CATCH THE LATEST WEBSLEUTHS RADIO AS WE LOOK INTO THE TERRIFYING WORLD OF MEDICAL SERIAL KILLERS
CLICK HERE TO LISTEN

GUILTY UT - Melissa Rowland delayed C-section, baby died, Salt Lake County, 2 Jan 2004

Discussion in 'Recently Sentenced and Beyond' started by blueclouds, Mar 12, 2004.

  1. blueclouds

    blueclouds Former member

    Messages:
    3,521
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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. gsquared

    gsquared New Member

    Messages:
    229
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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. WasBlind

    WasBlind Former Member

    Messages:
    2,195
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
  4. Toth

    Toth Inactive

    Messages:
    968
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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. civilatty

    civilatty New Member

    Messages:
    140
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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. angelsleuth

    angelsleuth New Member

    Messages:
    49
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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. LP Moderator

    LP Moderator Former Member

    Messages:
    3,188
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0

    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. gsquared

    gsquared New Member

    Messages:
    229
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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. tuppence

    tuppence New Member

    Messages:
    616
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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
     
  10. LP Moderator

    LP Moderator Former Member

    Messages:
    3,188
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0

    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. Rachael

    Rachael Team Rachael

    Messages:
    1,687
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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!
     
  12. Kasey2

    Kasey2 New Member

    Messages:
    104
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0

    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. gsquared

    gsquared New Member

    Messages:
    229
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0

    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. LP Moderator

    LP Moderator Former Member

    Messages:
    3,188
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0

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

    tuppence New Member

    Messages:
    616
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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!
     
  16. Moab

    Moab Member

    Messages:
    245
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
  17. Ghostwheel

    Ghostwheel Pyrrhonist

    Messages:
    4,276
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This makes no sense.
    Why not induce labor on one of the previous visits instead of screaming C-Section all the time?

    Are they guessing here? Or just going by what the one nurse said?

    If it was so darned important, why couldn't LDS deal with it, hmmm? I'm thinking LDS hospital is trying to cover their own butts for not helping the woman the first time she came in, and trying to send her elsewhere, but that's JMO.

    Does all this mean a woman can charge a hospital with murder if they choose to do a C-section that the woman doesn't want, and the baby dies?
     
  18. angelsleuth

    angelsleuth New Member

    Messages:
    49
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Abortion is murder.
    Child abuse should be prosecuted.

    Refusing a medical procedure is neither of these, even if the doctor said you should have this done because one of the babies could die.

    What if this woman didn't believe that? If she did know that by her actions, she would be putting her unborn child at risk then I say that she was wrong, but for her to follow her instincts, she is acting as a free moral agent.


    I understand everyone around her feeling like she murdered her child because she refused surgery, but what if she had chosen to have the c-section and she bled to death or something went wrong with the babies, whose fault is that? Or is that ok because she complied to what a doctor "thought" was best.

    go to this link..

    http://www.atlanj.org/atlapublic/Auto-MedMal-WrongfulDeath/MedicalErrorsFactSheet.htm

    98,000 deaths each year are due to medical errors.

    Deaths by medical errors each year exceeded the number of deaths due to motor vehicle accidents, breast cancer and AIDS.
    The deaths of 2,610 infants in the year 2000 were linked to preventable hospital-acquired infections.
     
  19. BirdieBoo

    BirdieBoo New Member

    Messages:
    4,414
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What if the doctor had said she must abort one twin or the other would die? Would she be prosecuted for that?

    Medical advice is just that: ADVICE.

    Doctors do not offer guaranteed outcomes in situations like this. Utah is one state that definitely needs to recognize that women have individual rights as people, not posessions owned by others.

    KEEP YOUR LAWS OFF MY BODY! I personally would not have an abortion, but that is really easy for me to say because I have never been put in a position of having to choose.
     
  20. WasBlind

    WasBlind Former Member

    Messages:
    2,195
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    "It" is not a choice, it's a child.

    It's not our bodies we are talking about, it is children's bodies.

    God gave us a womb, not a tomb.

    I know what life is, I am alive.

    Thank you, Mom!
     

Share This Page



  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice