Failure to Take Medical Advice = Crime?
As I'm sure many of you already know, a Utah woman has been charged with murder for postponing a C-section which would have saved the lives of one of her twins.
A few facts about the case:
- The prosecutor claims that she refused to have a C-section because did not want her "cosmetic appearance disfigured".
- She has previously had two C-sections.
- She has a history of mental illness.
- She finally did have a C-section in this case as well. One of the babies was delivered alive; the other was stillborn, having died in utero 2 days earlier.
First, there is no evidence offered in the article to back up the prosecutor's claim, yet some people are still running with that explanation, presenting her as some horribly vain bimbo who would rather maintain a perfect appearance than have a scar. This despite the fact that she already had two C-sections and finally delivered this pregnancy via C-section as well.
Second, when did failure to take medical advice become a crime? Yes, in this instance, having the C-section performed a few days earlier would have meant both babies would have been born alive. However, what about the many times that doctors prescribe C-sections unnecessarily? The times when doctors say that the child has a high risk of dying if a C-section isn't performed, but the woman refuses and goes on to deliver a healthy baby vaginally? What of the rare occasions when the doctor goes so far as to get a court order to perform a C-section against the mother's wishes, and the mother dies as a result? How often has the doctor been charged with murder in such a case?
Third, this is not a routine medical procedure. This is an invasive medical procedure. And not just an invasive medical procedure, but one, as mentioned earlier, which is sometimes prescribed unnecessarily. Are doctors deities? Are they infallible? No, at least not outside of their own minds. Are we to have no say in our own medical decisions, having invasive surgery forced on us? It is a tragedy that the child died. But is it a crime? No, I don't think it is a crime.
But I'll tell you what. If doctors are to be treated as deities by courts of law in some instances, than there is no reason why they shouldn't be held equally responsible when patients follow their advice to bad results. Regardless of the risks of the procedure and whether they've been disclosed to you. If the doctor says so, and if you don't follow the doctor's advice to bad results, you can be considered criminally liable, than if the doctor says so and you do follow the doctor's advice to bad results, the doctor should be considered criminally liable as well.
Comments
Lesley, I read about this in Body and Soul
She makes a good point, that this woman has a history of mental illness, and that the facts are just screwy. I don't know what to think now.
Posted by: Margot | March 13, 2004 10:05 PM
The Smoking Gun
She's not being charged strictly because she refused the C-section. She's a pathetic woman who should be sterilized immediately. It may be that's what the prosecutor has in mind as part of a plea bargain, which in this particular case the best interest of society compels. There was a pattern of behavior here that can't simply be ignored because addressing or redressing it wouldn't suit the feminist or libertarian agenda.
Posted by: Jim | March 14, 2004 11:42 AM
She's being charged with murder, the point of this entire post, strictly because she refused the C-section. It obviously didn't impinge itself on your consciousness that I didn't address the child endangerment charges at all, because those appear to be justified. But recognizing that fact probably didn't suit your anti-feminist agenda. You preferred to assume that I was referring to all charges, even though I specifically limited the post to the murder charges. I was addressing the murder charges because that precedent has far-reaching impact. Child endangerment charges for being a non-recovering drug addict do not have far-reaching impact and are, generally, justified.
Posted by: Lesley | March 14, 2004 12:17 PM
I’m speculating that the prosecutor is a fool who thinks he is somehow protecting life in the womb when what he is really doing is setting a precedent which places all women in danger in a matter which really is a matter of privacy.
This is clearly a violation of the principle of subsidiarity.
BTW, I’m a no exceptions pro-lifer who considers abortion in all instances to be murder.
Posted by: The Scholastic | March 15, 2004 12:44 PM
Just looking at the picture of her from "The Smoking Gun" you can tell she isn't all there. Her drug history would indicate self-medication, and mental illness. I wonder if the prosecutor is a Mormon on a mission?
Posted by: BSB | March 15, 2004 09:19 PM
Wow...tough case to judge.
I certainly don't want folks with a different degree than mine having the power to dictate cutting someone open, but on the other hand that baby would've lived had she gone through the procedure.....
Hmmm.
Posted by: Ricky | March 20, 2004 08:54 AM