OB threatens to call police while patient refuses emergency C-section
I am deeply concerned that you are contributing to a very high probability that your fetus will die or your child will incur brain damage if born alive. At this time, you must come in for delivery.
I would hate to move to the most extreme option, which is having law enforcement pick you up at your home and bring you in, but you are leaving the providers of USF/TGH no choice.
~ An email sent by Dr. Jerry Yankowitz, chairman of the obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Southern Florida, to his patient Lisa Epsteen, threatening to call police if she did not choose to deliver her baby via C-section, as reported by CBS Tampa Bay, March 7
[HT: Laura Loo]
Mar.08, 2013 6:00 am |
Pregnancy |
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Well thats a new one. I mean the article is kindof vague and she was still going to let the doctor do the delivery. Maybe he really was worried. Had he tried the phone? Perhaps shed been ignoring him. I think id need to read a bit more about things from her end. what if hed tried and tried??? Although having someone picked up by the cops is extreme and ive never heard of such a thing. Ive heard a few docs read patients the riot act because they wouldnt follow their diets, lose weight etc. idk about this.
I was born by emergency C-section. Both my brothers were born through C-section.
Should a C-section be legally mandatory if a doctor thinks it is best? Doctors and other scientists are fallible human beings. My Dad remarked on a similar case, “I think people should be able to refuse operations.” Choosing a normal, vaginal delivery isn’t always the best thing but it would be rather bizarre to make it ILLEGAL for anyone.
I would’ve pulled a Crystal Kelley and fled the state. Who does this doctor think he is to demand that this woman have a C-section? Even if the doctor did have some medical reason to back up his concerns, the threat of legal force so that a woman will give birth one way or another is way out of line.
If it’s in the baby’s best interest, then why was she refusing to have it done? I’m a little confused. As pro-lifers, we’re supposed to care about the baby’s health, but here you’re demonizing a doctor who seems to be doing exactly that. Yes, calling the police would be extreme, but if the baby was in danger, then you do what you need to do to save him/her.
Right nicole. she didnt seem to have too much of an issue with him doing the delivery. I dont see where shes threatening to sue. Not being able to find a sitter? And she had a medical condition. Something seems to be missing from the story.
I read the whole news story and I’m not eager to villainize the doctor here. I think he was trying to get it through this woman’s head that her baby was in distress and she needed to deliver for the sake of the child. Perhaps the threat of arrest was overboard, but he was trying to get her attention. Cars and work are lousy excuses to endanger the baby’s life. Good grief… I just pray she and the baby are both healthy and have a happy birth day.
At least this doctor cared about the baby’s well-being.
It’s within her rights not to act in the best interest of the baby, correct? Because her doing nothing (which could lead to her baby’s death) is tantamount to an abortion, and abortion is legal? Am I correct?
I know a woman who came up positive for drugs after she went to her first doc appt after finding out she was pregnant. She called me crying after her appt….he had delivered her first child. He whipped a cell phone outta his pocket n told her get help or i will be calling childrens services on you myself!
Nicole, the US has an extraordinarily high c-section rate, and c-sections do have risks of their own. Many women are coerced into unwanted c-sections; many more simply believe doctors who tell them that a c-section is necessary or vital when it is not. YES, sometimes it is, but nowhere near as often as we have been led to believe I don’t know the details of this case but I do know women whose doctors has “insisted” that they induce labor, or schedule a c-section, if a woman goes 1 or 2 weeks after her due date, etc. There is a lot of ridiculous crap out there when it comes to labor.
You’re allowed to electively kill babies, but doctors threaten to call the police if you don’t deliver them the way they want you to? What a crazy world this is.
HER BODY HER CHOICE!!!!
and all that jazz……right proaborts??
The woman has bodily autonomy. She can do whatever she wants to that parasite. This is male oppression.
Okay, I don’t know the circumstances of this situation. Maybe the doctor just wanted to cover himself for liability. Having said that though, I am truly disgusted by the way some women behave regarding their child. Being a sonographer I have listened to many, many women say that they are going to have a home birth, a water birth, a natural birth, refuse a c-section, insist on a c-section, etc.
Your ONLY job, as far as delivery is concerned, is to deliver as healthy a baby as possible. In most cases, not all, but most the doctor knows best – or at least is prepared for the worst. They have delivered hundreds of babies. Just because this is your second, or third, or first, or twentieth, doesn’t mean you know best, or are prepared for the worst. I don’t care if you WANT a home birth your baby may need the NICU immediately.
My last baby had her cord around her neck – something they didn’t know until my water broke. She was in distress and they had to flood my uterus with water until the cord loosened and they could deliver her, luckily that worked, but I’m guessing most home births don’t have the pump that was required to do that. They gave me just a few minutes before they were going to take me into a c-section – and I would not have hesitated to let them.
“If it’s in the baby’s best interest, then why was she refusing to have it done?”
Because medicine isn’t an exact science, and c-sections have risks. Patients(including those who are pregnant) have the right to refuse treatment.
In most cases, not all, but most the doctor knows best
If that were the case hospital births wouldn’t have the c-section and episiotomy(which can be even worse) rates they do. OB-GYNs typically have unnecessarily high rates of interventions that only lead to further complications.
This woman has had FOUR previous c-sections, she’s a week post-due, she is morbidly obese with gestational diabetes, and she has been sent to the hospital before where they wanted to deliver immediately due to the baby’s distress.
But she wants a naaaaatural birth!
Apparently she doesn’t care whether she births a live or dead baby, as long as she does it through her vagina. She has so many risk factors calling for a c-section that it’s practically a case study! But she’s so deep in the sunshine and unicorn natural birth crap, that she is willing to risk another person’s life, not to mention risking her own life.
I think the physician was saying she may not be mentally competent with respect to her medical care, and would have the police escort her to the hospital for that reason.
I thought the whole point of the pro-life movement is that unborn babies have rights, including being protected from mothers exercising so-called rights that endanger their babies’ lives.
I think the physician was saying she may not be mentally competent with respect to her medical care, and would have the police escort her to the hospital for that reason.
Which is a lie. He has no legal right to compel the police to force her to go to the hospital. At most he could petition to have her committed for psychiatric reasons. However, there is no evidence she is insane. People have the right to refuse medical treatment. This woman had the right to terminate the patient/doctor relationship at any time.
OB-GYNs typically have unnecessarily high rates of interventions that only lead to further complications.
They also have unnecessarily high rates of lawsuits because women refuse to listen to reason then want someone to blame.
They also have unnecessarily high rates of lawsuits because women refuse to listen to reason then want someone to blame.
And those lawsuits don’t go anywhere. You can only sue a doctor if they fail to meet the standard of care(and have two other doctors testifying as such)… and lying to patients is a glaring example of such. OBs will even admit they have a high intervention rate because that is what they are trained to do. This is why in most industrialized countries midwives oversee pregnancy and birth.
Many moms prefer C-sections. Posh Spice didn’t need one but had one so she wouldn’t have to go through labor. Other moms also do it for this reason which is why there is a saying, “Too posh to push.”
I don’t understand why people think that pregnancy is so, so different from any other condition that could possibly be lethal, including mental illness. No one complains if people are forced under 72 hour supervision when they try to commit suicide, because the state has an interest in protecting citizens, even from themselves. If your doctor thinks you are a danger to yourself they can take legal steps, and sometimes you may have to have something done even if you refuse. It’s not exactly common, but it happens. You also can’t deny your child life-saving interventions because of your religious beliefs, or any other beliefs. If a doctor thinks you are letting your child come to harm they can call in authorities, and sometimes the authorities are able to remove your ability to make those decisions for your child.
So why is pregnancy different? There’s a child there, and if a parent is making decisions that are putting that child in lethal danger, then why would that be any different from a parent putting a born child in lethal danger? If you don’t agree that if a woman in labor is putting her child in lethal danger, that the child needs to be protected, you obviously don’t think the fetus is as important as a born child. I don’t think the mom should be brought up on charges, but if the kid is going to be seriously injured or die because the mom won’t listen to the doctor, then legal steps should be taken to protect the child. That’s not even getting into whether medical care should be forced on someone who doesn’t want it, like a suicidal patient being on 72 hour hold or whatever, but at the very least when it comes to labor, pro-lifers shouldn’t forget there is a baby there that deserves the same protection from abusive mothers as a born infant. I don’t know this situation, so I don’t know if the doctor was right, but people saying that she should give birth however she wants regardless of medical concerns is worrying.
Inb4 I hear “you’re a man, you can’t give birth, you have no idea blah blah blah” and accusations of misogyny.
I don’t understand why people think that pregnancy is so, so different from any other condition that could possibly be lethal, including mental illness.
Adults are free to refuse any life saving treatment unless they are not of sound mind. That doesn’t change when one becomes pregnant.
There’s a child there, and if a parent is making decisions that are putting that child in lethal danger, then why would that be any different from a parent putting a born child in lethal danger?
It’s different because it involves the rights all adults have to refuse medical treatment. Just because someone is pregnant doesn’t mean the doctor somehow gets the final say in course of treatment.
I don’t know the details of this particular case (for example, how urgent the situation was). But I don’t think we can assume ahead of time that the doctor was in the wrong. The idea of a male doctor threatening to have a pregnant woman arrested if she doesn’t submit to invasive surgery does, at first glance, set off the “ick factor”. But consider the following thought experiment:
Suppose a strange pregnancy complication occurs that causes the baby to cease physical development in the third trimester, as well as preventing the woman from entering labour. However, the baby continues to develop mentally. So pregnancy will continue as long as a Caesarean section is not performed. Now, what if the mother never consents to having one? She doesn’t want a scar, so the “baby” is left inside of her for 80 years. Although the “baby” has the same self-awareness as an adult and wants to live a normal life, the mother won’t let it. Is she within her rights to do this, or would it be reasonable to demand that she has the operation? And if intervention is appropriate in this case, why not to save the baby’s life?
(no such complication exists of course, but you have this thing called an imagination)
As for the dangers of C-section vs. vaginal birth, it’s unlikely that the difference is high enough to justify letting the child die (especially considering that the pregnancy is high-risk so it might actually be lower for Caesarean section). Along with the fact that Ms. Epsteen was planning to have one anyway.
Again, folks, before assuming the doctor is just a controlling villain here, READ the whole story. Like this part:
“Doctors did, though, believe the lives of Epsteen and her baby were in danger. Epsteen had developed gestational diabetes and an ultrasound Tuesday showed the baby in distress. That’s when doctors told her to immediately go to Tampa General Hospital and have a C-section.
She didn’t want to give birth that day because her husband was at work while she had the family’s only car and also she didn’t have anyone to watch her 2-year-old son.”
The baby was in distress. If that’s true, then I’m glad this Dr. was trying to preserve the child’s life. And if indeed this woman has had 4 prior C-sections, there was no natural childbirth in her future — no way, no how. Clearly, there’s more to this story than just, “the big bad doctor was trying to force me to have invasive surgery I didn’t want!”
As for the dangers of C-section vs. vaginal birth, it’s unlikely that the difference is high enough to justify letting the child die (especially considering that the pregnancy is high-risk so it might actually be lower for Caesarean section).
Not for you or I, but that ultimate decision is up to the patient who will have to endure the surgery. It is the doctor’s job to inform her of the risks, and it is up to the patient to decide if those risks are worth or even if she trusts such statements. She could seek out other opinions, refuse the surgery completely(even if this doctor states that is riskier in his view), or consent to the surgery. His options are honoring her wishes and waiting or firing her as a patient.
The baby was in distress.
That is no excuse to lie and threaten to violate basic bioethics.
And if indeed this woman has had 4 prior C-sections, there was no natural childbirth in her future — no way, no how.
That’s not necessarily true. The risk of hemorrhaging is increased, but it’s up to the patient to decide if it is worth it to avoid surgery and up to a medical provider to decide is she/he wants to attend such a vaginal birth. It certainly gives no one the right to force a c-section on this woman.
It is an interesting situation. Should doctors be able to, say, override the wishes of Jehovah’s Witness parents, and give blood to their [born] children if not giving blood puts those children at grave risk?
This woman sounds like she was making some really bad choices, but given the coercion that is often almost routine when it comes to L&D, I’m uncomfortable saying that “doctors know best” and that they should be able to force a patient to comply without some SERIOUS legal action first.
A friend of mine recently gave birth to her second child. She had a c-section with her first, for barely any discernible reason; at some point while she was laboring, her doctor said, “This is taking too long,” and ordered a c-section, and she was scared but didn’t think to question him. She had a horrific recovery that prevented her from being able to breastfeed her son, or even really hold him for weeks, and as she delved into the topic in an attempt to understand and reconcile what had happened, she discovered just how frightening our medical approach to birth can be. She desperately wanted a VBAC with her second child, five years later. Her doctor was staunchly opposed and told her multiple times that she was “killing her baby.” Her pregnancy had no complications and there were no indications that anything might be difficult. When she reached her due date she went in for an appointment and her doctor admitted her to the hospital for tests, telling her she would need to check herself out Against Medical Advice to leave, even though she was nowhere near going into labor. For days, nurses and doctors pressured her to have a c-section. Eventually she went into labor – not even a week late – and delivered a perfectly healthy baby girl with basically no complications at all. She breastfeeds her daughter and told me that sometimes she can’t help crying, when she’s holding her, thinking of the experiences she missed out on with her son.
Would her doctor have “ordered” her to have a c-section if she were able to? Maybe, I don’t know. She admitted her to the hospital and tried to wear her down. It’s scary to think about, in my opinion. I know somebody will just be like “scarier than a DEAD BABY????” but I’m just thinking out loud. I think that the burden for forcing a pregnant woman into specific care should be as high as it is for any other adult, basically. It shouldn’t be framed as simply being about “doctors tend to be right.”
” Adults are free to refuse any life saving treatment unless they are not of sound mind. That doesn’t change when one becomes pregnant.”
…. I know? That’s why I mentioned suicide holds and the like. When I tried to commit suicide they performed whatever interventions they deemed necessary because I was deemed out of my freaking mind and unable to make my own healthcare decisions. I also had to sign consent for my ex-wife to have a c-section when she was in and out of consciousness, basically dying, and was considered not of sound mind when she insisted on giving birth vaginally like with our first, even though it was not going to medically happen. There are some situations where adults don’t make their medical decisions. Like I said, it’s not common but it happens. Which is why I think that people are wrong when they insist she should give birth however she wants, no matter what state her mind is in and what state her and the baby’s health is in.
” It’s different because it involves the rights all adults have to refuse medical treatment. Just because someone is pregnant doesn’t mean the doctor somehow gets the final say in course of treatment.”
I don’t know if you are pro-life or not, I seem to remember if you are, sorry if I am not remembering correctly. But if you are, you would agree that the mother’s right to the type of medical treatment she wants is superseded by the baby’s right to life. That doesn’t mean that all pregnant women don’t have the right to their medical treatment, but the child has rights that need to be considered as well. Like I said, I don’t know this situation (neither do you, for that matter, I see no medical records to tell me otherwise), and I’m not a doctor anyway. I just don’t think it’s out of the realm of possibility that this was a case of a doctor trying to protect both his patients, when the only patient who was able to voice their opinions might not have been able to make good ones (not saying she was necessarily of unsound mind, but it’s a possibility).
“But if you are, you would agree that the mother’s right to the type of medical treatment she wants is superseded by the baby’s right to life.”
Hmm, that makes me look like a terrible human being. What I meant was that the mother’s right to the type of medical treatment she wants is superseded by the baby’s right to life, except in cases of her life or health being in jeopardy.
That’s why I mentioned suicide holds and the like. When I tried to commit suicide they performed whatever interventions they deemed necessary because I was deemed out of my freaking mind and unable to make my own healthcare decisions.
There is no evidence that this woman is out of her mind, thus her medical decisions rest with her.
But if you are, you would agree that the mother’s right to the type of medical treatment she wants is superseded by the baby’s right to life.
No, I wouldn’t. This has nothing to do with the right to life since medicine is based on probabilities. This is about a doctor violating basic human rights in an attempt to do what he feels is best for the well being of the child. There is no right to be born via c-section. By your logic all women should forced to take pregnancy tests before engaging in any risky activity. Preventing a woman from actively killing the fetus she is carrying is not comparable to violating her basic rights(such as unlawful search and freedom from forced medical procedures) in the name of protecting the wellbeing of that fetus.
It appears this doctor realized he didn’t have a legal leg to stand on:
After the lawyer got involved, Yankowitz sent a subsequent email saying he wouldn’t send law enforcement to Epsteen’s home. “I personally recognize and respect your right to make the medical treatment decisions for both you and your unborn child. . . . In that regard, please understand my frustration as I truly believe you and your child are in jeopardy.”
http://www.theledger.com/article/20130307/NEWS/130309392?p=4&tc=pg
No one is saying (or, at least, I don’t think anyone is) that the child’s needs and health should not be considered or looked out for. Of course they should. And perhaps the doctor is right that a C-section is the best way to do that. That’s not the point.
The point is, regardless of what other issues may be at hand, this particular doctor went way too far in attempting to make his case. This woman is not suicidal or raging or otherwise non compos mentis, so the doctor has no right to try and usurp her right to choose her own medical treatments. Nor is she deliberately attempting to cause harm to her child as the case is with an abortion. Certainly threatening to have her brought to the hospital and cut open by force is completely beyond the pale. The doctor may be medically right, but he is in no way ethically right.
Nicole says:
And those lawsuits don’t go anywhere.
Don’t go anywhere? They cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to defend! Here is just one example – similar to the woman in this story – that went to the Illinois Appellate Court, even after the Circuit Court ruled against her.
http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/AppellateCourt/2010/1stDistrict/June/1090422.pdf
There are plenty like this all over the country each year, this is one I happened to study in my medical legal/ethics class. But each of my classmates had to present a case – all on malpractice, all of the plaintiffs eventually lost, but I can’t believe any of the ones I heard would were dumb enough to bring a case in the first place. Many of them even went to the Illinois Supreme Court. Talk about a waste, and I think the doctors involved would disagree with your statement that the cases didn’t “go anywhere.”
This story infuriates me and not because I think the doctor is wrong. The baby is NOT in position for vaginal birth and is in distress. This is EXACTLY the same to me as parents who see their child is sick and do nothing about it and refuse to seek medical treatment.
I support a woman’s right to give birth the way she wants…as long as she is not jeopardizing her baby’s life. This child is in distress. This child is not in position for vaginal birth. This woman is obese and has gestational diabetes and 4 previous c-sections. But she is willing to risk her baby’s life so that she can experience a vaginal birth. I hope that she is charged if that baby dies. Because what she is doing is unconscionable to me. She is putting her baby’s life (and for that matter her life) at risk for WHAT?
When I gave birth this last time I insisted on not being hooked up to monitors and not having any pain medication. I wanted to be out of bed laboring on my feet. They let me but told me they needed to hook me up to a fetal heart monitor every hour just to make sure the baby was okay. And even though I didn’t want to be hooked up I did it because making sure my baby was tolerating labor was more important than my desire to be out of bed at all times.
I understand why the doctor did what he did. Not saying it was right but I truly believe he thinks the mother and her baby are in grave danger. He is trying to preserve life here. He isn’t trying to dictate medical procedures to feed his god-like complex.
This woman….UGH. It just makes me so angry. I pray to God everything turns out safely for her and her baby. Foolish woman. What a gamble.
“By your logic all women should forced to take pregnancy tests before engaging in any risky activity. Preventing a woman from actively killing the fetus she is carrying is not comparable to violating her basic rights(such as unlawful search and freedom from forced medical procedures) in the name of protecting the wellbeing of that fetus”
That’s misrepresenting my position so much it’s not even funny.
I’m torn on this and I don’t think the article really digs deep enough.
On the one hand, it seems entirely inappropraite for a doctor to threaten police action due to a patient not following his/her advice. I believe that our system is in ill-repair right now due to the loss of partnership between doctors and patients. A doctor can only know so much and the reality of life is that we each have the burden on ourselves as to which side we’re going to err.
But then, if the baby were a day old and the risks were similar and the parent didn’t want to bring them for medical attention because of babysitting/transportation issues, then I don’t know that many of us would take issue with child protective services being called to get medical attention to the kid.
It seems possible that too much emphasis was being placed on having a certain birth/ing experience and not enough on the immediate physical well-being of both mother and child… but then, this was her fifth child and it’s entirely possible that she correctly knew what was going on with her body.
I just don’t know and it’s rather irritating that “reporters” would put out such a half-formed story to get people riled up over.
That’s misrepresenting my position so much it’s not even funny.
Your position seems to be that the rights afforded to all other adults of sound mind go out the window when a woman becomes pregnant.
It seems possible that too much emphasis was being placed on having a certain birth/ing experience and not enough on the immediate physical well-being of both mother and child…
The emphasis is on not forcing an adult of sound mind to have surgery against their will. It’s unethical and illegal to violate someone’s rights in such away even if intentions are good.
” Your position seems to be that the rights afforded to all other adults of sound mind go out the window when a woman becomes pregnant.”
Nope. That’s about a good representation of my position as saying that you want women to be able to abort at will is of yours. Let’s try this again. If there was a, let’s say 80-90% chance that her fetus would die if she refused to have a c-section would you support her choice not to have one, or do you think steps should be taken to protect the child from her bad choices? How about a 70-80% chance? How about a more than 80% chance of the baby being born severely disabled if she doesn’t have a c-section? You seem to have the position that as long as she doesn’t have an actual abortion procedure, it’s okay if the health of her child is completely ignored. <— I know that’s probably not an incredibly fair summary of your position, but it’s about the same amount of exaggeration you did to mine.
Both people should have rights in these types of cases, and the woman’s aren’t the only ones who should be considered. There should be some type of oversight and way to ensure that the child’s rights are being considered while allowing the pregnant woman as much freedom as possible. Kinda like how parents of born children have the right to raise them as they see fit, but child services is there to protect the kids if the parents are doing a terrible job and causing the kids damage.
If there was a, let’s say 80-90% chance that her fetus would die if she refused to have a c-section would you support her choice not to have one, or do you think steps should be taken to protect the child from her bad choices?
Yes. It is still a violation of her rights to cut her open without her consent. The end doesn’t justify the means. All doctors have the right to do is inform her what they believe such risks are and fire her as a patient if they can’t accept her refusal to follow their advice. It is never ethical to perform surgery on an adult of sound mind without their consent.
” Yes. It is still a violation of her rights to cut her open without her consent. The end doesn’t justify the means. All doctors have the right to do is inform her what they believe such risks are and fire her as a patient if they can’t accept her refusal to follow their advice. It is never ethical to perform surgery on an adult of sound mind without their consent. ”
So you are totally cool with a baby dying as long as a woman gets to not have a c-section. Even if the chance of the baby dying was extremely high if she didn’t get it. I don’t think you actually consider fetuses worthy of legal protection or anywhere near equal to born children if this is your stance.
So you are totally cool with a baby dying as long as a woman gets to not have a c-section.
I’m not “totally cool” with it. I just don’t think doctors should be able violate human rights even if they have the wellbeing of child in mind. The ends don’t justify the means.
I don’t think you actually consider fetuses worthy of legal protection or anywhere near equal to born children if this is your stance.
I think they deserve protection from assault and direct injory like anyone else. That doesn’t mean I think someone else’s human rights should be free to be violated in the name of saving them. I don’t think bone marrow donation should be forced either, even if it means someone would die without it. The ends don’t justify the means. It is unethical for doctors to perform surgery on someone against their will. That doesn’t change because their intentions might be good.
“I think they deserve protection from assault and direct injory like anyone else. That doesn’t mean I think someone else’s human rights should be free to be violated in the name of saving them. I don’t think bone marrow donation should be forced either, even if it means someone would die without it. The ends don’t justify the means. It is unethical for doctors to perform surgery on someone against their will. That doesn’t change because their intentions might be good.”
Hmm, lol okay. So if a woman told her doctor (in a world where abortion is illegal like any other type of violent crime) that she is refusing to have a c-section because she wants her baby to die inside her, that’s not okay with you because it’s a direct attempt to kill the baby? Or is that totally cool with you? And that’s somehow different than a woman refusing a c-section with an extremely high risk of fetal death if she does, because she wanted some vaginal birth experience?
You do understand that neglect is a crime against children, right? Not just direct assault and injury. I can’t refuse to feed my kids or allow them to die of a treatable condition. But you seem to be arguing as long as the pregnant woman doesn’t “pull the trigger”, so to speak, she should be allowed to neglect her child’s health to whatever extremes she chooses.
Hmm, lol okay. So if a woman told her doctor (in a world where abortion is illegal like any other type of violent crime) that she is refusing to have a c-section because she wants her baby to die inside her, that’s not okay with you because it’s a direct attempt to kill the baby?
I don’t agree with it, but her reasoning doesn’t change the fact that refusing medical treatment is her right. If someone refused to donate bone marrow because they wanted to the potential recipient to die that hardly makes them a murderer, just a bad person.
can’t refuse to feed my kids or allow them to die of a treatable condition.
One doesn’t have to violate a basic human right to require one to feed their children or allow them to receive medical care. If you can’t/won’t they can be placed with someone else who can. The fact remains that it’s unethical to perform surgery on someone against their will(not to mention sets a dangerous precedent that gives doctors the power of the law). Respecting rights isn’t always convenient or pleasant, and plenty of people do die because of them, but the ends don’t justify the means. When they start to none of our rights are safe.
” I don’t agree with it, but her reasoning doesn’t change the fact that refusing medical treatment is her right. If someone refused to donate bone marrow because they wanted to the potential recipient to die that hardly makes them a murderer, just a bad person.”
The difference being that the dying person in the bone marrow situation isn’t literally trapped in the body of the bad person that wants them dead. And, of course, the bone marrow donor isn’t literally the only person on earth who can prevent the dying person’s death.
“One doesn’t have to violate a basic human right to require one to feed their children or allow them to receive medical care. If you can’t/won’t they can be placed with someone else who can. The fact remains that it’s unethical to perform surgery on someone against their will(not to mention sets a dangerous precedent that gives doctors the power of the law). Respecting rights isn’t always convenient or pleasant, and plenty of people do die because of them, but the ends don’t justify the means. When they start to none of our rights are safe.”
This is the exact, and I mean to the letter, justification for abortion by using body autonomy rights arguments. If you think that it’s acceptable to violate body autonomy to preserve the life of a fetus to prevent the mother from deliberately killing it, then I don’t see how it’s consistent to claim that those same rights you willingly overrode in the case of deliberate abortion are now inviolate as long as she’s not deliberately having the fetus ripped apart. Either the right to life is the more important right than body autonomy or not.
In your scenario a woman could stick herself through the cervix with knitting needles or something and then refuse treatment to make sure the baby died, and that’s fine.
Did you guys here about the nurse in California who refused to do CPR? One extreme to the other. The woman died and i guarantee that nurse is losing her job. The body autonomy arguments …hate em!! Pointless .
Jack….very well argued points. You hit the nail on the head.
I understand Nicole’s points too though (though I side with Jack’s on this). I don’t vaccinate my children because I have real concerns about the carcinogens and preservatives in them. I wouldn’t want my pediatrician (who is very pro-vaccine) to send police after me.
So I understand the concern Nicole has. To me though this isa life and death situation. If my child was in a car accident and was splayed open and I insisted I didn’t want surgery for him and he began to cry and say he didn’t want surgery either the doctors would still take that child and rush him into surgery to save his life. It wouldn’t matter that I, the guardian, or he, the child and owner of the body being operated on, didn’t want the surgery. That is why I think bodily autonomy doesn’t matter in this circumstance. Bodily autonomy is important which is why I support legalizing pot even though I have never and would never use drugs. But bodily autonomy goes out the window when you are using that as an excuse to hurt another human being.
I agree with jack also. the government does rule over our bodies . i was in a car accident which made me very anti seatbelt. Had i been wearing my seatbelt i would have been killed most likely but the law still says i have to belt my body into a car. I don’t tell other people not to wear a seatbelt but i don’t wear one to this day. But if i see a cop i throw it on.
I’ve always hated seatbelts…my body not my choice
Even when it comes to drugs…You can put heroin in your veins smoke crack and smoke pot BUT the government says you can’t legally do it…even if it is your body and your choice. The government says you can’t. Good point about being pink slipped into the hospital Jack. Same thing happened to me back in 2004. I was in a deep depression and although i wanted to leave i wasn’t allowed . My body not my choice. I’m sorry to hear you were in despair Jack but you’re only human. I’ve been there myself!! I hope you are doing better .
I was just watching Fox n the California nurse wouldn’t do CPR…i guess id have to hear a little more before speaking on that. DNR in Ohio means you do not do CPR…though I’m wondering why 911 was called to begin with. Was the woman sick? I didn’t care for the nurses tone on the phone though. It was like a walk in the park.??? I’m sure more details will surface though.
If twitter is to be believed, Lisa Epsteen gave birth to a healthy 11-pound boy sometime yesterday. Wow–11 pounds. I was only 6. There aren’t really any other details about the method of birth but glad to hear that all went smoothly.
My son was 9lbs 6 oz., and my physicians were FREAKING OUT about my weight and gestational diabetes and all kinds of stuff. They’d test my sugars all the time, even though I felt fine and told them as much. They freaked out about my weight gain even though I tried to tell them that I thought they were off about his gestational age (his original due date according to them was the 12th of February! and he was born Jan 24th!). I was in mild labor for literally weeks (dilated to 3cm and having contractions every night starting around 7pm) but the first time I walked in telling them I was in labor, they sent me home with a friggin’ ambien and told me to sleep it off!
Sometimes doctors don’t know best, and I think that since this woman apparently delivered her healthy baby boy, she was right to blow off the docs. She might have a case to sue for harassment or something, even. I’d consider it in her case.
Dear doctors: sometimes women have big-@$$ babies. DEAL WITH IT.
My last two uncles on my mom’s side were THIRTEEN POUNDS+, EACH. My grandma never had a c-section with any of her 10 kids.
I am glad to hear she and her baby are healthy and fine…but wow. What a gamble.
Babies of diabetic moms do tend to be bigger than average.
Does anyone know if this woman had a c-section on Friday as the doctor suggested? If she did have a c-section on Friday, did she not take the doctor’s advice in part because apparently she originally wanted to have a vaginal birth?
I would hope that she would have had more than her own opinion for going against the doctor’s recommendation. As another poster has mentioned, the reasons provided for not following the doctor’s advice appear a little shallow given the implied gravity of the Doctor’s apparent concern.
If this doctor had reasons, aside from the health of the mother or the child, for suggesting a c-section he should held accountable for using his authority to manipulate a patient. I don’t think c-sections should be procscribed for a cosmetic, legal, or any non-medical reason.
Janet,
I DID NOT have gestational diabetes with my son, even though the medical staff was borderline insulting when suggesting they were surprised I didn’t have it, given my weight.
opps…. should’ve written “prescribed” not “proscribed”….bad mistake.
Which is a lie. He has no legal right to compel the police to force her to go to the hospital. At most he could petition to have her committed for psychiatric reasons. However, there is no evidence she is insane. People have the right to refuse medical treatment. This woman had the right to terminate the patient/doctor relationship at any time.
.
You don’t have to be insane to be mentally incompetent just temporarily. Uncontrolled diabetes can mess with your mind enough to make you mentally incompetent short term. Police/Ambulance could conceivably cooperate if the doctor told them he feared she was mentally confused and could slip into a diabetic coma or some such. I have seen diabetic friends totally irrational with bad blood sugar levels. You cannot reason with them. We, of course, can’t know if that was the case here, but it is plausible.
There is a good chance had the baby died shed be filingva lawsuit. As I’ve stated before I’ve seen doctors let their patients have it when they won’t take their meds lose weight follow a special diet quit smoking . These doctors are sure to add If you don’t you will end up on dialysis or you might die A pt can always leave AMA and they generally do die or they come back a week later in worse shape. Doctors tell them ahead of time as a cya move.
Well there goes the sacred “bodily autonomy”… If you want your child injected with poison and delivered dead – sure, go ahead. Oh, you’re actually planning to keep the baby? Well, don’t you dare not to obey the doctors orders – we’ll make sure that baby is safe!
Did I miss something?
And this is why I fired my OB and am having my son at home.