| Recent Posts | About the Author | Navigation |
|---|---|---|
|
|
David is an occasional blogger, software engineer, Nintendo fanboy, liberal, news magazine addict, voracious TiVo user, and bibliophile. He was born in St. Louis, grew up in southern Indiana, and returned to St. Louis to attend Washington University. He hasn't managed to escape yet. He's a fan of free wine tastings, too many tv shows to name, and eating out. David makes his living developing web applications used internally by his employer. He doesn't blog about work because he's heard too many stories about that causing workplace troubles. There's more on the about page. |
|
| Recent Comments | ||
|
|
||
| Recent Photos | ||
|
|
||
13 March 2004 - 8:10 pm
I found this article on Google News today. Apparently a woman in Utah, Melissa Rowland, refused repeated requests that she undergo a Caesarian section in order to save the lives of the twins she was carrying. This woman has now been charged with murder for the stillbirth death of one of those children. Prosecutors allege that she refused the surgery because she feared scarring. In one of the many other stories on the subject Ms. Rowland claims that this allegation is ridiculous. She further claims that her other two children were delivered by C-section. (If true, the prosecution will have a hard time making scarring the motive for the crime. The lines from previous surgeries can be reused for a C-section.)
Perhaps there is more to this than the articles I've read have indicated, but this seems like a clear case of prosecutorial over-reaching. Medical science is not infallible and there are risks associated with all forms of surgery including Caesarian sections. This prosecution begs a number of questions. If someone is about to be shot, will I be charged with murder if I don't step between them and the bullet that has been fired at them? Am I obligated to risk my life in order to save someone else? At what likely percentage of survival am I obligated to step in and help someone else? And who is qualified to assess that risk?
You could certainly argue that a mother has greater obligations to save he (unborn) child than I have to save a stranger on the street. And if we are only assessing the morality of the situation you might well win the debate. However, doctors routinely perform abortions when the life of the mother is at risk. Where do you draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable risks? And how confidant are you in your doctor to make those decisions for you? And how do you feel about jail time for not listening to a doctor's advice?
Don't get me wrong on this. I'm very much in favor of C-sections. And I'm a living testament to the safety of the surgery to both mother and child. Nonetheless, I prefer that the government not intrude on medical decisions in this fashion. It opens a box that they will quickly wish they'd never opened. First, how will they handle the fact that Ms. Rowland's discussions with her doctor are protected by doctor-patient privilege. I doubt Ms. Rowland will be willing to waive privilege in this instance. Also, how will the prosecutors answer the charge that this is a witch hunt directed at Ms. Rowland? Why aren't her doctors being prosecuted for not forcing her to have the C-section? Why aren't they charging parents who take fertility drugs, become pregnant with multiple children, and then abort the weakest children? This is, I understand, a relatively common practice when taking fertility drugs because the drugs often lead to quads and quints. And it certainly falls under the same umbrella as Ms. Rowland's prosecution.
Anyway, enough about this. It's just an interesting case and I wanted to bring it to your attention.
Posted by on 13 March 2004 at 8:11 PM
Comments
The problem I think is that science continues to outpace ethical discussions on these issues. When we lived in NY it was hard to find a doctor who didn't routinely do things that should have been quite unroutine. The blame ends on lawyers, but it's greed that fuels them on as well.
Posted by rkc on 21 March 2004 - 12:10 PM
By "greed" I didn't mean just the lawyers; it's also the people who bring the suits.
Posted by rkc on 21 March 2004 - 12:20 PM