March 12, 2004

• Assuming the story is as presented, this is a ethically repugnant but legal choice. Abortion is a mother's choice without qualifications. If you add qualifications, then that devalues the right. If you don't, then you'll see some odd cases like this one, where most people find the choice unpalatable.
• Should mothers be required by law to have an elective surgery if deemed medically necessary for the fetus to survive? Or is this just another stepping stone for the right wing religious groups to use in their fight to ultimately ban abortion? Aren't those two questions almost entirely unrelated? Or is it just me? But this sounds a pretty tragic story, if the assertion that she refused to have the caesarian just because she didn't want scars.
• ...is true
• Aren't those two questions almost entirely unrelated? Or is it just me? I should have omitted the "or" -- they really are two separable questions. I personally find the choice presented within the article fascinating, especially given the ethically repugnant slant the article presents. Yet there are other factors to consider -- even routine surgery can be dangerous. When should the fetus's rights supercede the parents? Do we have an obligation to require individuals to submit to use of modern technology, despite the potential consequences?
• from my reading, it is the prosector who is saying she didn't want scars. if one looks at her actual quotes, she is expressing a denial of wanting to be cut. i know someone who may die anyday simply because he is too fearful of having his chest cut open for open heart surgery, regardless of 90% arterial blockage. it's not clear what her actual motivation was other than not wanting to be cut open. a wait and see story.
• From my reading of the story, she never said that it was for cosmetic reasons, she said that having a c-section would "ruin her life" and the spokesman for the DA said that they could determine no reason other than cosmetic. Personally, the concept of a c-section scares the willies out of me, just based on the areas that get opened up. It's possible that she'd heard some horror stories about c-sections, and the doctor did a poor job of calming those fears. If it was, indeed, because she didn't want a scar, then by and large I have little sympathy for the woman, and I'd be happy to let the case be determined on legal grounds with no teeth gnashing on my part. On preview, what dxlifer said.
• I find myself wondering whether she's been charged with murder because she came up with such inadequate reasons for refusing the caesarian ... If she had had better reasons for refusing the surgery then the law and the medics might have been more sympathetic? But I agree with DNG - Tarindel's 2 questions do seem unrelated - I can't really see where abortion comes into this. And Gyan is incorrect, according to The British Pregnancy Advisory Service: UK Abortion law is: An abortion may be approved providing two doctors agree in good faith that one or more of the following criteria apply: the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk to the life of the pregnant woman greater than if the pregnancy were terminated; the termination is necessary to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman; the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman; the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of any existing child(ren) of the family of the pregnant woman; there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped; or in an emergency, certified by the operating practitioner, as immediately neccessary: to save the life of the pregnant woman; or to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman. In many cases in the UK, 'I don't want this baby' appears to be enough reason for an abortion to be approved - but the law is as above. I can't think of anywhere in the world that would allow abortion that late in a pregnancy, and surely with rights come responsibilities - and in this case, if the facts are as presented, the mother is surely being grossly irresponsible.
• She was worried enough to check on them, but refused a surgery to save them. That is odd, to say the least. Don't some people refuse medical treatment for their religious beliefs? Or because of mental illness?
• I am about as staunchy pro-choice as a person can be, but I must agree this case is a difficult one. I think that now more than ever, it is important to safeguard against erosions of these rights, but there is something repugnant about this woman claiming she would rather have the babies die than have a scar...it would appear she has certainly opened herself to these charges. and hey, I guess we have to wonder what kind of mother she might make???
• Assuming the story is as presented, this is a ethically repugnant but legal choice. I agree, but that law in Utah might say differently. HOMICIDE might be a bit too far, but CRIMINAL NEGLECT on the other hand... It will at least be interesting to see what is made of this. What disturbs me is that she cared more about having surgery than the life of her children. If she has that little regard for the responsibilities of motherhood she should have gotten an abortion long before. I can't really see where abortion comes into this. Both this event and abortion deal with the rights of a woman and her body and the rights of the kid inside her body. So it seems to me, they are related. [this is my first comment, howdy all]
• First off: I wonder how accurate this story is. Meaning, I see bad reporting. What if the medical workers didn't tell her of the risks. I don't imagine that the nurse is going to tell CNN that she did her job poorly (if that's the case.) Second: of course this law is designed to chip away abortion rights. Third: I have seen teens and drug users who shouldn't have children keep popping out kids. So I have strong feelings about that. However, doesn't this fall back on the abortion argument, can the state make her get a caesarean? It's her body. This sounds like a bs case.
• I don't have the link now, but the CNN story is indeed incomplete. The woman claims to have had two c-sections earlier. She's had a history of mental problems and drug abuse. She weighed 200 pounds at age 12 and needed treatment. It's a Salt Lake Tribune link, if anyone wants to find it. dickdotcom I was referring to the practical aspects, as I understand it, within the US. The actual letter of the law doesn't matter, only how it's treated and enforced. There are 1001 quaint laws among the 50 US states still on the books, don't expect them to get enforced, though.
• hi sciurus! a ripe banana and glass of cock punch to you! as far as this story goes, i'm TRYING not to judge this woman by her photo. but... WHOA... she is quite, ah... yes. hmm.
• case law that may apply. i wonder if she's a jehovah's witness? In 1993, the Court refused to hear an appeal from an Illinois supreme court decision upholding the right of a mother to refuse to give birth by Caesarean section on religious grounds when doctors stated that allowing the pregnancy to continue to term would result in the birth of a severely brain damaged baby.
• also, here's the salt lake tribune story
• as far as this story goes, i'm TRYING not to judge this woman by her photo. but... WHOA... she is quite, ah... yes. hmm. I think the words you're searching for is hottie.
• On preview: excellent, all been said already... must type faster and stop chatting to mates on phones whilst writing posts... [hello, sciurus. welcome. have a banana.] While this obviously has relevance to the abortion debate, it reminds me equally of cases where religious parents have refused treatments for their children. I suspect there will be a body of opinion which seeks to draw a line from one to the other: if you (hypothetical atheist leftwinger) support the prosecution of parents who harm their children by refusing medical treatment for them, then you must support prosecution of this woman also. And therefore, your (hypothetical atheist leftwing) support for abortion is revealed as hypocritical and immoral even by your own standards. The jump in logic in this (hypothetical religious rightwing) argument is the failure to draw a distinction between treatment where there is no effect upon the parents (other than a hypothetical spiritual one), and one where saving the child must necessarily represent an invasion of the parent's body. And as such, reluctantly one must conclude that, as Gyan said, this woman's actions were horrible but legal. It relates to a more general point (something which seems to be forgotten in many civil rights debates these days) that it is quite possible to hold something to be immoral, and yet to have no desire for it to be made illegal. As another example in this area, we may disapprove of a woman who drinks like a fish all the way through preganancy, but would we actually make it illegal? (Anticipates deafening shouts of "YES!"...)
• Thanks twice SideDish. That SLT article is much better, and if the cocaine/alcohol use is true then it looks like this law is being applied in the correct fashion. Dependent of course, on whether this woman is mentally competent to stand trial. Whether the law should exist in the first place is another matter. [on prev. thanks for the nanner flashboy and YES!]
• "We have not been granted authority to intervene in the life of an unborn child," said Carol Sisco, a spokeswoman for the Division of Child and Family Services. "We don't have jurisdictional authority." Let me get this straight. The state can not step "in the life of an unborn child," but if that child dies that is another story. The only agency with authority would have been a hospital, who could have petitioned to have a guardian appointed for the child. That guardian could have then petitioned a judge to force the medical procedure on Rowland. According to the article, Rowland said she would rather die than from "breast bone to pubic bone." I'm sorry, but the state looks like they care more about chipping away at abortion rights than unborn children. If the state tried to step in and tried to save the unborn child I would have sympathy. It's obvious that Rowland was unfit to make sound decisions. She is exactly the type of woman who should be having an abortion, but doesn't. Women like her keep pumping out kids and will not go to Family Planning to get birth control pills.
• She is exactly the type of woman who should be having an abortion, but doesn't. Women like her keep pumping out kids and will not go to Family Planning to get birth control pills. That sounds like you're advocating eugenics, almost, Sullivan, although I might be misreading you.
• FYI: According to the BBC article, she wasn't afraid of scars. She's had two c-sections previously.
• Hypothetical: the same woman had the child successfully, yet the child contracted sepsis the day after birth. The woman was told the child had to take antibiotics, but she said such treatments were against her religion. The child dies. Should she be charged? If not, had the child attained person status in a 24-hour period?
• My thinking on the subject of abortion goes like this: Pregnancy is essentially a woman's issue, and in respect of that, any laws applicable to pregnancy, abortion, etc should therefore be determined only by women, not by men. /dept of idealism
• As another example in this area, we may disapprove of a woman who drinks like a fish all the way through preganancy, but would we actually make it illegal? (Anticipates deafening shouts of "YES!"...) NO! (Sorry, just thought I'd shout back). There's too much to write here. One is that I just wrote a legal memo on the caesarean topic, and here in Canada, they simply could not force a woman to have a c-section. Everyone has to be properly informed before giving consent; the flipside of using that as patient protection is that, if informed, the patient can also refuse treatment. Essentially end of story. As was stated upthread, the Jehovah's Witnesses blood transfusion cases are a good place to get a sense of this principle. When harming another comes into play, we have very strong case law from our Supreme Court (the D.F.G. case) saying that there are no fetal rights in Canada, and thus treatment cannot be forced upon a pregnant woman in the name of the unborn child. The case was about glue-sniffing, but it easily works with c-sections as well. And you can probably guess I support this, given that I yelled NO! Truth is that criminalization of behaviour during pregnancy is just a terrible idea. The chief problem is that teratogenesis occurs extremely early in a pregnancy, usually during the first trimester. So by the time you find out about a woman, get the order, etc. she's already done the harm. Also, it just makes women avoid going for prenatal care that could at least help their babies in another way. It also turns the woman into a receptacle for her baby only. So you lock a woman up during her pregnancy, she doesn't harm the baby, and then you put her back out into whatever life situation contributed to her doing dangerous acts in the first place. What's she going to do? Go right back to it, pretty much. So then she gets pregnant again, what happens? Will she lose custody of the first child? It's a disaster. Best idea is to work on education, intervention, and putting money into treatment. Criminalization comes at the wrong point in the process. (Can you tell this is my hot topic issue? Ask me more, I've done major research in this area. C'mon, you know you want to, heh).
• FYI: According to the BBC article, she wasn't afraid of scars. She's had two c-sections previously. The CNN story read like bad reporting (which is a subject I could ramble on about.) That sounds like you're advocating eugenics, almost, Sullivan, although I might be misreading you. What are the reasons for having abortions. Health risk, emotional stability, economics, etc. Rowland certainly fits that bill. I am certainly not advocating women having children and then letting the state take care of the children. Mainly foster homes are hellholes that are overcrowded. I am certainly not advocating eugenics. That is a nutty theory people like Prescott Bush advocated. I don't believe that people should just be thrown in a ditch just because a few nut jobs think they are a burden to society.
• According to this article, the babies were eventually born by C-section. The Salt Lake Tribune article that SideDish linked to says that the mother has a history of mental illness- so it seems that the question should be what her mental state was during her pregnancy. I'm guessing that the hospital staff didn't realize at the time (hindsight is 20/20) that they were dealing with someone who didn't have a firm grasp on reality. It may well be that she was non compos mentis when she was near term, and not able to understand what the hospital staff was telling her. That's a far cry from the first reports that painted her as a vain woman worried about scars.
• beeswacky: Except, of course, it isn't, unless you're also advocating that men are to be made entirely free of any responsibility for any decisions a woman might make about a preganancy. Which I seriously doubt.
• Don't doubt it, rodgerd. For I meant exactly what I said above. I would like to see women be fully and solely empowered legally, socially, and in every other way free to decide whether thsy wish or don't wish to bear a child, to have or not have an abortion, and decide how they wish to conduct a pregnancy. In every country, from now till the sun is extinguished. Any other way of looking at this, is to disempower women, the way I see it, and continue what have been the historical injustices performed to the detriment of women's independence (in every country) since the beginning of history, it seems. And yes, I expect I'm far to the left of most monkeys.
• The only report I could find on forced C-sections in Britain and America is ten years old, but it suggests that the charges are the results of a Utah prosecutor grandstanding for his audience. My wife, who tries to stay on top of these things, is away at a conference (a uselessly abtruse conference, I will opine); I'll try to get the scoop from her when I see her next week.
• I'm curious beeswacky, where you think the rights and responsibilities of fathers of unborn children (or of day-old embryos? of children one minute old?) begin? I wonder what's the story on the father of those Utah twins.
• get a murder charge One of my favorite tales in the The Bible which is in Deuteronomy(forget the chapter and can never find when I need to sorry) discusses this. Two men are arguing which result in one man
• We're driftng off-topic here a bit, but... I've never been pregnant, but it strikes me that men have the option to wear a condom when they have sex, and if they choose not to, I'm less sympathetic to their protests about not having much input about how to handle an uplanned pregnancy. (They, er, had their input when they got their partner pregnant.) On the other hand, if he did wear a condom, and it broke, then it's a different story. goetter: Wow! That's quite a conference... How can biotechnological development disarticulate itself from the imperatives of the racist and eugenic discourses to which it owes its beginnings? Do contemporary bioethical discourses re-inscribe these imperatives? takes me back to college days...
• Not "favorite", but like to bring it up when discussing these issues with bible thumpers.
• mamasaurus, I presume you mean by 'father' the biological progenitor of a particular child, though I may be wrong, of course. Such a father would have no rights, unless and until the woman bearing a child should cede him some, specifically and explicitly. (Contractual agreements could stipulate particulars for individual cases.) The 'father' in such cases would not necessarily have any biological relationship to a child. A 'father' could as well be another woman, since the word then as I envision the situiation would be defined by the person's function relative to the child. As to responsibility, that, as always, would be up to the individual to assume. Enforcement/violation of the terms of a child-centric contract would be the responisibility of a state, just like any other contract.
• If he has no rights, then equally he has no responsibilities.
• Gyan: yeah as soon as I switched my computer off and walked away last night - I found myself wondering whether my post written in a hurry quite said what I meant ... oops ... Beeswacky: It's not that simple is it? Despite being a supporter of the woman's right to choose argument I have a *real* problem with the argument that it's solely the woman's decision. It's a very tricky area, there's about as many different circumstances as you can think of, each one of which probably carries different moral and emotional parameters, but, as rogerd said, given that fathers have to have, and should have, responsibilities for the children they sire, then I think it's only reasonable that they should have rights over that child too. Reading this post led to me starting a lengthy conversation with my girlfriend - a GP - last night about all these issues ... and the pragmatic upshot of it is that when, almost daily, a woman walks into her surgery and says 'I want an abortion', my partner refers her to the abortion clinic, whether or not she feels that the woman has good or bad reasons for wanting the abortion ... my partner's concern is that as the law stands she has to make moral judgements on her patients ... and she doesn't feel that's her place ... Goetter: will you be using the words 'uselessly abtruse' to your wife's face???!
• dickdotcom: I sympathise very much. I'm very glad I'm not a GP and don't have to grapple with these difficult decisions about medical ethics and the law. I wonder what your partner thinks about the Joanna Jepson case? Note to non-UK readers: this is a case where an abortion was apparently carried out merely because the foetus had a cleft palate, something which could easily have been corrected by surgery. Joanna Jepson, a Church of England curate, believes that this was illegal under the Abortion Act, and is suing the local police for failing to investigate it. If she wins, the doctors who approved the abortion could face prosecution. Under the Abortion Act, it is the doctor who has the power (= responsibility) to decide whether or not an abortion is justified. The question is, can doctors be trusted with that power? Can they be trusted not to approve abortions for trivial reasons? That's where I'd be interested to know your partner's opinion. Because if doctors can't be trusted, then the law will have to be changed.
• dickdotcom: indeed I will, whereupon she will laugh and pour another drink. Inbred academic arrogance doesn't impress her.
• Do fathers have a say in birth decisions? Now that's a whole other problem .. X (someone well known to me) is a man of great courtesy and old-fashioned decency. Long ago, when he was in his early twenties, he got his girlfriend pregnant. She wanted an abortion; he didn't. (Not, I think, because he had strong pro-life convictions, but simply because his old-fashioned decency dictated that you didn't just beget a child and then wash your hands of all responsibility for it.) He took the case to court, and lost. However, the abortion didn't go ahead (I'm not sure why, but perhaps all the legal wrangling meant that it was past the date for a termination), the baby was born, and X got custody. He proved to be a devoted father. He is now married (to someone else), his eldest child is nearly grown up, and they are clearly a very happy family. In the light of this case, I find it hard to accept that a father should have no rights over an unborn child; though that is how the law currently stands in Britain. But as moral problems go, it's a tough one.