Woman refuses c/s. Court takes her baby.

mcgee · July 2009

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/louise-marie-roth/is-a-woman-in-labor-a-per_b_242307.html

Holy crap is all I can say right now.

daisybride1 · July 2009

Holy crap is right! And Im pretty sure ALL woman "behaved erratically while in labor.".

ditzydi_2000 · July 2009

Wow. I can't believe that. And it makes me wonder that if/when universal healthcare is passed if govt will make healthcare providers suggest one course of action over the other and if you don't agree to it, then you're denied coverage or worse. That poor couple. That's so traumatizing.

rssnlvr · July 2009

There has to be more to the story. Not that I think the hospital and court's actions were legal or appropriate, but it simply does not make sense based on the information provided. Poorly written article clearly aimed at being as inflammatory as possible.

rssnlvr · July 2009

ditzydi_2000:
And it makes me wonder that if/when universal healthcare is passed if govt will make healthcare providers suggest one course of action over the other and if you don't agree to it, then you're denied coverage or worse.

This is a scary, scary thought.

MrsChristmas · July 2009

That is so wrong on so many levels. This is insanity. How can they call it neglect when the baby was born without incident and is fine? What a nightmare for that woman. Agghh! There are just so many things going through my head that I can't get them out coherently right now.

abbysmom1005 · July 2009

rssnlvr:
There has to be more to the story. Not that I think the hospital and court's actions were legal or appropriate, but it simply does not make sense based on the information provided. Poorly written article clearly aimed at being as inflammatory as possible.

I was thinking the same thing. While of course it is sad that their baby was taken and on the surface of what was presented in the article this is very wrong. But, the article is very clearly written by someone that has an obvious slant against OBs and hospital L&D care.

oh and I am not even going to comment on some other thing brought up in the replies. Zip it!

MrsChristmas · July 2009

rssnlvr:
There has to be more to the story. Not that I think the hospital and court's actions were legal or appropriate, but it simply does not make sense based on the information provided. Poorly written article clearly aimed at being as inflammatory as possible.

I agree. At least I hope there's more to the story because it's pretty scary to think about if this is the full story.

mcurban · July 2009

rssnlvr:
There has to be more to the story.

Yep, there is.

There was a lengthy discussion of this on the polictics board several days ago.

Her baby wasn't taken away b/c she didn't have a c-section. It was taken away b/c a) neither the mom nor dad showed up in court, b) mom (and possibly dad??) has a history of paranoid schizophrenia.

I can't remember ALL of the details, but this was much, much more than not having a c/s. There have been loads of women who decline a c/s, have a perfectly healthy baby and go home w/o a hitch (heck, some women even leave a hospital AMA to go to another hospital to deliver vaginally).

ETA: (copied from post on politics board)

I just read the entire opinion. It clearly states that a woman has every right to refuse a csection or any other medical procedure in childbirth.

She was in labor at 35 weeks gestation when she came in; which to me gives a heightened sense of concern in the situation.

It also goes into some detail regarding her condition prior to becoming pregnant. She was under treatment for paranoid schizophrenia for a number of years; with psychotic episodes; and had ceased treatment against medical advice some months before becoming pregnant. Her behavior post delivery was of significant concern, as was her husband's. They both denied she had ever had psychiatric problems, which was a lie. Both refused to participate in any hearing with regard to the child after they left the hospital, leaving the baby there; and hung up when child services called.

I just can't see this as some big honking conspiracy theory given this.

rssnlvr · July 2009

mcurban:
It also goes into some detail regarding her condition prior to becoming pregnant. She was under treatment for paranoid schizophrenia for a number of years; with psychotic episodes; and had ceased treatment against medical advice some months before becoming pregnant. Her behavior post delivery was of significant concern, as was her husband's. They both denied she had ever had psychiatric problems, which was a lie. Both refused to participate in any hearing with regard to the child after they left the hospital, leaving the baby there; and hung up when child services called.

So they left their baby at the hospital, did not answer the phone when child services called, and didn't show up at the hearing, not to mention a history of psychiatric disorder.

Shocking that the court is taking the baby away. Really.

This is my problem with articles/editorials like that. They are dripping with bias and get the entire country whipped into a frenzy that isn't based on factual reality.

MrsChristmas · July 2009

mcurban:

rssnlvr:
There has to be more to the story.

Yep, there is.

There was a lengthy discussion of this on the polictics board several days ago.

Her baby wasn't taken away b/c she didn't have a c-section. It was taken away b/c a) neither the mom nor dad showed up in court, b) mom (and possibly dad??) has a history of paranoid schizophrenia.

I can't remember ALL of the details, but this was much, much more than not having a c/s. There have been loads of women who decline a c/s, have a perfectly healthy baby and go home w/o a hitch (heck, some women even leave a hospital AMA to go to another hospital to deliver vaginally).

ETA: (copied from post on politics board)

I just read the entire opinion. It clearly states that a woman has every right to refuse a csection or any other medical procedure in childbirth.

She was in labor at 35 weeks gestation when she came in; which to me gives a heightened sense of concern in the situation.

It also goes into some detail regarding her condition prior to becoming pregnant. She was under treatment for paranoid schizophrenia for a number of years; with psychotic episodes; and had ceased treatment against medical advice some months before becoming pregnant. Her behavior post delivery was of significant concern, as was her husband's. They both denied she had ever had psychiatric problems, which was a lie. Both refused to participate in any hearing with regard to the child after they left the hospital, leaving the baby there; and hung up when child services called.

I just can't see this as some big honking conspiracy theory given this.

This defnitely puts the story in a new light. Thanks for clarifying, MC.

abbysmom1005 · July 2009

Thanks MC!

I had a sneaky suspicion that something else was up when I read that article. It very conveniently left a lot of details out. The author obviously had an agenda and it just did not sit right.

IMO just the fact that they left their baby at the hospital should have been enough for the courts to take the baby away.

btrrcupbride · July 2009

abbysmom1005:

rssnlvr:

Poorly written article clearly aimed at being as inflammatory as possible.

oh and I am not even going to comment on some other thing brought up in the replies.

Both of these. Times 1,000,000.

Want a personalized experience?

Woman refuses c/s. Court takes her baby.

Re: Woman refuses c/s. Court takes her baby.

Choose Another Board

Search Boards