What, so now you are going to deprive her of the choice of which medical procedure she will undergo?

That really is the charge here, that she is guilty of murder for refusing to undergo surgery.

Whether or not Americans eventually decide to give the unborn the same rights as the born, it'll be a sad day indeed if we ever give the unborn more rights than their mothers.

For one thing, any surgery carries some risk of death, even cosmetic ones. A C-section is no exception.

What happens if the mother belongs to some religion that doesn't believe in medical treatment ?
Force it on her, anyway ?

Welcome to secular humanism.

This isn't any different than Jehovah's Witnesses letting their children die. Or New Age loonies treating their cancerous children with Chinese herbs and letting them die.

At least in the case of Jehovah's Witnesses, juries have shown time and again that killing children in the name of religion is unobjectionable.

Harry:

Yes, we protect religious belief in our constitution.

Yet if the doctor (rather than the mother) had decided to forgoe the cesarian John Edwards would own his house by now.

So we do, Orrin, to our children's cost.

But that is not what I was referring to.

Prosecutors have attempted to use the law to endorse and enforce the 5th Commandment, but killers who claim benefit of religion are treated, if not by the law, by public opinion as a protected class.

If you claim to be religious, you can kill with impunity.

"If you claim to be religious, you can kill with impunity." Huh? Of course this is nonsense, I'll assume what you really mean is "If you are religious, you may behave in ways that are potentially harmful for your child (provided your actions are inspired by your religion)." I just love those "for the good of the children, we must take away your freedoms" arguments...

My first inclination on hearing the story was that she was a fool for not having undergone the operation (the death rate for C-sections is something like 35 per 100,000 births, btw), probably wanting to have a "natural birth". Then I heard about her "not wanting a scar" and figured she was heartless scum. Turns out she has mental problems. Very sad.

Jason makes a good point about liability. Can a John Edwards victim be charged for manslaughter or just professional negligence given the same choice? In any event he faces some liability for his choice? Why should not the woman?

I don't disagree with hardly anything said so far, (of course the village atheist had to make his impunity remark, thank you Harry), but Brian has the audacity to actually think this women could have made a tragic mistake unknowingly. Brian you're right.

Harry:

That's right. So what?

Gotta get out more, brian.

I was not referring only to this case. Recently I cited the man who murdered his pregnant girlfriend in a botched abortion, was charged and got off because he was a member in good standing of his church, which rallied round.

I could give further examples. Like the one where a boy with cystic fibrosis was electrocuted.

That was a partial victory for common sense and secularism. Of his half dozen killers, most got off scot free by playing the religion card, but one was actually sentenced to 3 years (which means he was out in 14 months).

And people say they don't know how to put a value on human life.

Your point is? When the South Florida professor was accused of supporting terrorists, his colleagues rallied around him because "he would never do that." When the programmer for Intel (Dell?) was accused, his colleagues rallied around him because "he would never do that." If someone you knew very well and thought had a strong morality was accused of something "he would never do" you'd support him as well. That's what communities do--support their members against outsiders (surely someone will make some sort of Darwin comment now). Eric Rudolph has his supporters too. Think he'll get off?

Your "impunity" comment was absurd.

I have a hard time finding the equivalance between this and cases where Jehovahs Witness's refuse treatment for their children. The parents in those cases face no threat of physical harm to themselves in the course of treatment.

She was the one who would have to go under the knife and should, for whatever reason or even no reason, be able to refuse to subject herself to the risks of surgery.

Brian.. and what if she was one of the unlucky 35?

Chris:

She'd be unlucky--luck isn't a basis for public policy.

Chris:

What if she was one of the unlucky 9 out of 100,000 who die during normal childbirth? A friend of mine nearly died because she wanted to have a "natural birth" and so refused doctor's strong suggestions that they induce labor. Maybe that can be the justification for growing babies in the lab--it will save women's lives!

As I noted before, the very important factor here is that she is mentally ill. I don't know what the general rules are for surgery on someone who is not capable of understanding the issues involved, but the murder charge seems quite inappropriate in this case.

She should have said she had religious scruples. They wouldn't have dared to charge her.

I dunno, Harry, the state of Utah forced a Salt Lake City couple to allow their child to get chemotherapy last year, even though the parents claimed it was against their religious beliefs.

I agree that it's an effective line of defense, even if it doesn't always prevail.

And this is a Utah case, too, no? That tells you something.

Most of the time, though not every time, the state, by "forcing" treatment, is fulfilling its role in a carefully choreographed dance. The sin is in seeking out medical treatment, not in receiving it, so if the treatment is "forced", no one has sinned.

There were some inaccuracies reported in the Associated Press article written by Alexandria Sage (3/11). Strangely, the brothersjudd website links to a different article regarding Melissa Ann Rowland, so check the URL I posted for the original article. Melissa Ann Rowland has a lifelong history of mental illness and had even been hospitalized for it. More importantly, she had undergone cesarean sections TWICE before. Reports differ as to WHY she was reluctant to have the surgery early on, but in some reports, it is stated that she had ALREADY been cut "breast bone to pubic bone" during her previous deliveries.

More from news reports:
"In January, the Utah Supreme Court ruled that unborn children at all stages of development are covered under the state's criminal homicide statute. That statute, however, exempts the death of an unborn child caused by an abortion.

The statute has been used to prosecute mothers who kill or seriously harm their babies through drug use, but never because a mother failed to follow her doctor's advice ...."
(http://www.azcentral.com/offbeat/articles/0311mother-charged11-ON.html)

"Critics of the charges say the case could affect abortion rights and open the door to the prosecution of mothers who smoke, fail to follow their obstetrician's diet or take some other action that endangers a fetus."
(http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,114016,00.html)

The woman had major surgery one day and was thrown into jail the VERY NEXT day. Is this an appropriate way to deal with someone who is obviously sick and suffering? Perhaps if she'd gotten the help she needed, this tragedy could have even been prevented.

What I don't get is that she HAD the surgery, but not soon enough to save the stillborn child. So that makes her a criminal? Would she still have been charged if she had never gone to the hospital and instead had given birth at home, resulting in one child's death? One thing's certain, she could have legally aborted BOTH of the fetuses and not ever face a single charge.

Regardless, the legal system is supposed to recognize every person's right to bodily integrity and the right to make his/her own medical decisions. This right still stands when a woman becomes pregnant. Do fetal rights take precedence over a woman's right to personal autonomy?

There were some inaccuracies reported in the Associated Press article written by Alexandria Sage (3/11). Strangely, the brothersjudd website links to a different article regarding Melissa Ann Rowland, so check the URL I posted for the original article. Melissa Ann Rowland has a lifelong history of mental illness and had even been hospitalized for it. More importantly, she had undergone cesarean sections TWICE before. Reports differ as to WHY she was reluctant to have the surgery early on, but in some reports, it is stated that she had ALREADY been cut "breast bone to pubic bone" during her previous deliveries.

More from news reports:
"In January, the Utah Supreme Court ruled that unborn children at all stages of development are covered under the state's criminal homicide statute. That statute, however, exempts the death of an unborn child caused by an abortion.

The statute has been used to prosecute mothers who kill or seriously harm their babies through drug use, but never because a mother failed to follow her doctor's advice ...."
(http://www.azcentral.com/offbeat/articles/0311mother-charged11-ON.html)

"Critics of the charges say the case could affect abortion rights and open the door to the prosecution of mothers who smoke, fail to follow their obstetrician's diet or take some other action that endangers a fetus."
(http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,114016,00.html)

The woman had major surgery one day and was thrown into jail the VERY NEXT day. Is this an appropriate way to deal with someone who is obviously sick and suffering? Perhaps if she'd gotten the help she needed, this tragedy could have even been prevented.

What I don't get is that she HAD the surgery, but not soon enough to save the stillborn child. So that makes her a criminal? Would she still have been charged if she had never gone to the hospital and instead had given birth at home, resulting in one child's death? One thing's certain, she could have legally aborted BOTH of the fetuses and not ever face a single charge.

Regardless, the legal system is supposed to recognize every person's right to bodily integrity and the right to make his/her own medical decisions. This right still stands when a woman becomes pregnant. Do fetal rights take precedence over a woman's right to personal autonomy?

Windy: Yes.

That's never been the duty of the legal system, although some would like to make it so.

Among the duties of the legal system has been to protect public health, even at the risk of sometimes causing damage to certain (unspecified) individuals.

Harry:

Exactly. The child's life would have been saved at minimal risk to the mother.