Caesarean refusal leads to murder charge

CNN.com ^ | March 12, 2004 | Associated Press

[LiberalSlayer99]

SALT LAKE CITY, Utah (AP) -- A pregnant woman who allegedly ignored medical warnings to have a Caesarean section to save her twins was charged Thursday with murder after one of the babies was stillborn.

Prosecutors said Melissa Ann Rowland, 28, didn't want the scars that accompany the surgery.

An autopsy found the baby died two days before its January 13 delivery and that it would have survived if Rowland had had a C-section when her doctors urged her to, between Christmas and January 9. The other baby is alive, but authorities had no further information.

The doctors had warned that without a C-section, the twins would probably die, authorities said. A nurse told police Rowland said a Caesarean would "ruin her life" and she would rather "lose one of the babies than be cut like that."

"We are unable to find any reason other than the cosmetic motivations" for the mother's decision, said Kent Morgan, spokesman for the district attorney.

Court documents give no address for Rowland, and she isn't listed in area telephone books. An attorney was to be appointed for her Friday, Morgan said.

The charges carry five years to life in prison. Rowland was jailed on $250,000 bail.

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 January 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.

The same day, Rowland allegedly saw a nurse at another hospital, saying she had left LDS Hospital because the doctor wanted to cut her "from breast bone to pubic bone."

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.

In January, the state Supreme Court ruled that unborn children at all stages of development are covered under the state's criminal homicide statute. The law exempts the death of a fetus during an abortion.

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.

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.

[LiberalSlayer99]

I have some real problems with this prosecution. First of all, when does the state have the right to dictate that someone MUST undergo a surgical procedure...one that is not without risk. Secondly, if they are charging her based on the fact that she ignored medical advice, they'd have to charge every crack mother, every mother that drinks during her pregnacy, etc..

This is not an abortion/pro-choice issue. No matter how flawed her reasoning for NOT having a C-Section, the individual should have the right to decline a surgical procedure. Where do individual rights end?

On a lighter note...somebody got drunk enough to impregnate her?

NOTE: I posted the CNN link because it included the lovely pic! Go to the link. Fox News didn't include a pic of this babe.

[Pukin Dog]

I agree that this prosecution is probably wrong, but I would go after the idiot who consumed enough liquor to have sex with that creature in the first place. I didn't know one could drink that much and survive.

[kinsman redeemer]

What about the surviving twin? Won't he have to walk on eggshells throughout his formative years? Imagine what this "mother" might do if he was somehow responsible for a broken nail or a bruised shin!

"Im sorry, mommy! Don't KILL me!"

[Mr. K]

but if a doctor had pulled the infant out halfway and sucked its brain out, it would have been called a "late term abortion" (partial birth)

[dead]

She's a pig, but the government should not be able to force people to have an operation, obviously.

[dead]

LOL! That's some picture.

I can see why she was worried about ruining her good looks.

[ISonnet]

When did Steve Buscemi become a woman and get pregnant? How did I not hear about this?

[af_vet_rr]

She's a pig, but the government should not be able to force people to have an operation, obviously.

Are you familiar with the Christian Science types who will let their children die rather than seek medical treatment in some cases? This comes very close to that.

[coloradan]

This is a dark side of the pro-life position. If fetii have the full rights of individuals, and their full protection by The State, then pregnant women become wards of The State. If this woman can rightly be charged with murder, then who can stop The State from forcing her to eat vegetables, or exercising, or quitting smoking, or ... ? After all, the fetus has rights, and those rights must be protected. Does the pro-life position really want to go there, seeing how eagerly The State uses powers it gets?

[dead]

It's not really that close. In this case, the woman refused an operation on herself that could save her child. It's morally repugnant, but the law shouldn't have a say.

A closer analogy would be somebody who could save a life by donating bone marrow, but refuses. The person's a jerk, but the government shouldn't be able to tie them down and tap their bones against their will.

[trussell]

That lady didn't get beat with the ugly stick, she got beat by the whole dang ugly forest!!

[Lokibob]

Take it a step further:

If you are found to be a perfect match to someone who needs a kidney transplant but you refuse. If that person dies, can you be charged with murder?

Lots here to think about.

[doug9732]

The woman made a very bad decision.
Then the prosecutor made a very bad decision.
It seems if she had decided to kill the fetus deliberately it would be abortion and therefore OK, but since she did it through negligence it is now murder. I am not impressed with the legal logic.
This case could hurt the Republican party nationally if it goes on much longer. Even many Republican women won't want to concede to doctors and prosecutors the right to tell them what to do with their own bodies.

[ravingnutter]

In January, the state Supreme Court ruled that unborn children at all stages of development are covered under the state's criminal homicide statute. The law exempts the death of a fetus during an abortion.

I am pro-life, but it has always puzzled me how they can have it both ways. This ruling makes no sense.

[jimt]

"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.

I agree with you and the article. At the worst, it's negligent homicide. Murder ? No way.

[cyborg]

Considering the tremendous emotional/hormonal situation involved in pregnancy, who knows what went on? I think we'd better be careful with this though. This is really bad precedent.

[stop_fascism]

Yes, she could have aborted both babies and the state would have said no problem.

[Jaxter]

I'd rather look at a scar than that ugly face. I do find it rather ironic that if she'd had them both killed by a
partial birth abortion the day before she delivered she'd not be facing any charges at all.

[Doctor Stochastic]

First of all, when does the state have the right to dictate that someone MUST undergo a surgical procedure...one that is not without risk. Secondly, if they are charging her based on the fact that she ignored medical advice, they'd have to charge every crack mother, every mother that drinks during her pregnacy, etc..

If a fetus has the status of a person, then the State must intervene in these cases. Not only that, exposure of the fetus to second hand smoke could be grounds for felony charges against the mother.

[mtbopfuyn]

This is really bad precedent.

A very, very bad precedent.