Pregnant Women Warned: Consent to Surgical Birth or Else

[Londo_Jowo]

I don't understand why the OP can't figure out that the hospital and physicians/surgeons have rights as well. The hospital can't refuse emergency treatment but can refuse elective treatment.

But in early July, Bayfront Health Port Charlotte—the hospital where Goodall had been planning on giving birth in about two weeks—told her it wasn't permitted. A letter from Bayfront's chief financial officer said if she attempted a "trial of labor," the facility would report her to the state's Department of Children and Family Services, seek a court order to perform the surgery, and do the procedure "with or without (her) consent" if she stepped foot in the hospital.

With help from the National Advocates for Pregnant Women (NAPW), Goodall sought a restraining order to prevent the hospital from taking action.

But federal District Judge John E. Steele disagreed. In denying Goodall's request, Steele wrote that she has no "right to compel a physician or medical facility to perform a medical procedure in the manner she wishes against their best medical judgment."

 

[Texashiker]

I don't understand why the OP can't figure out that the hospital and physicians/surgeons have rights as well. The hospital can't refuse emergency treatment but can refuse elective treatment.

But federal District Judge John E. Steele disagreed. In denying Goodall's request, Steele wrote that she has no "right to compel a physician or medical facility to perform a medical procedure in the manner she wishes against their best medical judgment."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schloendorff_v._Society_of_New_York_Hospital

The doctor thought the tumor needed to be removed and and removed it without the consent of the patient.

The court decision,

Every human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with his own body; and a surgeon who performs an operation without his patient's consent commits an assault for which he is liable in damages.

Do you see that? Maybe you are blind? Maybe just trolling?

"a surgeon who performs an operation without his patient's consent commits an assault"

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

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.

Ahh, so you would support burning a child to death and forcing medical professionals to do it in the name of human rights. Thank you, my work here is done.

 

[Texashiker]

Ahh, so you would support burning a child to death and forcing medical professionals to do it in the name of human rights. Thank you, my work here is done.

You are trolling, please stop.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

You are trolling, please stop.

Ecce Homo.

 

[DrPizza]

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

You have argued ad nauseum in threads that it's murder to kill a fetus. You have argued that the fetus has the right to life almost from the moment of ejaculation. People have tried to explain to you what viable means - from the point that the fetus could live on its own, except in the rarest of circumstances, abortions are NOT permitted. Everyone agrees - Conservatives, Liberals, Republicans, Democrats: when the fetus is viable (can live if born at that moment in time), then its life is protected.

I cannot fathom how this thread has gone on for this long without you realizing this, unless others have done a shitty job of trying to explain it to you. Once again, you are a hypocrite of epic proportions.

 

[MrPickins]

You are trolling, please stop.

Can't form a cogent argument, so you resort to accusations of trolling?

As I mentioned before, you're really bad at this. :\

 

[DrPizza]

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

So there is a right to someone else's body in pursuit of right to life?

Yes, of course.

The womans right to privacy was suspended when she got pregnant.

This no different than someone getting a restraining order on him and not being able to buy a gun. The rights of that person were temporarily suspended through due process.

The woman can have her right to privacy back after the child is born.

Are you drinking? Are you high or something? Or are you really that stupid?

 

[Texashiker]

You have argued ad nauseum in threads that it's murder to kill a fetus. You have argued that the fetus has the right to life almost from the moment of ejaculation. People have tried to explain to you what viable means - from the point that the fetus could live on its own, except in the rarest of circumstances, abortions are NOT permitted. Everyone agrees - Conservatives, Liberals, Republicans, Democrats: when the fetus is viable (can live if born at that moment in time), then its life is protected.

I would rather leave abortion out of this thread.

If you want to share your opinions on human rights, and when we are granted rights, there are numerous other threads to do so.

Why do you wait until now and try to derail this thread?

No have no proof that attempting a vaginal birth would have resulted in harming the child.

You can speculate, and yes there is an increased risk, but you have no definitive proof that this case would had a 100% chance of harming the child.

I cannot fathom how this thread has gone on for this long without you realizing this, unless others have done a shitty job of trying to explain it to you. Once again, you are a hypocrite of epic proportions.

I have posted several court decisions that affirm my stance.

The same question goes for you as others, do you have "anything" to affirm your stance?

Do you have a single relevant court decision (public health does not apply) in which a doctor can force a patient to go through an unwanted medical procedure?

 

[Londo_Jowo]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schloendorff_v._Society_of_New_York_Hospital

The doctor thought the tumor needed to be removed and and removed it without the consent of the patient.

The court decision,



Do you see that? Maybe you are blind? Maybe just trolling?

"a surgeon who performs an operation without his patient's consent commits an assault"

The patient has the right to use another facility to have a child. Had she chose to use the hospital they would have taken the legal steps to force her to give birth via surgical means (ie "C" section).

 

[piasabird]

So what happens is a woman decides not to get a C section and then they run into complications and then elects under duress after endangering the life of her child to do the C Section. Then because of waiting something happens during the C Section or while waiting some damage is done and the baby is born with defects. Then the patient tries to blame the hospital or the doctor and files a law suit. Because of this, when you go to a hospital or a doctor your hospital bill will be higher.

 

[dank69]

I would rather leave abortion out of this thread.

...

Of course you would because it exposes you as a complete hypocrite. You will take one side of an argument when it suits your case on one subject and take the opposite side when it suits your case on another subject.

 

[Exophase]

Of course you would because it exposes you as a complete hypocrite. You will take one side of an argument when it suits your case on one subject and take the opposite side when it suits your case on another subject.

Not just that, but the opening post rather non-transparently alludes to pro-choice principles, as if trying to catch them as the hypocrites.

 

[Texashiker]

Of course you would because it exposes you as a complete hypocrite. You will take one side of an argument when it suits your case on one subject and take the opposite side when it suits your case on another subject.

Not just that, but the opening post rather non-transparently alludes to pro-choice principles, as if trying to catch them as the hypocrites.

Where are the people who staunchly defend a womans right to make decisions for her body?

A parent has the right to make medical decisions for the child.

Parent does not want the child vaccinated, should the doctor get a court order and vaccinate the child against the will of the parent?

Where does society draw the line when it comes to child safety? Are we 100%, or 90%,,, or whatever percent sure the child would be harmed with a vaginal birth?

C-sections are at epidemic levels. Are they that high for a medical reason, or convenience?

 

[MrPickins]

Of course you would because it exposes you as a complete hypocrite. You will take one side of an argument when it suits your case on one subject and take the opposite side when it suits your case on another subject.

He the same posts he dismisses valid evidence as well because it disagrees with his position:

Do you have a single relevant court decision (public health does not apply) in which a doctor can force a patient to go through an unwanted medical procedure?

 

[Londo_Jowo]

It appears that she chose to go with the hospital and "C" section. All this going round and round over nothing.

https://www.yahoo.com/health/florida-hospital-forces-woman-to-undergo-c-section-93128924277.html

July 28, 2014
Goodall gave birth via C-section on Friday.

YATHTT

 

[MrPickins]

Where are the people who staunchly defend a womans right to make decisions for her body?

I completely defend her right not to give birth at that hospital. But, that was never in danger...

Do you still assert that the doctors can be forced by her to perform a procedure which they consider to be so dangerous as to be unethical?

 

[piasabird]

If you carry your child for 9 months, it is not a fetus. Any half way intelligent person knows that if the baby is kicking the mother it is a baby. At some point of pregnancy hospitals consider the fetus to be able to be viable and able to survive outside of the womb. This upsets some people but I had to say it. Having fathered 2 children I understand this. This is why partial birth abortion is so offensive to most people.

My wife had 2 c sections. If the cervix of a woman does not open both the child and the mother could die.

During her last C-section, I was in the operating room and the nurse handed me the child as soon as it was removed from my wife and he wiped the blood off while I held my daughter. I saw my daughter before my wife did. You can lie to yourself, but most people are smarter than a pet rock.

 

[Texashiker]

He the same posts he dismisses valid evidence as well because it disagrees with his position:

You are being obtuse.

You are trying to compare public health to a private health decision.

http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/medical-battery.html

The Court ruled that a patient can revoke consent:

(a) if the revocation is clear and can evoke no doubt in the minds of reasonable men that consent was revoked;

(b) “it must be medically feasible for the doctor to desist in treatment or examination without the cassation being detrimental to the patient’s health or life from a medical viewpoint.”

In the opening post, the hospital said if the woman stepped foot inside the hospital they would seek a court order.

Not that if there was an emergency, or if she was unable to deliver vaginal. There was not even an indication that she needed to be in labor before the hospital would force her to have a c-section.

 

[MrPickins]

It appears that she chose to go with the hospital and "C" section. All this going round and round over nothing.

https://www.yahoo.com/health/florida-hospital-forces-woman-to-undergo-c-section-93128924277.html



YATHTT

Interesting comment on that article:

This article is so completely wrong about the facts it's crazy. Even the headline is wrong--nobody forced her to get a c-section.

Here's what happened.

The hospital did not force her to undergo a c-section or take her to court to try and get the court to force her . *SHE* took the hospital to court to try and get a federal judge to tell the hospital that it HAD to admit her as a patient and let her try to give birth how she wanted, i.e., let her try labor. She took them to court because the hospital had told her, (1) it's generally not considered safe to try a VBA3C (vaginal birth after 3 c-sections) at all, and we are not equipped to handle that here; (2) but we know a hospital 20 miles away that IS equipped to handle that risk, and willing to take you as a patient, and we'll help get you transferred over there ASAP; and (3) **if you insist on coming here to deliver** despite the fact that we already told you we're not equipped to handle that risk, then you need to consent to a CS or else we will call child and family services.

Instead of just going to the hospital 20 miles away like any reasonable person would do, she went to federal court to try and get a judge to force this hospital to do something that its own doctors, its ethics board and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists does not recommend. (The ACOG recommends VBAC in adequately equipped hospitals after 1 or 2 c-sections, but NOT after 3).

The judge said he didn't have any authority to force doctors to participate in anything that was against their best medical judgment. So, Ms. Goodall lost her case.

And then she went to the hospital 20 miles away, labored there, and (just as the original hospital had anticipated) ended up needing a c-section anyway for medical reasons. And she consented to that c-section--it was not forced on her.

 

[MrPickins]

You are being obtuse.

You're like a little kid who just learned a new word. I'm glad I could teach it to you, but one small bit of advice: the more you use it the less power it holds.

In the opening post, the hospital said if the woman stepped foot inside the hospital they would seek a court order.

Thank you, but you posted an opinion piece and not the actual correspondence. :sneaky:

Seriously though, I haven't seen any proof of a court order.

Not that if there was an emergency, or if she was unable to deliver vaginal.

Per United States Code that I've already quoted in this thread, her showing up at the hospital in labor would be considered a medical emergency.

There was not even an indication that she needed to be in labor before the hospital would force her to have a c-section.

So you have access to this court order? Please post the wording; I would like to review it.

 

[abj13]

A parent has the right to make medical decisions for the child.

Ignorance is bliss. I suggest you read about parents refusing treatment for leukemia. Obviously if you knew about that subject, you wouldn't say such a patently false statement.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Interesting comment on that article:

Yeah that was awesome.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Interesting comment on that article:

Sounds more realistic and believable, not something TH would really care about. Guy needs a new hobby, trolling is getting old.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Interesting comment on that article:

Gee it almost sounds like that first hospital knew exactly what it was doing from the beginning.