An interesting moral question

[gridlore]

Woman charged with murder after allegedly ignoring warnings to have Caesarean

A pregnant woman who allegedly ignored medical warnings to have a Caesarean section to save her twins was charged Thursday with murder after one of the babies was stillborn.

OK, I'm a strong supporter of abortion rights. My opinion is that until that child is born, it is the mother's choice on what happens to her body. Even so, I've set myself a "moral limit." Once the fetus is viable, it's too late. If you can't make up your mind in before that point, it's simply too late.

Now, what burns me about this case is the woman refusing a C-section because she didn't want the scars. Utterly shallow. Makes me want to slap her.

But I question the murder charge. In Utah, murder can be charged for harming or killing a fetus except in cases of abortion. The law has been used to prosecute women who take drugs while pregnant, for example. But here? Let's be clear. A C-section is am invasive medical procedure, surgery, that carries all the risks of surgery. Should it be a crime to refuse surgery for whatever reason? Say that she objected to the surgery on religious grounds.. would the charges even have been filed?

Would you prosecute the case?

Comments

[karmabreeze.livejournal.com]

If they have to allow it on religious grounds, they have to allow it for everyone else as well. I don't agree with her decision, and much less with her rationale, but the law as I understand it allows her to determine what constitutes appropriate medical treatment both her herself and for her children.

[twfarlan.livejournal.com]

There are a number of things that are allowed for religious purposes that are not otherwise protected. A person expressing one type of speech that is labelled "religious" is protected, whereas something that is not founded in religious belief, such as hate speech, is not protected by the Constitution. We draw arbitrary lines when it comes to religion frequently in this society. We might in some places allow the sacrifice of a chicken for religious reasons but will not allow cats to be killed due to animal cruelty laws; getting the "religion" argument across to a judge is usually pretty hard to manage when it comes to that. We definitely do not allow one person to murder another based on religion; human sacrifice isn't protected practice even if the sacrificial human is found to be of sound mind and perfectly willing to die for the cause. It's murder without question, most likely prosecuted as premeditated murder at that. Now, the question arises: is the situation Doug mentioned a simple refusal of a medical procedure, a murder based on cosmetic reasons, or a VERY late term unintentional abortion? Further, does the woman have any grounds upon which to sue the doctor for malpractice for allowing her child to die? Malpractice cases have been won on shakier rational standing than this; I'm amazed a woman who thinks her scar-free skin is more important than improving one of her babies' chance at living hasn't already considered the monetary gamble of a malpractice lawsuit.

[cleverthylacine]

Have you ever had the version of this procedure that the woman says the doctors wanted to do on her?

And have we any proof she was ever offered any other type of C-section?

[twfarlan.livejournal.com]

No, I haven't had the version the woman was claiming to have been offered. I'm male, I wouldn't have it, now would I? And further, what difference does it make which C-section procedure they were discussing? She didn't want the scarring. That's it. Pure bullshit, not a good enough reason. The law in the state is written that an unborn fetus is covered by the homicide laws except in the case of an abortion procedure, which is not the case here. Murder is an acceptable charge for this woman based on that law.

[cleverthylacine]

If you're male, and you're going around judging women, and you think what I was talking about below is 'purely cosmetic':

PLEASE VACATE MY FRIENDS LIST KTHX. And I'm defriending you, because I do not want you reading my personal entries.

[twfarlan.livejournal.com]

I judge human beings based on their behavior and stated motives. If you know a better way to relate to another person, I'd like to hear it.

[gigglingwizard.livejournal.com]

You're laying it on a little thick with the accusations of Rowland's alleged vanity. Where do you get that? In every article I've read, Rowland has not been quoted once--neither directly nor by hearsay--as saying that she would rather let her baby die than have an ugly scar. Not once. That's coming entirely out of the DA's office. The prosecutor, the person whose job it is to get the maximum penalty for the maximum number of people regardless of their actual guilt or innocence. It's the prosecutor's job to make defendants look like the scum of the earth so a jury will put them away for as long as legally possible. The defense attorney, on the other hand, is supposed to get their client totally exonerated regardless of actual guilt or innocence. That's why they call it an adversarial system. Neither side is after the truth; we just have competing extremes. The prosecution is one of those extremes, and he's the only person in this story claiming that this was about cosmetic concerns.

The hearsay quote we have from Rowland was that it would ruin her life. Now how do you figure she came to that conclusion? Have you seen a picture of her? I have, and I'm guessing she's not a bikini model. It's not like it would have ruined her career. We can really only come to two obvious conclusions, then--she thought it would ruin her life socially, or she thought it would physically impair her. If it's the first, yeah, that's cosmetic, but it's bigger than just that. Maybe she was afraid she'd lose her husband over it or something. But I think she meant "ruin my life" more as in the way your life is ruined when you get paralyzed in a car accident or get your legs blown off or something. It doesn't kill you, but it does "ruin your life."

The fact that she never sought prenatal treatment until she was afraid the babies weren't moving shows right off that she had an aversion to medical care. I think the fact that the first hospital she went to was the LDS hospital is telling, too. There's no evidence that the staff at the LDS place did anything to inform her of her options or reassure her of the safety of the procedure. At first, she refused to go to any other hospital, but she did, in fact, end up going to two other hospitals just to verify that her babies were alive. It sounds to me like she was very concerned about the well-being of her babies but just didn't hold the doctors' advice in very high regard, probably because of a religious bias.

[twfarlan.livejournal.com]

Of course I'm laying it on thick. I'm an editorialist if you're feeling gracious and a cynic if you aren't. ;)

Seriously though, if we're looking at strictly the facts and circumstances (which is how the legal system through the adversarial process is SUPPOSED to work), the lady in question really isn't putting forth much of a case for lack of guilt here. As someone else mentioned, perhaps murder isn't exactly the right charge. Perhaps manslaughter by negligence is more fitting, we'll have to see as more comes to light.

So far, here are several pieces of the story that have been reported:

1) Indeed, she did wait for prenatal treatment until she had suspicion that there was something wrong. This is hardly a crime and as such isn't precisely relevant to a reading of the facts.
2) She did indeed first approach a LDS (Mormon)-run facility, which begs the question of why. If she herself is Mormon, it offers a religious argument for the denial of service she chose. If she went to the facility because they are cheaper, the nearest hospital to her home, or are perhaps set up with her local municipality to accept anyone for treatment regardless of insurance status, then these are all still important details but do not offer a religious observance defense.
3) Speaking of the religious observance defense, she has effectively torpedoed it by apparently stating when questioned that not only has she not been offered a C-section at any of the three facilities, she has in fact given birth twice before and that at least one of those was by Caesarian section surgery. If she claims to have converted in that time period to a religion that no longer allows such invasive procedures, then the court finds itself in a very sticky situation. Again, if this is not the case, then we have to question her motivation if indeed she was offered a C-section.
4) Someone mentioned the cost of a C-section procedure. It can indeed be expensive; however, there are in many states laws saying that emergency procedures to save a life cannot be withheld based on an inability to pay. County-funded hospitals for instance fall into this category in most states; they cannot deny treatment for someone simply because they cannot pay. Since Utah's homicide law does cover a foetus (excepting during an abortion procedure), this would seem to cover a foetus whose life is in danger lacking the procedure.
5) The three facilities she consulted should have records of her visit and what tests were done or such. If any of the three have a record of a doctor recommending a C-section, then her claim that no such option was offered to her is proven to be false, damaging her current defense, probably fatally so.
6) Keep in mind that the surviving child has tested positive for drugs of some kind in its system. Presumably these would be illegal drugs; it is perhaps the word-twisting style of a tabloid to say "drugs" but leave out an important detail like "legal drugs administered by the hospital," but when dealing with broadcast news and municipal newspapers, one can make certain assumptions as to the contextual meaning of "drugs" to mean illegal ones. Her surviving child having drugs in its system is rather damaging to her case as it is fairly good proof of her own illegal activities, her disregard for the damage the drugs would be doing to her unborn children, and a bad mark regarding her state of mind at the time as well as her ability to make important decisions.

While I admit to being flip before, looking at the situation, she really is in deep shit and I can't see where she's done much other than dig herself down pretty deeply with both word and deed, here.

[lizw.livejournal.com]

I don't agree with her decision, and much less with her rationale, but the law as I understand it allows her to determine what constitutes appropriate medical treatment both her herself and for her children.

Yes. I would not prosecute, for these reasons.