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

[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.