to see me for months on end?
Oh, one more thing. The hospital sent me home with an IV in my arm when the Medicaid ran out, a full week earlier than the doctor recommended.
An IV in my arm and handwritten directions on how to change my own IV bags and flush the thing out with saline.
Quality care, that is.
This is a mess. I saw the O’reilly factor the other day when someone from a woman’s organization was making the point that Rowland was retard and mentally ill. That her mother was retareded and that she had been inpregnanted at 14 with twins, she herself is a twin. Bill just yelled at the woman basically said he had no information claiming that the woman was retared. Then he made a comment that retared people do not hit their children in the face, in reference to the other child endangerment charge of the two year old she hit in the supermarket. Apparently Bill doesn’t know much about retared people. I have been working in the school system for 15 years, with “retared” children and some of their “retarded parents”. These children who are impaired are becoming increasing more discipline problems with uncontrollable rages. They hit each other and threaten to kil each other often. Most of them with IQ’s between 60 and 80. They are retareded. The ones who come from parents with like IQ’s tend to be more of a problem. Throw in drugs and booze and you have a nightmare. Melissa Rowland was impaired by years of neglect, drug abuse, mental illness and mental retardation. She nor those babies hard much of a chance. Prosecuting her for murder is irrespocible, but I favor sterilization. she definately doesn’t need to have any more babies. She might even agree to that. Because if you lock s\her up for 5 years she will still only be 33 when she gets out and may have more children..We definately don’t want that to happen again.
retared? retareded? 15 years working with the MENTALLY DISABLED huh? Credibility anyone?
“Prosecuting her for murder is irrespocible, but I favor sterilization”
Do you mean state imposed sterilization here, or are you advocating the mass sterilization of “retareds”?
If you are unable to refute the contents of a comment it’s always a good strategy to attack the spelling and grammar of the comment.
I think we need a spell checker for these iddy-biddy boxes so we can all seem as intelligent as Quadratic.
Lucia ;)
I live in SLC, so here’s a quasi-insider viewpoint.
I rather doubt that Rowland will be successfully prosecuted for murder. It would be easy to make a case for impaired judgment, given that she’s already been diagnosed with mental illness.
I am afraid, however, that characterizing her as
“A frightened, mentally ill, pregnant woman, living on Social Security disability benefits, facing eviction, the father of her children gone, went from hospital to hospital looking for help, and no one knew what to do for her or how to reach her”
is not entirely accurate.
On March 14th the SL Tribune reported that
“Bouncing from hospital to hospital, Melissa Ann Rowland grew increasingly violent — even threatening to ‘cut the throat’ of a medical employee — in the days before she gave birth by Caesarean section to a stillborn boy and a live girl who had cocaine and alcohol in her system, according to police records obtained by The Salt Lake Tribune.
“On Jan. 8, Rowland, now charged with murdering her stillborn son, called LDS Hospital’s risk management office and threatened to return with a gun, one report alleges. Hospital employees called Salt Lake City police at 4:45 p.m., telling the officer they were attempting to get a restraining order against Rowland.
“Less than two hours later, police were called again, this time by Salt Lake Regional Medical Center.
“A physician told Rowland she needed an emergency C-section in order to save the second child, because the other was most likely dead. ‘She became very angry and threw a telephone at one of the employees there,’ a report states.
“She later called back threatening to cut the throat of an employee. Police say Rowland ended the call by saying: ‘Revenge is sweet, I’ll be back.’
“In addition to LDS Hospital and Salt Lake Regional Medical Center, Rowland visited Jordan Valley Hospital in West Jordan in December and Utah Valley Regional Hospital in Provo in January. At Jordan Valley, Rowland tested positive for ‘opiates, barbiturates and amphetamines,’ police records allege.
“At LDS Hospital, she received a ‘trespass notice,’ and at most of the facilities she left ‘against medical advice.’
“On Jan. 13, Rowland arrived at Pioneer Valley Medical Center in West Valley City at 3 a.m. in labor, but she refused a C-section for four more hours, screaming at doctors and saying she wanted to go outside for a cigarette.”
(I quoted extensively because you have to pay to read Trib articles older than seven days.)
http://www.sltrib.com/2004/mar/03242004/utah/150722.asp
Salt Lake’s other daily newspaper, the Deseret News (whose archives are free for the perusal) reported on Rowland’s attempts to persuade parties interested in adopting her children to post bail for her. This was AFTER she gave birth.
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,595048928,00.html
It is obvious to me that Rowland is deeply disturbed and largely uncontrollable.
Her estranged husband is caring for their other children, so it’s not a case of her being abandoned by a callous partner.
Given that she went to four different hospitals and all four of them told her the same thing, it’s doubtful that being insufficiently informed was her problem, nor would it be appropriate to characterize her refusal to have another C-section as an informed decision. It appears that her affect is highly distorted or possibly absent. It’s no wonder that people call her “depraved”: she *is*, but she might not be able to choose a different attitude because of her mental illness.
As for the system not helping her, people with her problems are very difficult to help, because they refuse help and often try to hurt those who offer it. The world’s most well-funded social services program would be hard-pressed to help her.
What can the system do anyway? Get her into treatment? She’s been there. Given her violent tendencies, I doubt she’d respond to any treatment at all, nor would she stay long if escape were possible.
Her out-of-control reaction to the medical advice — and the threats of revenge afterward — indicate to me that she’s got a personality disorder (among other things), which is extremely resistant to treatment.
Sometimes there really is nothing anyone can do: not all the mentally ill can be helped. Unfortunately, most people in her situation end up in jail — the simplest solution, but obviously not ideal.
I doubt that any ruling in her particular case can be extended to the public at large. As I said, I doubt she’ll be convicted for murder. However, I can’t blame the DA for wanting to lock her up: she’s obviously a danger to herself and others.
SLC is a little skittish about violent, mentally ill people. A few years back, we had two separate instances in which a person with paranoid schizophrenia walked into a public place (a TV station and a library) and opened fire, killing and injuring people in each case. It’s no stretch to imagine that Rowland could have followed suit in one of those hospitals. (I know that schizophrenics rarely become *that* dangerous, but that year two of them did.)
As for Utah law regarding parental rights vis à vis their children’s medical care, a very recent case here involved a boy who had been diagnosed with cancer, but his parents did not want him to undergo chemotherapy, believing it to be overly dangerous. The state ordered treatment, and the parents fled the state with the boy.
The parents were then charged with kidnapping, the story hit the press, and things got really complicated. Long story short: eventually the state backed off, the family is back in Utah, and the kid did not undergo the chemo. Doctors say his odds of surviving are very slim, but I guess we’ll see.
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,520033621,00.html
In the wake of this controversy, the state legislature proposed “Parents’ Rights” legislation, but in the end they decided not to rush into anything definitive quite yet and figure more study is needed. In other words, this particular issue is very much in the air.
BTW, it’s true that the State of Utah does not spend much on social services. However, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has an extensive welfare system, complete with counseling, adoption, and other social services. The system is much better run that government agencies (more accountability; less disposable cash). Because 70% of the population is LDS, many of the people in trouble are being taken care of by this private agency. There is also a strong emphasis on families pitching in and taking care of people: govt. aid is usually a last resort. And most of us have family close by to help us out.
Utah education also ranks extremely low in per-pupil spending (which *does* need to be remedied, IMO), but it’s hard to get the legislature to approve more funds when Utah students score well on standardized tests, have a low drop-out rate, and are highly likely to go to college.
Moral: How much money goes into a particular govt. program isn’t always an indication of what’s happening at ground level.
An additional note: Utah is one of *28* states that make it a crime to kill an unborn child by any means except legal abortion.
–Dicentra
A physician told Rowland she needed an emergency C-section in order to save the second child, because the other was most likely dead. ‘She became very angry and threw a telephone at one of the employees there,’ a report states.
That’s odd–she is being charged with the death of one fetus because she didn’t get a C-section. Yet according to the doctors, the fetus was most likely dead anyway. So why is she being charged when only one fetus came out alive, as predicted?
So why is she being charged when only one fetus came out alive, as predicted?
Because she had been advised to seek the C-section on one of the previous visits to save the life of the fetus. or fetuses. Both were thought to be alive but in distress during the earlier visits.
This woman is certainly a difficult patient, and the outcome is very sad. However, the legal case is going to be very, very thorny.
This just in:
http://www.sltrib.com/update/story.asp?id=203
“Rowland pleaded guilty to two third-degree felony counts of child endangerment and admitted using cocaine in the weeks before she finally underwent the C-section that produced a stillborn boy. …
“Under the plea agreement, prosecutors will recommend that Rowland receive concurrent terms of zero to five years in prison, court probation and admittance to a drug treatment program.”
“‘The reason for the reduction is based on information the state has received … concerning her mental health history. We believe these pleas are in the interest of justice,’ said Salt Lake County prosecutor Langdon Fisher.”
Those activists who have been supporting her are not happy with the plea agreement. They say that Rowland was desperate to get out of the county jail and would have agreed to anything to get out.
In an earlier report, Rowland claimed that she would plead guilty to murder and/or undergo surgical sterilization to get out of that jail. She said she believed that the state prison would be better than the county jail.
Having never visited either of the two facilities, I cannot opine on her evaluation of the jails.
Although I can’t read the prosecutor’s mind, I am almost sure that he never really intended to take it to trial: the murder charge was leverage to keep her off the streets until they could get her some real help.
–Dicentra
Pingback: The Uncivil Litigator
Pingback: The Uncivil Litigator