Utah Woman Charged With Murdering Fetus

Yahoo ^ | 3/12/04 | ALEXANDRIA SAGE

[FITZ]

Women like this really should be sterilized --- she must have neglected her first two children also --- it's like she breeds but doesn't care at all about her children.

[Steve Eisenberg]

Which begs the question; if she was obviously too mentally impaired to make such a decision and her refusal was a clearcut indication that she was incompetent and choosing a reckless and negligent course of action why did the hospital/doctor/nurses wait to take action on that and participate in her negligence by assisting her in it?

I think I am agreeing with you in saying that it was far from obvious. When she said the following to KSL newsradio 1060, how retarded did it sound?

I've never refused a C-section. I've already had two prior C-sections. Why would I say something like that?

Reads pretty rational. I think is she is callous, selfish and angry, but at most slightly unintelligent.

[TigersEye]

You have a great sense of humor. Thank goodness! (hope my wife doesn't see that post hers is variable on such things) You should hear the voice of my friend who started me on that. Think of Sam Elliot as the Master Sargeant in We Were Soldiers with an even deeper voice and a glint in his eye.

[TigersEye]

Could be but I'm more interested in sterilizing (or at least putting a very short leash on) the government. She will face the same judgment we all do when this life is done.

Abortion is an action with intent to harm; stupid is bad but falls far short of that.

[Xenalyte]

Wow . . . you should get a recording of him, turn it into a WAV or an MPG, and store it online. That would be a great ZOT noise.

[Steve Eisenberg]

Since she's retarded and supposed to be bipolar and off meds during the pregnancy (I only read this part once and no longer have a cite) she might even believe she's still pregnant.

You certainly are generous in your judgments. She told her attorney she is bipolar and he says he is trying to confirm but now only has confirmation on the oppostional defiant disorder. In any event, bipolar disorder does not imply inability to tell right from wrong. (Both defense and prosecution are trying this case in the press and IMHO both are doing a bad job of it.) Her behavior was to go around Salt Lake City from one hospital to another talking to docs, getting angry, and leaving saying she would return. Could a person with low IQ do this? I guess, but I don't think low IQ explains it. Does it show much more mental illness than that normally found in criminals? I wonder.

[tiamat]

Xenalyte wrote:


For the love of God, WHY GET PREGNANT then?

---

No kidding.

Somebody needs to talk to this woman about getting her tubes tied.

[TigersEye]

I read the same sentence and thought the same thing.

She may be ignorant and she may be selfish but apparently no one felt the need to intervene before helping her carry out her 'negligence.' After the fact they immediately drop a dime and help the DA build a murder one case. ???

[realpatriot71]

?! - You can't make anyone undergo a surgical procedure, even if it save the life of another. I can't, and shouldn't, be able to force you to undergo surgery to give me a needed kidney or liver - to save my life - and neither should this woman had to of undergone any surgery, even to save the life or her children.

With that said - what OB makes a cut from pelvic bone to sternum? Even major exploratory abdominal surgery uses a smaller cut. C-sections usually are able to pull the children from the mother through a small horizontal (as opposed to verticle pubic to sternum) incision (~6-8 inches) just superior to the pubic symphysis. Most women's pubic hair even covers the scar.

[edsheppa]

Her offense is the same as anyone who is warned that their inaction has a high probability of killing someone and they don't do it anyway and a death results. I'm not a lawyer, but isn't the term reckless endangerment.

[thoughtomator]

That's a fair charge, but we're still left with the thorny problem of when a doctor's recommendation (influenced by trial lawyers, government rules, and insurance companies) acquires the force of law. That is the question that I cannot find any easy answer to.

[edsheppa]

Who said anything about a doctor's recommendation acquiring the force of law? It's not different from any other knowledge of risk. If the cost of mitigation is low and the danger high, you should act and be held responsible if you don't.

[workerbee]

Re your #182 -- No excuse workerbee--I'm 7 months pregnant also and I think what she did bASED ON THE CURRENT INFORMATION is reprehensible. The prosecution, that is flat out wrong, however to morally not have a problem with a woman who would not undergo a surgery that in hindsight would have been lifesaving to one child

I've never "excused" the moral component of what happened. I'm looking at this from a legal standpoint and the implications it could have should she be convicted.

Putting the legal issues aside, if you went to one doctor and then another for a second opinion, and you were told that your baby inside of you now was in distress, what would you do?

Does a government official have the authority to physically force me to undergo surgery?

I know what I would do and I'm dealing with a pregnancy complication myself. I am planning on being induced at 38 weeks even though it isn't the ideal natural birth experience as to alleviate the risks for myself and baby having to experience pre-eclampsia....I make decision first based on my unborn infant's health and wellbeing(it is why I don't eat tuna now although it would be so satisfying to bite into a Subway Tuna Salad sub right now)and then on my own.

I'm sorry for your complications. I know all about high-risk and extra precautions, as I'm in my 3rd such pregnancy after two losses. I still don't think the precautions I've taken (including surgery) should ever have been forced on me to the point of criminal charges. You've chosen to avoid eating tuna, but should your doctor be able to legally force you not to eat tuna, based on his/her concerns about mercury?

I can't see that she can be legally charged with a crime, but certainly her actions were morally reprehensible.

This has been my argument all along.

[The Westerner]

I appreciate your almost civil tone. In my opinion, you are equivocating on the word "life." A "potential" human life is created at the moment of conception. A "potential" is not an "actual" according to Aristotle. That is the difference in our method of thinking. A "potential" human life does not acquire the rights of the "actual." Philosophy 101. But you have to realize, I don't believe in God, so I don't accept the premise that you hold, which is that God creates an actual human life at the moment of conception...and therefore that life has defensible individual rights under the Constitution.

[workerbee]

Re #193 --

I think doctors question consistency when you have one test done and then all of a sudden the light of ideology comes on in your head. That doesn't mean one should be forced to have amniocentisis, but there certainly is some inconsistency with a woman who would have the AFP and then upon getting negative results, refuse further testing. It would seem more consistent to refuse the tests from the get go.

Since your not privy to my obstetrical history or care, your opinion of what I should or should not do, and what such decisions "mean", is more than a little presumptuous, not to mention irrelevant to the case presented here.

Doctors can question whatever they want; the decision of treatment is still the patient's. That applies to any patient under any circumstance, not just pregnancy.

This overlaps in this woman's case because she was the one who sought care when she thought something was wrong. It shows an incredible inconsistency on her part that she would not follow through on the preventative and life-saving care that was offered if she went there to begin with concerned about the lives of her infants. I have to wonder if she wasn't prepared to make a tough decision to save her infant's lives, then why did she seek medical care to begin with?

You've only cast reasonable doubt on the "depraved indifference" agrument. If she were in the OR and they were ready to cut, she still has the legal right to stop them. Why weren't the medical professionals obligated to "report" and detain her? Why didn't they have her sign a paper that said "I know that by not undergoing a C-section now, I am without a doubt killing my unborn child"? We know why. Because they couldn't with absolute certainty predict the outcome, and had they forced her to have a C-section and something went wrong.... this discussion would be quite different.

[BykrBayb]

While it's true that mother and child are separate beings, not one, it's as close to being "one" with another human being as anyone can get. I don't understand women who can go through pregnancy and not feel this oneness. Any woman who can casually give up her children is an enigma. I just don't get it. To have an entire human being depending on you for its very existence is - I can't even think of a word for it. I can't imagine shrugging that off. I know a few women who have given their kids to relatives because they didn't want to raise them, even though they could. They just didn't want the kids interfering with their lifestyle. I had a roommate who gave her baby up for adoption. It seemed like the right thing to do, until the baby was born with a heart defect. She had insurance that would have provided excellent care for the baby. She could have gotten him the operation he needed, and probably allowed him to live a long healthy life. She gave the baby to a reluctant orphanage that explained they could not provide the necessary treatments and would not be able to find a family willing to adopt. The baby died. My roommate thought that was sad. That's the extent of her concern. How is that possible? I have zero tolerance for women who don't love their children. I've also known two women who gave their babies up for adoption because it was the best thing for the babies. It was very painful for these women, but they loved their children enough to bear any pain. I don't understand, and I don't want to understand, any woman who doesn't feel as "one" with her own child, and celebrate the unique life of that child.

[BykrBayb]

I'm not sure if any charges in this case would stand up in a court of law, but this the court of public opinion, and boy do I have a strong opinion about this woman! If she chose not to get the c-section because she really thought that was the best choice for her babies, that would be different. But to have such a casual attitude about the life her babies is disgusting. Please see my post #279. I ranted about that pretty good there. I read somewhere that she had a son and a daughter that she gave away to relatives before, and that she gave away the surviving twin (a girl) to somebody else. I've known women like that, and it makes me sick.