Pregnant Women Warned: Consent to Surgical Birth or Else

[Texashiker]

The judge agreed with the hospital that they have the right to only perform treatment that they feel is in the best interest of the patient(s).

And when your doctor thinks you need to take depression medicine, or need to lose weight,,, or anything else, is it ok for your doctor to get a court order and preform treatment without your consent?

Criminals who have high testosterone, would it be ok for a judge to order those men castrated? It would be for the greater good after all.

Maybe put you in confinement if you do not stop smoking?

Maybe gastric bypass if you do not stop eating fast food?

 

[nehalem256]

Do most people go to the hospital when they take a shit? Maybe 2000 years ago birth wasn't a medical procedure. Today it is, most people in this country go to a hospital or have some kind of medical professional involved in the pregnancy and delivery.

I would assume that many people admitted to a hospital poop there.

Interestingly enough, the contents of the rectum expel during a vaginal birth about 80% of the time.

Should the hospital add a $500 crapping procedure charge?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

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?

You really should avoid medical topics. Aggregate statistics in this case are irrelevant. You insist the hospital is wrong. Suppose there is a problem which virtually guarantees a vaginal delivery will cause permanent injury or death? In that case you are forcing the violation of "first do no harm". Who are you to force someone to be complicit to death by ignorance? Don't say "well you don't know". No, I don't and neither do you AND the article excludes any such information. If a judge is getting involved you can bet there's evidence presented that isn't being shared. Why do you fail to note that obvious fact?

 

[MrPickins]

And when your doctor thinks you need to take depression medicine, or need to lose weight,,, or anything else, is it ok for your doctor to get a court order and preform treatment without your consent?

Criminals who have high testosterone, would it be ok for a judge to order those men castrated? It would be for the greater good after all.

Maybe put you in confinement if you do not stop smoking?

Maybe gastric bypass if you do not stop eating fast food?

Are you attempting to see just how bad an analogy you can come up with? :hmm:

 

[SlowSpyder]

And when your doctor thinks you need to take depression medicine, or need to lose weight,,, or anything else, is it ok for your doctor to get a court order and preform treatment without your consent?

Criminals who have high testosterone, would it be ok for a judge to order those men castrated? It would be for the greater good after all.

Maybe put you in confinement if you do not stop smoking?

Maybe gastric bypass if you do not stop eating fast food?

Not sure your comparissons make much sense.

If I went to the hospital to seek help with weight loss and insisted on a risky procedure that puts the doctors and hospital at liability risk, and there is only one other option which happens to be less risky and inline with medical guidelines, the hospital has that right to not perform the procedure I wanted and let me know they will only go forward with their recommended couse of action. I have the right to seek other doctors and hospitals to try and find someone who will perform the procedure I want, of course.

 

[Texashiker]

Aggregate statistics in this case are irrelevant. You insist the hospital is wrong.

The hospital and judge are wrong.

We have a basic human right to make decisions about what happens to our body.

Are you attempting to see just how bad an analogy you can come up with? :hmm:

Ad hominem

 

[Texashiker]

If I went to the hospital to seek help with weight loss and insisted on a risky procedure that puts the doctors and hospital at liability risk, and there is only one other option which happens to be less risky and inline with medical guidelines, the hospital has that right to not perform the procedure I wanted and let me know they will only go forward with their recommended couse of action. I have the right to seek other doctors and hospitals to try and find someone who will perform the procedure I want, of course.

Did you miss the part about the hospital was going to get a court order to force her into a medical procedure she did not want?

This is like you going to a doctor, then the doctor getting a court order, having you restrained against your will, medicated, and then preforming a procedure without your consent.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The hospital and judge are wrong.

We have a basic human right to make decisions about what happens to our body.




Ad hominem

OK. Someone wants you to shoot them. You are compelled to do so because that's a basic human right. Gotcha.

 

[brycejones]

Ad hominem

No, he pointed out your analogy was stupid.

 

[Texashiker]

No, he pointed out your analogy was stupid.

How is the analogy stupid?

The hospital announced its intentions to get a court order and force the woman to have an unwanted medical procedure against her will.

A judge refused to issue a restraining order against the hospital.

The judge and hospital both said the woman does not have a right to make decisions for her body.

So what is stopping a doctor from forcing you to have gastric bypass surgery? Taking certain medicines?

 

[SlowSpyder]

Did you miss the part about the hospital was going to get a court order to force her into a medical procedure she did not want?

This is like you going to a doctor, then the doctor getting a court order, having you restrained against your will, medicated, and then preforming a procedure without your consent.

Unless I missed it, that is only if she goes to that hospital. If she goes to that hospital for treatment they have the right to protect themselves from liability. She can seek other treatment options through other doctors.

 

[MrPickins]

Ad hominem

You're really bad at this, you know...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument.[2]

No, he pointed out your analogy was stupid.

Exactly.

 

[MrPickins]

How is the analogy stupid?

The hospital announced its intentions to get a court order and force the woman to have an unwanted medical procedure against her will.

It's stupid because you continue to ignore the fact that the woman is free to give birth elsewhere.

The hospital is stating what they will do to limit their liability if she chooses to give birth there.

They're doing the right thing by being up front and open about this.

 

[Texashiker]

She can seek other treatment options through other doctors.

Did you read the article? She was only a week from delivery.

This case is not "just" about this one doctor. A great number of doctors and hospitals will not allow vaginal birth after c-section.

So in your mind it is ok for a doctor and/or hospital to make threats towards a patient? That if you come here again, you will be retrained, medicated and will be forced to under go a medical procedure.

It's stupid because you continue to ignore the fact that the woman is free to give birth elsewhere.

Gay men can also go somewhere else to buy their wedding cake.

What you describe is discrimination.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

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

Not to difficult to understand.

She doesn't have to give birth at the hospital, she can choose to do so at another hospital or at home. The hospital has the right to protect itself against liability therefore they have informed the woman of what their policy is concerning performing "C" sections on women who have previously had to have "C" sections during child birth. The court agrees with the hospital's decision on requiring that the birth being done by "C" section.

 

[MrPickins]

Gay men can also go somewhere else to buy their wedding cake.

What you describe is discrimination.

Another very poor analogy...

Show me how purchasing a cake for a gay wedding could cause the deaths of a mother and/or child.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

Do we really need a thread about why a hospital isn't willing to do a natural birth on a woman that's already had THREE C-sections considering each one increasing the risk of complications of natural birth on the next pregnancy.

I could understand some outrage if it was one (although it's not at all uncommon for hospitals to refuse VBAC after just one c-section), but three is insane.

 

[Theb]

I was starting to wonder when gay marriage would be added to the mix.

 

[werepossum]

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.

Well said. After three C-sections, a natural birth would be extremely risky not only for her but also for the baby. As a separate person, her ability to place the baby at risk is not absolute. And if her plan resulted in death or serious injury to either, both doctor and hospital would be held liable. Juries are not going to reliably take her actions into account when they are the medical experts.

There is no inherent right to get what you want if other people have to be involved.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Did you read the article? She was only a week from delivery.

This case is not "just" about this one doctor. A great number of doctors and hospitals will not allow vaginal birth after c-section.

So in your mind it is ok for a doctor and/or hospital to make threats towards a patient? That if you come here again, you will be retrained, medicated and will be forced to under go a medical procedure.

I've made my pont in this thread as best as I could. If you don't grasp it, either I'm not able to convey it well enough or you aren't able to think. This is probably my last try, good luck.


This woman knew the baby was coming. I find it hard to believe that after three previous c-sections she didn't know most doctors weren't going to support a vaginal birth for the fourth child due to the risks. This was likely explained to her three times previously.

I support the hospital's and doctor's right to tell the woman that if she comes there to deliver her baby they are only going to perform the accepted medical procedure for deliveries with her risk factors, which is a c-section. No one is forcing that on her. They are telling her if she comes there to deliver, that's the only medical treatment they can or will give her. It is up to her to go there or not.

She is under no obligation to follow that path. She could have started a mad search for a doctor. She could have searched in the months or years prior to her fourth child for a doctor that would deliver vaginally. I hope you understand that no one, not the doctors, hospital, or court system is forcing her to have an unwanted procedure.

 

[Texashiker]

Do we really need a thread about why a hospital isn't willing to do a natural birth on a woman that's already had THREE C-sections considering each one increasing the risk of complications of natural birth on the next pregnancy.

Just about everyone is ignoring that the hospital is telling the woman to submit to a c-section, or the hospital will get a court order and do the c-section against her will.

 

[Texashiker]

I support the hospital's and doctor's right to tell the woman that if she comes there to deliver her baby they are only going to perform the accepted medical procedure for deliveries with her risk factors, which is a c-section. No one is forcing that on her. They are telling her if she comes there to deliver, that's the only medical treatment they can or will give her. It is up to her to go there or not.

There is a difference in telling and forcing by court order.

Why are you ignoring the court order point of the article?

 

[theeedude]

So you are saying the issue is that women aren't held accountable for their choices :biggrin:

Her choice to go to that hospital or not.

 

[Exophase]

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.

For the majority of pre-choicers who are not okay with very late-term abortion there isn't a conflict in wanting to prioritize the safety of the about to be delivered baby over the preferences of the mother. On the other hand, it's hard to conceive how someone who staunchly against abortion at any point after conception could side with the woman on this.

Even putting aside risk to the baby, hospitals should retain the right of judgement in how they perform emergency treatment. That is the price we pay in exchange for the benefit of requiring hospitals to provide that treatment. You really can't have it both ways.

 

[MrPickins]

Just about everyone is ignoring that the hospital is telling the woman to submit to a c-section, or the hospital will get a court order and do the c-section against her will.

IF SHE HAS HER DELIVERY AT THEIR HOSPITAL.

Do you have reading/comprehension issues?