 |
|
Proteus_MST
|
|
It should rather be negligence than Murder.
I wonder what had happened if the woman had refused the C-Section for religious Reasons (as some religious Groups, such as Jehovas Witnesses have harsh Restrictions on Medical Treatments which are allowed)
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Proteus_MST
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
OK. How would you deal with mothers who work through their pregnancy and subject themselves to workplace stress?
2nd point- if you equip doctors with a right, and even a legal obligation to operate against the mother's will, and place the fear of charges on the mothers, what do you think will happen?
Do you think, as I do, that mothers with a fear of surgery will be less inclined to go to see their doctors at all? Do you think that the rates of home births will rise or fall?
Do you think that, by passing a law designed to protect the precious, precious foetus, that the number of foetal deaths might actually rise as a result? |
I don´t think that Mothers who work through their Pregnancy should be punished, as the risk to loose the child this way is much lower.
But I place some Trust in the Doctors, that, if they say that their children are in a critical Condition (after all they detected slowing Heartbeats) and probably they might die without a C-Section, this will be true.
So I think that the woman refused to undergo a medical Treatment to safe the life of their children.
If she had any doubt that her Doctor was right and the C-Section was indeed necessary to safe the Life of her child(s), she might have consulted another Doctor to hear his Opinion.
And either the same day or at least the next day, as slowing Heartbeats indicate a sevrere medical Condition for the unborn children.
But after all I read in the first Posting of this Thread she went to another Doctor, but just a week later, when one of the children already was dead.
And after all I think a C-Section is nothing, which puts the Mother at an extreme risk, as it is a standard medical Procedure, which is very regularly administered (and there is no indication that Miss Rowland faced a higher risk than other mothers who underwent this procedure).
So, yes, as it was just a few days till birth and she had decided to bear those Children, I think she also accepted a certain responsibility for them, which she neglected in the full knowledge, that with refusing the medical treatment, there would be a high Probability of losing one or both of the children.
(but of course she didn´t murder one her children )
I would see similarities between this case and a couple of cases involving Jehovas Witnesses and Blood Transfusions. For example the case of Perrot, where we had a 3 year old girl which should get a Blood Transfusion. But her Father denied this medical Procedure as they were Jehovas Witnesses (and their Faith denies them Blood Transfusions) with the fuill knowledge,that with this Decision their daughter would very probably die (very probably influenced by the Presence of an Elder). The Medics accepted this Decision and the daughter died.
As für similarities between this case and the right for Abortion:
I think there are great differences. If you decide to abort you do it while the children is still a Lump of undifferentiated Cells and doesn´t possess a real neural Network (yes, I am one of those guys who think that conscious Life begins with the development of a nervous System and not already at Conception ). And, after all, you decide not to bear the children.
As for the children of Rowland, it is different.
It was close to birth, so you can assume that Rowland had decided to bear those children and to accept the responsibility for them. And, although the Children were still in the womb, they were already fully developed, as it was very close to birth.
So I think she neglected her responsibility (by not accepting the medical treatment or at least consulting Another Doctor) whereas mothers who decide to abort don´t .
But I agree with you that any conviction of Rowland (be it murder or be it negligence) could lead to pregnant women shying away from visiting their doctors.
Last edited by Proteus_MST on 13-03-2004 at 19:10
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Proteus_MST
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
Your opinion is noted and duly dismissed. As I stated several inches higher, are you forgetting about psychological damage or are you merely ignoring it? |
If you think about the psychological Damage the Mother already had.
I found it very difficult to assess, therefore I deliberately left it out.
This could be one of the things where the Hospital probably failed.
If she really thought that she would be cut from Brestbone to Belly, it coulöd probably be a negligience of the Hospital, to properly and gently inform her about the procedure they wanted to perform on her and to adress all of her fears.
Sadly the psychological side is grossly neglected by many Doctors and they treat their Patients more like a broken machine which has to be fixed, than like a human beings with feelings and fears.
So, the psychological side of the case could indeed be a reason fo an Exoneration.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
The Mad Monk
|
 |
of Ice Cream
Mar 2000 time: 23:34
|
|
Here you go, Laz:
quote: An autopsy found the baby died two days before its Jan. 13 delivery and that it would have survived if Rowland had had a C-section when her doctors urged her to, between Christmas and Jan.9. The other baby is alive, but authorities had no further information.
|
quote: According to the documents, Rowland went to LDS Hospital in Salt Lake City in December to seek advice after she hadn’t felt her babies move. A nurse, Regina Davis, told police she instructed Rowland to go immediately to one of two other hospitals, but that Rowland said she would rather have both babies die before going to either place.
On Jan. 2, a doctor at LDS Hospital examined Rowland and recommended an immediate C-section based on an ultrasound and the babies’ slowing heart rates. Rowland left, the doctor told police.
|
quote: A week later, Rowland allegedly went to a third hospital to verify whether her babies were alive. A nurse there told police she could not detect a heartbeat from one twin and advised Rowland to remain in the hospital, but Rowland allegedly ignored the advice.
|
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Guynemer
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Everyone okay guynemer? |
Grandma had a bowel obstruction, surgeons decided yesterday was the day or there could be serious problems...
luckily, she came through the surgery a-ok, didn't even need an ileostomy or anything.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Guynemer
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Proteus_MST
I wonder what had happened if the woman had refused the C-Section for religious Reasons (as some religious Groups, such as Jehovas Witnesses have harsh Restrictions on Medical Treatments which are allowed) |
Some Mormon sects, as well, have harsh restrictions on medical treatments... namely:
Surgery is absolutely forbidden unless it is to save your life.
I have no idea if this applies to this woman, but something to ponder nonetheless.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Guynemer
|
|
quote: Originally posted by The Mad Monk
Laz, none of the news sources I've looked at mention a separate due date; that, and the fact that the surviving twin had no reported complications (apparently not a premie), and the fact that the doctor wanted to do the c-section more than a week earlier, leads me to believe that the due date was on or before the delivery date.
|
You are assuming an awful lot.
There is simply no way to know, at all, from the current news accounts, what the due date was. A baby can be "premature" are not have any major complications; and we don't know if there are any or not, to be perfectly honest.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34. Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|