![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
novapsycheNo Caesarean Leads to Murder Charge
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.
[...] 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.
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.
[...] 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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2004-03-12 06:22 am (UTC)Recently there was a somewhat different case where a hospital threatened to have a woman taken into custody and forcibly given a Caesarean section because they also insisted the baby's health was at risk. She escaped and gave birth normally at a different hospital in another town and the baby was fine. What a horrible stressor to put on a hugely pregnant woman about to give birth! Well, in that case the doctor's were wrong, in this case they were right (about the danger to the baby). But should a major surgery be forced upon an unwilling woman? The prospect of that horrifies me...
(no subject)
Date: 2004-03-12 07:13 am (UTC)Exactly. The feminist in me rises up and says "What the fuck?"
ooooooo
Date: 2004-03-12 08:05 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-03-13 01:58 pm (UTC)