Posted on 03/12/2004 8:16:53 AM PST by Tumbleweed_Connection
As Melissa Ann Rowland's unborn twins got closer to birth, doctors repeatedly told her they would likely die if she did not have a Caesarean section. She refused, and one later was stillborn. Authorities charged 28-year-old Rowland with murder on Thursday, saying she exhibited "depraved indifference to human life," according to court documents. Prosecutors said Rowland didn't want to be scarred, and one nurse told police that Rowland said she would rather "lose one of the babies than be cut like that." The case could affect abortion rights and open the door to the prosecution of mothers who smoke or don't follow their obstetrician's diet, 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," she said. Court documents did not list an address for Rowland, and she is not listed in telephone books for the Salt Lake City area. It could not immediately be determined whether she had an attorney. Rowland was warned numerous times between Christmas and Jan. 9 that her unborn twins would likely die if she did not get immediate medical treatment, the documents allege. When she delivered them on Jan. 13, one survived and the other was stillborn. The woman sought medical advice in December because she hadn't felt the fetuses move, documents said. Regina Davis, a nurse at LDS Hospital in Salt Lake, told police that during a visit there, Rowland was recommended two hospitals to go to for immediate care. Rowland allegedly said she would rather have both twins die before she went to either of the suggested hospitals. On Jan. 2, a doctor at LDS Hospital saw Rowland and recommended she immediately undergo a C-section based on the results of an ultrasound and the fetus' slowing heart rates. Rowland left after signing a document stating that she understood that leaving might result in death or brain injury to one or both twins, the doctor told police. The same day, a nurse at Salt Lake Regional Hospital saw Rowland, who allegedly told her she had left LDS Hospital because the doctor wanted to cut her "from breast bone to pubic bone," a procedure that would "ruin her life." LDS Hospital can't comment on the case because of medical privacy issues and the pending court case, said spokesman Robert Pexton. The doctor who performed an autopsy found that the fetus died two days before delivery and would have survived if Rowland had undergone a C-section when urged to do so. It was not immediately clear how far along Rowland was in her pregnancy. She was charged in Salt Lake County with one first-degree felony count of criminal homicide. Rowland was being held on $250,000 bail at the Salt Lake County jail, and was scheduled to appear in court Tuesday. If convicted, she could be sentenced to between five years and life in prison. A spokesman for the district attorney, Kent Morgan, said Rowland is married and has other children, but he did not know how many. "We are unable to find any reason other than the cosmetic motivations by the mother" for her decision, Morgan 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.
If she was getting into the private adoption business, IE, baby selling to the highest bidder, having to have another c-section would indeed have ruined her life.
I mean she was 28, she had at least 5-10 years of production left, but then as the number of c-sections increase the chances for a safe full term pregnancy diminishes drastically with each subsequent delivery. Don't forget she was on medicaid so we were paying for her medical care for each pregnancy while she was having a bidding war with desperate adoptive families.
I reject the premise of your (rant) question. My statement concerned a known and immediate danger to the life of a person who is unable to represent their own self interests. Maybe I should have made that more clear for the reading for comprehension challenged...
By the way - it would be better for your kids health if you didn't smoke around them.
The reason I say assault and not abuse is because they are charging this woman with murder not negligent homicide.
I'm not an attorney, nor do I play one on TV, nor do I think I know more about the aplicable laws in that state. In addition, I am not privy to the facts at hand. Combined, this means I am not qualified to comment on what the appopriate charge, if any, should be.
Are you?
The state has a compelling interest in the outcome whenever a doctor makes a recommendation right?
That is not (even close to) what I typed. For a quick reminder (emphasis added for clarity):
One possible test could be [...]
To break that up for you - one, meaning an indivudual option. Please note that this word is not meant to limit other potential options. Possible, meaning most likely needs work, is a starting point for more discussion. Could be - meaning an idea or suggestion for discussion.
A doctor's opinion always concerns health and life right?
What does that have to do with "one possible test?" Really, besides cutting out smoking around your kids (for their health) you might want to cut back on the caffine.
Have a good day.
Based on the details being revealed in later threads, it appears she might not have wanted the surgery because of her drugs/alcohol use.
If this appears to be the case, she had lost all of my sympathy and any support.
I stated before that if I was wrong, I would admit it. I was obviously wrong about her.
Sorry for the delay in reply to you. I just returned from CO Sat. night. Thank you for your apology. My forgiveness is yours. Think no more about it.
That's true.
On my recent visit to CO I learned that Boulder now has a law that provides for issuing traffic tickets to anyone smoking in a vehicle with children in it. Big Brother is watching and he's getting bolder and stronger.
That tells me all I need to know about your ideology. Thanks!
If I was writing the laws for smoking, you'd probably have to wear a dunce cap while smoking and anybody caught smoking WITHOUT his dunce cap on would get flogged.
One of many I'm sure. ; )
That tells me all I need to know about your ideology. Thanks!
Glad you are able to probe the depths of my ideology from one post. Maybe you are a miracle worker. Maybe you are an idiot.
My guess leans closer to the second. I have no problem with people smoking. I have no problem with bars, restaurants or other establishments allowing smoking on their property. I am a big boy and I can pick and chose where I want to go (notice, for the intelligence impaired, I still have not stated whether I would prefer to go to a smoke free or an establishment that allows smoking).
However, if you are brain dead enough to think that creating an atmospheric environment for your children which includes increased levels of known toxins and carcinogens (however small) is a bonus, then debating anything with you is more futile than banging ones head against a brick wall.
Glad you figured out my ideology. I think I've got yours - if it feels good do it. Sounds a lot like Kerry's...
Thanks for the laughs, chucklehead!
You are a true master of the art of assumption
Pot, I'd like to introduce you to kettle...
Take care.
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.