Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Court delivers controversy (court order for woman to have C Section)
Times Leader ^ | 1/16/2004 | DAVID WEISS

Posted on 01/16/2004 8:21:42 AM PST by Born Conservative

Mom rejects C-sections; gives birth on own terms By DAVID WEISS dweiss@leader.net

WILKES-BARRE - A judge late Wednesday afternoon gave a local hospital permission to force a woman to deliver a baby via Caesarean section against her will. Doctors warned the expectant mother that not having a C-section could kill her and/or her child. But against doctor's orders, Amber Marlowe left the hospital.

Hours later, Wilkes-Barre General Hospital received legal permission to become guardian of the fetus and perform the C-section if Marlowe returned to the hospital.

Marlowe never returned. She gave birth vaginally Thursday morning at Moses Taylor Hospital in Scranton to a baby girl, her and her husband's seventh child. Court papers said it was her seventh pregnancy in seven or eight years. The Marlowes said the mother and infant are healthy.

Attorneys for General Hospital sought the highly unusual action through a lawsuit because its doctors said Marlowe, who went to the hospital Tuesday night, adamantly refused to deliver the fetus by C-section because of "religious" beliefs.

Her refusal came after warnings by doctors that a vaginal delivery could result in death for the fetus because it was expected to weigh 13 pounds. They also were concerned with complications Marlowe had in other pregnancies.

The hospital was acting to "preserve and protect the rights of (the fetus) regarding its health and survival," the hospital's attorney, Mary G. Cummings, wrote in court papers.

Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas Judge Michael Conahan late Wednesday afternoon approved the request.

Marlowe's husband, John, said the hospital made up the story, including the part about the religious beliefs and the fetus' size, after its staff was "arrogant" in trying to force Marlowe to have a C-section.

His wife was initially cleared to give a vaginal birth at General, but doctors held her at the hospital for 13 hours, telling her "horror stories" in trying to change her mind, he said.

"They just kept telling me to do a Caesarean section," Amber Marlowe said. "They were forcing me in to it."

The events began to unfold Tuesday when the Marlowes, of Academy Street in Plymouth, first went to Mercy Hospital in Wilkes-Barre to give birth.

According to Cummings' court papers, which identify the Marlowes as Jane and John Doe for confidentiality reasons:

The couple went to Mercy Hospital where the staff advised them a C-section should be performed for the protection of the mother and fetus.

The couple refused, insisting the fetus be delivered vaginally, and left the hospital.

Later, the couple went to the emergency room at General Hospital, which is part of Wyoming Valley Health Care System.

Drs. Lynne Coslett and Stephen Zeger on Tuesday and Wednesday repeatedly told the Marlowes a C-section was necessary.

But the Marlowes again refused.

"Jane Doe and John Doe have made it clear that they are adamant that they will not consent to a C-section, regardless of the danger that a vaginal delivery presents to Baby Doe," Cummings wrote. "There exists the imminent threat of irreparable harm to Baby Doe in the absence of an immediate order."

John Marlowe said the hospital's request is full of "lies," and is considering taking legal action against General Hospital.

He said his wife wanted a vaginal delivery because all of her prior six births were done that way, including births of children larger than her newborn. A friend of Amber Marlowe also died from a C-section, making her wary of the procedure, the couple said.

"It's up to the mother," said John Marlowe, who has lived in the area for just more than one year. "They insisted she have a C-section."

Amber Marlowe said she had no religious concerns about the procedure. John Marlowe said his family practices typical Christianity, and he does not belong to any radical sect.

The hospital court papers also say during a prior Marlowe birth, a fetus suffered a "shoulder dystocia." That's an obstetric emergency that can severely injure the mother and fetus.

That, John Marlowe said, is also untrue. So is the allegation that the ultrasound showed the fetus at 13 pounds, he said, adding the test showed the infant was just more than 11 pounds. The infant weighed less than 13 pounds at birth, Amber Marlowe said.

John Marlowe did not want the precise weight revealed, and he refused to reveal his or his wife's age. The couple has been married for more than nine years, John Marlowe said.

Conahan's court order gave the hospital permission to notify the Marlowes of the court order if they had returned to General Hospital. Cummings said the ruling was the first of its kind in Pennsylvania.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: obstetrics
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-52 next last
To: Britton J Wingfield
So true.

I think it's called "Having your cake and eating it"

21 posted on 01/16/2004 8:54:55 AM PST by chiefqc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
ten points for humor.
22 posted on 01/16/2004 8:57:18 AM PST by Herodotus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: jim35
Scam, scam, scam, scam, scam.

The hospital should be closed.
23 posted on 01/16/2004 8:58:19 AM PST by Bikers4Bush (Bush and Co. are quickly convincing me that the Constitution Party is our only hope.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: jim35
Liberty first, and always! And it's not like this woman was against having babies -- this was her 7th in "7 or 8" years!!
24 posted on 01/16/2004 8:59:11 AM PST by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Born Conservative
Choice.
25 posted on 01/16/2004 9:11:49 AM PST by Old Professer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
note that the "journalist" put quotes around the word "religious".
26 posted on 01/16/2004 9:12:31 AM PST by Belisaurius ("Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, Ted" - Joseph Kennedy 1958)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: armyboy
Somewhere, offstage in the wings of dim history, King Canute is smiling.
27 posted on 01/16/2004 9:14:45 AM PST by Old Professer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Born Conservative
This was the woman's 7th child. She's a pro at bringing babies into the world and knows her body better than any doctor. She could probably give birth to a 20 pounder with no problem at this point. I'm glad she didn't bow down to the state/hospital.
28 posted on 01/16/2004 9:36:37 AM PST by beaversmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lady lawyer
In some places, the mother could abort and kill the baby the day prior to delivery Didn't Weasley recently say that a woman should have the right to be in labor and still decide to have an abortion?
29 posted on 01/16/2004 9:38:36 AM PST by beaversmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Bikers4Bush; jim35
I have to agree with jim35; it's more likely a medico-legal consideration than it is a profit decision. The cost of a judgement or out-of-court settlement would be MUCH higher than the profit from a C Section; the profit wouldn't be worth the risk of a lawsuit, in addition to the fact that the baby's life may have been at risk.
30 posted on 01/16/2004 9:39:09 AM PST by Born Conservative ("Forgive your enemies, but never forget their names" - John F. Kennedy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Born Conservative
I am somewhat thinking this whole thing could have a good outcome.

Now the Prolife groups can use this court case against abortionists to prove that the court has indeed determined that unborn children (aka fetuses) are living creatures and worthy of protection, thus nullifying the notion that a fetus has no life.

This could also be used to prove that abortionists are trying to harm the "fetus" and the practice should be banned.
31 posted on 01/16/2004 9:39:46 AM PST by Chewbacca (Gold and silver are the international reserve currency of the world!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Born Conservative
Her problem seems to have been that she didn't have a gynecologist or a doctor she could trust. If you go into a hospital, it's always better to have a doctor you know you can work with.
32 posted on 01/16/2004 9:40:18 AM PST by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Born Conservative
There was a Mexican (illegal/legal?) woman whose oldest daughter was in the same class as my son at his old school. I gave her a few rides home. During one of the rides home, I found out she was about 6-7 months pregnant. She didn't look that big to me so I hadn't noticed at first. I assume she was receiving some kind of medical assistance from government. She said they told her that she would have to have a C-section because her baby was going to be big even though she had already had 2 children vaginally. She didn't seem to want one and didn't understand why she had to have one but it sounded like she was going to go along with what they said. Of course, I don't know what her doctors know but I was suspicious.
33 posted on 01/16/2004 9:44:40 AM PST by beaversmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ChefKeith
This is ALL about more $$$ for the Doc/Hospital!

Remember that the court order only applied if the woman returned to the hospital. Most likely, the doctors were simply trying to protect themselves from potential litigation.

34 posted on 01/16/2004 9:46:31 AM PST by independentmind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: All
Here's a related posting on the same story.
35 posted on 01/16/2004 9:46:55 AM PST by Born Conservative ("Forgive your enemies, but never forget their names" - John F. Kennedy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Born Conservative
Really? So how is it that the hospital that delivered the baby didn't see it the same way?

The actions the hospital took will cost it big bucks. These folks are going to file suit and they'll win.

Women having been giving birth since man hit this planet and it's only recently that C-sections have begun to be pushed on them. It's $ plain and simple and has nothing to do with protecting the hospital. The hospital could have easily insulated itself by telling her that they would not perform any procedure other than a C-section due to their implied risks and that if she wanted to deliver naturally that she'd have to go somewhere else. Instead they went to court to try to force her to do it their way.

The people involved in this should have their medical licenses revoked.

36 posted on 01/16/2004 10:03:30 AM PST by Bikers4Bush (Bush and Co. are quickly convincing me that the Constitution Party is our only hope.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: independentmind
Then why didn't they tell her to go to a different hospital in the first place if that's the way she wanted to have the baby?
37 posted on 01/16/2004 10:04:31 AM PST by Bikers4Bush (Bush and Co. are quickly convincing me that the Constitution Party is our only hope.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Bikers4Bush
Women having been giving birth since man hit this planet and it's only recently that C-sections have begun to be pushed on them.

And for the majority of time on this planet, childbirth was one of the leading causes of death for women. C-sections have saved many women's and babies' lives. I don't agree with the hospital attempting to force a C-section, but given the climate that OB/GYNs work in, in which every bad outcome leads to a lawsuit, I can't blame them for wanting to protect themselves.

38 posted on 01/16/2004 10:17:08 AM PST by LWalk18
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Bikers4Bush; jim35

Women having been giving birth since man hit this planet and it's only recently since malpractice lawyers have been suing doctors and hospitals that C-sections have begun to be pushed on them.

39 posted on 01/16/2004 10:21:19 AM PST by Born Conservative ("Forgive your enemies, but never forget their names" - John F. Kennedy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker
How can a hospital get a court order to become the guardian of a fetus just because the patient doesn't want to do something that they [the doctors] think they should?

Your right, that was probably in the legalease of the Judge because they don't recognize "baby" anymore until it clears the birth canal.

But the real question is why the Judge would want to become guardian of a Tissue Blob (definition of a fetus)?

But in thinking about it, with the lawsuit epidemic, they were probably trying to cover themselves tripply for wrongfull death lawsuit. Once for the genocologist, once for the Doctor and once for the hospital.

But you see, now that we don't go by the constitution any more. The lawsuit epidemic means that the doctors can still be sued if the Judge feels like it.

Goodbye Genecologists, Doctors, Hospitals. Thanks Liberals.

40 posted on 01/16/2004 10:24:00 AM PST by sr4402
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-52 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson