March 12, 2004

You are on the invidual archive page of Ownership. Click Simon World weblog for the main page.
Ownership

It is inevitable that modern society and its pressures to "look good" will be blamed for this ugly incident. A woman refused a Caesarean section to save her twins due to cosmetic considerations. One was born stillborn. That is sick and she deserves the full punishment the law can give her. Once she lawyer's up she will no doubt try and blame society and the drive to remain beautiful, to remain forever young. The sad truth is she only has her own vanity to blame. That she faces only 5 years in prison is woefully inadequate. That her other child will suffer immeasurably too makes the whole episode a sad and sorry one.

Slowly America is showing signs of moving away from a no-blame society, where responsibility is taken by everyone but yourself. This is a start. It has powerful implications going forward, especially in the law of torts. People taking responsibility for their own actions - what a concept. It may one day prevent tragedies like this one.

posted by Simon on 03.12.04 at 11:03 AM in the




Trackbacks:

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://blog.mu.nu/cgi/trackback.cgi/13089


Send a manual trackback ping to this post.

Ownership follow-up
Excerpt: Following up from my previous post on the woman who refused a C-section that would have saved one of her babies' lives, there comes more from The Smoking Gun. There's been some lively debate on this one and many are rushing to this woman's defence, but...
Weblog: Simon World
Tracked: March 16, 2004 08:07 AM


bnpeiro
Excerpt: mlntueruasl
Weblog: toiiwdiz
Tracked: April 7, 2005 07:33 PM


Comments:

Hmm, the "cosmetic reasons" quote that leads to the perception of a very shallow woman is from the prosecutor, not something she actually said. Being a complete wuss about surgery myself, I can understand why she was freaked out by the thought of an invasive operation.

But looking at the overall case, I think it has awkward implications with regards to abortion and also religous beliefs. What kind of medical procedures can the state compell someone to undertake? (For example, Jehovah's Witnesses commonly refuse blood transfusions).

I don't think that giving her 5 years in prison is going to improve the life of her surviving child, either...

posted by: Michael on 03.12.04 at 11:22 AM [permalink]

Don't know much about this case in particular but the part on "no-blame soceity" is nicely said. Accountability for actions slip away as we blame it on our genes, imperfect childhood, social pressure etc...

posted by: dawn on 03.12.04 at 02:13 PM [permalink]

I recently found out that in England a woman can choose a Cesarean or natural birth. Interesting. So I have the choice of getting knifed in the uterus or pushing something the size of a watermelon out of something the size of a lemon.

Makes me long to be part Marsupial.

posted by: Helen on 03.12.04 at 07:14 PM [permalink]

Be careful about coming to conclusions before getting all the facts; the stillbirthing woman has only been charged so far. It could turn out that the nurse mischaracterized the woman's statements, or lied outright. Other reasons could exist for her decision not to endure Ceasarean section.

Also, I don't think that suits against fast food producers by obese plaintiffs (which have been struck down repeatedly, btw - in addition to Congress' legislative action) hails the start of anything. It's the evolution of the common law. The plaintiffs were probably inspired by class actions against tobacco manufacturers; greedy lawyers saw a way to earn heaps of cash and therefore tried to file suit.

People have always tried to blame misfortune on others - this is nothing new, and doesn't herald the beginning of an era of irresponsibility. It is the responsibility of society - through courts and legislation, and the executive by enforcement, to place boundaries on this sort of nonsense.

posted by: tom on 03.14.04 at 05:07 AM [permalink]

I agree with the above poster, don't jump to conclusions.
Here is some information and perspective on what is known so far from the Blog "Body and Soul"

"...The BBC also adds a rather significant detail the AP left out: Rowland -- by her own testimony, at least -- had two previous C-sections.

Another detail that might have been worth mentioning appears in the Salt Lake Tribune: Melissa Rowland has a long history of mental illness. She was first committed to a mental hospital when she was twelve years old.

Suddenly the narrative shifts a bit. A frightened, mentally ill, pregnant woman, living on Social Security disability benefits, facing eviction, the father of her children gone, went from hospital to hospital looking for help, and no one knew what to do for her or how to reach her. And because of that, she has been in jail for nearly two months and faces murder charges."
http://bodyandsoul.typepad.com/blog/2004/03/charges.html

The BBC article is here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3504720.stm

It think it is chilling when it is possible to be sent to prison for failing to comply with medical advice (which we all know is *not* perfect).

posted by: anon on 03.14.04 at 03:26 PM [permalink]

I agree with the above poster, don't jump to conclusions.
Here is some information and perspective on what is known so far from the Blog "Body and Soul"
***************
"...The BBC also adds a rather significant detail the AP left out: Rowland -- by her own testimony, at least -- had two previous C-sections.

Another detail that might have been worth mentioning appears in the Salt Lake Tribune: Melissa Rowland has a long history of mental illness. She was first committed to a mental hospital when she was twelve years old.

Suddenly the narrative shifts a bit. A frightened, mentally ill, pregnant woman, living on Social Security disability benefits, facing eviction, the father of her children gone, went from hospital to hospital looking for help, and no one knew what to do for her or how to reach her. And because of that, she has been in jail for nearly two months and faces murder charges."
Body and Soul Blog

******************
The BBC article mentioned above.

It think it is chilling when it is possible to be sent to prison for failing to comply with medical advice (which we all know is *not* always perfect).

According to this story Ms. Rowland eventually did have the C-section. So she is a murderer because she had one too late?

Further update
*************************
"Jailed but indignant, Melissa Ann Rowland insists she is not a murderer.

Rather, the 28-year-old woman at the center of the extraordinary first-degree homicide charges filed Thursday in Salt Lake City, says she is a mother who did the best she could for her twin babies -- one stillborn, one born alive -- by arranging adoptions prior to giving birth to guarantee a safe, secure and prosperous childhood for her boy and girl.

In a telephone interview from the Salt Lake County Jail, where she is being held on a total of $300,000 bail, Rowland said she never refused to get a Caesarean section. In fact, she said, her two children by her former husband were delivered by C-section.

"I don't feel like I committed a murder," she said.

After being told by a doctor at LDS Hospital she needed the surgery, she went home to get some clothes, but was refused re-entry, she said. Hospital officials declined to comment.

"There are rumors that I didn't want to be cut," Rowland said. "I never hesitated."
- Salt Lake City Tribune

posted by: anon on 03.14.04 at 04:06 PM [permalink]

Oops, sorry for the double-posting. I must have hit post one time when I meant preview. Pls. delete the first one where the links are not active.

posted by: anon on 03.14.04 at 04:08 PM [permalink]

Anon:

I take your points on board - I posted after seeing the first story. However there are parts of the woman's story that still don't ring true. She is mentally unstable but has said she's had two previous C-sections. While it shouldn't be hard to check, her own testimony wouldn't be the most reliable. It's a leap to say "the narrative shifts a bit" and "no one knew what to do for her or hot to reach her". Clearly they knew exactly what needed doing: an immediate C-section. She refused. That doesn't seem in doubt.

It's one thing to ignore medical advice when it affects yourself. It's quite another when it affects another, such as your child. By pre-arranging adoptions she has clearly showed she cared for these kids, but then why refuse the C-section that would save their life? This line about "...she went home to get some clothers, but was refused re-entry" seems completely at odds with common sense. If you are told you need a C-section to save the life of your twins, rushing home to get a skirt isn't high on your priority list.

Clearly there is more to the story than first appeared. But rushing to this woman's defense because of her word isn't necessarily the right thing to do either.

My premise remains that people are slowly coming to realise that the "blame culture" is coming to an end and they are going to have to take more personal responsability.

posted by: Simon on 03.15.04 at 11:15 AM [permalink]

Let's suppose a man has a son. His son will die without a kidney trasnplant and his dad's kidney is a perfect match. A doctor recommends that the father undergo surgery to donate his kidney to his son.

The father is reluctant. Maybe even a little crazy, He first says "No way I'm gonna let you cut me open!", and then maybe later "Let me think about this." He thinks about it a couple of days.


A few days later this hypothetical man decides to undergo the surgery so he can donate the life saving kidney. But, before it can be put into the body of his son, his son dies of renal failure.

By your reasoning, it would be reasonable to charge the father with the murder of his son.

I fail to see what this case has to do with "the blame culture coming to an end". It's not as though the woman was trying to blame the hospital and doctors for the stillbirth, or was suing them for medical malpractice.

posted by: anon on 03.15.04 at 03:50 PM [permalink]

Anon:

Certainly in your example I would say there's a case for manslaughter. Inaction resulting in the death of another is an offense (as I understand the law) just like taking action to result in the death of another. There are sometimes compelling reasons for the state to interfere. I think the Jehovah's Witnesses who refuse transfusions for themselves make their own fates, but those who refuse for their kids are again needlessly endangering lives. Normally my libertarian instincts would say not to interfere but sometimes the state needs to protect those that cannot protect themselves. Clearly kids fall into that category.

The "blame culture" comment relates to the US legislation limiting the suing of fast food makers by the obese. The link was my assumption that one course this lady's lawyers may take would be to blame the hospital and doctors; perhaps a bold assumption but I maintain that this woman made a decision (i.e. a decision to do nothing, which no-one seems to dispute) and she needs to face the consequences of her actions.

The links you posted previously do not convince me that this woman made her best efforts to save the life of the stillborn child. Going home for some clothes and not getting re-admitted beggars belief. I don't know much about the US hospital system but a clearly pregnant woman wanting treatment, especially one with twins, would receive what was necessary.

Like all stories there are two sides to this one. On the face of it this woman has a case to answer.

posted by: Simon on 03.15.04 at 04:24 PM [permalink]


A quote from her lawyer:
"This is nothing if not a very novel legal theory," Sikora said. "If it prevails, it raises questions about what a mother can or cannot do with respect to the safety of her unborn child. If a doctor says this will be a very difficult pregnancy and you should get complete bed rest for the last three months and the mother doesn't and the baby is stillborn, is she guilty of murder? If she smokes, is it murder? If she doesn't eat right, is it murder?" "
http://www.sltrib.com/2004/Mar/03122004/utah/147031.asp

Whenever a woman suffers a miscarriage or stillbirth, should there be a criminal investigation as to whether or not she is at fault for not heeding the god-like advice of doctors?


But, Simon, I think we won't come to an agreement on this issue, so I'll stop posting on the issue now.

posted by: anon on 03.16.04 at 09:38 AM [permalink]




Post a Comment:

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember your info?










Disclaimer