woman who refused c-section charged with murder *NOW WITH PIC*

[rh71]

Retarded. Both sides... retarded.

 

[Squisher]

Originally posted by: Dulanic

Originally posted by: MrDudeMan

Originally posted by: Dulanic
What next, what if they had to do something to her that would kill her, but allow the child to live? She kills herself the kid lives, she doesnt and she gets charged with murder? This whole thing is fvcking stupid. When we get to the point where we tell people, get this surgery or go to prison... it just shows how fvcked up our justice system is.

VERY BAD COMPARISON. she was NOT in danger AT ALL. dont take this out of context. this thread is about this stupid woman who made a stupid choice and killed her baby (most likely) because of it.

if it is between mother and child, one of them WILL die FOR SURE, then leave it up to the woman. if the mother is FINE either way, then FVCK her choice, let the kid live!

No it's not a very bad compairison legally it is the same thing, both cases she would have to get surgery or the baby would die. And you can NOT say she was not in danger AT ALL, there can be complications with a C-Section.... at what point do we say it is too much risk to the mother? If she has a 5% chance of dying, she goes to jail but if its a 50% chance she doesnt? I don't agree with what she did, but where do we draw the line? What if they say she would have a 49% chance of dying then she should go to jail? This is why I don't agree with this crap.

Can't we assume she she had accepted the risk by deciding to have a child?

There are plenty of risks in natural childbirth.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Ameesh
christian scientist have this problem, the difference they dont goto hospitals, cause doctors are the spawn of satan. but they dont get charged with murder.

Actually, there have been attempts to charge them with murder in the past. To my knowledge, all have failed.
Religious freedom is a right.
The freedom to refuse medical treatment is a right.

Like it or not, these freedoms (and many others) are what makes our country great.

 

[CaseTragedy]

Originally posted by: MrDudeMan

Originally posted by: Saulbadguy

Originally posted by: MrDudeMan

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: dxkj
Before you all go and tear on this lady, realize that she was probably a morman, and that a c-section would be against her religion to have.

So she trusted that the children would be born fine, and one wasn't. Blame the religion not her.

Absolutely Wrong. A C-section is not against or contrary to Mormonism in any way. I have no idea where you might have heard that but it is total bullsh!t.

Originally posted by: 911paramedic
It is a patients right to refuse ANY TREATMENT, EVEN LIFESAVING TREATMENT as long as they are competent. Refusing to have surgery is her choice, as badly as it turned out.

P.S. Save me the "who asked the baby if they wanted surgery" stuff, I agree it's terrible, but charging her with murder is insane.

Absolutely right. But I have been arguing for years that a patient's right to refuse medical treatment would eventually be revoked. This incident is proof.

i would agree with you, but another human died because of her stupidity. if someone else is going to die because you dont want treatment, then i dont think it should be your choice. if you are going to die, and only you, then fine, do whatever you want.

What about those who cannot decide? People on life support?

thats a tougher question, but if the patient can make a decision, and that decision will kill or harm someone else, then they should not be allowed to decide.

if the patient is unable to decide, i would say pull the plug if they are never coming back. what a waste of insurance money.

if i am ever on life support with a very low probability of ever coming off, i dont want to be sitting there like a bump on a log. what a waste of everyones life who is involved (family, doctors, nurses, etc.).

edit: clarity

not everyone would be that quick to pull the plug. if my wife was to be on life support with only a low probability of coming out--i'll sure as hell fight with my last breath to make sure she has that chance (no matter how small).

regarding the OP--charging her with murder is insane.


-Case

 

[mitaiwan82]

Originally posted by: Xionide
wtf?

word

 

[LuNoTiCK]

Even thought I don't agree with her decision it was still her right.

 

[Ameesh]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Ameesh
christian scientist have this problem, the difference they dont goto hospitals, cause doctors are the spawn of satan. but they dont get charged with murder.

Actually, there have been attempts to charge them with murder in the past. To my knowledge, all have failed.
Religious freedom is a right.
The freedom to refuse medical treatment is a right.

Like it or not, these freedoms (and many others) are what makes our country great.

yeah, its defintely their perogative.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Ameesh
christian scientist have this problem, the difference they dont goto hospitals, cause doctors are the spawn of satan. but they dont get charged with murder.

Yeah, when I read this story I immediately thought of Christian Scientists. I seem to remember a homicide prosecution some years ago against some CSs who refused to take their toddler to the hospital after he was stung by an entire swarm of bees, with fatal results.

I can't imagine this case being prosecuted but for the woman's alleged comments. It seems to me noone can be compelled to undergo any medical procedure against their own explicit wishes, notwithstanding the child's life. If she really said what they claim it's hard to feel much sorrow for her, but this seems like a deeply flawed prosecution to me.

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: NFS4
Here's a hypothetical for you. Let's say that in a freak case of nature, a woman is faced with two possibilities:

(1) The mother delivers the baby, the mother WILL die of complications, but the baby will most likely live. I think there's something similar this, preclampcia? Aplasticnemia? Something like that...

(2) If the mother refuses to deliver the baby, the baby will die, but the mother will live.

Wrap your little fingers around that one.

Or

(3) Mother refuses to have C-section to save babies only for vanity reasons. Oh all 3 would have lived.

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: LuNoTiCK
Even thought I don't agree with her decision it was still her right.

I wish i could be there when tells her baby how and why her twin died.

 

[GreenGhost]

This DA thinks he's Jack McCoy

Wasn't there an episode where he nails a woman who did not let the doctors treat her daughter because of some religious beliefs?

I agree with having her locked up.

 

[yukichigai]

This whole thing makes me honestly wonder about the morals of this woman, i.e. does she have any at all? This is not to say what she did was necessarily ethical or unethical, but simply an observation of the mindset of most pregnant women carrying a baby to term. Every expectant mother I've ever met has treated the fetus inside them as a baby, talking to it, reffering to it as a person, etc. From what the news story has said about this woman it appears as though she had that mindset, calling the fetus in question "my child", etc. Yet when it came to a choice between a C-section -- a commonly-performed medical procedure with minimal risk -- and a "probable" chance that one of the fetuses might expire, she chose the latter. We don't have to decide whether or not the fetus counted as a child, she did it for us! She made it perfectly clear she considered the fetuses inside her children. And at the very least that means she intended to endager a child, even if the courts decide that technically the fetus wasn't a child yet.

Here's a good parallel to my argument: a woman is found murdered, her death apparantly caused by a shotgun fired in her mouth. However the ME finds that she in fact died of a prescription drug overdose, an apparant suicide, 4 hours before the incident with the shotgun. When the culprit of the so-called "shotgun incident" is found what is he charged with? Obviously not Murder, since she was already dead. But since for all intesive purposes he was ready and willing to commit murder, he is charged with Attempted Murder. As far as he knew he was killing the woman, and he didn't care. Ergo there must be punishment.

Of course I think she should be punished anyway. Don't get me wrong, I completely believe in a woman's right to control over her body. But I do also believe that the first trimester is a reasonable limit for when an abortion can be performed. It may be a little sketchy as to whether or not you can consider the fetus a sentient being at the beginning of the second trimester. However there's no doubt in my mind that a fetus is a sentient being only 2 f%$#ing days before natural delivery occured.

 

[Ornery]

I think I finally figured this out. The doctor is SO disgusted with her, that he is trying to make her life as miserable as possible. No matter what the court decides, he's accomplished what he set out to do. I doubt she'll be getting any sympathy from family and friends after this. If the doctor hadn't taken this to the authorities, nobody ever would have known the truth. That's my theory anyway...

 

[Geekbabe]

A lot of people are under some mistaken impression that c-section is a totally safe,easy way to give birth,it isn't! There is a huge difference between a doctor advising a c-section to be cautious and a doctor saying "we've got to get the baby out right now it's an emergency"

I had an emergency c-section I was cut from pubic bone to almost the sternum,that surgery saved my daughter but resulted in subsequent internal infection and scarring that resulted in me almost dying and requiring 3 more surgeries over the course of 8 yrs,it also ended my reproductive capability.If one can avoid c-section it is the best course.

 

[ViRGE]

Originally posted by: Geekbabe
A lot of people are under some mistaken impression that c-section is a totally safe,easy way to give birth,it isn't! There is a huge difference between a doctor advising a c-section to be cautious and a doctor saying "we've got to get the baby out right now it's an emergency"

I had an emergency c-section I was cut from pubic bone to almost the sternum,that surgery saved my daughter but resulted in subsequent internal infection and scarring that resulted in me almost dying and requiring 3 more surgeries over the course of 8 yrs,it also ended my reproductive capability.If one can avoid c-section it is the best course.

Ditto. My brother was delivered c-section, and something similar happened to my mother(she ultimately needed a historectomy). Mind you, this was nearly 20 years ago, so medical science has become a little better, but still...

 

[SilverThief]

SHe should be charged with murder. The idiot B@tch.

 

[Geekbabe]

Originally posted by: ViRGE

Originally posted by: Geekbabe
A lot of people are under some mistaken impression that c-section is a totally safe,easy way to give birth,it isn't! There is a huge difference between a doctor advising a c-section to be cautious and a doctor saying "we've got to get the baby out right now it's an emergency"

I had an emergency c-section I was cut from pubic bone to almost the sternum,that surgery saved my daughter but resulted in subsequent internal infection and scarring that resulted in me almost dying and requiring 3 more surgeries over the course of 8 yrs,it also ended my reproductive capability.If one can avoid c-section it is the best course.

Ditto. My brother was delivered c-section, and something similar happened to my mother(she ultimately needed a historectomy). Mind you, this was nearly 20 years ago, so medical science has become a little better, but still...

My point is that I'd need more than the information given to make any sort of judgement on this woman's choice.My current doctor feels that c-section is over used in this country and renders women "reproductive cripples" in terms of the potenmtial complications and possible future problems.Also being cut from pubic bone to sternum does result in considerable cosmetic damage,not something to be undertaken lightly or to simply accomodate a doctor's tee off schedule.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Geekbabe

Originally posted by: ViRGE

Originally posted by: Geekbabe
A lot of people are under some mistaken impression that c-section is a totally safe,easy way to give birth,it isn't! There is a huge difference between a doctor advising a c-section to be cautious and a doctor saying "we've got to get the baby out right now it's an emergency"

I had an emergency c-section I was cut from pubic bone to almost the sternum,that surgery saved my daughter but resulted in subsequent internal infection and scarring that resulted in me almost dying and requiring 3 more surgeries over the course of 8 yrs,it also ended my reproductive capability.If one can avoid c-section it is the best course.

Ditto. My brother was delivered c-section, and something similar happened to my mother(she ultimately needed a historectomy). Mind you, this was nearly 20 years ago, so medical science has become a little better, but still...

My point is that I'd need more than the information given to make any sort of judgement on this woman's choice.My current doctor feels that c-section is over used in this country and renders women "reproductive cripples" in terms of the potenmtial complications and possible future problems.Also being cut from pubic bone to sternum does result in considerable cosmetic damage,not something to be undertaken lightly or to simply accomodate a doctor's tee off schedule.

Or fee schedule...

 

[halik]

even though the reasoning behind was idiotic,
the woman should not be charged with murded. Her reasons for not having c-section have nothing to do with the whole case, you have the right to refuse medical attention.


How would you all feel if her reason was because she wanted em to be completly natural or that she has a reason to believe that will render her impotent??? No matter what the answer is, it doesnt change the grand scheme of things and hence forth can not be murder.

The whole problem lies in the deciding when an unborn baby is considered "a person". If it is 2 days before its born, then she should be charged with murder even if she had to chose between A) death due to c section B)losing the kid and went with B

 

[Geekbabe]

Originally posted by: halik
even though the reasoning behind was idiotic,
the woman should not be charged with murded. Her reasons for not having c-section have nothing to do with the whole case, you have the right to refuse medical attention.


How would you all feel if her reason was because she wanted em to be completly natural or that she has a reason to believe that will render her impotent??? No matter what the answer is, it doesnt change the grand scheme of things and hence forth can not be murder.

The whole problem lies in the deciding when an unborn baby is considered "a person". If it is 2 days before its born, then she should be charged with murder even if she had to chose between A) death due to c section B)losing the kid and went with B

The life of the mother is considered a valid reason to sacrifice the interests of the unborn in all but the most seriously fundie communities.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: Geekbabe

Originally posted by: halik
even though the reasoning behind was idiotic,
the woman should not be charged with murded. Her reasons for not having c-section have nothing to do with the whole case, you have the right to refuse medical attention.


How would you all feel if her reason was because she wanted em to be completly natural or that she has a reason to believe that will render her impotent??? No matter what the answer is, it doesnt change the grand scheme of things and hence forth can not be murder.

The whole problem lies in the deciding when an unborn baby is considered "a person". If it is 2 days before its born, then she should be charged with murder even if she had to chose between A) death due to c section B)losing the kid and went with B

The life of the mother is considered a valid reason to sacrifice the interests of the unborn in all but the most seriously fundie communities.

yeah but from the legal definition is still a murder as the mother knowingly decided a course of action that will terminate her children. Do you see the parallel between this and what happened?

 

[911paramedic]

I'll say it again, a person has a right to refuse any medical procedures if they are competent to make such a descision. (not that I agree with it)

If anybody has seen a c-section from the other end, not the clean draped side, you would understand it's a major procedure. If you got a chance to watch one in person, after 1/2 of you got up off the floor you would agree with that at least.

 

[Saulbadguy]

UPDATED STORY WITH PIC!!!!!

 

[Geekbabe]

Originally posted by: 911paramedic
I'll say it again, a person has a right to refuse any medical procedures if they are competent to make such a descision. (not that I agree with it)

If anybody has seen a c-section from the other end, not the clean draped side, you would understand it's a major procedure. If you got a chance to watch one in person, after 1/2 of you got up off the floor you would agree with that at least.

My problem with all of this is that pimple farmers who will never hear the command"put your feet in the stirrups and slide your ass all the way to the end of the table" are judging this woman so harshly and on the limited info of one news clipping.It's also interesting that if shown pics of a woman who's obviously endured major surgery to produce a child these same moralists would be saying"ewwww fugly,disgusting,gross!"

So many of you have so little clue of what living really involves and such a narrow view of what goes into making such grave choices that the future scares me,we won't even go into the really narrow view view of what constitutes physical beauty.

 

[Saulbadguy]

Originally posted by: 911paramedic
I'll say it again, a person has a right to refuse any medical procedures if they are competent to make such a descision. (not that I agree with it)

If anybody has seen a c-section from the other end, not the clean draped side, you would understand it's a major procedure. If you got a chance to watch one in person, after 1/2 of you got up off the floor you would agree with that at least.

I never knew they actually "tore" the skin or whatnot. It hurts my stomach everytime I think about it now.