Pregnant Women Warned: Consent to Surgical Birth or Else

[Texashiker]

A woman who had a cesarean section and was pregnant again asked the hospital about having a vagina birth. The administration said if she set foot inside the hospital they would get a court order and force her to have a cesarean section against her will.

Not only would the hospital get a court order and do a cesarean section against her will, she would also be reported to the Department of Children and Family Services.

The woman tried to get a restraining order to stop the hospital from doing an involuntary cesarean section, the judge refused to issue the order.

http://reason.com/archives/2014/07/31/hospitals-forcing-c-section-deliveries/

A letter from Bayfront's chief financial officer said if she attempted a "trial of labor," the facility would report her to the state's Department of Children and Family Services, seek a court order to perform the surgery, and do the procedure "with or without (her) consent" if she stepped foot in the hospital.

For those of you who staunchly defend a womans right of "her body her choice", how do you feel about this?

Even though it is your body and your choice, a judge will issue an order to make someone go through an involuntary medical procedure.

 

[bononos]

I definitely feel that a woman should be able to choose if she want to push the baby out by herself. Hospitals aren't the best place for natural births anyway since they approach childbirth as a 'problem' to be solved by medical intervention.

 

[brycejones]

An extreme case but there are many hospitals that don't allow VBACs for liability reasons.

Threats to get DCFS involved and a judge's order are just stupid. However there isn't some grand conspiracy between the courts and hospitals as implied in your linked article to force women to have surgery. Out of our 4 kids 3 were VBAC and yes we shopped around for practices and hospitals that were ok with our choices.

 

[brycejones]

I definitely feel that a woman should be able to choose if she want to push the baby out by herself. Hospitals aren't the best place for natural births anyway since they approach childbirth as a 'problem' to be solved by medical intervention.

I disagree, in hospitals you have support available should issues arise that aren't available in the home. Our 3 child had issues after birth and probably wouldn't have made it if he had been a home birth.

 

[Oldgamer]

I really do scratch my head at some of your posts. The article links to the main blog article, and it doesn't explain why she had 3 previous C sections. Generally when a C section is preferred it has to do with very real potential complications that can occur in Vaginal delivery that post a major risk to the baby and the mothers life.

In addition with each C section comes a very real risk of uterine rupture if a woman tries to do a normal vaginal birth.

Now having said all that, women can choose not to have their baby in a hospital setting. Many women do home birthing. Some women use a midwife who is trained in home birthing.

The article seems to be leaving a lot of information out. I guess you are tying to make some weird point that because they are forcing her to have a C section that somehow this relates to abortion? Not sure what your getting at.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Nothing wrong with what the hospital did. My exwife had a c-section, they made it well known that it would be unlikely she would ever deliver any future child in any other manner. The woman in this story still has the right to seek out a doctor that will deliver the child naturally. But the hospital obviously feels they are opening themselves up to a potential liability if they allowed her to attempt natural birth there, as they feel the risk of complications is too great.

 

[Texashiker]

The article seems to be leaving a lot of information out.

Does it matter why she had a c-section?

I guess you are tying to make some weird point that because they are forcing her to have a C section that somehow this relates to abortion? Not sure what your getting at.

I was not going to bring abortion into this topic. The two twos could be related since both deal with womens rights.

But I would rather this not veer into an abortion debate.

Nothing wrong with what the hospital did.

Nothing wrong with forcing a woman to have a medical procedure against her will,,,, interesting.

 

[jhbball]

I really do scratch my head at some of your posts. The article links to the main blog article, and it doesn't explain why she had 3 previous C sections. Generally when a C section is preferred it has to do with very real potential complications that can occur in Vaginal delivery that post a major risk to the baby and the mothers life.

In addition with each C section comes a very real risk of uterine rupture if a woman tries to do a normal vaginal birth.

Now having said all that, women can choose not to have their baby in a hospital setting. Many women do home birthing. Some women use a midwife who is trained in home birthing.

The article seems to be leaving a lot of information out. I guess you are tying to make some weird point that because they are forcing her to have a C section that somehow this relates to abortion? Not sure what your getting at.

He's constantly trying to come up with "gotcha" posts aimed at people who support women's rights. He's a fucking idiot though, so he fails miserably.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Nothing wrong with forcing a woman to have a medical procedure against her will,,,, interesting.

If the hospital has reason enough to believe that not doing the procedure would expose the mother and the baby to risks then yes, it's absolutely fine for them to refuse to admit her if she refuses their trained medical recommendations.

 

[glenn1]

Nothing wrong with what the hospital did. My exwife had a c-section, they made it well known that it would be unlikely she would ever deliver any future child in any other manner. The woman in this story still has the right to seek out a doctor that will deliver the child naturally. But the hospital obviously feels they are opening themselves up to a potential liability if they allowed her to attempt natural birth there, as they feel the risk of complications is too great.

Informed consent has to be mutual. If your OB/GYN says in advance they do not want to perform a VBAC for you, it's then not fair to the doctor if you show up to the ER in labor refusing consent to a C-Section. That would basically force the doctor into performing the VBAC procedure they didn't want to perform in the first place because they're obliged to treat patients in emergency situations.

If there wasn't a pre-existing relationship between patient and doctor where the physician already refused to manage the VBAC, then the woman's refused consent for C-Section would have a lot more weight for me. But *knowing* your doctor doesn't want to do a procedure and then trying to force the issue is an asshole move.

 

[Texashiker]

He's constantly trying to come up with "gotcha" posts aimed at people who support women's rights.

Wrong.

I fully support womens rights.

Informed consent has to be mutual. If your OB/GYN says in advance they do not want to perform a VBAC for you, it's then not fair to the doctor if you show up to the ER in labor refusing consent to a C-Section.

In the article it talks about a doctor who scheduled a womans c-section without her knowledge or consent.

 

[dank69]

Another thread where TH doesn't understand what he is talking about.

 

[networkman]

Does it matter why she had a c-section?

Actually, yes, it does indeed matter! Not the why, but the fact that she had previously had one.

As others have already pointed out, after a woman has previously had a c-section, the risks of birthing a child naturally cause considerable risk to both mother and child for subsequent pregnancies. Many hospitals and doctors will not want to incur that additional risk and will thus take steps to mitigate it.

 

[Texashiker]

Another thread where TH doesn't understand what he is talking about.

Lets go ahead and schedule your castration without your consent.

How does that sound?

Actually, yes, it does indeed matter! Not the why, but the fact that she had previously had one.

Did you read the article?

Have you kept up on current studies saying there is no noticeable increase in uterian tearing after a woman had a c-section?

Did you read the part where up until a few years ago vaginal birth after c-section was encouraged?

 

[SlowSpyder]

Nothing wrong with forcing a woman to have a medical procedure against her will,,,, interesting.

I didn't say that, and she isn't being forced, if I understand the story correctly. I wasn't there, but I have to assume the doctors let her know during her other three c-sections that natural birth after the procedure would be very risky.

She still had the right and opportunity during her pregnancy to look for other doctors or options if she really, really insisted on having the baby naturally. The hospital's doctors have the right to refuse treatments that are too risky vs. the reward they offer. If she goes into labor, especially having had three previous c-sections, it could be deemed a medical emergancy and the doctors will have to act accordingly.


Honestly, I think you know all of this but you are trying to somehow relate this to abortion and women's rights. You are comparing apples and oranges to try and find some kind of fail in the logic of those who aren't for abolishing abortion. You are stretching and anyone who can think logically sees it. If I need a lung transplant, no matter how much I insist to be awake for the procedure, the doctors will do what needs to be done, and will do so while factoring in the best treatment for the patient as well as practices that are least likely to cause complications that the hospital or they would be liable for. Just because I can't get my way, I can't be awake for the procedure, if I stop breathing and a lung is ready, they'll put me under and that'll be the end of it.... my rights aren't being trampled on any more than the woman in this story.

 

[Texashiker]

I wasn't there, but I have to assume the doctors let her know during her other three c-sections that natural birth after the procedure would be very risky.

Tell me about "risk" and how it relates to make decisions for your body.

Do you smoke, eat fatty foods, eat fried foods, drink, do not get enough exercise,,,,, anything that would have a negative effect on your health?

Your doctor says you are 50 pounds over weight so he is going to schedule a gastric bypass for you. After all, it is for your best interest to lose weight.

Honestly, I think you know all of this

Of course I know all of this.

We have a right to make decisions for our body, if even that decision has an adverse affect on our health.

 

[theeedude]

Is the hospital snatching her off the street and forcing her to have a c-section there?
Is the hospital tricking her, sure, come in and have vaginal birth, and then forcing her to have a c-section?
No, the hospital is telling her up front, IF you come here, delivering the baby safely becomes our responsibility, and you are going to get a c-section. So if you don't want a c-section, don't come here to give birth. That particular hospital believes that it cannot deliver the baby safely vaginally. She is free to find a hospital that believes otherwise. She is not free to force a hospital to deliver a baby in a way the hospital considers unsafe.

 

[alzan]

Wrong.

I fully support womens rights.

In the article it talks about a doctor who scheduled a womans c-section without her knowledge or consent.

Wrong. What you support is perfect solutions for an imperfect world. It always has to be black or white for you with no possibility of gray areas. If someone supports a person's right to body integrity then they're a hypocrite for supporting a doctor or hospital's insistence to limit their liability if complications arise or trying to do what's best for the patients health.

It's also as jhbball posted, this is just another one of your attempts at a "gotcha" thread.

So piss off!

 

[Atreus21]

A woman who had a cesarean section and was pregnant again asked the hospital about having a vagina birth. The administration said if she set foot inside the hospital they would get a court order and force her to have a cesarean section against her will.

Not only would the hospital get a court order and do a cesarean section against her will, she would also be reported to the Department of Children and Family Services.

The woman tried to get a restraining order to stop the hospital from doing an involuntary cesarean section, the judge refused to issue the order.

http://reason.com/archives/2014/07/31/hospitals-forcing-c-section-deliveries/



For those of you who staunchly defend a womans right of "her body her choice", how do you feel about this?

Even though it is your body and your choice, a judge will issue an order to make someone go through an involuntary medical procedure.

I can understand the hospital's position in terms of liability. The woman should hunt around for an OBGYN that'll do the VBAC. 3 prior caesareans is risky, but it really is evaluated on a case by case basis.

My wife had a VBAC (after 1 c-section), and her OBGYN was on board all the way.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Tell me about "risk" and how it relates to make decisions for your body.

Do you smoke, eat fatty foods, eat fried foods, drink, do not get enough exercise,,,,, anything that would have a negative effect on your health?

Your doctor says you are 50 pounds over weight so he is going to schedule a gastric bypass for you. After all, it is for your best interest to lose weight.




Of course I know all of this.

Clearly you are not understanding the difference of what you are using for examples and what this case is about. Your hypotheticals are not analogous.

 

[dank69]

Lets go ahead and schedule your castration without your consent.

How does that sound?

It sounds like you don't understand why that isn't even remotely comparable to the situation in your OP, which is exactly what I wrote in the post you just quoted. Thank you for confirming.

 

[networkman]

Did you read the article?

Yes, I read the article. Commenting without having read it would've been disrespectful, unless I acknowledged not having read it.

That we both read the same article and came to very different conclusions isn't exactly a shocker, since we're both "colored" by very different experiences in our own lives. The fact that I had an aunt who died trying to give birth naturally after her first two kids via c-section is going to influence my beliefs more than a few statistics!

 

[Texashiker]

No, the hospital is telling her up front, IF you come here, delivering the baby safely becomes our responsibility, and you are going to get a c-section. .

Clearly you are not understanding the difference of what you are using for examples and what this case is about. Your hypotheticals are not analogous.

It sounds like you don't understand why that isn't even remotely comparable to the situation in your OP, which is exactly what I wrote in the post you just quoted. Thank you for confirming.

Did yall read the article? Did yall even read the opening post?

This is much more than a hospital saying if you come here you will have to have a c-section.

The hospital intends to get a court order and force the woman to have a c-section against her will.

Explain to me how being held down, drugged, and forced to have a medical procedure against your will in even remotely related to consent

 

[Atreus21]

Of course I know all of this.

We have a right to make decisions for our body, if even that decision has an adverse affect on our health.

I agree, but the hospital sees that as a liability risk. If that woman suffers a uterine rupture and bleeds to death, do you think her family is just going to say, "Oh well, she knew the risks"?

It's one thing to make decisions for your body. It's quite another to expect someone else to put their career on the line to perform a risky procedure on you. In that case, it's not just about you.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Tell me about "risk" and how it relates to make decisions for your body.

Do you smoke, eat fatty foods, eat fried foods, drink, do not get enough exercise,,,,, anything that would have a negative effect on your health?

Your doctor says you are 50 pounds over weight so he is going to schedule a gastric bypass for you. After all, it is for your best interest to lose weight.




Of course I know all of this.

Again, you're comparing apples to oranges.

Of course I do things that aren't good for my body. I like a little whiskey, sometimes a cigar, I had McD's for breakfast. But that is me and only me. If I die or have health prolesms there is no one liable but me to myself.

That is completely different than going to a hospital and wanting a procedure that is against the doctor's advice and would go against insurance policies and medical guidelines, not to mention open up the hospital and doctors for litigation if something goes wrong, which is relatively likely.

She could still look for a doctor or midwife or whatever to have the baby naturally. That hospital isn't doing it, though.