Reamond
|
posted on March 12, 2004 07:43:48 AM new
Utah Woman Charged With Murdering Fetus
SALT LAKE CITY March 12 — 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.
|
Twelvepole
|
posted on March 12, 2004 08:50:23 AM new
Good, she made a choice to murder and hopefully will now pay the price...
This goes hand in hand with those laws that add a murder charge when the fetus is killed in the act of killing the mother...
AIN'T LIFE GRAND... 
http://www.nogaymarriage.com/
[ edited by Twelvepole on Mar 12, 2004 08:51 AM ]
|
logansdad
|
posted on March 12, 2004 09:06:10 AM new
I am not trying to say what the mother did was right, but how can this woman be charged with murder just because she didn't listen to her doctor's advice.
Rowland left after signing a document stating that she understood that leaving might result in death or brain injury to one or both twins,
What is the definition of might? Is it a 50/50 chance, 90%, 10%?
Would the woman have been charged with murder if she had an abortion earlier in the pregnancy?
Impeach Bush
Marriage is a Human Right not a Heterosexual Privledge.
Bigotry and hate will not be tolerated.
|
Helenjw
|
posted on March 12, 2004 09:50:02 AM new
Unbelievable. Murder is the killing of a human being. A fetus is not a human being. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the fetus would have survived if this woman had agreed to c section.
Her motive for making the decision against the c section is irrelevant.
Although I personally would have followed medical advice in this situation, any woman should be able to make that decision without being jailed and charged with murder.
Helen
|
reamond
|
posted on March 12, 2004 10:02:56 AM new
This prosecution is just the tip of the iceburg.
Soon to follow will be arrests for assault for pregnant women not eating a prescribed diet, drinking a glass of wine, or smoking a cigarette, spending too much time working at their job, for some jobs just working while pregnant, jogging, riding a bike, chasing after their toddlers, etc..
These laws are tantamount to state enforced slavery for pregnant women.
|
Fenix03
|
posted on March 12, 2004 10:28:14 AM new
Is it just me or did someone already her right to medical privacy in bringing this case to the attention of the police in the first place?
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
|
Helenjw
|
posted on March 12, 2004 10:43:54 AM new
Seems to me that her right to medical privacy was definitely violated. Maybe next, women will be prevented from taking birth control pills because by doing so they are preventing a possible birth.
|
gravid
|
posted on March 12, 2004 10:45:59 AM new
It would appear that the doctors found a lot more time to explain things to the press than to the woman. She expected to be cut from her breastbone to her crotch and they apparently did not explain that was not neccessary. Of course some doctors have the idea that informed consent means they inform you and you damn well better consent.
|
Twelvepole
|
posted on March 12, 2004 11:44:37 AM new
Actually helen they have already stated that had she done the c section, both babies would of been ok....
I am hoping that she gets at least a suspended sentence for this, this should send a strong message to feminazis everywhere... that life does reach a point where it is no longer your decision.
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
http://www.nogaymarriage.com/
|
Helenjw
|
posted on March 12, 2004 12:01:31 PM new
"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."
This information was available after the birth. Before the birth, when the decision was made, the doctors had an "opinion".
Doctor's opinions are not always reliable.
Helen
|
Helenjw
|
posted on March 12, 2004 12:29:39 PM new
I suspect that gravid was right when he suggested that there was a communication problem between her and the doctors. Her understanding of a c section as a cut from her breastbone to her crotch might have caused her to fear for her life.
|
kraftdinner
|
posted on March 12, 2004 01:32:08 PM new
Just sounds like a case of ultra-immaturity. I'm sure most new mothers would give up their own life for their unborn twins, let alone worry about a scar. She definately needs psychiatric help imo.
|
Helenjw
|
posted on March 12, 2004 01:48:51 PM new
That's the latest suggestion on CNN.. From jail she is saying now that she did in fact have a c section and has had one several times.She denies saying that she was afraid of being cut from breastbone to her crotch. Her surviving baby was adopted in a pre arranged deal. Her other children are being taken care of by her mother. There is no chance that this woman can be prosecuted for anything.
Helen
|
Twelvepole
|
posted on March 12, 2004 04:04:45 PM new
There is no chance that this woman can be prosecuted for anything
That has yet to be seen... they haven't dropped the charges as of yet.
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
http://www.nogaymarriage.com/
|
gravid
|
posted on March 12, 2004 07:17:48 PM new
In the current climate she could be jailed without being charged.
|
Helenjw
|
posted on March 12, 2004 07:36:47 PM new
You're right. In a normal climate she would not be charged.
|
davebraun
|
posted on March 12, 2004 07:46:43 PM new
I seriously question her mental state having seen her on CNN this afternoon. At any rate if she was a Jehovah's Witness it would be her religious believe to have no medical intervention. Myself I would have listened to the Doctors but that's me.
Friends don't let friends vote Republican!
|
Reamond
|
posted on March 12, 2004 10:21:19 PM new
It doesn't make a wit of difference what the outcome of the pregnancy was, she has the right to refuse any and all medical procedures.
[ edited by Reamond on Mar 12, 2004 10:23 PM ]
|
gravid
|
posted on March 13, 2004 06:38:27 AM new
I believe it is Christian Science that reject a broad range of medical procedures - somebody correct me if I'm wrong - favoring prayer. Witnesses just reject blood. And the Hospital here about a half mile from my house sent a glossy flyer around last fall telling everyone that they had so much success with bloodless surgery that they were offering it to anyone that was concerned about having a transfusion - even for major stuff like heart surgery - not just Witnesses. I had to have some surgery and blood was never an issue because it was so minor but I asked the doc about the flyer and he just said he was happy with it because he was tired of treating Hepatitis so often after his surgeries.
|
Helenjw
|
posted on March 13, 2004 07:40:43 AM new
Ha! And he probably wasn't joking.
Sometimes medical procedures are done to make money or as a convenience to the doctor and as a method to cover the possibility of a malpractice suit.
If you did not have that right to refuse medical procedures, your body parts could be appropriated eventually. To save someone's life, you could be forced to have a lung or kidney removed, involving not only a life threatening operation but a change in your health status for the rest of your life.
Jailing people such as the woman being discussed in this thread sets a dangerous precedent.
Helen
|
Linda_K
|
posted on March 13, 2004 09:58:20 AM new
One can refuse medical treatment for themself.
The question is whether, in this case, a mother has the right to intentionally cause harm/death to a fetus that could have lived (?) if the mother had followed recommended medical treatment.
But in the case of children who's parents refuse recommended medical treatment for them [religious or not], many times the doctors take the case to a judge/court for a decision. There have been cases where the parents wishes were overruled.
Re-elect President Bush!!
|
Twelvepole
|
posted on March 13, 2004 10:50:21 AM new
Leave it to Helen to turn something simple and straight forward into something that maybe, might, could, possibly... bigger...
How about dealing with what is... she murdered her child... no different then if she had tied him in a sack and threw him in the river...
Theses children were too far along to be aborted and Hopefully we are going to see her pay the price for her "mistake"...
It always amazes me how liberals really do not value life at all and this just proves it.
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
http://www.nogaymarriage.com/
|
kiara
|
posted on March 13, 2004 11:19:05 AM new
This case is not that simple or straight forward..... except to those with simplistic thinking. All the facts aren't known yet.
Her attorney, meanwhile, said she had a long history of mental illness. Rowland said she had attempted suicide twice and spent time in a psychiatric hospital.
http://www.mlive.com/newsflash/lateststories/index.ssf?/base/national-19/1079193545220630.xml
|
kraftdinner
|
posted on March 13, 2004 12:45:09 PM new
What on earth would jail time do? Teach her some kind of lesson? She sounds like she needs counceling. There will always be people that push the limit on various laws, but throwing them in jail isn't ALWAYS the answer. Like it or not, until a baby is born, it's still part of the mother's body to do as she pleases.
|
Linda_K
|
posted on March 13, 2004 03:05:39 PM new
Like it or not, until a baby is born, it's still part of the mother's body to do as she pleases.
Not quite. The US has banned late term abortions [currently being contested]. And we do have laws that if someone kills a pregnant mother they're being tried for two murders. [Scott Peterson case].
To me, it is no different if the person killing the baby is the mother or a stranger who caused the pregnancy to terminate.
Re-elect President Bush!!
|
Helenjw
|
posted on March 13, 2004 03:10:42 PM new
In this case, the mother wanted the pregnancy to go full term.
The doctors wanted to terminate the pregnancy.
Helen
sp ed
[ edited by Helenjw on Mar 13, 2004 03:11 PM ]
|
Linda_K
|
posted on March 13, 2004 03:21:44 PM new
helen - posted on March 13, 2004 03:10:42 PM new
In this case, the mother wanted the pregnancy to go full term. The doctors wanted to terminate the pregnancy.
Helen
In my entire life I have never heard c-sections referred to by doctors as terminating the pregnancy.
Yes, Ms. Linda, we're going to take you down to the delivery room so we can terminate your pregnancy.
Re-elect President Bush!!
|
Twelvepole
|
posted on March 13, 2004 03:22:57 PM new
This will be an interesting case to follow... I am sure Scott Peterson's attorneys are looking closely...
You can't separate them to suit your needs...
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
http://www.nogaymarriage.com/
|
Helenjw
|
posted on March 13, 2004 03:24:38 PM new
That was from "your" statement, sillyhead linda.
Conservatives fare poorly on social issues
[ edited by Helenjw on Mar 13, 2004 03:27 PM ]
|
Linda_K
|
posted on March 13, 2004 03:35:27 PM new
Not quite. The US has banned late term abortions [currently being contested]. And we do have laws that if someone kills a pregnant mother they're being tried for two murders. [Scott Peterson case].
To me, it is no different if the person killing the baby is the mother or a stranger who caused the pregnancy to terminate.
The doctor wasn't the one KILLING these babies.
Re-elect President Bush!!
|
