Pregnant Women Warned: Consent to Surgical Birth or Else

[Hayabusa Rider]

Amazing.

If the courts decide you do not have to buy a Ford you think you can demand they sell you a Chevy

 

[Texashiker]

Amazing.

If the courts decide you do not have to buy a Ford you think you can demand they sell you a Chevy

You are being obtuse.

 

[zinfamous]

You are being obtuse.

Only 2 posts prior!

Would you please give me an exact court decision.

You are citing books. Do you have an exact quote from those books?

Maybe you want me to buy the books, read them, then "try" to guess the exact part you are referencing?

 

[MrPickins]

Would you please give me an exact court decision.

You are citing books. Do you have an exact quote from those books?

Maybe you want me to buy the books, read them, then "try" to guess the exact part you are referencing?

Yeah, it would be silly for you to educate yourself on a subject you appear to care about passionately...

Regardless, you're the one asserting that the doctor does not have final say in an emergency situation. The burden of proof is on you.

 

[zinfamous]

Yeah, it would be silly for you to educate yourself on a subject you appear to care about passionately...

Regardless, you're the one asserting that the doctor does not have final say in an emergency situation. The burden of proof is on you.

The problem is that he thinks he has already provided that evidence. He hasn't, but he will never understand that.

That's what's going on here. It would seem crazy...if none of us had ever experienced a TH thread, before.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

You are being obtuse.

Right now several people around me are reading this. We're providers with more than a hundred years combined experience and I can hardly hear for the s******ing. Obtuse? Ho Le Fuk.

 

[abj13]

Please cite a court case when the hospital and/or doctor can force a patient to submit to an unwanted procedure.

Public health is an unrelated topic. Public health is not even in the same ball park as a forced c-section, it is not even in the same town or county.

Already did. Jacobson v Mass already outlines the legality of requiring a medical procedure. The absolute right of an individual can be trumped by the state. No matter how much you whine and cry about it, the right is not absolute. As mentioned in Roe v Wade, the right to abortion is not absolute (again the maternal health is the one mentioned of it). The state does have a role that could limit abortions.

But then again, you've never read any of those decisions.

But anyways, clearly you don't even know the variability in the rulings governing situations like Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions. Start with Jehovah’s Witnesses v Kings County Hospital. You might want to hide from that case.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Whoa bizarre word filter. What, "snaggering" next?

 

[alzan]

You are being obtuse.

lulz!

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The problem is that he thinks he has already provided that evidence. He hasn't, but he will never understand that.

That's what's going on here. It would seem crazy...if none of us had ever experienced a TH thread, before.

I confess I've watched a video of a train wreck. This thread has much the same appeal

 

[MrPickins]

The problem is that he thinks he has already provided that evidence. He hasn't, but he will never understand that.

That's what's going on here. It would seem crazy...if none of us had ever experienced a TH thread, before.

Sadly, this is 100% true. :\

 

[Victorian Gray]

False equivalence how?

Its damn near the exact same situation. Does a woman get to choose how her pregnancy ends or not?



Microwave.

You're cheating on your toaster?

 

[Victorian Gray]

Would you please give me an exact court decision.

You are citing books. Do you have an exact quote from those books?

Maybe you want me to buy the books, read them, then "try" to guess the exact part you are referencing?

Learning, it's a wonderful thing.

 

[brycejones]

Learning, it's a wonderful thing.

Should we start a fund to buy TH hooked on phonics so he can get started?

 

[Victorian Gray]

Should we start a fund to buy TH hooked on phonics so he can get started?

I'll fess up. I laughed.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I'll fess up. I laughed.

I was thinking a connect the dots book.

I shouldn't be cruel though. There's probably an organic processing disorder which makes it hard to sequence and collate information contextually.

 

[Texashiker]

The problem is that he thinks he has already provided that evidence. He hasn't, but he will never understand that.

At the core of this thread is a simple concept, that a person has the right to say what happens to their body.

Either yall are being obtuse, or trolling.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battery_(crime)

Although battery typically occurs in the context of physical altercations, it may also occur under other circumstances, such as in medical cases where a doctor performs a non-consented medical procedure.

The woman did not want a c-section. The hospital and doctor were going to bypass her rights and get a court order.

This is a violation of human rights.

What is sad, the judge sided with the hospital. She had no more rights to refuse a c-section than someone had the right to be sterilized against their will.

 

[ch33zw1z]

My wife has a c-section for our first, and a VBAC (vaginal birth after c-section) for our second.

It was only a choice based on the type of c-section that was done the first time. Many women she's talked to who had c-sections had a vertical incision down the stomach. My wife has a horizontal incision below the waistline. The way the doctors explained it to us, is that the vertical incision weakens the uterus forever because it's being cut wide open, whereas the horizontal incision leaves the uterus to heal quicker and closer to original strength. Not being a doctor, obviously, I just listened to what they said and we chose to try the VBAC. The hospital would not of done the VBAC if the original c-section was a vertical incision.

 

[ch33zw1z]

What is sad, the judge sided with the hospital. She had no more rights to refuse a c-section than someone had the right to be sterilized against their will.

These are not the same things. The hospital, state, etc does not go out and sterilize people. The woman chose to carry full term and give birth, so she needed a hospital or something along those lines.

She could of gone to a different hospital (assuming time permitted), there are many options for birth out there...at least in our area. Don't know about Texas though, they don't seem to keep their shit together too well.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

At the core of this thread is a simple concept, that a person has the right to say what happens to their body.

Either yall are being obtuse, or trolling.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battery_(crime)


The woman did not want a c-section. The hospital and doctor were going to bypass her rights and get a court order.

This is a violation of human rights.

What is sad, the judge sided with the hospital. She had no more rights to refuse a c-section than someone had the right to be sterilized against their will.

I'm done with nice. How stupid can you be and still draw breath?

 

[Texashiker]

I'm done with nice. How stupid can you be and still draw breath?

When are you going to present evidence to affirm your stance?

These are not the same things. The hospital, state, etc does not go out and sterilize people. The woman chose to carry full term and give birth, so she needed a hospital or something along those lines.

Both were a medical procedure preformed without consent.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

These are not the same things. The hospital, state, etc does not go out and sterilize people. The woman chose to carry full term and give birth, so she needed a hospital or something along those lines.

She could of gone to a different hospital (assuming time permitted), there are many options for birth out there...at least in our area. Don't know about Texas though, they don't seem to keep their shit together too well.

I don't know if you read the whole thread, but in essence his argument comes down to an unlimited right regardless of harm but doesn't stop there. He insists that a parent should be able to force a physician to dump gasoline on a child's head and light it to cure head lice. anything less is a violation of human rights.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Both were a medical procedure preformed without consent.

No they're not. She consented because she chose the hospital that wouldn't do it for her. These are all things discussed prior to birth. She was lazy and it bit her in the ass.

Again, they're not the same thing (in reality, where the rest of us live).

 

[ch33zw1z]

I don't know if you read the whole thread, but in essence his argument comes down to an unlimited right regardless of harm but doesn't stop there. He insists that a parent should be able to force a physician to dump gasoline on a child's head and light it to cure head lice. anything less is a violation of human rights.

no, i didn't, it's over 300 posts by the time I saw it. I guess I'll take your word for it (definitely the safer bet here ) and be done with it. Every time I post in a TH thread, I kick myself a little.

 

[Texashiker]

I don't know if you read the whole thread, but in essence his argument comes down to an unlimited right regardless of harm but doesn't stop there.

As long as the patient is capable of making decisions for themselves (not unconscious or mentally ill), the patient does have unlimited rights to make medical decisions for them self.

If the patient chooses not to get a c-section, that is within her rights.

If a patient chooses not to get cancer treatments, that is within their rights.

If a patient chooses not to get a tetanus shot, that is within their rights.

Forcing a medical procedure upon someone without their consent is medical battery.