Hospital sought to force mother to C-Section

[alchemize]

Hospital faces fight in birth dispute

This is a frightening precedent, that a court order was actually issued to force a woman into an uneccesary surgery. There was no evidence that the baby or mother were ever in danger, just that it would be "a large baby".

Concerned his case could impact other pregnant women, a Plymouth man said Friday he's working with a national reproductive rights group to challenge a court order that sought to force his wife to undergo a Caesarean section against her will.

John Marlowe said he's pressing on with the case - even though the order is moot since his wife already gave birth to an 11 pound, 9 ounce baby - because he doesn't want other couples to endure the stress they did as they battled hospital officials regarding their decision.

"It's more than my wife. What happens to the next lady that goes in there?" Marlowe said. "If they get away with this, what it's telling people across the country is a hospital has a right to do what it wants, and the woman has no rights."

11 lbs 9 oz? My son was a mere 7 ounces less than this baby, delivered at home by a midwife.

edit: A little more

Luzerne County Common Pleas Judge Michael Conahan's order gave the Wilkes-Barre General Hospital permission to force her to deliver her baby by Caesarean section if she returned to that hospital. The hospital claimed Marlowe was citing religious reasons for refusing the surgery.

Her husband, John Marlowe, said that his wife and their baby girl ? the couple's seventh child ? are healthy. He also said that the his wife did not refuse the Caesarean for religious reasons and that hospital officials were "arrogant" in trying to force her to have the surgery.

Seven children and she can't try to deliver?

John Marlowe said his wife wanted a vaginal delivery because that's how she delivered her six other children, including some who were larger than the couple's newborn, and because a friend of hers died from a C-section.

 

[BDawg]

The hospital thought a vaginal birth was risky. If something goes wrong, they get sued. They recommended a c-section. The woman didn't want one. What are the hospital's options? If they deny care because the woman is electing what they believe to be a risky procedure, they get sued.

 

[tcsenter]

And, it should go without saying, had the hospital honored the woman's wishes and the delivery went terribly wrong, they would be sued for a few million and probably lose.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: BDawg
The hospital thought a vaginal birth was risky. If something goes wrong, they get sued. They recommended a c-section. The woman didn't want one. What are the hospital's options? If they deny care because the woman is electing what they believe to be a risky procedure, they get sued.

Guess it wasn't really a recomendation then, if they got a court order, was it? Why do you sign consent forms anyhow? We could just eliminate those, and have every hospital just treat you as they see fit.

BBD or any healthcare professionals?

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: tcsenter
And, it should go without saying, had the hospital honored the woman's wishes and the delivery went terribly wrong, they would be sued for a few million and probably lose.

As with any procedure. But I doubt they would lose. Happens all the time with Jehovah's witnesses (who refuse blood transfusions). Are you supporting the hospital here, or just commenting on our sue-happy society?

 

[Dissipate]

Seven kids?! God damn, someone is breeding like rabbits....

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: BDawg
The hospital thought a vaginal birth was risky. If something goes wrong, they get sued. They recommended a c-section. The woman didn't want one. What are the hospital's options? If they deny care because the woman is electing what they believe to be a risky procedure, they get sued.

under the doctrine of informed consent if they gave her the proper info they couldn't be sued.

anyway, there is an exception to mootness to things that could happen to the same party again, so the case can move forward. i expect the appellate court to overturn the ruling.

 

[sandorski]

Preemption is a fad that hopefully dies a quick death.

 

[adelphi]

well once $ comes into the equation (1 few grand for the cs or hundreds for the natural) who's to say medical opinions are in the patients' best interest......

there was an article in the nytimes a good few months back concerning a study that shows a disproportionately high percentage of c sections being perform in minority + low income neighborhoods

i also read this article in playboy (eventually ;D) that was talking about mds calling time of death when
yr heart stops vs brain dead once u sign the donor acceptance on the back of yr drivers license,
a specialize team of donor specialist than start butchering u asap since once the heart stops,
as yr organs no longer get oxygenated blood and cellular death starts.......gotta harvest them organs
before they go bad