-
Woman charged with murder for refusing a c-section
Utah Woman Charged in C-Section Case
Sat Mar 13, 1:18 AM
By ALEXANDRIA SAGE, Associated Press Writer
Melissa Ann Rowland, 28, is shown in this police photo released ...More...
SALT LAKE CITY - A woman charged with murder for allegedly refusing a Caesarean section that could have saved her unborn twin said she never imagined having a stillborn child would result in prosecution or national news coverage.
"I feel like I'm getting a lot of attention that (should be) my private business." Melissa Ann Rowland told The Associated Press during a jail interview Friday.
Prosecutors this week charged Rowland with exhibiting "depraved indifference to human life" in avoiding the C-section. One nurse told police Rowland said she would rather "lose one of the babies than be cut like that."
Rowland denied claims she avoided surgery because she feared scarring.
"It was all medical concern. None of it was vanity," Rowland said. Her other two young children, ages 7 and 9, both were delivered by C-section, she said.
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.
Rowland, 28, who has been jailed since mid-January on a child endangerment charge involving the surviving twin, said she was informed of the murder charge Thursday evening by reporters.
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 advice or take some other action that endangers a fetus.
"I see this as part of an overall focus of a certain movement on fetal rights and an effort to elevate fetal rights above the rights of a woman," said Kim Gandy, president of the National Organization for Women and a former prosecutor.
A phone message left at the headquarters for the National Right to Life Committee seeking comment was not immediately returned.
Rowland, from the Salt Lake City suburb of West Jordan, was warned numerous times between Christmas and Jan. 9 that her unborn twins were likely to die if she did not get immediate medical treatment, charging documents allege. When she delivered them Jan. 13, a baby girl survived but her twin, a boy, was stillborn.
Rowland was charged with criminal homicide. She said the child endangerment charge stems from allegations that the surviving baby girl had drugs and alcohol in her system, which Rowland denies.
The baby has been adopted by a family Rowland knows. Her other children live with her estranged husband's parents.
Rowland's attorney, Michael Sikora, called a C-section major surgery and told The Salt Lake Tribune "it would come as no surprise that a woman with major mental illness would fear it."
Prosecutors allege that Rowland told a nurse during a January visit to a hospital that doctors wanted to cut her "from breast bone to pubic bone" and she would rather "lose one of the babies than be cut like that."
Rowland denied making the statements, but remembers that hospital visit as "very stressful. Doctors there had me very upset." She was concerned about her recovery time and the nature of the surgery, she said.
She said she was never concerned about her babies' health because in all her hospital visits, she was told the babies had good heartbeats and were fine.
Caesarean sections usually involve delivery through a surgical incision in the abdomen and front wall of the uterus. They are generally not vertical and can be done in the bikini incision, according to Dr. Christian Morgan, a family practice doctor who regularly performs C-sections at the University of Utah Health Sciences Center.
-
Re:Woman charged with murder for refusing a c-section
thats horrible. It kinda sounds like she is a bit off, but I don't want to be charged like that when I refuse to deliver my child in a hospital. Its really her decision (even if she is mental, but that should have been an issue before the birth) what happens to her body and having any kind of surgery is a risk to her. I also understand how the doctors could have confused and intimidated her, I have had many bad experiences with doctors. so all in all, I hope the case is dropped and her children remain where they are.
-
Re:Woman charged with murder for refusing a c-section
I agree Ami, I hope the case is dropped too. She doesn't look like the most stable person in the world ! But charging someone with murder is serious. Now if its on the basis of drugs and alcohol being found in the child's system than thats another issue IMO..
Farrah
-
Re:Woman charged with murder for refusing a c-section
I heard that she had delivered a baby before through c-section though I am not 100% sure. ???
I dont know, but if I carried a baby 9 months, I would do whatever it took to save it.
Maybe she is mental... although I agree with miss george... a c-section scar wouldnt have done anything to her appearance as she already looks torn up. yikes
-
Re:Woman charged with murder for refusing a c-section
Miss George, you read my mind. That was my first thought when I first saw the story on the news.
I do agree that the hospital shouldn't have a say in what a woman chooses to do, and what methods she decides to use to bring her babies into the world. BUT, if it's a matter of life and death, what mother wouldn't choose to have the c-section? I know in this case, she's mental, so I'm not sure what to make of it. I don't buy the claim by the hospital that she refused to have the c-section because of scarring, because scars already existed on her. It was probably another reason that we haven't heard. The hospital nurse had quoted her as saying that she'd rather lose one of the babies than to be cut like that. I don't think I believe that.
Lexi, I agree with you 100%. My second child was delivered through c-section, due to the fact that she was a "sitting frank breech", so she would have been delivered butt-first. So, I had the C-section.
So, when I had Delia last May, I was going to try to a VBAC (Vaginal birth after Cesarean). Delia had other plans.. lol.. My water broke around 7:45 the night of the 27th. We waited all night in the hospital room for contractions to start. They never did.. grr.. lol.. So, my doctor advised me that I was at risk of losing the baby if I decided to pursue the VBAC, and wait for labor to start normally. Long story short, he told me that even if he was right there in front of me, and the uterus had ruptured (due to the pressure from the contractions on the previous c-section scar), he wouldn't be able to do a thing. He said that she would either die, or be born with brain damage. Simple decision for me, although I cried my eyes out at having another c-section.. lol.. Looking back, there was no other option for me, and she was well worth it. I have 2 scars (1 from each), and I don't regret it one bit, and refer to them as my "badges".
I hope they do find the real reasoning behind this.
-
Re:Woman charged with murder for refusing a c-section
I find this highly suspicious.
1) She is alleged to have said that she refused based on potential scarring. Having already had two C-sections, though, she also already has those scars.
2) After one twin dies, a nurse produces hearsay evidence that Rowland claimed she would "rather lose one twin." What a remarkable coincidence.
3) Doctors first noted, according to the article, a danger to the unborn twins on Christmas. Meanwhile, twenty days later, the woman delivers. If reports are indeed accurate that doctors "several times" urged Rowland to have a C-section during those twenty days due to imminent danger to the twins, then I find this beyond suspicious. History of mental illness, twins in jeopardy for nearly three weeks... doctors could have gotten a court order. Especially if the only objection was a mentally unstable woman concerned about scarring that she already had.
The article does not mention how far along this woman was, which I would love to know. The whole thing smells like a snow job to me.
-
Re:Woman charged with murder for refusing a c-section
Something I just thought of:
Her two previous children were C-section. The article does not state how she delivered these twins. Ironically, I'm gauging the likelihood of a VBAC with two prior and a twin delivery.
...
Just something to think about. *coughsnowjobcough*
-
Re:Woman charged with murder for refusing a c-section
Besides this woman looking to be "a little crazy", this is in Utah and at the LDS hospital and Mormons don't believe in abortion which this is an extention of the anti abortion laws that the religious right has paid politicians and lawmakers millions of dollars to pass.
This country is in a crisis state. With the republicans and religious groups in bed with each other due to millions of church dollars going towards changing the moral standards here, bad things are going to happen if all anti abortionists are not put out of office.
Gay marriage bans, new indecency laws, anti adult business ordinances, abstinence pushes for adolescents, anti abortion laws being pushed, anti affirmative action stands, all are reasons we MUST never vote for the political party against abortion. They are trying to take this country back to the 50's and that never will work.
No matter how messed up this woman is, it is her body and her choice on the operating procedures performed on it.
This country is being run in a scary way and it's got to stop.
-
Re:Woman charged with murder for refusing a c-section
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,595048573,00.html
Excerpts:
She said the twins were ultimately born by C-section. "I've never refused a C-section," Rowland said. "I've already had two prior C-sections. Why would I say something like that?"
Snip, continued.
"Court documents state that Rowland saw a doctor at LDS Hospital on Jan. 2 who recommended an immediate Caesarean section because of fetal heart rate difficulties and a problematic ultrasound that showed the babies were not developing well, and because Rowland had very low amniotic fluid."
Yet elsewhere in the article, the doctor performing the autopsy on the stillborn twin claimed that the sole cause of death was Rowland's failure to get the C-section. No mention was made of a failure to thrive. Still no word on gestational age, though this article does clarify a few more points. Rowland went to another hospital that same day and again a week later, and still once more four days after that. However, according to the article she spoke with only nurses until Jan. 13th (the day she delivered by C-section). Was she shopping around for a hospital that would tell her what she wanted to hear, or was she not entirely clear on what was going on and kept visiting hospitals until she found a doctor available to talk to her in patiently layman's terms?
I'll do more digging and come back if I find something we haven't heard yet.
-
Re:Woman charged with murder for refusing a c-section
http://www.sltrib.com/2004/Mar/03132004/utah/147345.asp
" After being told by a doctor at LDS Hospital she needed the surgery, she went home to get some clothes, but was refused re-entry, she said. Hospital officials declined to comment.
"There are rumors that I didn't want to be cut," Rowland said. "I never hesitated."
A probable cause statement alleges that Rowland told a nurse she did not want to be cut "from breast bone to pubic bone." Salt Lake District Attorney David Yocom, whose office brought the murder charge, said that medical personnel told the pregnant woman there was no guarantee that she would have a horizontal, rather than vertical, incision."
*shudders*
The whole scenario is just icky as all hell. The more I read, the nuttier this woman sounds and the less cut-and-dried it becomes. However, it is blatantly clear that this is not a simple case of "we told her to have a C-section and she refused solely because she didn't want a scar". Additionally, I think the prosecuting attorney's office is doing just a bit of grandstanding. They will have to prove that she acted with full knowledge AND malice aforethough to intentionally kill that child. I don't know what they see that I don't, but I'm not seeing that level of evidence. I agree with one medical ethics professional who surmised that "negligent homicide" is the best they're going to get (and that's aside from the abortion debates).
-
Re:Woman charged with murder for refusing a c-section
This is crazy. Being that I had a c-section, I rather haven't. I plead not to get one but at the last minute. I did it. Doctors do always say the whole truth. Alot of women think that if the baby is upside down you have to get a c-section. That's not true. I know a lot of women that choose not to have a c-section and their kids came out normal.
And also she was arrested, and in jail, of course her picture won't look like she's at her best. In jail you are not allow to have combs because of the points.
-
Re:Woman charged with murder for refusing a c-section
Quote:
Originally Posted by miss george link=board=1;threadid=7358;start=msg83925#msg83925 date=1079198671
I think the weirdest thing about this story is that she refused the C-section for COSMETIC reasons. Yikes! Look at the woman! What could a C-section scar possibly matter?
Right ??!! I was think the same thing :D
-
Re:Woman charged with murder for refusing a c-section
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lilith link=board=1;threadid=7358;start=msg83969#msg83969 date=1079211902
I find this highly suspicious.
1) She is alleged to have said that she refused based on potential scarring. Having already had two C-sections, though, she also already has those scars.
2) After one twin dies, a nurse produces hearsay evidence that Rowland claimed she would "rather lose one twin." What a remarkable coincidence.
3) Doctors first noted, according to the article, a danger to the unborn twins on Christmas. Meanwhile, twenty days later, the woman delivers. If reports are indeed accurate that doctors "several times" urged Rowland to have a C-section during those twenty days due to imminent danger to the twins, then I find this beyond suspicious. History of mental illness, twins in jeopardy for nearly three weeks... doctors could have gotten a court order. Especially if the only objection was a mentally unstable woman concerned about scarring that she already had.
The article does not mention how far along this woman was, which I would love to know. The whole thing smells like a snow job to me.
Lilith...you read my mind!!! I was wondering why, if the twins were in such danger, that the doctors waited...
I think that the hospital may have made a bad judgement call and are using the woman's "mental condition" to put the blame. It does seem weird that she already had scars from the first two kids...why wouldn't she be willing to have another c-section?
Things that make you go hmmmmm...
-
Re:Woman charged with murder for refusing a c-section
Right it does !! I guess they are trying to cover their asses and hold her accountable.
There was a mention of drugs being found in the baby's system..has anyone heard if thats true or not ??
-
Re:Woman charged with murder for refusing a c-section
Quote:
Originally Posted by scorpio link=board=1;threadid=7358;start=msg84057#msg84057 date=1079230411
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lilith link=board=1;threadid=7358;start=msg83969#msg83969 date=1079211902
I find this highly suspicious.
1) She is alleged to have said that she refused based on potential scarring. Having already had two C-sections, though, she also already has those scars.
2) After one twin dies, a nurse produces hearsay evidence that Rowland claimed she would "rather lose one twin." What a remarkable coincidence.
3) Doctors first noted, according to the article, a danger to the unborn twins on Christmas. Meanwhile, twenty days later, the woman delivers. If reports are indeed accurate that doctors "several times" urged Rowland to have a C-section during those twenty days due to imminent danger to the twins, then I find this beyond suspicious. History of mental illness, twins in jeopardy for nearly three weeks... doctors could have gotten a court order. Especially if the only objection was a mentally unstable woman concerned about scarring that she already had.
The article does not mention how far along this woman was, which I would love to know. The whole thing smells like a snow job to me.
Lilith...you read my mind!!! I was wondering why, if the twins were in such danger, that the doctors waited...
I think that the hospital may have made a bad judgement call and are using the woman's "mental condition" to put the blame. It does seem weird that she already had scars from the first two kids...why wouldn't she be willing to have another c-section?
Things that make you go hmmmmm...
I agree. They are covering something up. How long was the still baby dead. Did it died when the baby was coming out the womb which that doesn't sound right. They could have revive the baby back. So how long was she carrying the baby like that.
-
Re:Woman charged with murder for refusing a c-section
Those are very good questions Tini..
I am going to do a search for more info
-
Re:Woman charged with murder for refusing a c-section
All I found was the same story only written a little differently
-
Re:Woman charged with murder for refusing a c-section
If you follow the theory of "connections" (continued from the Gay Marriage issue), the legal ramifications of this case are shaping up to become yet another conservative versus liberal front. When this case hits the courts there will be some FAR REACHING questions, beginning with the following ...
In order for this woman to be found guilty of murder, her fetus must first be determined to legally be a "person" before being born. Under current law, the moment of birth more or less constitutes the point where the baby is first considered a "person" and is afforded full legal rights.
If her unborn fetus is legally determined to be a "person", with the same rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and therefore illegal to "murder", then what differentiates the actions this woman took as a pregnant mother in deliberately endangering the life of her unborn child versus the actions of 1 million pregnant mothers who have abortions every year ? At least in this woman's case it wasn't definite that her refusal to have a C-section would cause the "death" of her fetus, whereas with abortions the "death" of the fetus is the whole point.
Either the government will have to drop the murder charges against this woman, or by logical extension they'll have a new anti-abortion crusade on their hands with a strong legal precedent calling for the overturn of Roe Vs. Wade and illegalizing abortion again.
This case also involves another very important issue, which is potentially even more insidious. Does the medical opinion of doctors carry more weight than the personal opinion of the patient in matters that involve the patient personally ? Or in more general terms does the opinion of a trained professional carry more weight than the personal opinion of an individual ? Under current law, individuals are free to accept or reject the professional advice of doctors, lawyers, bankers.
If this woman is found guilty of murder based on her rejecting the advice of her doctors, it will open the door to the issue of professional opinions becoming legally binding upon individuals even if the individual happens to disagree. This poses a major affront to individual freedoms and would place even greater power into the hands of the professional elite than they already have. Ultimately it could threaten what's left of democracy, eventually leading to the professional opinions of doctors. lawyers, bankers etc. having the same force of law as the current professional opinions of judges.
If you're a conspiracy theorist, it's pretty easy to figure out that the doctors are covering butt on some sort of incorrect diagnosis by deflecting official attentions on the mother's actions rather than their own.
-
Re:Woman charged with murder for refusing a c-section
Melonie--I think you are spot-on.
Whether or not she made a good decision, I see the whole thing as both a means of perpetuating and evidence of how truly patriarchal our society is. The fact that we can sit on this board and talk about this woman's very personal medical information shows how much privacy and dignity society affords us.
-
Re:Woman charged with murder for refusing a c-section
In my opinion this case will never get within 10 miles of Rowe v. Wade. This is clearly a case of an overly eager prosecutor overstepping his bounds.
Consider the legal argument as this. The person left the hospital against medical advice, but sought other treatment elsewhere. Such conduct may be eniterly foolish but medical advice does not have the force of law. To state otherwise requires leaving AMA a criminal offense-making any Doctors word law. There are provisions in the law where the court can be petitioned to take custody when persons are a danger to themselves or others--if the condition was truly believed to be so dire, the doctors should be prosecuted for depraved indifference for not persuing it as this.
No court will accept this argument no matter what its sentiments on abortion.
-
Re:Woman charged with murder for refusing a c-section
Just saw another news story on this...the surviving female baby was tested positive for alcohol and cocaine. This woman is definitely going to serve some time...not only for the death of her other twin, but for child endangerment. She was convicted of the same thing in PA a few years back...punching her daughter (who was really young) for taking a candy bar in a store and eating it. She yelled at the little girl "Now I can't buy my cigarettes!" while hitting her...
And the plot thickens...
-
Re:Woman charged with murder for refusing a c-section
An unsympathetic defendant does not a solid case make. The woman is mad as a hatter, should never have children and without a doubt is creepy and scheming as all hell. But it remains that the prosecutor must actually prove murder based on the legal evidence available, and not just in the court of public opinion. What we think of her personally or her past actions is legally irrelevant to a murder conviction.
Frankly, I think they couldn't have found a better case and defendant by which to push the fetal rights/abortion issue. No one would sympathize with this ugly nuthatch; a few key anecdotes in the papers, a "quote" here and there, and the nation will call for her head on a platter.
-
Re:Woman charged with murder for refusing a c-section
ok i have mixed feelings on this.
She obviously (look at the pic) put her former childs health at risk by taken drugs and the drugs and alc. were found in her system!!!
And now they are living with her estranged husbands parents.. hmmm
I don't think this woman should have the option of "mothering" another child. I say give her a hysterectomy insted of jail time. The woman is incapable of understanding what the heck she is doing.
It must be the drugs BECAUSE i cant think of any mother in this world THAT would be soo cruel. I may be NAIVE but this REALLY pisses me off.
C-SECTION.. like she should care,, shes a hog anyway.. NOT TO MENTION the weight that she didnt care to gain when shes having all THESE BABIES.
it seems to me she doesnt care about these kids anyway, the surgery would probally help her anyway.
We already have TOO FREAKING many kids without parents.
She shouldnt go to jail, but she shouldnt be able to KEEP on doing what she is doing to innocent babies..
This makes me soooo mad!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
Re:Woman charged with murder for refusing a c-section
if men had the ability to do this.. they would castrate the hell out of them.
-
Re:Woman charged with murder for refusing a c-section