1004 users online (158 members and 846 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 41
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,521

    UT - Melissa Rowland delayed C-section baby died, 2 Jan 2004

    Hummmmmmm. Doctors said her twins would die if she didn't get a c-section. I didn't realize a c-section could be "forced" on someone. Obviously she chose otherwise. Which would be ok but they're charging her because of her "ATTITUDE"... SHE DIDN'T WANT A SCAR on her tum tum.

    Still not sure she should be charged with murder BUT SHE SHOULD have her children taken away because she's much more important to herself than her babies..

    http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/ap20040311_2684.html

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    229
    Maybe she was just terrified of the idea of surgery. In any event, it scares me that a person can be arrested for refusing to have a medical procedure! What about all the Christian Scientists out there?

    I think this case will be dismissed.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Native Texan, In Germany
    Posts
    2,195
    Read the whole story, y'all.
    If someone told me one or both of my babies would die, I would do anything to save them.

    We all make choices. Her decision cost a life, that of her own child.

    http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/news/031..._csection.html

    Very sad indeed
    Last edited by WasBlind; 03-12-2004 at 11:55 AM. Reason: *typos*

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    968
    Its more likely she is being prosecuted simply because doctors get offended when someone does not follow their advice. I do not think a woman need necessarily accept the doctor's views that death was a certainty and we tend to view patient autonomy as a high value so that her views are what matters.

    Society wants to elevate the fetus to a position that can subjugate the woman to accept a doctor's current views about drug use, nutrition, exercise, diet and delivery mode.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    140
    I think the charge is appropriate. She not only refused a c-section, but refused to even go to certain hospitals, refused to be admitted to the hospital, signed a paper acknowledging that her refusal could result in the death of her babies and waltzed out. That's ridiculous. It does not sound to me like she was scared of the surgery, but was merely scared of having a scar that would "ruin her life"...whatever. Rot in jail selfish bi*@&.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    49
    no way should this woman be charged.

    What a can of worms this opens.

    It is murder for Scott Peterson to kill his wife and murder for SP to kill his UNBORN child...

    But to refuse medical treatment...no way! How can anyone judge this lady?

    That is totally wacked. If this country has decided that women can choose to abort a baby for what ever reason....then they can choose to not have a c-section.

    I do not agree with abortion in MOST cases I also don't agree with a selfish, not wanting a scar, I would have done anything to save a baby, but how intrusive can the law get?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,188
    Quote Originally Posted by angelsleuth
    no way should this woman be charged.

    What a can of worms this opens.

    It is murder for Scott Peterson to kill his wife and murder for SP to kill his UNBORN child...

    But to refuse medical treatment...no way! How can anyone judge this lady?

    That is totally wacked. If this country has decided that women can choose to abort a baby for what ever reason....then they can choose to not have a c-section.

    I do not agree with abortion in MOST cases I also don't agree with a selfish, not wanting a scar, I would have done anything to save a baby, but how intrusive can the law get?

    I can. Anyone THAT can refuse to save the lives of her unborn children because she's worried about a little scar, I'll be happy to step up to the plate and judge her. Now if for some reason, her life would have been in jeapordy or something similar, maybe I could see it. However, simply because she didn't like the idea of being scarred is murder.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    229
    This case will be thrown out. The prosecutor should be disbarred. This is the most blatant disregard of the constitutional rights of a woman I have seen in a long time. It's perfectly okay for some people to socially condemn this woman for her choice, but it is NOT okay for the government to condemn or prosecute her. NOT OKAY at all.

    Don't invite her to your tea parties and gossip about how evil she is all you want, but keep your laws off her body.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    616
    There seems to be a lot more going on here...she visited hospitals/doctors multiple times trying to figure out what was going on. If she didn't care about the children, why all the visits?

    Also they don't say she ever said she was worried about getting a scar just that they couldn't see any other reason for her to refuse. The only quote they said was that she said told one doctor they wanted to "cut her from breast bone to pubic bone."

    When I read it I wondered if she was just scared and inarticulate about it
    IMHO

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,188
    Quote Originally Posted by gsquared
    This case will be thrown out. The prosecutor should be disbarred. This is the most blatant disregard of the constitutional rights of a woman I have seen in a long time. It's perfectly okay for some people to socially condemn this woman for her choice, but it is NOT okay for the government to condemn or prosecute her. NOT OKAY at all.

    Don't invite her to your tea parties and gossip about how evil she is all you want, but keep your laws off her body.

    I disagree. This law that she's being charged under was created because of women who use drugs while pregnant. It also falls under the same type laws that make it illegal to drive without your children unrestrained in the car. You've got a greater duty to protect children than you do yourself. If some idiot doesn't want medical care for themself, I could care less. However, when a VIABLE baby is murdered because of a "mother's" unwillingness to be uncomfortable, she deserves to be punished.


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,688
    I hope the case in not thrown out! I can't believe how selfish people are. My children always come first! It's sickening! I think I saw her picture on the news and scars on her belly aren't the only thing she should be worrying about. She is no raving beauty!
    Just my opinion of course!!

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    104
    Quote Originally Posted by Rachael
    I hope the case in not thrown out! I can't believe how selfish people are. My children always come first! It's sickening! I think I saw her picture on the news and scars on her belly aren't the only thing she should be worrying about. She is no raving beauty!

    Rachael, you took the words right out of my mouth. All arguments about people's rights aside, I was expecting to see some raving beauty and, well, I didn't...

    Which is more germane to this case--precedents of allowing adults to choose or refuse medical treatment for themselves or precedents involving minor children dying after their parents refused treatment due to their parents' religious beliefs?

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    229
    Quote Originally Posted by LP Moderator
    I disagree. This law that she's being charged under was created because of women who use drugs while pregnant. It also falls under the same type laws that make it illegal to drive without your children unrestrained in the car. You've got a greater duty to protect children than you do yourself. If some idiot doesn't want medical care for themself, I could care less. However, when a VIABLE baby is murdered because of a "mother's" unwillingness to be uncomfortable, she deserves to be punished.

    From the article:

    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
    ....

    This woman did not do an affirmative act, such as taking illegal drugs, such that her behavior would meet the elements of the crime. She declined a medical procedure - that is all. There is no evidence that she proactively attempted to harm the fetuses. It is NOT against the law to refuse a medical procedure.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,188
    Quote Originally Posted by gsquared
    From the article:

    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
    ....

    This woman did not do an affirmative act, such as taking illegal drugs, such that her behavior would meet the elements of the crime. She declined a medical procedure - that is all. There is no evidence that she proactively attempted to harm the fetuses. It is NOT against the law to refuse a medical procedure.

    Well that may be changing depending on what happens here. Precent setting cases have to have a beginning.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    616
    They now are saying that this woman has scars already from previous C-sections and that this was not the issue. The issue is that she has a long history of mental illness and was afraid of going under the knife again.

    It seems to me that people are really jumping the gun on this!
    IMHO

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. SC - dad drops baby on head; delayed help, police say
    By Lovejac in forum Crimes-Spotlight on Children
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-27-2014, 03:42 PM
  2. It's a girl! Baby gorilla delivered by rare animal C-section
    By popsicle in forum News that makes you smile!
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-17-2014, 04:34 AM
  3. Dallas police delayed NFL player as relative died
    By Dark Knight in forum Up to the Minute
    Replies: 50
    Last Post: 04-01-2009, 06:39 PM
  4. Woman delivers own baby by caesarean section
    By blueclouds in forum Bizarre and Off-Beat News
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-07-2004, 12:41 AM

Tags for this Thread