Mother charged with murder because she refused to have c-section.

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/news/031104_APnat_csection.html

I think that she deserves to be jailed, I mean who in their right mind wouldn't save their unborn babies because of a scar?

That's just sad :(

That's sad, and sick.

She does deserve punishment for that.

uhmm, no comment

Wow that's pretty messed up, I don't know how I'd call this one, I mean on one hand no one should "force" someone to take an operation but in this case it wasn't her life on the line but the baby's and that's pretty messed up. Don't know if I'd call it murder but I could definitely see manslaughter.

This is terrible.......

The Dude :( :angry:

From breast bone to pubic bone? What the hell is wrong with her? The vertical cut is fairly rarely used and it only goes from the pubic bone to the belly button. I had a horizontal ('bikini') cut and you can barely see the scar after 2 years. The stretch marks are far worse!!

What a selfish bitch.

Originally posted by secludo
From breast bone to pubic bone? What the hell is wrong with her? The vertical cut is fairly rarely used and it only goes from the pubic bone to the belly button. I had a horizontal ('bikini') cut and you can barely see the scar after 2 years. The stretch marks are far worse!!

What a selfish bitch.

Yeah my wife's scar is pretty minor nothing garish. Definitely nothing to let a child die over.

I more or less agree, but its still her decision not yours.

I do hope she gets some sort of punishment, but I think that it wont be much.

Its sad really, diffrent people have diffrent morals, but this is getting into the inhumane area.

Sad.


Best,
Eugene.

At the very, very least she should have the living child taken away from her.
Any woman who puts cosmetics ahead of the life of her child should not be allowed to be a mother.

If it were up to me, she would also be charged and tried with manslaughter.

She should be swinging from a tree right now.

Holy crap, this is her mug shot on yahoo http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/040311/480/utsac10103112353

With a face like that, why is she worried about a scar on her belly?

Originally posted by MDJ2000
Holy crap, this is her mug shot on yahoo http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/040311/480/utsac10103112353

With a face like that, why is she worried about a scar on her belly?

Yowza and she's worried about a little 3 or 4 inch scar on her belly? Heck on my wife it's right on her waist line where it'd be covered by your average bikini even.

GOD...she's .......a wackooo
lets look at the bright side of the story, the twins are saved from such a mum.

Please do not get me wrong here, because I think she (though looks some what of a it in the picture) was her choice. No one can force her to have a c-section. Though a poor innocent child had to die because of her choice. :(

Torith thats a valid point. its quite ok.

I don't mean to judge just by looks, but based on what she has done, and from I saw in the picture maybe the unborn child is better off this way. :mad:

She will probably not go to jail.
I'd hate to be the judge in that court.




Best,
Eugene.

I wouldn't think it was such a big deal (to refuse medical attention, that is) if not for the fact that both babies were full term and perfectly capable of life outside the womb. She killed a baby, a baby that could have lived if she would just let the damn thing out of her uterus. I am completely pro-choice but if a woman were to walk into a clinic and ask to abort her full-term baby, that is just wrong in my opinion, and it's kind of the same thing.

it was her body. so she has the right to accept or refuse whatever the doctors suggest.

Originally posted by Giaguara
it was her body. so she has the right to accept or refuse whatever the doctors suggest.

yes, but there were two other 'bodies' involved here, of which all had the right to live :)

the thing that bothers me out of this whole thing is the babys where/ could of been born. Though she basically said "No" so in away killed her child.

Originally posted by secludo
I wouldn't think it was such a big deal (to refuse medical attention, that is) if not for the fact that both babies were full term and perfectly capable of life outside the womb. She killed a baby, a baby that could have lived if she would just let the damn thing out of her uterus. I am completely pro-choice but if a woman were to walk into a clinic and ask to abort her full-term baby, that is just wrong in my opinion, and it's kind of the same thing. Exactly, even pro-choice folks understand the concept of viability.

Originally posted by Bub Host
yes, but there were two other 'bodies' involved here, of which all had the right to live :)


as long as these other bodies are insid hers, as parassites (taking nutrients and making nothing useful for her body), they are firstly something inside her body.


as a curiosity - so, two parass .. i mean babies inside her. anotehr situation. if she doesn't agree to c section or other procedrues, the babies die. and if she would agree, she would die and the babies not. what would you guys think would be right in that situation and why??

would she have to lose her life in order to save TWO lives?

or would it be right to save the two babies and murder the mum to make them survive?

No one ever suggested that she would have to lose her life.

She let her baby die because she is a vain and pathetic bitch who is more concerned about a scar on her body then she is about her own children.

Originally posted by Giaguara
as long as these other bodies are insid hers, as parassites (taking nutrients and making nothing useful for her body), they are firstly something inside her body.


as a curiosity - so, two parass .. i mean babies inside her. anotehr situation. if she doesn't agree to c section or other procedrues, the babies die. and if she would agree, she would die and the babies not. what would you guys think would be right in that situation and why??

would she have to lose her life in order to save TWO lives?

or would it be right to save the two babies and murder the mum to make them survive?

is it just me or was that post :crazy: and a little :topic: since her life WAS NOT indanger?

What goes around, comes around.

Personally, I think she should be tried for murder in the first degree, but that's merely my own opinion.

Simon

thank you for your opinion IDS. have a very nice day.



i know it was nowhere in here.


i asked WHAT IF .. how would your reactions be in that case.

if the case was as in my hypothesis - mother lives and the fetuses / babies / however you want to call them die, OR mother dies (is "murdered" using the words of the article) be the fetuses.

in that case, what would you think would be more fair / right / your choise etc?

Originally posted by Giaguara
thank you for your opinion IDS. have a very nice day.



i know it was nowhere in here.


i asked WHAT IF .. how would your reactions be in that case.

if the case was as in my hypothesis - mother lives and the fetuses / babies / however you want to call them die, OR mother dies (is "murdered" using the words of the article) be the fetuses.

in that case, what would you think would be more fair / right / your choise etc?
That's a whole different topic.

I don't honestly think it's a very nice topic of discussion, as it's theoretical, whereas whilst the current topic is horrifying, it is literal.

Simon

I find it extremely sickening that a mother of already three children at the time would make such a thoughtless choice. Fears of the operational procedure "ruining her appearance" (which isn't such a spectacle in the first place) provides absolutely no justification as to deny the birth of a child. I guess this would mean that if ever one of her children were to be trapped in a fire, she would leave them there to burn to death even if provided a reasonable chance to save their lives, to avoid receiving any burn scars.

I just don't understand this woman, she is either as vain and self-absorbed as is evident from the above incident, or does suffer from serious mental illnesses that might be tied to this case. Either way I am glad that the born child has been taken away, and that she is currently being held behind bars. Clearly she is unfit and in bad condition to be raising children. This woman needs both help and sterilization.

Originally posted by MDJ2000
With a face like that, why is she worried about a scar on her belly?
Not nice :P
Looking at the updated articles on the "case", it seems she is a troubled woman, so don't be so harsh to judge. I can't see that many women would choose to go natural if their baby's (or their)life was at stake, but I am sure it goes on all over the world on a daily basis.

Who knows? It could even have been her "other half" saying, "if you get cut up, we are through!"

The fact that she doesn't have her previous children living with her would indicate she is possibly unstable.

"Rowland told the radio station she has two other children who live with their grandparents in Virginia. Sikora said Rowland moved to Utah with a boyfriend and is either divorced or estranged from her husband. She lives in the Salt Lake City suburb of West Jordan."

Let's wait for the judges in the matter to weigh up the evidence before we sentence her to life :)

I'd like to know if there is a case of this before, and similar cases to force mothers to have operations when the child's life is in danger, and any related type cases. I'm just wondering if this is going to turn into a big precedent-type case.

I think this case is unique because of the Utah laws.
Most states don't have the same endangerment laws as they do.

Well, I heard from someone in my family who was talking about the same thing say. The woman also said that she wasn't aware of what she was talking about. From what people have said, when a woman is in labor all kinds of words come out and anger and expressions because of the pain.


I feel, the doctors should have done their job and did whatever was necessary to save a life. Doctors shouldn't let someone decide to do this and risk losing the life of the baby.


I feel, the doctors should have been aware that it could have been crazy talk because she was in labor correct?

All in All.. The doctors should be questioned also.. because, they are responsible for bringing children into this world, not listen to a woman say she'll risk losing a child.

1) if the doctors knew her history and were SO convinced that the c section would have saved the fetus/es, why did they not get the permission to force operate her from a judge??



2) what if she would have been some religious freak opposiing medical operations, such as there are some religious freaks who oppose blood donating and receiving? would being a (christian) religious something be an aceeptable reason, if it is for those with the blood issues..

Originally posted by Giaguara
1) if the doctors knew her history and were SO convinced that the c section would have saved the fetus/es, why did they not get the permission to force operate her from a judge??

Damn good point, the doctors will have some splaining to do I'm sure.

2) what if she would have been some religious freak opposiing medical operations, such as there are some religious freaks who oppose blood donating and receiving? would being a (christian) religious something be an aceeptable reason, if it is for those with the blood issues..

I wouldn't agree with this either, surely this has already been covered in court before with a precedence.

In my opinion up to a point it's her choice, such as whether or not to abort earlier in the pregnancy, but after a point it no longer is her choice so much as it is what is best for everyone involved, her and the children.

I wouldn't agree with killing the mother on the operating table to save the babies, but a c-section is hardly life threatening anymore in most cases.

Originally posted by JWise
From what people have said, when a woman is in labor all kinds of words come out and anger and expressions because of the pain.

She wasn't in labor when they told her she should have a c-section :confused:

They cannot FORCE her to stay in the hospital, either. You have a right to refuse medical attention.

she is one sick lady.....

Originally posted by secludo
She wasn't in labor when they told her she should have a c-section :confused:

They cannot FORCE her to stay in the hospital, either. You have a right to refuse medical attention.


Well, it doesnt matter if she was in labor or not.. The doctors are stupid. Its up to the "DOCTORS" to save a life, not listen to someone and know the baby will die.


The woman and the doctors are to blame.. Not just the woman

JWise, the doctors have absolutely no say in the matter.
They are NOT to blame. The woman and only the woman is to blame.
Even if the doctors tried to get a court order it would have been far too late by the time it was issued.

Originally posted by JWise
Well, it doesnt matter if she was in labor or not.. The doctors are stupid. Its up to the "DOCTORS" to save a life, not listen to someone and know the baby will die.


The woman and the doctors are to blame.. Not just the woman

They cannot FORCE her to stay in the hospital, either. You have a right to refuse medical attention.

Sorry, but she is not guilty of murder. I know many of you don't like to hear that. She had to choice of not choosing c-section. She chose not to. The doctors can't force her to have one.

Originally posted by blue27
JWise, the doctors have absolutely no say in the matter.
They are NOT to blame. The woman and only the woman is to blame.
Even if the doctors tried to get a court order it would have been far too late by the time it was issued.


They should if it requires life or death

Has a woman ever died as a result of a c-section? If so, then she has every right to say that she doesn't want to take that risk IMHO. Even if not, I still don't know about forcing surgery upon someone, even if it's to save the life of an unborn child.

To me, that's like forcing surgury on someone in other cases. Think about it... your child needs an organ of some sort to live (maybe a kidney? I'm not a medical expert, jsut throwing out an example) and the state forces you to have an operation to save the child's life, and if you refuse, you are charged with murder?

OK, so maybe this didn't involve the removal of organs, but I really think this is *much* more gray than people are taking it.

I'd just be so surprised if this issue hasn't come up before (even just in Utah), where a baby has been in danger and doctors have told the mother that the baby may not survive without a c-section. Maybe it's the first time a mother has refused, but to be honest, I'd be surprised if that's the case as well.

If so, then this may be an interesting case to watch.

Excellent point Chicken.

Woman do die from c-section.

Death rate of 36 per 100,000 cesarean operations versus 9 per 100,000 vaginal births.

Death from c-section 4 times higher than vaginal births. I know, the number is still low, but hey, lots of babies are born every year.

I didnt give my opinion when I originally started this thread as I was unsure of how I felt. AFter thinking about it more, I have to somewhat disagree with a lot of people here.

1) I do no believe in abortion..... HOWEVER
2) I believe it is a woman's right to give birth where and how she wants. If she wanted it natural, that's her choice.
3) I dont believe anyone can "force" an operation on anyone for any reason.

Forcing the operation would open another pandora's box. If you force it, who's going to pay for it? Will you force the operation, and then also force that person to pay for it? Once you force a c-section, where do you stop? Do you then "force" other operations on other people to save kids/babies?

What is "her" side of the story? We have yet to hear it. Was she told the baby "might" die or "will" die? If it was a "might", then every baby in every woman in the world "might" die. You walk out your door, you "might" die. You get in your car and you "might" die.

Everyone is also missing the fact that the baby was dead before she ever got to the delivery room, a c-section would not have saved it anyway unless you were to pull the baby out prematurely, in which case there's a larger chance the baby "might" still die.

Doctors tell people all the time that they have cancer and have 6 months to live, yet they live on for many more years. So I think in this case, as all pregnancies, there was the chance the baby "might" die, but that's always a "might" in both c-section and natural. Should she "really" get charged with murder simply because a doctor said the baby may die unless a c-section is done? If there had been a c-section and the baby died anyway, who then do you charge with murder? The doctor?

I think it was entirely her choice and the law has no right to get involved. I believe she made the best decision she could in her state of mind. Had the doctors forced a c-section, they might have a lawsuit for forceful procedure. Had it died anyway, they would have had an even bigger lawsuit against them.

I know this is off topic but 'chicken' seeing as you have so many posts in your name how come your not a premium member?

Originally posted by Bub Host
I know this is off topic but 'chicken' seeing as you have so many posts in your name how come your not a premium member?


I assume he didn't want to pay the $50 bucks it takes to become one.

Originally posted by Chicken
Even if not, I still don't know about forcing surgery upon someone, even if it's to save the life of an unborn child.

To me, that's like forcing surgury on someone in other cases. Think about it... your child needs an organ of some sort to live (maybe a kidney? I'm not a medical expert, jsut throwing out an example) and the state forces you to have an operation to save the child's life, and if you refuse, you are charged with murder?


I don't agree in any way with "forced" surgery.

Here is the difference I see with this argument Chicken. If a child or anyone else gets a disease the would require a transplant, that is a random event, a force of nature if you will.

This woman chose to get pregnant and she chose to go full term with these babies. In my mind that makes her liable for their welfare and neglegent for not getting the C section.

Blue, I could see a case arguing negligence, but not murder. If I had to guess, this case will shift from murder to negligence at some point. Calling it early... plea, no jail time.
Originally posted by Bub Host
I know this is off topic but 'chicken' seeing as you have so many posts in your name how come your not a premium member?
Blue is correct. I go to... *ahem* elsewhere if I want to discuss advanced web hosting realted topics, no charge ;) :D

From my understanding, she didn't want a c-section because it will leave another scar. Not because she could die from it. She already had 2 before this one.

If a woman don't want a c-section then okay thats fine. But, I think when the decision involves killing a baby, when you know the baby will die then a higher voice has to come in. Thats my opinion

Calling it early... plea, no jail time.

You may not be far off. The state will have made its point.

I don't see a murder charge standing but I can still see negligent homicide going through. Similar to what a drunk driver would be charged with if he/she were to kill someone in an accident.

What is unfortunate is that there is no way to prevent this woman from ever having another child.

You know what I dont get.

Didn't the doctors know it would be a murder charge if she did this?

Originally posted by blue27
You may not be far off. The state will have made its point.

I don't see a murder charge standing but I can still see negligent homicide going through. Similar to what a drunk driver would be charged with if he/she were to kill someone in an accident.

What is unfortunate is that there is no way to prevent this woman from ever having another child.

If I didn't say it earlier I meant to, I don't see this as "murder" but maybe voluntary manslaughter.

Beyond the "forced surgery" bit, I believe murder should require an action on the part of the murderer not inaction, you should have to "do" something to be a murderer, however inaction I believe would be more of a manslaughter or an accessory to murder type deal but that's just my own thinking.

I'm probably going to open up a can of worms here, but it's something I have to know. Be advised, here are two strict viewpoints I hold..

1) I am a Pro Lifer, against abortion.
2) I believe a woman has a right to have the baby the way she wants, c-section or natural. If either results in the death of the baby, that's a choice she will always have to live with. The law should have no say in it.

To the Pro Deathers, umm sorry, I meant Abortionists..... Why is it not murder at 3 months, but IS murder at 8 or 9? You see, this confuses me. When I first read that story, I would have thought abortionists would have defended her actions since they dont believe an unborn baby is human anyway, yet it seems to be the opposite from what I have read here.

I wouldn't want to get into a pro life/pro abortion debate here.

I guess you could say I am pro choice but I have no problems with the pro life faction.

When to consider it a life I suppose is pretty subjective but in reference to this case the babies were days from conception so I would definately consider them to be a tangible human life.

Even as a Pro Lifer, if fact, especially as a pro lifer, surely you would encourage a mother to do whatever was necessary, within the law, and within acceptable medical (not cosmetic) risk to preserve the life of her babies.

I am ProLife because I believe that abortion should not be used as a form of birth control. Only a small fraction of abortions are a result of rape or danger to the mother.......all others are merely a severe form of birth control. I believe in abortion if it comes to rape or life danger to the mother, but no other reason.

This woman made the choice to have the babies naturally. It is her choice. There is no proof the baby would have lived with a c-section, as there was no absolute proof it would have died if birth was given naturally. C-Sections cost a whole great deal more than natural birth.....and as stated before, the death toll on mothers is higher with c-sections as well. Her given excuse at the time may have been the "scar", but deep down, it may have really been fear.. One look at her picture should tell you the scar really wasnt the reason..

Originally posted by Webdude
To the Pro Deathers, umm sorry, I meant Abortionists..... Why is it not murder at 3 months, but IS murder at 8 or 9? You see, this confuses me. When I first read that story, I would have thought abortionists would have defended her actions since they dont believe an unborn baby is human anyway, yet it seems to be the opposite from what I have read here.

Sex isn't a crime, and pregnancy shouldn't be a punishment.

I disagree with late-term abortions because quite frankly, the fetus is capable of living outside the womb as early as 23 weeks. This is not possible during early abortions. Most abortions are performed during the first few weeks of pregnancy.

<made-up scenario>
Fine! I'm 8 weeks pregnant. I won't have an abortion. You can just induce labor, and if that embryo can live outside my uterus without the support of my body, then it can live.
</made-up scenario>

I'm sorry, I am probably going to start a big debate. :smash:

My criteria is if the baby could live outside the womb, then it shouldn't be aborted or allowed to die. I'm against abortion too, personally, I'd never let someone I know have one if I could help it, but hey, if your girlfriend wants to get one I don't give a damn, there's millions of unwanted babies out there, society doesn't need another.

Holy ****!!!

The 2000 conviction of Melissa Rowland stemmed from a supermarket incident in which she punched her daughter several times in the face after the toddler picked up a candy bar and began eating it, the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reported. Witnesses said Rowland screamed, "You ate the candy bar and now I can't buy my cigarettes."

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&ncid=718&e=10&u=/ap/20040314/ap_on_re_us/mother_charged

Prosecutors in Salt Lake City charged Rowland Thursday with criminal homicide and child endangerment for refusing doctors' advice to get a C-section. Charging documents allege that Rowland was warned numerous times between Christmas and Jan. 9 that her twins would likely die if she did not get immediate medical treatment.

Rowland, 28, of the Salt Lake City suburb of West Jordan, has denied prosecutors' claims that she avoided the surgery because of fears of scarring.


So truth be told, did she really say it was because of a scar? Anyway, the doctors only advised (recommended) that she get a c-section. So now a doctor's advice is law? Great, as if they dont make enough money already, now thaey can simply advice anything to make themselves money, and you have to do it //end sarcasm//

However, if she simply refused all medical treatments, that's a whole different ballgame. An example (though most unlikely) would be like if she had some sort of vaginal infection that could harm the babies, and refused to let doctors treat it, then she would certainly be in the wrong. For all we know right now, the doctors may have simply recommended a c-section because she had too small of a vagina, or some other small tubular thing up in there somewhere.

Originally posted by Webdude
...or some other small tubular thing up in there somewhere.
This discussion is getting too technical for me. Can we please do away with the medical mumbo jumbo here?

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&ncid=718&e=10&u=/ap/20040314/ap_on_re_us/mother_charged

That article doesn't exactly paint her as a saint, and I'm not saying her reasons weren't superficial, but... well, I've met some of these parents before. It does make one wish there were some sort of forced surgery law to prevent these people from having children, but there's not.

.. makes me wonder why i ever haven't seen any WOMEN who are pro-life activists.


i think every child should be born wanted.

Originally posted by Chicken
This discussion is getting too technical for me. Can we please do away with the medical mumbo jumbo here?

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&ncid=718&e=10&u=/ap/20040314/ap_on_re_us/mother_charged

That article doesn't exactly paint her as a saint, and I'm not saying her reasons weren't superficial, but... well, I've met some of these parents before. It does make one wish there were some sort of forced surgery law to prevent these people from having children, but there's not.

I was just going to post that.... :) at least the other child has been adopted, hopefully by loving parents. But, c'mon, trying to sell the the non existant child for bail money? Yes, this woman has some serious issues.