A friend just brought this to my attention on another site. if it's already been discussed here please ignore! Once again it is a prosecution against someone who is obviously mentally ill, but the implications of the prosecution are more wide-ranging.

Quote:
SALT LAKE CITY, Utah (AP) -- 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.

Prosecutors said Melissa Ann Rowland, 28, didn't want the scars that accompany the surgery.

An autopsy found the baby died two days before its January 13 delivery and that it would have survived if Rowland had had a C-section when her doctors urged her to, between Christmas and January 9. The other baby is alive, but authorities had no further information.

The doctors had warned that without a C-section, the twins would probably die, authorities said. A nurse told police Rowland said a Caesarean would "ruin her life" and she would rather "lose one of the babies than be cut like that."

"We are unable to find any reason other than the cosmetic motivations" for the mother's decision, said Kent Morgan, spokesman for the district attorney.

Court documents give no address for Rowland, and she isn't listed in area telephone books. An attorney was to be appointed for her Friday, Morgan said.

The charges carry five years to life in prison. Rowland was jailed on $250,000 bail.

According to the documents, Rowland went to LDS Hospital in Salt Lake City in December to seek advice after she hadn't felt her babies move. A nurse, Regina Davis, told police she instructed Rowland to go immediately to one of two other hospitals, but that Rowland said she would rather have both babies die before going to either place.

On January 2, a doctor at LDS Hospital examined Rowland and recommended an immediate C-section based on an ultrasound and the babies' slowing heart rates. Rowland left, the doctor told police.

The same day, Rowland allegedly saw a nurse at another hospital, saying she had left LDS Hospital because the doctor wanted to cut her "from breast bone to pubic bone."

A week later, Rowland allegedly went to a third hospital to verify whether her babies were alive. A nurse there told police she could not detect a heartbeat from one twin and advised Rowland to remain in the hospital, but Rowland allegedly ignored the advice.

In January, the state Supreme Court ruled that unborn children at all stages of development are covered under the state's criminal homicide statute. The law exempts the death of a fetus during an abortion.

The law has been used to prosecute women who kill or seriously harm their babies through drug use; it has never been used because a woman failed to follow her doctor's advice, said Marguerite Driessen, a law professor at Brigham Young University.

"It's very troubling to have somebody come in and say we're going to charge this mother for murder because we don't like the choices she made," Driessen said.

Unquote.

Now if this is really the case I agree the woman made some stupid decisions, but where the hell is the line going to be
drawn? How can we allow abortion and yet prosecute for endangering or killing the unborn?

If I don't know I'm pregnant and go and play rugby and have a miscarriage is someone going to prosecute me on the grounds that i could have caused the miscarriage? At the end of the day noone should be able to force surgery upon another if they oppose it. Think of all the religious groups that do not allow surgery, and for those that would say save the child when the mother's life is at risk - shouldn't they be charged with murder of the adult?

Finally, doctors are not infalliable, they are not God! I take every piece of doctor's advice with the knowledge that I will be the one who will live with the consequences of the decision, not them. (Plus having doctors & nurses as friends has given me a healthy sense of skepticism!).

I'm not defending this woman, she's obviously a nutter! However, what about the precedent it sets for the future?

Does someone become a citizen of a country at conception or at birth when a government issues a birth certificate? If government has a say before birth, there are going to be a lot of people subject to duel regulations.

__________________

I don't want to get in the middle of an abortion arguement,but it
was afterwards disclosed, that the aforementioned woman,had
already had 2(two)children,by C-section,anyway.That throws not wanting a scar,out the proverbial window. Irish
P.S.I know that everyone is different,but as the parent of 2(two)
daughters,I can't imagine not putting,your kids,before vanity!

__________________
Irish---Better to be dead & cool,then alive & uncool!
(Harley Davidson & the Marlboro Man)

Yeah I'm not disputing the fact that this woman was a nutter, just the precedents that it sets. You can already be prosecuted in the US for drinking or taking drugs during pregnancy, and I understand there is a potential law going through the process at the moment to give the unborn the same legal status as anyone else. I'm just becoming concerned about where it stops.......

My view is its likely to end up in another great debate on whether to criminalise abortion, I guess I should butt out as it won't affect me butI'm concerned for the knock-on effects worldwide.

It will NEVER be allowed to stop as long as there is one dime to be made within the legal profession.

__________________

I agree PF.As I have already told you,from my experience,it's not
what you did,but how much money you can spend & who you know! Irish
P.S.For me,3yrs.1day in State Prison,cost me $500,for probation
(early release)and then another $300,for a complete record
annulment!That's from Superior Court for Aggravated Assult! (Felony)I don't know who got the money.I don't care!I didn't do
the time!

__________________
Irish---Better to be dead & cool,then alive & uncool!
(Harley Davidson & the Marlboro Man)

Englishlush,

I think this issue may be better described in terms of philosophy rather than avarice.

In the U.S. the issue of whether an individual may own another was settled de facto in 1865, and de jury with the passage of the 13th Amendment to the Constitution. A woman does not own her babies. Her relationship to them is as a steward, to whose decisions deference is naturally given, except in exceptional circumstances.

Just as the State may exercise the right of eminent domain to take private property, following compensation, for public use, so too it may use its powers of coercion to prevent its citizens from endangering the life of others, or punish them after the fact for doing so. Irresponsible behavior constitutes grounds for action. Drug abuse is an obvious candidate. Engaging in violent sports while knowingly pregnant (and yes, Rugby would qualify) would also be highly suspect. The life endangered in this instance was that of the unborn babies. The accused sought and received expert advice on three occasions. She was aware of what might come to pass as a result of her decision. She willfully ignored the advice she received.

This young woman behaved in a fashion that was grossly irresponsible and morally reprehensible. Of that there can be no question. The correct question is whether or not the State has the authority to bring criminal charges against her for behaving so. The Assistant State’s attorneys receive an annual salary; they are not paid by the conviction.

Many people shy away from philosophical questions, grasping at what seems to offer an easy answer: the people who can make money from an event are involved only because they are out to “make big bucks”. Attorneys who defend cases like this one are NOT doing it for the money. If you want to make money by practicing law in the U.S., you prosecute and defend business lawsuits. Hell, the unlucky attorney who gets stuck with this turkey may actually be doing it Pro Bono.

No, the real questions here are the hard ones; the questions raised at the bottom of your first post by both the law professor and you, and in your second post. Where does the purview of the individual stop and that of the state start? Does – in principle – the foetus have all the rights of a citizen? If not, does the foetus have enough rights of a citizen to justify constraining (or in this instance punishing) the behavior of a full citizen – the mother. If so, well money be damned; her willful behavior killed someone! If the mother’s relationship with the State trumps that of the unborn, then money be damned; the state should stay out of her life! These are question which need deliberation, not sound bites.

A liberal society invests more trust in the individual than does an authoritarian one. The U.S. has traditionally been listed among the more liberal societies, due in large part to the authority of Federal government being constrained by that of the member States. I, for one, hope it can remain a liberal society, but the history of the last 60 years or so indicates otherwise. The responsibilities of the government, both State and Federal, have expanded many times over in that period, and the inevitable assertion of authority over those responsibilities has made government more intrusive in the lives of its citizens than in the past.

__________________
Eudaimonia

OK, let me just add that State law and Federal law can differ widely. Utah is a VERY conservative state, in more ways then just legal, so worrying about what the Utah State Supreme court allows or disallows is not that likely to impact choices of most other states or the Federal laws. So I think you can probably rest easy about the decision of this case affecting the overall outcome of such cases in the US or outside the US.

We have a justice system in the US that allows for "precedents" to be used to argue for and/or against a particular outcome which is why people get concerned about a precedent being set, however each case is still tried on its own merit. And a case being tried still happens or not on the say so of those in charge of upholding and the laws and bringing to justice those who break the laws if they have sufficient evidence to do so. Some may be bribe-able, but I prefer to believe that most do the job they do because they believe they can make a difference.

In this case it sounds like this woman (months beyond the stage where she could legally or safely have an abortion) made choices that brought about the death of one of her babies .... and if she was at the point where they were advising an immediate c-section, most states would legally consider this a "baby" and not a "fetus". Just a few things I think should be considered when discussing this case.

sounds like a bunch of crap to me,


what about second-hand smoke?

when a person lights up a cigarette they know that people around them are inhaling the smoke as well and that second-hand smoke kills just the same,

so are we gonna start jailing these friggin' smokers and cigarette companies anytime soon?

__________________
hungry? why wait.....eat me.

People just don't seem to realize what they have and how bad I wish I could have their opportunities.

__________________
~Tainted Love~

Well I have lost a child, my first, many years ago and it took me years to deal with his death. I have two heathly sons now, ages 15 and 12 and for that I thank God. I have very strong feelings where the death of a child is concerned, and yes I do consider a "fetus" a child!

__________________
I like the bed I'm sleeping in, just like me it's broken in; it's not old -- just older.
Like a favorite pair of torn blue jeans, this skin I'm in it's alright with me; it's not old -- just older.....Bon Jovi

A philosophical discussion is much preferred to confronting the reality.

__________________

PantyFanatic,

There is a real difference between "better" and "preferred".

__________________
Eudaimonia

I also agree with that ------^.

__________________

Mercury_Maniac,

Valid point. Taking it a step further, women who smoke during pregnancy usually deliver smaller babies, and there are more medical issues with these infants than with those borne to women who don’t smoke. Should they be prevented from doing so? If so, when?

As one with libertarian tendencies, I’d say that falls outside the scope of the traditional liberal government. But then what constitutes sufficient danger to the foetus to justify intervention?

In the thread “Insane, or did she know what she was doing?”, Lilith raises the question of why the spouses and or families of these women are held blameless? The particulars in that thread dealt with a woman who acted out a killing, but how much difference is there between that and the accused in this case, who willfully ignored medical advice that her inaction was endangering her twins? Also in that thread, maddy alludes to the responsibility of being a parent, and whether those who are not up to the task should necessarily be entitled to breed.

Also in that thread, Lilith points out that a teacher can be found negligent for failing to report abuse. Would this woman’s behavior constitute abuse? Should the State force the hands of the medical practitioners this way?

Tough questions. Real issues.

__________________
Eudaimonia