• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Pregnant Women Warned: Consent to Surgical Birth or Else

Page 10 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Texashypocrite said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
MrPickins said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Texashiker said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
zinfamous said:
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.
Click to expand...

I confess I've watched a video of a train wreck. This thread has much the same appeal 😀
 
zinfamous said:
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.
Click to expand...

Sadly, this is 100% true. :\
 
zinfamous said:
The problem is that he thinks he has already provided that evidence. He hasn't, but he will never understand that.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
Texashiker said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Texashiker said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm done with nice. How stupid can you be and still draw breath?
 
ch33zw1z said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Texashiker said:
Both were a medical procedure preformed without consent.
Click to expand...

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).
 
Hayabusa Rider said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Hayabusa Rider said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top