LV426
06-16-2004, 01:42 PM
At what right does the government have the right to decide what decisions women have about their bodies? With the recent debate and ruling on fetal rights more women's rights are coming under fire. While some are reasonable to some degree others are completely ridiculous.
In Philadelphia Amber Marlowe was about to give birth to her seventh child. Her doctor and the medical staff at Wilkes-Barre General Hospital told her that she would be unable to deliver the child in natural childbirth and said she would have to have a ceasarean section. She refused and when the hospital refused to give in she checked out and went to another doctor. The lawyers of the hospital went to the courts to get legal guardianship of her unborn child so the hospital could force the mother into giving birth by surgery if she came back to the hospital.
Amber ended up at another hospital where she had a quick natural childbirth with no complications and both mother and baby were fine. She wasn't even aware of the court order until a reporter approached her husband about the incident.
In Salt Lake City a woman who was a known cocaine addict and suffered from a mental impairment refused to have a ceasarean surgery to deliver her twins. She waited two weeks before giving her consent. One of the twins died during the two weeks and the mother was charged with capital murder. She ultimately pleaded guilty to a lesser charge of child endangerment and was sentenced to probation.
In Pittsburgh a midwife was assisting a woman in a home birth. The child was apparently coming out feet first. Because she did not call the hospital immediately she was charged with manslaughter. The child died 2 days after birth. The mother had refused to go to a hospital and insisted on staying home. The midwife was merely respecting her wishes.
There was the case in Rochester, New York a few months ago where the judge ordered a woman who had lost custody of several children that she had neglected, to not get pregnant again without court approval.
So where do we draw the line? One assumes that if a parent can not take care of or will not take care of a child they have no business having one to begin with. Unfortunately they do have children, they do get pregnant, and while fetal rights are there to help an unborn child where does it end? Hospitals are trying to force mothers to make decisions about their own bodies to "protect" the rights of unborn child but who is protecting the rights of the mother?
Recently the law was passed that banned late term abortions, but who is really helped by this law? Is it the child? Another unwanted child born to a parent who didn't want it or left for the system to pick up and try to raise along with the millions of other unwanted, neglected, and abandoned children of the country. They justify it by saying that they are saving a life but is it not also the quality of life that is a concern as well?
If the courts take over the decision of what a woman can and can not do with her body then they are no more than chattel and we are set back 100 years in development as women and in our rights.
Dr. Michael Grodin, director of Medical Ethics at the Boston University School of Medicine, said doctors should seek court intervention when a mother refuses care only if the patient is mentally ill.
"Women have a right to refuse treatment. Women have a right to control their bodies. It is a dangerous slope. What's next? If someone doesn't seek prenatal care, what are we going to do, lock them up?"
If the courts take over the decision of what a woman can and can not do with her body then they are no more than chattel and we are set back 100 years in development as women and in our rights.
Sources (http://www.cnn.com/2004/HEALTH/parenting/05/29/childbirth.rights.ap/index.html)
In Philadelphia Amber Marlowe was about to give birth to her seventh child. Her doctor and the medical staff at Wilkes-Barre General Hospital told her that she would be unable to deliver the child in natural childbirth and said she would have to have a ceasarean section. She refused and when the hospital refused to give in she checked out and went to another doctor. The lawyers of the hospital went to the courts to get legal guardianship of her unborn child so the hospital could force the mother into giving birth by surgery if she came back to the hospital.
Amber ended up at another hospital where she had a quick natural childbirth with no complications and both mother and baby were fine. She wasn't even aware of the court order until a reporter approached her husband about the incident.
In Salt Lake City a woman who was a known cocaine addict and suffered from a mental impairment refused to have a ceasarean surgery to deliver her twins. She waited two weeks before giving her consent. One of the twins died during the two weeks and the mother was charged with capital murder. She ultimately pleaded guilty to a lesser charge of child endangerment and was sentenced to probation.
In Pittsburgh a midwife was assisting a woman in a home birth. The child was apparently coming out feet first. Because she did not call the hospital immediately she was charged with manslaughter. The child died 2 days after birth. The mother had refused to go to a hospital and insisted on staying home. The midwife was merely respecting her wishes.
There was the case in Rochester, New York a few months ago where the judge ordered a woman who had lost custody of several children that she had neglected, to not get pregnant again without court approval.
So where do we draw the line? One assumes that if a parent can not take care of or will not take care of a child they have no business having one to begin with. Unfortunately they do have children, they do get pregnant, and while fetal rights are there to help an unborn child where does it end? Hospitals are trying to force mothers to make decisions about their own bodies to "protect" the rights of unborn child but who is protecting the rights of the mother?
Recently the law was passed that banned late term abortions, but who is really helped by this law? Is it the child? Another unwanted child born to a parent who didn't want it or left for the system to pick up and try to raise along with the millions of other unwanted, neglected, and abandoned children of the country. They justify it by saying that they are saving a life but is it not also the quality of life that is a concern as well?
If the courts take over the decision of what a woman can and can not do with her body then they are no more than chattel and we are set back 100 years in development as women and in our rights.
Dr. Michael Grodin, director of Medical Ethics at the Boston University School of Medicine, said doctors should seek court intervention when a mother refuses care only if the patient is mentally ill.
"Women have a right to refuse treatment. Women have a right to control their bodies. It is a dangerous slope. What's next? If someone doesn't seek prenatal care, what are we going to do, lock them up?"
If the courts take over the decision of what a woman can and can not do with her body then they are no more than chattel and we are set back 100 years in development as women and in our rights.
Sources (http://www.cnn.com/2004/HEALTH/parenting/05/29/childbirth.rights.ap/index.html)