Pregnant Women Warned: Consent to Surgical Birth or Else

[Texashiker]

Or from the point of view of this woman, medicine is done by patients reading the internet and thinking they know better than their doctors.

Isn't that your right? Don't you have a right to make decisions for your body?

Tell me about Steve Jobs. Was he court ordered to receive treatment for his cancer? He may have lived if he did.

Who has the ultimate responsibility for medical decisions, you are the doctor? Who has to live with the results?

In the case of Steve he died. It is not the doctors fault he died. He was a grown man, made some poor decisions about his health, and he paid the price for it.

Why didn't steves doctor ask a judge for a court order to restrain and force Steve to take treatments?

 

[Exophase]

Explain to me why so many people in this thread think it is dangerous.

Explain why you think you're better informed to evaluate risk than her doctors, when you know nothing about her medical history other than that she had three c-sections. There are a ton of variables that are dependent on the patient and can't be evaluated from gross statistics. That's what SlowSpyder told you but for some reason you don't acknowledge or get it. Here are some variables to consider with VBAC:

http://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/vbac/in-depth/vbac/art-20044869?pg=2

Isn't that your right? Don't you have a right to make decisions for your body?

You don't have the right to dictate the type of treatment a hospital provides you. In the case of an emergency or time critical situation where the hospital must act immediately (such as with a pregnancy) you are subject to the judgement of the hospital you admitted yourself to.

 

[Texashiker]

Explain why you think you're better informed to evaluate risk than her doctors, when you know nothing about her medical history other than that she had three c-sections.

Does not matter.

That is her body, she has a basic human right to make decisions for her body.

You don't have the right to dictate the type of treatment a hospital provides you..

Really?

Such as not receiving blood transfusions? There are a great number of cases where hospitals make reasonable accommodations.

Step on a nail, hospital going to get a court order to make you get a tetanus shot? Are they going to restrain you to get your shot?

 

[SlowSpyder]

See my edit.

Per University of Maryland, 60% - 80% of women can have a vaginal delivery after c-section.

Explain to me why so many people in this thread think it is dangerous.

The posters in this thread are going on about how vaginal after c-section is dangerous, when the numbers do not support their claim.

Womens rights are being violated and nobody gives a crap.

I saw your edit. Nothing changes. For some reason that we don't know and wasn't put in that story (HIPPA?) the doctors deemed it not safe for her to deliver vaginally. WebMD can say 99.999% of prior c-section patients can deliver vaginally, that's great. But they don't know this patient's case history the way the doctors do.

I had a son almost eight years ago now. The doctor and nurses that were attending to us on the birthing floor were quite adamant about my exwife not likely ever delivering vaginally in the future. Maybe things have changed. But that doesn't change anything for this particular patient. And I imagine three c-sections raises risks compared to having had one c-section.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

See my edit.

Per University of Maryland, 60% - 80% of women can have a vaginal delivery after c-section.

Explain to me why so many people in this thread think it is dangerous.

The posters in this thread are going on about how vaginal after c-section is dangerous, when the numbers do not support their claim.

Womens rights are being violated and nobody gives a crap.

Want to try that with me? I said and am saying (and I'm not the only one) that any proper medical decision has to be based on the patient's medical state. You purposefully disregard any of that effectively forcing providers to participate in something which would result in death because "that's her right". What about the physicians right to not kill someone because of the woman's ignorance, stubbornness or stupidity?

So I'll ask you a plain question. Does the woman have the right to insist that physicians engage in a practice that will result in the death of herself or the child? This requires a yes or no answer.

 

[Texashiker]

the doctors deemed it not safe for her to deliver vaginally.

Does not matter. We have a basic human right to say what happens to our body.

Why didn't Steve jobs doctor get a court order, restrain Steve and make him go through cancer treatments?

Because Steve was a man and this is a lady we are talking about.

As I already mentioned, you step on a nail, would it be ok for the hospital to get a court order, restrain you and give you a shot without your consent?

Want to try that with me? I said and am saying (and I'm not the only one) that any proper medical decision has to be based on the patient's medical state.

Does not matter.

The patient should have the final say as to treatment.

 

[abj13]

Proof?

University of Maryland says there is something like a 1 in 2,000 chance of serious danger.

See my previous links.

:face palm:

Seriously, stop acting like you are some expert with your internet degree in medicine. Pretty much all of those studies mentioned in the blog and online are regarding women having a vaginal birth after ONE previous c-section. This woman was in consideration for her FOURTH PREGNANCY .

Risks accumulate. In one meta-analysis, the risk of uterine rupture and requirement for a hysterectomy doubles in comparing VBAC on the third baby to the second (up to 1.6%). This woman has had THREE previous c-sections, there is little data available in peer reviewed journals to review the risks in HER situation, but we know the risks accumulate with each subsequent procedure. She is outside of ACOG recommendations, and her requiring a trial of labor is a high risk situation given her previous c-section history.

Plus, we do not even know if all of her previous c-section were low-lying incisions, whether they were vertical or horizontal. Those are essential pieces of information, and guess who would know that? Her OB/GYN. If one wasn't, that greatly raises her risk. So stop acting like you know better than the physicians on her case.

 

[brycejones]

Does not matter.

The patient should have the final say as to treatment.

yes or no........

 

[Texashiker]

Seriously, stop acting like you are some expert with your internet degree in medicine.

I am not acting anything.

Is this a true and correct statement? We have a basic human right to say what happens to our body.

 

[abj13]

I am not acting anything.

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

Vaginal birth after c-section is "not" risky.
You see those words "very rare?"

Nice work on completely contradicting yourself. You are in no position to judge the risk of the situation. And coming up with the statement that VBAC after c-section is not risky is absurd. That's why this issue doesn't have a right or optimal answer, and certainly this woman's case is hardly typical.

This is her FOURTH pregnancy, and potentially (and it did turn out) to be her FOURTH C-section. She is certainly much higher risk that what you are trying to propose with your internet medical degree.

 

[ajskydiver]

You like a lot of other people are missing one of the big points. No, you are. See below.

This is not "just" about the hospital; a judge sided with the hospital and told the woman she did not have the right to make medical decisions for her own body. (You're intentionally taking this out of context and ignoring the key part of the judge's ruling regarding, "...if she stepped foot in the hospital.")

Think about that. A judge told a woman she does not have the right to make decisions for her own body. No, the judge said she can't compel the hospital to do something they felt violated their own right to treat her condition as they deemed medically appropriate. She can't force them to allow her to attempt the delivery.

Reminds me of when kids were sterilized. Its for the good of the community.

Whats next? You have no right to eat that cheeseburger, your gastric bypass is scheduled for next friday?

I think you're trolling and intentionally "misinterpreting" the article. You're also failing to mention that she attempted to give birth and failed and had a C-section.

Side note: Her "doctor" who was going to deliver her baby failed in submitting the birth plan to the hospital with 2 weeks notice. They should've already known the policy at that hospital or inquired before submitting the plan. VBACs are not commonly allowed as stated.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Does not matter. We have a basic human right to say what happens to our body.

Why didn't Steve jobs doctor get a court order, restrain Steve and make him go through cancer treatments?

Because Steve was a man and this is a lady we are talking about.

As I already mentioned, you step on a nail, would it be ok for the hospital to get a court order, restrain you and give you a shot without your consent?

If you come to SlowSpyder Hospital with ebola and insist that your only treatment be a vitamin D script and you leave, I may get a court order that says next time you come here I am keeping you here and quarintined while you get proper treatment and don't harm others. You are free to not come here for treatment.

Let me clarify. My political beliefs apply here. I think you should have the right to do what you want with your body, that is probably the most basic human right. You should be able to do just about anything that doesn't affect other's rights. In this case, her insistance on vaginal birth could very well negatively affect the health or even life of the child.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Does not matter. We have a basic human right to say what happens to our body.

You ignored everything else including the question. Does someone have the right to force another to harm them or their child?

Yes or no.

 

[Texashiker]

I think you're trolling and intentionally "misinterpreting" the article. You're also failing to mention that she attempted to give birth and failed and had a C-section.

How can you misinterpret a judge telling a woman she does not have the right to make decisions for her body?

Risk can not be a factor in the hospital, doctor or state overriding the wishes of the patient.

 

[Texashiker]

You ignored everything else including the question. Does someone have the right to force another to harm them or their child?

Yes or no.

Does a parent have the right to make decisions for the child?

How many children die in car wrecks? How many children die from drowning? How many children die from drive by shootings in Detroit?

But for some reason this lady is treated like a criminal?

Whats next, doctors get a court order to take kids away because the parents do some risky behavior? When are we going to start taking kids away from inner city families?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

How can you misinterpret a judge telling a woman she does not have the right to make decisions for her body?

Rick can not be a factor in the hospital, doctor or state overriding the wishes of the patient.

So the patient come in pancreatic cancer. He insists the physicians cut his legs off. The hospital refuse to do so. A judge agrees. You are outraged.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Does a parent have the right to make decisions for the child?

How many children die in car wrecks? How many children die from drowning? How many children die from drive by shootings in Detroit?

But for some reason this lady is treated like a criminal?

Whats next, doctors get a court order to take kids away because the parents do some risky behavior? When are we going to start taking kids away from inner city families?

That was not the question I asked. Asking more about things not on topic is not an answer. Oh, I do not think the parent has the right to murder his ten year old unlike you.

Yes or no

 

[Texashiker]

So the patient come in pancreatic cancer. He insists the physicians cut his legs off. The hospital refuse to do so. A judge agrees. You are outraged.

More like Steve Jobs tells his doctor he wants to go a different route for treatment. His doctors gets a court order, the police go to Steves house, arrest him, bring him to the hospital where Steve is forced to undergo treatment against his will.

Just as the judge told the woman, you have no right to decide your course of treatment.

That was not the question I asked. Asking more about things not on topic is not an answer. Oh, I do not think the parent has the right to murder his ten year old unlike you.

Yes or no

How is the woman forcing the doctor to harm her or her child?

 

[SlowSpyder]

More like Steve Jobs tells his doctor he wants to go a different route for treatment. His doctors gets a court order, the police go to Steves house, arrest him, bring him to the hospital where Steve is forced to undergo treatment against his will.

Just as the judge told the woman, you have no right to decide your course of treatment.

Steve Jobs wasn't nine months pregnant.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

How is the woman forcing the doctor to harm her or her child?

That's not the question either is it. You say that a woman has rights. If her "freedom" of treatment choice were known to be fatal does that right extend to forcing others to do so?

BTW, who did Steve Jobs ask to do a procedure they felt was wrong based on their expert medical knowledge? Oh, no one.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Steve Jobs wasn't nine months pregnant.

Don't let him distract you. The issue would be properly framed as "Was Steve Jobs allowed to force someone to do something they felt was unethical or resulted in harm or death". The answer is no. Further, Jobs was dying and was trying to stay alive. In the case the pregnant woman isn't but she might if she was able to coerce anyone she wanted to do a harmful thing. The situation is independent of pregnancy.

 

[Texashiker]

That's not the question either is it. You say that a woman has rights. If her "freedom" of treatment choice were known to be fatal does that right extend to forcing others to do so?

She has a basic human right to deny certain treatments.

BTW, who did Steve Jobs ask to do a procedure they felt was wrong based on their expert medical knowledge? Oh, no one.

Steve turned down surgery that could have saved his life.

http://gizmodo.com/5851821/why-steve-jobs-refused-a-potentially-life-saving-surgery

Walter Isaacson, the author of the upcoming official Steve Jobs biography, told 60 minutes that Steve Jobs refused what could have potentially been a life-saving surgery. Remember, though Jobs had pancreatic cancer, he also had a very rare form that was treatable through surgery. Jobs didn't want that surgery.

As with the woman, should the doctor have got a court order to force Steve to go through surgery?

If Steve Jobs can turn down a medical procedure, why can't the woman in the opening post?

 

[Jaskalas]

Could stand to cite its sources.

The OP's article, which apparently no one read.

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

It almost seems to insult the reader to conclude that going from 0.5 to 1.3 per 1000 is no big deal, then bother mentioning 3.8 to 13.4 per 100,000 at all.

Life of the mother takes precedence, no?

I'm not saying it changes my original statement, and she could have specific medical history / concerns that greatly favor c-section, but it helps if we understand that VBAC are not inherently worse.

None of this means that Goodall's choice was necessarily better. But it was reasonable. This wasn't some particularly risky, out-there thing that she wanted to do. In a 2010 statement, even the National Institutes of Health (NIH) stated that "when trial of labor and elective repeat cesarean delivery are medically equivalent options, a shared decision-making process should be adopted and, whenever possible, the woman’s preference should be honored."

 

[abj13]

I'm not saying it changes my original statement, and she could have specific medical history / concerns that greatly favor c-section, but it helps if we understand that VBAC are not inherently worse.

Those studies do not apply to her case. Almost all of those studies were done with women with the second pregnancy after an initial pregnancy that had a c-section. This woman is on pregnancy #4, and has had 3 previous c-sections (and as it turned out, she had c-section #4). With each subsequent c-section, she has an increasing risk of complications given the adhesions, scar tissue, etc that forms after those procedures, which would greatly increase the risk of future complications like hemorrhage, or uterine rupture.

This is why groups like ACOG have no specific recommendations for VBAC after having 2+ c-sections, there simply is no data to say it would be a completely safe choice.

And we do not know this woman's surgical history of those c-sections, there may be a high risk incision or known scar tissue that places her at even higher risk.

 

[Texashiker]

Those studies do not apply to her case. Almost all of those studies were done with women with the second pregnancy after an initial pregnancy that had a c-section. This woman is on pregnancy #4, and has had 3 previous c-sections (and as it turned out, she had c-section #4). With each subsequent c-section, she has an increasing risk of complications given the adhesions, scar tissue, etc that forms after those procedures, which would greatly increase the risk of future complications like hemorrhage, or uterine rupture.

None of that matters, zilch, zero, nada.

She has a basic human right to deny certain forms of treatment.

We all have a basic human right to define what happens to our body.

So what if she had risk factors, it is her body.