Pregnant Women Warned: Consent to Surgical Birth or Else

[MrPickins]

Not very many hospitals allow vaginal birth after c-section.

Did you read the article in the opening post? One lady had to drive 6 hours to find a hospital.

And? :sneaky:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?p=36231565

When all clinics within a 6 hr drive are shut down, yes, some will be forced across the border to exercise their rights.

And?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

This is a basic human rights issue. A woman goes to a hospital and doctor for treatment, both tell her no.

To add insult to injury, the hospital threatens to get a court order, restrain her and perform a medical procedure against her will. What kind of nation do we live in where a hospital can threaten to restrain someone?

The judge rubbed salt in the wound by telling the woman no, she does not have the right to define her course of treatment.

What is so difficult to understand the doctor, the hospital and the judge trampled one of her most basic human rights.

So you are a maimer of children. At least we know where you stand.

 

[Texashiker]

So you are a maimer of children. At least we know where you stand.

Having a vaginal birth is nothing new. People have been doing it for what, 200,000 years?

Yes there are some risk associated with it. But she has a basic human right to request the medical treatment of her wishes.

We can not base rights off of risk.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Having a vaginal birth is nothing new. People have been doing it for what, 200,000 years?

Yes there are some risk associated with it. But she has a basic human right to request the medical treatment of her wishes.

We can not base rights off of risk.

People have had limbs amputated for a long time. Who are you to deny a parent their choice of treatment? Tyrant.

 

[KK]

I think the hospital should have the right to refuse to allow this woman to give birth there. I think its fucking stupid they involved dfacs. I don't think that if they do allow this woman in this hospital, that they should not force her to do the csection, but thats a mute point because the dipshits shouldnt let her in the damn door if they don't want to take on the risk.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I think the hospital should have the right to refuse to allow this woman to give birth there. I think its fucking stupid they involved dfacs. I don't think that if they do allow this woman in this hospital, that they should not force her to do the csection, but thats a mute point because the dipshits shouldnt let her in the damn door if they don't want to take on the risk.

Getting back from Bizzaroland for a bit, it's hard to know what to make of this situation, at least as far as of what we can be certain. We don't know the trigger for why social services would be invoked. We don't know the medical situation of the patient. We are dealing with a paucity of objective facts and therefore must allow for many possibilities. Automatically assigning absolute rights (or blame for that matter) isn't justifiable. Even so we're dealing with a real medical situation which has decided that a given approach isn't appropriate and that was backed up by the judiciary. It would be a hard to sell that it was done on a lark or there was some anti-woman's rights conspiracy just sprung up to oppress this woman. It would be a poor one indeed which left everyone out of the situation except the hospital and this woman. She can vote with her feet and find a midwife and deliver at home, which has been going on for 200,000 years I'm told.

 

[zinfamous]

Having a vaginal birth is nothing new. People have been doing it for what, 200,000 years?

Yes there are some risk associated with it. But she has a basic human right to request the medical treatment of her wishes.

We can not base rights off of risk.

The most successful practice in all of medicine is, without a doubt, prenatal and natal care. Nothing even comes close to the success of this practice, with a rather stagerring rate of mortality reduction over the last ~100 years of what was then ~30%, to now less than 1%.

It is simply incomparable.

What you are asking for, is for the individual to have their cake--go to the hospital and gain access to the most modern, protocol-driven treatment--and eat it, too--refuse that care and demand they be treated as would pre-Industrial serfs.

Physicians have sworn an oath to "do no harm." You are absolutely demanding that they break that and, rather than allow that person to leave and harm themselves (which was always an option), they submit to this dumbass hippy's request to slowly and painfully kill them, and their child.

You are insane.

 

[Knowing]

I believe that service providers have a right to deny service especially if they declare beforehand that it is their intent.

I disagree with using the force of law to coerce someone in to a medical procedure they do not want. If they did not what use would DNRs be? That all being said, under our current paradigm the hospital is responsible for providing her with medical care. If she has been informed and has made her decision with the benefit of their guidance then I am of the opinion that they should proceed with the VBAC until it becomes untenable. If she should happen to die on the table her family can kick rocks because she chose her treatment and the hospital complied with her wishes.

 

[brycejones]

I believe that service providers have a right to deny service especially if they declare beforehand that it is their intent.

I disagree with using the force of law to coerce someone in to a medical procedure they do not want. If they did not what use would DNRs be? That all being said, under our current paradigm the hospital is responsible for providing her with medical care. If she has been informed and has made her decision with the benefit of their guidance then I am of the opinion that they should proceed with the VBAC until it becomes untenable. If she should happen to die on the table her family can kick rocks because she chose her treatment and the hospital complied with her wishes.

I agree with the theory but the reality would be much different as someone else already pointed out it is much more likely that a sympathetic jury would find for the plaintiff. Instead I say let the market rule and the patient can choose another hospital that is ok with their desired treatment plan.

BTW it isn't just hospitals that have these polices many OB practices do as well.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I believe that service providers have a right to deny service especially if they declare beforehand that it is their intent.

I disagree with using the force of law to coerce someone in to a medical procedure they do not want. If they did not what use would DNRs be? That all being said, under our current paradigm the hospital is responsible for providing her with medical care. If she has been informed and has made her decision with the benefit of their guidance then I am of the opinion that they should proceed with the VBAC until it becomes untenable. If she should happen to die on the table her family can kick rocks because she chose her treatment and the hospital complied with her wishes.

The problem is with the assumption that a vaginal delivery is a medically viable option. The hospital would provide care but it is a violation of ethics to treat in a manner that is likely to cause harm and in violation of standards of practice. These cannot be waved so they would be found liable in any court. In short they would be knowingly subjecting a patient to a harmful procedure and would most certainly pay the price.

 

[Texashiker]

What you are asking for, is for the individual to have their cake--go to the hospital and gain access to the most modern, protocol-driven treatment--and eat it, too--refuse that care and demand they be treated as would pre-Industrial serfs.

Physicians have sworn an oath to "do no harm." You are absolutely demanding that they break that and, rather than allow that person to leave and harm themselves (which was always an option), they submit to this dumbass hippy's request to slowly and painfully kill them, and their child.

You are insane.

I am asserting that the patient has the final word on their treatment course.

It is one thing for the doctor and hospital to disagree with the treatment course and refuse to treat her. If you want to harm yourself and your child, we will not facilitate that request.

It is a gross violation of basic human rights for the hospital to threaten to get a court order and preform a medical procedure against her will.

The judge violated her rights again by refusing to issue a protective order against the hospital.

 

[Texashiker]

The hospital would provide care but it is a violation of ethics to treat in a manner that is likely to cause harm and in violation of standards of practice. These cannot be waved so they would be found liable in any court. In short they would be knowingly subjecting a patient to a harmful procedure and would most certainly pay the price.

So the next time you say "no, I do not want blood work done", the doctor can get a court order, restrain you against your will and do whatever he/she wants to your body?

Yea, I cut myself on some wire, but I do not want a tetanus shot. Here comes the court order and restraints.

Have a cough, doctor wants a lung biopsy, you refuse, here come the court order and restraints.

Sound ok to you?

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

I am asserting that the patient has the final word on their treatment course.

It is one thing for the doctor and hospital to disagree with the treatment course and refuse to treat her. If you want to harm yourself and your child, we will not facilitate that request.

It is a gross violation of basic human rights for the hospital to threaten to get a court order and preform a medical procedure against her will.

The judge violated her rights again by refusing to issue a protective order against the hospital.

If she shows up at the hospital and requires medical treatment they have to treat her. They're under oath to do no harm. Going to the courts is simply making sure the law is on their side to ensure they do no harm. No rights were harmed.

Where does this assertion of "right to treatment course" come from? You don't get to dictate exactly how a procedure is done. Doctors spend all their time learning and training and maintaining their skills so they can determine the best course of action.

 

[alzan]

< snip hyperbolic statements >

FTFY

 

[soulcougher73]

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.

Depends. Not everything is black and white. Is there a medical reason they won't do natural birth? Endanger the baby? If so then I'm OK with them refusing cesarean, although I'd want more than one Dr opinion on it. If it's unanimous to do cesarean than I'm fine with them forcing it due to babies life in danger.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

So the next time you say "no, I do not want blood work done", the doctor can get a court order, restrain you against your will and do whatever he/she wants to your body?

Yea, I cut myself on some wire, but I do not want a tetanus shot. Here comes the court order and restraints.

Have a cough, doctor wants a lung biopsy, you refuse, here come the court order and restraints.

Sound ok to you?

Except no one ever made the argument that she shouldn't be able to refuse treatment from that hospital? So what point are you trying to make?

 

[ajskydiver]

So the next time you say "no, I do not want blood work done", the doctor can get a court order, restrain you against your will and do whatever he/she wants to your body?

Yea, I cut myself on some wire, but I do not want a tetanus shot. Here comes the court order and restraints.

Have a cough, doctor wants a lung biopsy, you refuse, here come the court order and restraints.

Sound ok to you?

You're again omitting the key part of the ruling that stated to the individual in question that she would only be subjected to a procedure she didn't want if she returned to the hospital to give birth.

Does the hospital or an individual doctor have any right to refuse treatment to a patient they decide isn't in the patient's best interest?
(I know you won't directly answer that.)

 

[soulcougher73]

Oh... And posting in another failed Trollhiker thread.

 

[piasabird]

There was probably a reason why she had a cesarean the first time and the hospital may not want to chance the risk. Of course there is also a chance that the anesthesia either general or spinal tap could kill the mother or due to the operation, infection could kill the mother as well.

She could always try another hospital.

There could be some physical or medical reasons that indicate surgery is better for the patient. Some women tend not to open their hips properly or tend to arrive with the baby in the wrong position for birth.

A medical choice is one thing. Making an ill advised medical choice endangering the child is another thing.

Keep in mind that the doctors and hospitals are treating 2 patients when a woman gives birth. It is not just the choice of the mother that is important. The welfare of the child is also important.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

Keep in mind that the doctors and hospitals are treating 2 patients when a woman gives birth. It is not just the choice of the mother that is important. The welfare of the child is also important.

The risks go up with each c-section at this point it's ridiculous to attempt a VBAC. The conscience of the doctors you're asking to go into a procedure that's very likely to do harm is also something that needs to be kept in mind.

 

[Texashiker]

Where does this assertion of "right to treatment course" come from?

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

Page 3,

http://www.rbs2.com/rrmt.pdf

Union Pacific Railway Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251 (1891)

Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hospital, 105 N.E. 92, 93 (N.Y. 1914

Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dept. of Health, 497 U.S. 261, 270 (1990)

Cruzan v. Harmon, 760 S.W.2d 408, 417 (Mo. 1988)

Matter of Guardianship of L.W., 482 N.W.2d 60, 65 (Wis. 1992)

(&#8220;The logical corollary of the doctrine of informed consent is the right not to consent &#8212; the right to refuse treatment.&#8221;

In re Fiori, 673 A.2d 905, 910 (Pa. 1996)

(&#8220;The doctrine of informed consent declares that absent an emergency situation, medical treatment may not be imposed without the patient's informed consent.

Stouffer v. Reid, 993 A.2d 104, 109 (Maryl. 2010)

(&#8220;We explained that the &#8216;fountainhead of
the doctrine [of informed consent] is the patient's right to exercise control over his own body, ... by deciding for himself [or herself] whether or not to submit to the particular therapy.&#8217; Mack, ... 618 A.2d [744] at 755 (Maryl. 1993) (quoting Sard v. Hardy, ... 379 A.2d 1014, 1019 (Maryl. 1977)).)

Do you see that part, medical treatment may not be imposed without the patient's informed consent.

The woman did not consent to a c-section.

 

[ajskydiver]

<snip>...
The woman did not consent to a c-section.

Yes, she did when she later unsuccessfully tried to give birth and failed.

You really didn't read and comprehend the entire article, did you?

 

[nehalem256]

I love all the liberals saying pregnant women aren't capable of making choices about their medical care and need to have old white men tell them what treatment is appropriate for them.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

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

Page 3,

http://www.rbs2.com/rrmt.pdf

Union Pacific Railway Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251 (1891)

Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hospital, 105 N.E. 92, 93 (N.Y. 1914

Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dept. of Health, 497 U.S. 261, 270 (1990)

Cruzan v. Harmon, 760 S.W.2d 408, 417 (Mo. 1988)

Matter of Guardianship of L.W., 482 N.W.2d 60, 65 (Wis. 1992)

In re Fiori, 673 A.2d 905, 910 (Pa. 1996)


Stouffer v. Reid, 993 A.2d 104, 109 (Maryl. 2010)



Do you see that part, medical treatment may not be imposed without the patient's informed consent.

The woman did not consent to a c-section.

Please quit now for your own sake. You are fast approaching your own fail record. You don't know medicine or law.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I love all the liberals saying pregnant women aren't capable of making choices about their medical care and need to have old white men tell them what treatment is appropriate for them.

So you want parents to be able to demand that a child with a sore throat have their legs cut off too?

Trust me, you don't want to go down his roadm