Woman Ignores Doctor's Advice and Baby Dies

[Cowthulu]

I got this article is from the Dallas Morning News.

Woman who refused C-section charged with murder over stillbirth
08:01 AM CST on Friday, March 12, 2004

Associated Press


SALT LAKE CITY - As Melissa Ann Rowland's unborn twins got closer to birth, doctors repeatedly told her they would likely die if she did not have a Caesarean section. She refused, and one later was stillborn.

Authorities charged 28-year-old Rowland with murder on Thursday, saying she exhibited "depraved indifference to human life," according to court documents. Prosecutors said Rowland didn't want to be scarred, and one nurse told police that Rowland said she would rather "lose one of the babies than be cut like that."

The case could affect abortion rights and open the door to the prosecution of mothers who smoke or don't follow their obstetrician's diet, 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," she said.

Court documents did not list an address for Rowland, and she is not listed in telephone books for the Salt Lake City area. It could not immediately be determined whether she had an attorney.

Rowland was warned numerous times between Christmas and Jan. 9 that her unborn twins would likely die if she did not get immediate medical treatment, the documents allege. When she delivered them on Jan. 13, one survived and the other was stillborn.

The woman sought medical advice in December because she hadn't felt the fetuses move, documents said.

Regina Davis, a nurse at LDS Hospital in Salt Lake, told police that during a visit there, Rowland was recommended two hospitals to go to for immediate care. Rowland allegedly said she would rather have both twins die before she went to either of the suggested hospitals.

On Jan. 2, a doctor at LDS Hospital saw Rowland and recommended she immediately undergo a C-section based on the results of an ultrasound and the fetus' slowing heart rates. Rowland left after signing a document stating that she understood that leaving might result in death or brain injury to one or both twins, the doctor told police.

The same day, a nurse at Salt Lake Regional Hospital saw Rowland, who allegedly told her she had left LDS Hospital because the doctor wanted to cut her "from breast bone to pubic bone," a procedure that would "ruin her life."

LDS Hospital can't comment on the case because of medical privacy issues and the pending court case, said spokesman Robert Pexton.

The doctor who performed an autopsy found that the fetus died two days before delivery and would have survived if Rowland had undergone a C-section when urged to do so. It was not immediately clear how far along Rowland was in her pregnancy.

She was charged in Salt Lake County with one first-degree felony count of criminal homicide. Rowland was being held on $250,000 bail at the Salt Lake County jail, and was scheduled to appear in court Tuesday.

If convicted, she could be sentenced to between five years and life in prison.

A spokesman for the district attorney, Kent Morgan, said Rowland is married and has other children, but he did not know how many.

"We are unable to find any reason other than the cosmetic motivations by the mother" for her decision, Morgan said.

Caesarean sections usually involve delivery through a surgical incision in the abdomen and front wall of the uterus. Dr. Christian Morgan, a family practice doctor who regularly performs C-sections at the University of Utah Health Sciences Center, said he had never seen vertical skin incisions performed at LDS Hospital for a first-time C-section.

"Even when you need to get a baby out in minutes, it can still be done in the bikini incision," Christian Morgan said.

[Roy]

I got this article is from the Dallas Morning News....

...Rowland was recommended two hospitals to go to for immediate care. Rowland allegedly said she would rather have both twins die before she went to either of the suggested hospitals.

...A spokesman for the district attorney, Kent Morgan, said Rowland is married and has other children, but he did not know how many.

I can't help but wonder how much she would be willing to do to prevent her other children suffering injury or death.

Roy

[themuzicman]

What? Self-abortion isn't allowed?

[Chuck Lee]

I wonder how many states would charge a woman for murder in a case like this? Since it's in the third trimester, there's nothing preventing murder laws from covering cases like this as far as I know.

Considering how close she was to birth, the woman's attitude does smack of "depraved indifference", as far as I can tell from the limited information.

[AtheistArchon]

What? Self-abortion isn't allowed?

- An abortion is a medical procedure. It would certainly be illegal for me to conduct one, even though I know how. And I would probably be held responsible for the death of the fetus, no matter what stage of development it was in, because I'm not a medical doctor. People do not simply walk into a clinic, plop down a wad of cash, and waltz into the stirrups, contrary to popular mythology. (Unless of course it's a blackmarket abortion.)

- That said, this woman might be mentally ill. I believe she might be homeless or 'on the streets', so to speak, especially if she isn't listed in any of the phone books.

[themuzicman]

My body, my life, right?

[AtheistArchon]

My body, my life, right?

- You know my stance on that. 3rd trimester abortions push the line as far as I'm concerned because of brain formation. "My body my life" does apply, but if she'd wanted an abortion it could have been done earlier and by a medical professional. If that were the case, I wouldn't have any problem.

- There are actually two issues here. One is the dead child, the other is the mother's lack of responsibility and respect of medical science. Do certain Christian fundamentalists not reject vaccinations for children, and do those kids not sometimes contract perfectly preventable diseases and die? I'd think the same argument would apply to them... but the dead child is the result of the negligence. In other words, I don't think (from what I know) she actually wanted an abortion, she just got one because she avoided a C-section.

[themuzicman]

But those "fundamentalists" (who put the mental in fundamental) are punished for failing to act resulting the death of a child.

Furthermore, had she gone to an abortionist, no one would have blinked an eye. What's the difference?

Michael

[AtheistArchon]

But those "fundamentalists" (who put the mental in fundamental) are punished for failing to act resulting the death of a child.

- Not all the time. There are government-funded hospitals that work via "Christian science" that actually prescribe prayer instead of medicines. But yes, most of the time you're right.

Furthermore, had she gone to an abortionist, no one would have blinked an eye. What's the difference?

- If she'd gone in the first trimester, there would have been a large difference IMO. That being the existence of a brain. I believe (I'm not sure) that if she'd gone to an abortion clinic at the last moment, they would have been wrong to abort the fetuses.

- But again, I'm just not convinced that her motive was abortion. The child died because of her apparent vanity, not because of her will that the child die.

[elysian]

Yeah, the scarring can be very nasty and disfiguring, especially if it's the result of a crash section done in a backwater hospital...but it can be a life saving procedure for both mother and child. Even as severe as my scars are, it's not the end of the world.

Without that procedure my son and I both would have died. I almost did die because the doctors waited too long and didn't realize that my son was far too large to be born naturally. If they'd had the foresight to conduct the diagnostic tests ahead of time (i.e. ultrasound) they would have known my son could not be born naturally. I would have been delighted to have had a scheduled c-section as opposed to a crash section. But the hospital where my son was born was trying to reduce the number of c-sections because their stats looked bad (but in a rural, poor area where many mothers are very young and do not get proper pre-natal care, there will be more c-sections.) So they tried everything possible including inducing labor, etc. so I'd give birth naturally but it was physiologically impossible for me because of my narrow pelvis (which I'd been informed about when I got pregnant) and my son's big head. I'd rather not have suffered through 18 hours of hard labor for no reason, and I'd rather not have been so worn out and spent before a major surgery. I would have liked to have been able to see my son right after he was born instead of not being able to until the next day due to complications that likely would have been avoided with a planned surgery or even surgery done in a more timely manner. After the surgery I went into seizures and almost died three times that night. When I woke up I was strapped to the bed and attached to all kinds of wires and tubes, etc. What is truly miraculous is that my son was born healthy and unscathed.

Anyway, I cannot fail to see the irony in this: she was offered the opportunity to preserve both of her children's lives and she turned it down? I understand that some people have a problem with insisting that pregnant women do what's best for their unborn children (the "it's my body" mindset) but scarring is a very minor price to pay for a life whether it is the child's life, the mother's life or both.

As far as criminal proceedings I believe this was an act of neglect- and just plain stupid because it was a senseless death if only for the reason of the mother's vanity. My personal view on human life is that a child is human from conception and that willfully harming a developing child at any stage is a grievous wrong. However I am not sure what provision the laws in Utah make for this type of neglect. Do they prosecute addicts whose babies are born premature and addicted or even die in utero for their mothers' drug use? How far can we legislate a pregnant woman's behavior? What about the pregnant woman who smokes or drinks or engages in risky sex?

As emotionally charged as the issue of abortion is for both sides we as a society must be consistent: when does life legally begin and when is willfully neglecting or harming that life a crime? Would AA's argument of brain development suffice or is humanity deeper than just detectable brain waves?
IMO killing or willfully bringing harm to a developing child at any stage is immoral and wrong but how far can- or should- we hold a pregnant woman accountable for willfully harming her child?

[Cowthulu]

I think this case has the potential to set precedents on both sides of the abortion issue. Since the mother did not consent, does the fetus have a right to live? She ignored medical advice that resulted in the death of someone other than herself. Will be interesting at the very least.

[Epoetker]

An abortion is a medical procedure. It would certainly be illegal for me to conduct one, even though I know how.

Sorry, no dice. If a man was badly wounded with no time to get him to the hospital, and you used all of your surgical training to attempt to save him and he dies, would you be held responsible? (Would any jury in the world convict you, even if you did violate the law?) If we have already established that the choice of the mother determines the humanity of the child, then all we have is medical malpractice law.

And I would probably be held responsible for the death of the fetus, no matter what stage of development it was in, because I'm not a medical doctor.

But under current abortion law it is the determination of the mother whether the fetus counts as human or not. The law can only get you for practicing a type of medicine you're not liscenced to. Unless you're willing to admit that the state just might have a teensy, tiny, interest in the fetus as a potential human being.

People do not simply walk into a clinic, plop down a wad of cash, and waltz into the stirrups, contrary to popular mythology. (Unless of course it's a blackmarket abortion.)

Or just another clinic trying to cut costs and keep quiet about it. Doubt that the setup would be that crude, though.

That said, this woman might be mentally ill. I believe she might be homeless or 'on the streets', so to speak, especially if she isn't listed in any of the phone books.

So basically it's only okay to call for legal force to be used against baby-killers when it's a result of negligence rather than choice?

You know my stance on that. 3rd trimester abortions push the line as far as I'm concerned because of brain formation. "My body my life" does apply, but if she'd wanted an abortion it could have been done earlier and by a medical professional. If that were the case, I wouldn't have any problem.

What gigantic difference does brain activity make that the law should distinguish between one at 1st trimester and one at 3rd trimester, or indeed between 3rd trimester and one to two years? Isn't the position you take mainly based on your particular feelings regarding the details of the performance of such an act, which I'm sure you've probably had to contemplate at one time or another in your medical training? It's a lot easier for the practitioner to distance him/herself from a 1st trimester abortion, which typically has less ugly results, than a 3rd trimester PBA, isn't it? But should the form and timing of the act have any bearing on the legality?

There are actually two issues here. One is the dead child, the other is the mother's lack of responsibility and respect of medical science.

Completely correct on the first, but incorrect on the second. Pro-choice logic and liberal logic in general dictates the supremacy of individual choice. The woman chose to be irresponsible, but the current popular judicial interpretation of the Constitution does not punish irresponsibility against nonpersons. The fact that you are not taking this line suggests that your priorities may indeed be somewhat salvagable.

Do certain Christian fundamentalists not reject vaccinations for children, and do those kids not sometimes contract perfectly preventable diseases and die?

Yes indeed. But my Christian fundamentalist youth magazine from Focus on the Family warned me about them long before the atheists got around to it, and I knew none like that in my (very) healing-believing church, though I received similar early warnings.

I'd think the same argument would apply to them... but the dead child is the result of the negligence. In other words, I don't think (from what I know) she actually wanted an abortion, she just got one because she avoided a C-section.

You're treading on dangerous legal territory here by assuming that the mother's choice is still the prime factor in deciding whether or not the child is a human under the law. There are near-infinite factors that can affect the outcome of a pregnancy, and second opinions from any number of doctors can be sought and claimed in court. Conversely, people with an axe to grind on another woman can claim any number of 'negligence' reasons to ruin a woman they hate if she ever miscarries or has her baby die in or near childbirth. I'm sure the fact that the hand of the government will fall hardest on the poor and the ignorant who nevertheless want their children is just icing on the cake.

The idea that the woman's choice has any bearing at all on the legal humanity of the baby wreaks utter destruction when taken seriously.

[Gilgaron]

I'm torn over this, as I am not in favor of late term abortions, but at the same time I'm not sure if it would be good precedent to force someone into surgery for the benefit of another person.

Do you suppose there will be interesting arguments in court or just some plea bargaining?

[Tobias Reiper]

The case could affect abortion rights and open the door to the prosecution of mothers who smoke or don't follow their obstetrician's diet, said Marguerite Driessen, a law professor at Brigham Young University.

If that were the case it would certainly be a step in the right direction. My fiancé's sister gave birth this past Wednesday. she was ordered to quit smoking and was ordered to bed rest, both of which she blatantly ignored. She is very lucky that her daughter wasn't stillborn because of her selfishness.

Had that happened she wouldn't have gotten the standard "there was nothing you could have done" tripe from me. She would have gotten silence, and eventually a few "you were ordered to quit smoking and you were ordered to limit your activity. It was your selfishness that killed her." if she persists with the Forrest Gump comments and trying to set my fiancé up with her pet convict's running buddies.

I think we should at least slap fines on pregnant women who choose to keep the child but put their children at risk the way my would-have-been-soon-to-be-sister-in-law did with her daughter. Prohibit stores from selling cigarettes to pregnant women (it is possible to tell the difference between an overweight woman and a pregnant woman), as essentially it is a minor that ends up consuming them.

If this case can open the door to such legislation I hope she gets punished to the fullest extent allowable. I live around such selfishness every day and it's about time we put an end to it.

\ot Are we ever going to get a soapbox smilie?

Also, when are we going to get the off topic tag back?

[Bald Ape]

If my son needed an organ transplant to live, and I was the only known suitable donor, would I be more, equally, or less obligated to undergo surgery than this woman? Would my refusal to undergo the operation constitute murder? Is there some component that makes these two decisions (submitting to surgery to save the life of another) fundamentally different?

Suffice to say, I would consider the decision to undergo the surgery to be a noble one and the decision *not* to do it a cowardly one; but under no circumstances would I equivocate the decision to the action of shooting my son with a gun (e.g. murder 1...).

Also, what if it's not my son, but rather a child I've never met who depended on my surgery to live? Would that be murder (to not undergo the surgery, that is)?