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]

I die hard Scientologist would refuse too - does violation of religious mores now constitute a murder rap as well?

[nsingman.livejournal.com]

I wouldn't on practical grounds. I don't see how it could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. There is no such thing as trivial, riskless abdominal surgery. Nor is there such a thing as a trivial, riskless pregnancy. A stillborn baby is a tragedy, but it need not be the result of any action taken (or omitted) by the mother.

Of course, if someone did slap the mother in this case, I would vote to acquit the slapper of assault charges.

[twfarlan.livejournal.com]

Yes, I'd prosecute the case. First off, the child could have been saved. Second, she didn't decline on religious grounds, which is a protected right under our Constitution. She declined for cosmetic reasons; it isn't life, liberty, and the pursuit of clear skin and toned abs. Now, frankly, if she's worried more about herself than about her child, I would further remove the child who DID survive on the grounds that she does not have the right mindset for child rearing. Further, I'd have her sterilized to make sure this could not happen again. But then, I'm admittedly a draconian tyrant who says that "rights" are subsumed by responsibilities in a citizen, so perhaps I'm a touch biased. (grin)

Then again, perhaps she should win an award. After all, she did pull back one of her contributions to global overpopulation. Further, she did it for cosmetic reasons, proving once again that the world is too full of idiots not to do SOMETHING about it. I know how we can reward her: take away the living child. After all, doesn't she know that child raising causes wrinkles and gray hair?

[sinboy.livejournal.com]

For murder? No. Dunno what the charges should be, but not murder.

Potential TMI

[cleverthylacine]

It says in the article that she had twins and had been warned that she might lose one, which isn't all that uncommon in multiple pregnancies.

Also...

In the quote, she says the doctor wanted 'to cut her from breast bone to pubic bone'. I had this incision. It's supposed to be strictly an emergency procedure. The scarring is really, truly horrendous. There's nothing quite like having someone you're sleeping with drape your skirt across your midsection rather than removing it. (I think part of the reason Hiroshi kept me so long was that he didn't do this.)

I did not question, nor do I regret, the surgery, because I would have died if I hadn't had it and the baby was pretty much a lost cause though they did try.

But I wouldn't have done it voluntarily under ANY other circumstances, frankly. I used to belly dance, but it's been 10, almost 11 years, and I still can't do a lot of the things I used to do because of the damage to the stomach muscles, and the incision herniated several times which freaked the fuck out of me.

There are other ways to do a C-section, and perhaps if the doctor had been more flexible or explained better, or been willing to consider alternatives, she would have changed her mind.

I unfortunately think prosecution for "fetal abuse" is a real bad idea. People will ultimately question why they should permit exemptions for abortion...

Also, forcing surgery on people? Not much better than forcing pregnancy on them. *shrug*

It's kind of pissing me off that people are saying 'oh, she just didn't want a scar, boo hoo'. You can say that after you've lived with a seven inch surgical scar that fucks up your stomach muscles, makes you look like you have your butt on your stomach, and is in danger of herniating when your weight fluctuates, that you always feel you have to warn prospectives about because yeah, THEY'RE the weenies if they freak, but you know, you still feel like crap.

IF she had been offered a bikini incision, which is much less damaging and far less unpleasant to look at/live with...she might have decided differently.

[kengr]

Actually, there seem to be various stories going around. And in the one I saw, the comment about the scar was from a possibly biased source.

I also have to wonder about the quotes that mentioned that she refused to go near a couple of hospitals.

This sounds to me like a person who has issues with the medical profession (be they rational or not).

I'd say we don't have enough info.

my thoughts....

[jarlsberg71.livejournal.com]

Since I'm male I kinda think I shouldn't have a say in just about anything regarding pregnancy since I'll never be that way or cause one...

So that said, If she wanted to have the birth at home where a C-section isn't practical that I know of, the results would have been the same... Yes it's bad, But it's her choice... Yes she's shallow, but with the way things are going lately, if we give in 1 inch the government will take a mile...